From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clerew.man.ac.uk)
Date: Mon Feb 09 2004 - 06:16:43 CST
In <BC496506.C777%planb@newsreaders.com> "J. B. Moreno" <planb@newsreaders.com> writes:
>Charles Lindsey at <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> wrote:
>> Hmmmmm! Maybe. That is certainly the safest option, insofar as it will
>> never go _wrong_. But that does not ensure that it always goes _right_.
>> Some otherwise safe articles are going to get lost / dropped / rejected /
>> poorly propagated.
>There's no way to do both.
I dunno. It is not clear that there isn't, but nobody has come up with
one. I still reckon it was worth asking the question.
>> My concern was the man with the broken posting agent which inserted an
>> Injection-Date-header when it shouldn't.
>The *only* benefit from introducing a new header IMO is that it will be
>server generated ONLY -- if you get rid of that then we should definitely
>stick with Date. Posting agents MUST not be adding this header.
True, but malicious/stupid/incompetent posters and/or their agents WILL.
What is the injecting agent supposed to do then? Looks like there is
nothing much it can do :-( .
Anyway, I think we now have a rough consensus on this, so I will now put
forward a more detailed proposal for your consideration. But not today.
Monday is not a good day for writing proposals :-( .
-- 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