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

["Forrest J. Cavalier III" <mibsoft@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> 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.

I really like that this expresses the idea that if you can't know if you 
accepted it or not, you must reject.

I would wordsmith:

	successfully sent to it -> accepted.

(There have been some propagation algorithms which trust articles from certain 
peers, but not others.)

And I don't have a strong opinion, but should this part also change:
	will have to reject -> MUST reject.