[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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




--On 18. mai 2007 20:47 -0700 Russ Allbery <rra@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



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?


Going to 2 sentences would help me, I think.

 It MUST reject any article that has already been successfully sent to it.
If it implements the mechanism described in <xref history>, this means that it will have to reject any article where its date falls outside a cutoff interval, 
 since it doesn't know whether it has been successfully sent to it or not.

If shorter text is desired, drop the part after the comma.

               Harald