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

["Charles Lindsey" <chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In <87veepobzj.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Russ Allbery <rra@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

>Harald Alvestrand <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

>> There are 3 cases:

>> - Message is singly injected. Injection-Date: does no harm.
>> - Message is multiply injected, Injection-Date: on all copies are quite
>> close to each other, because they all got injected in rapid
>> succession. Injection-Date: does no harm.
>> - Message is multiply injected, and some of the injections got
>> significantly delayed.

>Right, the problems only potentially happen in the third case, but that
>third case includes many serial injection cases.


>> So the net result of catering for the minority third case is that *most*
>> messages on the Net will be sent without an Injection-Date.

>Correct, until posting agents are updated to generate it.  ...

No, it's worse than that. As currently worded, that situation will persist
FOR EVER, even after every agent on the Net implements Injection-Date
fully.

This is essentially the difference between options IR and IC, where IC
allows that things may temporarily get slightly worse in order that the
final steady-state situation will be cleaner.

We need to resolve the IR vs IC issue soon, but I think it best to get all
the other aspects of Injection-Date sorted out, which we now seem to be
well on the way to doing.

> ...This is the way
>that I think it should work, since all the benefits of Injection-Date are
>born by the posting agents, not by the injecting agents (which don't care
>at all).

-- 
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx      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