From: John Stanley (stanley@peak.org)
Date: Mon Jul 26 2004 - 15:57:45 CDT
Frank Ellermann (nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de):
>It didn't alter my article, it only added the obviously missing
>Control: cancel <40FBED16.3436@xyzzy.claranet.de>, found that
>this made sense, and propagated the article as intended by me.
It didn't alter your article, it just altered your article by adding a
header that you could have added but did not, deciding that the header you
explicitely did NOT include yourself was "obviously missing", and you
claim that this "makes sense"?
Do you have a bridge for sale, by any chance?
>And servers doing the
>right thing, i.e. fix this where possible, aren't horrible
>but smart.
What was there to fix? You not including a cancel header in an article is
somehow broken?
I'm sorry. This is just too silly. It took me about ten minutes to write a
script that created a valid cancel message when I first found that the
software I was using would not let me cancel my own articles. It did not
involve any hacks using the subject header, it simply took the article I
wanted to cancel as fodder and created a legal cancel message for it.
Pretty simple. No vanity domains involved, either. No abuse of the
unstructured headers. Just reading the RFC and figuring out what headers
were required.