Re: #1416 Injection-Date: proposed diff

["Charles Lindsey" <chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In <46A8CD47.6000501@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> "Forrest J. Cavalier III" <mibsoft@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

>Charles Lindsey wrote:
>>>>>+          <t>Whenever possible, multiple injection SHOULD be done by
>>>>>+          offering the same proto-article to multiple injecting agents.
>>>>>+          The posting agent MUST supply the Message-ID, Date, and
>>>>>+          Injection-Date header fields, and the proto-article as offered
>>>>
>>>>                                                        ^^^^^^^
>>>>                                                        articles
>>>>
>>>>>+          to each injecting agent MUST be identical.</t>
>> 

>In the first it reads "SHOULD" be offering the same proto article.
>The second sentence says "proto-article as offered MUST be identical."

Yes, as Russ has said, that SHOULD is to discourage some more preculiar
ways of doing multiple injection.

For example, all my own articles are first injected to my own private news
server. Then they are relayed (using IHAVE) to a site that has agreed to
peer with me (but which is shambolically managed). Then, after a short
interval to allow it to propagate, I inject it again to a site with which
I do not have a peering arrangement using POST (well, I actually use IHAVE
because that site implements the INN option of allowing IHAVE to be used
for injection, but it is still an injection).

So I would technically be breaking that first SHOULD, and at some stage I
will have to consider whether to continue doing that, and what to do with
any Injection-Date header that I create.

There are also various other weird and wonderful ways that SHOULD might be
ignored - some of them quite sensible and some of them not.

>I personally, say MUST.  If you can't offer the same proto-article,
>then you are reposting, not multi-injecting.

Yes, that is rather the point I was making. Russ has removed the term
"reinjection" from the draft and left us with the mouthful "multiple
injection after the fact". His wording is technically correct (with MUST
in all the right places), but maybe it could be reviewed.

-- 
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