Re: #1416 Injection-Date: proposed diff

[Russ Allbery <rra@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"Charles Lindsey" <chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Russ Allbery <rra@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

>> So he still knows he's reinjecting (or not) and therefore his software
>> still handles Injection-Date properly unless his software has been
>> broken all along for comp.* as well.

> No, he thinks he is just relaying an article to comp.misc.

Not if he's using POST he doesn't, and if he's not using POST, he's not
reinjecting.  (Barring configurations that use IHAVE for injection in
intentional violation of a SHOULD NOT in RFC3977, at which point they're
on their own in getting the details right because that's why the standard
says you shouldn't do that.  And at that point, the server accepting the
IHAVE has to take responsibility for ensuring the right thing happens
because the client can no longer indicate the difference between relaying
and the injection of an article.)

If he's using POST with an article that he didn't just prepare from
scratch with a posting agent, he's reinjecting.  It's unambiguous as to
whether you're reinjecting or relaying, and I don't see how one could
possibly create a situation where one is accidentally reinjecting without
being aware it's happening (only scenarios where the articles being
reinjected are other than was intended).

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@xxxxxxxxxxxx)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>