Re: #1416 Injection-Date - Summary of options

[Russ Allbery <rra@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Charles Lindsey <chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> I understand that Ruus has been tied up on other matters since then, but
> that he hopes to return to active participation shortly.

Yes, sorry.  That's still my plan, and responding to that message is near
the top of my priorities when I can find a bit of time again.

It's clear to me from the discussion that we need a couple new sections to
the document that provide clearer guidance and descriptions of how the
history mechanism works.

> So I think, in this case, the moderator MUST now discard any
> Injection-Date already provided, and then proceed to inject the Approved
> article in the normal manner, at which point he MAY then add an
> Injection-Date, and MUST add one if he is injecting at multiple sites.

Yup, that sounds right to me.  Good catch.  I think it's reasonable to let
the article possibly end up duplicated in the bizarre case where the
poster is multiply injecting and some sites have the group marked
moderated and some marked unmoderated.  Articles are occasionally
duplicated in similar cirumstances today.

> That will give the best chance of the article propagating normally, even
> if the moderator delayed before Approving it.

> There is a separate but related question of whether, for the benefit of
> legacy injecting and relaying agents, he might need to do something about
> a Date header that had been rendered unusually stale because of hiw own
> delay. Usepro-06 made some special provision for this, and I think
> Usepro-07 does also. Normally, of course, Date should be left strictly
> alone as being a matter to be determined by the Poster, but one can hardly
> blame the Poster for subsequent delays caused by the moderator.

Yup.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@xxxxxxxxxxxx)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>