Re: #1416: USEPRO 3.9: Reinjection and Injection-Date

[Frank Ellermann <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Russ Allbery wrote:
 
> It should be a warning sign for a train of logic if the thing that one
> declares not realistic is how all of Netnews currently works and what 
> RFC 1036 requires.

The incompability of the 2822 Date and the s-o-1036 Date is obvious, is
that the reason why you invented the new Injection-Date here ?

  [s-o-1036 explanation of "history"]
>> If it's really not yet there USEPRO needs a similar section with the
>> same RECOMMENDED N = 7 days minimum.
 
> We already discussed this years ago and reached a working group 
> consensus to not document any specific retention time, but instead to
> document the restraint on retention time

The reason for N = 7 given in s-o-1036 is convincing, that's also long 
enough to tolerate plausible "late injections" by implementations of an
RFC 2822 Date.  Maybe it's unnecessary after a "transition period" for
the introduction of Injection-Date, but that's years away.

> people use all sorts of different retention times, ranging from three
> days to a year (and in some specialized cases, even shorter than three
> days -- I've used a retention time as short as a day before).

news.clara.net also tried shorter times for their binary groups, with
many unhappy users wanting their money back, because they didn't get all
pieces of the binaries.  I don't care much about attempts to distribute
complete CD images with NNTP.  But combined mail+news UAs implementing
the RFC 2822 Date instead of a "posting date" make sense.

Frank