Re: cmsg

From: Bruce Lilly (blilly@erols.com)
Date: Tue Jul 06 2004 - 21:09:07 CDT


Charles Lindsey wrote:
> In <40E6CAD1.9080402@erols.com> Bruce Lilly <blilly@erols.com> writes:
>
>
>>Charles Lindsey wrote:

>>>Anyway, for anything bad to happen, two things are required:
>>>
>>>1. Some servers need to exist that still act on 'cmsg'
>>>2. Some administrator needs to issue such a 'cmsg' without a proper
>>>Control-header.
>
>
>>Wrong. it is not necessary for an *administrator* to be the issuer, any
>>poster will do (with an Approved field in some cases).
>
>
> Nobody but an *administrator* is _supposed_ to be issuing a control
> message

Perhaps you would care to give us, purely for entertainment purposes,
*your* definition of "Nobody" as used above?

> (except in alt.* and free.*, perhaps).
> Except for cancels.

Perhaps you would also care to give us *your* definition of "except".
Then perhaps in light of those definitions, you can explain the "need"
for an "administrator" to issue a message with
"Subject: cmsg cancel <123@foo.example>".

> B news is dead.

That sounds an awful lot like an unsubstantiated blanket statement. Some
evidence to support that claim, please.




This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7.