From: Bruce Lilly (blilly@erols.com)
Date: Thu Apr 22 2004 - 09:14:35 CDT
Charles Lindsey wrote:
> In <407DE495.9020403@erols.com> Bruce Lilly <blilly@erols.com> writes:
>>If it is not legitimate, then we should state so clearly. If there are
>>known instances where it happens regardless, we should be especially
>>clear that those cases are forbidden.
>
>
> Why?
Because it [reinjection] causes problems,
> Putting up arbitrary barriers
> just to show that "we make the rules and we are in charge" will do nobody
> any good (and such rules would be ignored anyway).
Nobody has suggested any such thing. Setting up straw men so that you
can knock them don adds nothing to the work of this WG.
>>If the article in question has been successfully relayed, and is refused
>>relaying by other sites, the server has finished it's job -- there is no
>>cause for "re-injection". If the article has never been successfully
>>relayed, there is no harm in presenting it again as a proto-article
>>for injection [...]
>
>
> Yes, but in the case where this sort of thing is likely to be important
> (examples I am aware of include control messages and important announce
> groups) the actual relaying/posting is likely to be done by some automated
> script
That matters not -- once the article has been injected *and* relayed
it is a matter for propagation as handled by flood fill. You have
failed to present a case for "reinjection".
>>That is utter nonsense; if the article (N.B. not proto-article) cannot
>>be relayed (why on Earth is A trying to relay to B, when it is an established
>>fact that B does not accept relayed articles from A?) then that is the end
>>of the transaction between A and B regarding that article. There is again
>>no justification for "re-injection".
>
>
> Because if you had been following the discussion we had a month ago, you
> would have seen that life on the real Usenet is not so clean and tidy as
> you so fondly imagine, and there are indeed examples of sites which are
> prepared to do exactly that (for example by permitting the use of the NNTP
> IHAVE command by anyone). All sorts of strange practices go on out there
> in the real world, and some of them provide a real service to the
> community (and others are, of course, just plain broken).
If such "strange practices" are expressly forbidden by the draft, then
agents performing those practices are already noncompliant. There is
still no justification for legitimizing "reinjection".