Re: #1416 Injection-Date: current wording proposal (corrected)

[Russ Allbery <rra@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Forrest J Cavalier <mibsoft@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Russ Allbery wrote:

>>>> +            <t>It MUST reject any article that has already been
>>> 
>>>               successfully sent to it, or alternatively where its date
>>>               falls outwith any cutoff interval as described in <xref
>>>               history>.

>> I now have:
>> 
>>    3.  It MUST reject any article that has already been successfully
>>        sent to it, which may include rejecting articles whose dates fall
>>        outside a cutoff interval as described in Section 3.3.

> This changes the meaning significantly.  Is that right?

Probably not.  I'm failing to find the right wording here.

News servers MUST reject articles that have already been successfully sent
to them.  They're given an allowance to reject messages that have not
already been successfully sent to them as part of this if that's needed
for their algorithm (which doesn't change the protocol, since they can
always reject more articles for any reason at all).  *If* the server uses
the schemes in 3.3, *then* they must reject articles whose dates lie
outside the cutoff interval.

Suggestions for wording that captures this?

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