[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: #1416 Injection-Date: current wording proposal (corrected)
In <87zm41oc41.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Russ Allbery <rra@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>Charles Lindsey <chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> OK, I have finally got around to reading the whole of this. Many of my
>> points are minor textual niggles, but some are quite substantive.
>>> @@ -478,48 +565,70 @@
>>>
>>> <t>A proto-article has the same format as a normal article
>>> + except that the Injection-Info and Xref header fields MUST NOT
>>> + be present; the Path header field MUST NOT contain a "POSTED"
>>> + <diag-keyword>; ........
>> I disagree with forbidding POSTED (already raised in a separate thread),
>> and am dubious about Xref ("SHOULD" would be quite strong enough).
>I'm not sure we've reached a conclusion on those other threads yet. So
>far, I've not made any changes here.
OK, that is an issue still waiting resolution. At least all the places
affected are now documented.
>> However, this does not really convey the scenario as it is anticipated to
>> occur. In essence, the first network is typically small and private and
>> the second network is usually large, and probably Usenet. And one does not
>> usually just "find" articles there - one usually placed them there
>> oneself.
>> So how about:
>> ....... (such as when gatewaying, after the fact, articles
>> from a small private network, supposedly with no other
>> connections, to a larger network, such as Usenet). ......
>Well, that's one of the cases where offering the same proto-article to all
>injecting agents *is* possible, normally, so I'm not sure it's a great
>example. That's the use case where I really wish people would just use
>normal multiple injection.
Yes, but the case arises where the small private network contains several
sites some of which, by misunderstanding, misconfiguration, or the result
of some anticipated cross-posting also inject the article (so the
"official" injecting channel does not get the option of multi-injecting it
properly, even if he wanted to).
So I think such examples need mentioning, but maybe in different words.
The problem with "small private networks" is that they tend to grow
without the knowledge of the network administrator :-( .
>>> @@ -644,23 +753,24 @@
>>>
>>> <t>It MUST reject any proto-article that does not have the
>>> proper mandatory header fields for a proto-article; that has
>>> + Injection-Info or Xref header fields; that has a Path header
>> ^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> any field
>>> + field containing the "POSTED" <diag-keyword>; or that is
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Likewise here.
>>> + not syntactically valid as defined by <xref target="USEFOR"
>>> + />. It SHOULD reject any proto-article which contains a
>>> + header field deprecated for Netnews. It MAY reject any
>> ^
>> (see e.g. <xref RFC2298>)
>RFC 2298 is obsolete, so I don't really want to generate even an
>informative reference to it, and the superseding RFC (RFC 3798) makes no
>mention of Netnews, so I'm not sure this is a great example or
>particularly helpful for the reader.
No, RFC 3798 still contains the relevant wording:
Messages posted to newsgroups SHOULD NOT have a Disposition-
Notification-To header.
and we need to draw attention to that (or, alternatively, explicitly
prohibit that header ourselves). The problem is that use of that header in
Netnews can give rise to the Mother of all Mailbombs. This is also a
Security Consideration, and I think it is also mentioned as such (or
should be).
I am not aware of any other headers that are explicitly deprecated for
Netnews by other standards, but there might be.
--
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