From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clerew.man.ac.uk)
Date: Sun Jul 18 2004 - 10:21:26 CDT
Quoting Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu>:
> Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> writes:
>
> > 1. In current versions of INN, the injector (POST command/whatever)
> > modifies the article by adding a Control header (so now every site
> on
> > Usenet will see it and obey it). That is way more than RFC 1036
> asked
> > for, and I think we are agreed it should stop.
>
> Right.
>
>
> > I assume we intend to forbid #1 outright, so it either gets caught by
> #3
> > (if #3 implemented), or goes out as a normal article (if #3 not
> > implemented).
>
> I don't believe there's any reason to even mention #1 in the draft;
> it's
> obviously incorrect behavior under the new standard that's already
> covered
> by not assigning any special meaning to "cmsg". Besides, we should
> say
> #3, which obviously prevents #1.
We have often mentioned outmoded practices, in a NOTE, to warn the unwary
that it might still be encountered, or to explain the reason for some
feature of the standard placed there to counteract it.
Since it still exists in two implementations (in spite of not even an RFC
1036 blessing), I think it has to be severely deprecated somewhere,
though that could conceivably be USEAGE.
>
> Let's not add more new language when we don't need to; the draft is
> already long enough.
Language that prevents the perpetuation of past errors is never wasted.
Charles.