From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clerew.man.ac.uk)
Date: Tue May 04 2004 - 07:52:17 CDT
In <873c6g29vp.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes:
>Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> writes:
>> Russ did not mention this issue (the possibility of using the first
>> relaying time).
>Why doesn't the person attempting to solve this problem simply use POST?
That would be sensible in most situations. But if the next scheduled
dialup time is some hours away and the local users want to see the new
article before then ... . There are all sorts of strange but rare
scenarios that might happen. But this particular feature I put in seems to
have attracted some controversy, so it is best taken out. It doesn't
affect the main thrust of my texts.
>Multiply-injected articles (*not* reinjected articles, which are articles
>where the same copy has been injected multiple times, but rather
>proto-articles which are simultaneously transmitted via POST to multiple
>servers) will have different Injection-Dates depending on which
>incarnation of them that you see, but I don't see how this would cause any
>real problems. Path will differ too. The important part is that they all
>must have the same Message-ID and not differ in any "significant" headers.
But there might be problems due to the different Injection-Dates if the
multiple injections were separated in time (though in that case the
article would likely have already reached the second injection site by the
time the second injection arrived).
-- 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