From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clerew.man.ac.uk)
Date: Sun Jul 18 2004 - 10:29:05 CDT
Quoting Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>:
> Charles Lindsey wrote:
>
> > 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
> [...]
> > I assume we intend to forbid #1 outright
>
> Why ? It's something between me and my news server, nobody
> else has any business to declare this as "verboten". In the
> case of "Subject: cmsg cancel <x>" it does what I want it to
> do. And in the case of "Subject: cmsg foobar" I would get an
> error => your #3.
No, it isn't just you and your server. This misfeature is performed by an
injecting agent, and causes it to issue a _genuine_ control message which
is then seen by the rest of Usenet, who have no way of knowing that it
originated as "just a 'cmsg' hack".
>
>
> > Assume our draft deprecates #2. Then the number implementing
> > #2 will wither away as sites become compliant.
>
> If #2 still exists after more than ten years s-o-1936 I'm not
> sure about "wither away". #2 _is_ already deprecated, in my
> parallel universe, where 1036bis is relevant. But #2 is common
> practice in Bruce's universe, where 1036bis is irrelevant, and
> B news is the reference implementation.
Yes, it is a slow process, (e.g. INN has just fixed it recently, but
still hasn't fixed #1). But s-o-1036 was not a standard. Hopefully, a
genuine standard will have more effect.
Charles.