From: Bruce Lilly (blilly@erols.com)
Date: Fri May 07 2004 - 17:04:30 CDT
Charles Lindsey wrote:
> An article is injected twice:
>
> To a site in A:
>
> Subject: foo
> Date: 01 Jan 2003 10:00:00 ...
> Injection-Date: 01 Jan 2003 10:01:00 ...
> Message-Id: <12345@example.com>
> .........
>
> To a site in B:
>
> Subject: foo
> Date: 01 Jan 2003 10:00:00 ...
> Injection-Date: 03 Jan 2003 10:01:00 ...
> Message-Id: <12345@example.com>
> .........
Since a posting agent might not include a Message-ID field (which would
be added by each injecting agent), the message-ids might well be different,
and there would then be multiple copies of the article with different
message-ids and injection dates. Multiple injection is not recognized
by our draft (there is no provision for it). It should probably be
at least strongly discouraged.
[...]
> Finally, copies of the 2nd version try to propagate back across the
> bottleneck towards A, and when they arrive there the articles have already
> expired from the A machines, and so they accept the 2nd version because
> its (late) Injection-Date seems OK.
Certainly no worse than the case described above (viz. two articles with
different massage-ids as well as injection dates).
> A fairly improbable scenario, and not much that can be done about it if we
> accept the Injection-Date proposal (which we should, because it should
> improve things in just about every other scenario).
Sounds like justification for strongly discouraging or prohibiting multiple
injection into the same network.