From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clerew.man.ac.uk)
Date: Tue Feb 03 2004 - 09:58:29 CST
Bill Davidsen has had some problems posting to this list, and I don't
think it was just the recent outage at Landfield. Could Kent please look
into this.
In the meantime, here are three articles that he sent to me directly:
>Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 19:50:26 -0500 (EST)
>From: Usenet News Support <support@deathstar.prodigy.com>
>Reply-To: News Support <news-support@prodigy.net>
>To: Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk>
>cc: usenet-format@landfield.com
>Subject: Re: 8.2.2
>
>On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Charles Lindsey wrote:
>
>> In <Pine.LNX.4.53.0401221005190.4455@a.shell.peak.org> John Stanley
><stanley@peak.org> writes:
>>
>> > Charles Lindsey (chl@clerew.man.ac.uk):
>>
>> >>>A better word is "unverified".
>>
>> >>I am very reluctant to change this wording considering the long battles
>> >>which forged it into its present form. But if I hear a consensus for this
>> >>change then I will make it.
>>
>>
>> >Further, the "are not valid for the known and trusted source" should
>> >be "are not known to be valid for ...", since the injecting agent has
>> >absolutely no way of knowing whether any specific address is not valid,
>> >only those which it has been told ARE valid.
>>
>> Yes, I will change that wording, but only if I hear others in agrerement.
>> This particular paragraph has been too controversial in the past for me to
>> change it on the say-so of one person.
>
>I think what we are really talking about is "known not to be valid," but
>that path led to vast arguments. A server can have a list of invalid
>values, it just can't validate an arbitrary value. I still like MAY
>reject if the address is offensive.
>
>Leave it, the battle is over...
Hmmmmmmmm! Does that mean he accepts a change, or that he does not accept
a change?
>
>--
>bill davidsen
> SBC/Prodigy Yorktown Heights NY data center
> Project Leader, USENET news
> http://newsgroups.news.prodigy.com
> Please send usenet-related mail to news-support@prodigy.net
>Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 19:53:12 -0500 (EST)
>From: Usenet News Support <support@deathstar.prodigy.com>
>Reply-To: Bill Davidsen <support@deathstar.prodigy.com>
>To: Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk>
>cc: usenet-format@landfield.com
>Subject: Re: 8.2.2
>
>On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Charles Lindsey wrote:
>
>> In <200401221847.i0MIlbU24794@panix1.panix.com> Seth Breidbart
><sethb@panix.com> writes:
>>
>> >If history is 2 days, and you allow 2.5 day old articles, then the
>> >same article can show up twice.
>>
>> In practice, though, history file entriess are typically kept for at
>least
>> 14 days so as to avoid that problem.
>>
>> So my suggestion of 72 hours should be safe enough for all purposes, but
>I
>> would like to hear more support before changing it.
>
>If it weren't too late to introduce it, I'd love to allow moving the
>date to an Original-Date or some such and putting in a new date, but at
>this time I think 72 addresses the problem.
>
>--
>bill davidsen
> SBC/Prodigy Yorktown Heights NY data center
> Project Leader, USENET news
> http://newsgroups.news.prodigy.com
> Please send usenet-related mail to news-support@prodigy.net
>Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 14:20:10 -0500 (EST)
>From: Usenet News Support <support@deathstar.prodigy.com>
>Reply-To: davidsen@darkstar.prodigy.com
>To: Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk>
>cc: usenet-format@landfield.com
>Subject: Re: 8.2.2
>
>On Mon, 26 Jan 2004, Charles Lindsey wrote:
>
>> In <87zncejmoh.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Russ Allbery
><rra@stanford.edu> writes:
>>
>> >Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> writes:
>> >> Seth Breidbart <sethb@panix.com> writes:
>>
>> >>> If history is 2 days, and you allow 2.5 day old articles, then the
>same
>> >>> article can show up twice.
>>
>> >> In practice, though, history file entriess are typically kept for at
>> >> least 14 days so as to avoid that problem.
>>
>> >What evidence do you have to support this statement? It does not jive
>> >with my operational experience and isn't even consistent with INN's
>> >defaults.
>>
>> It's the default in CNews.
>>
>> And in the days when transatlantic propagation delays were regularly 7
>> days, it was very necessary. Agreed it could be safely less now, but 2
>> days seems dangerously short, as Henry seems to agree.
>
>Yes, I do remember those days, and converting to C news from B news. I
>think 72 hours is fine. Feel free to forward this to the list, someone is
>blocking my mail there.
>
>> Anyway, the purpose of this discussion is to decide what number to write
>> in for how stale an article could be allowed to be at the injector. John
>> Stanley said 24 hours was too short. I suggested 72 hours as a possible
>> answer. There has to be _some_ number there. I am waiting for further
>> suggestions or agreements.
>>
>>
>
>--
>bill davidsen
> SBC/Prodigy Yorktown Heights NY data center
> Project Leader, USENET news
> http://newsgroups.news.prodigy.com
> Please send usenet-related mail to news-support@prodigy.net
-- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5