[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re:  Multiple POSTED in Path: header
In <87k588dypi.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Russ Allbery <rra@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>"Charles Lindsey" <chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>If you include Xref in an NNTP POST to an INN server, the article will be
>rejected. That's why I made it a MUST; the protocol does actually break
>in practice if you don't strip Xref. (Whether it *should* is a separate
>question, of course, but there's a huge installed base that behaves that
You surprise me. I had always assumed that Xref was only meaningful for a
particular server and the clients that used it, and that if ever it
received an already-present Xref (from whatever source) it would simply
discard it and substitute its own. But if it is as you say, then I suppose
that MUST has to remain (otherwise, SHOULD would have sufficed).
>>> 1. Treat the Path header as special and permit (or even encourage)
>>> retaining it while not permitting retention of the other trace headers,
>>> on the grounds that it has an intrinsic ordering and therefore isn't as
>>> prone to confusion as having multiple trace headers that aren't
>> Yes, I think I like that.
>If we want to move forward with this, I think I could use some help
>analyzing what needs to change in the document to make it consistent again
>with this new approach.
Sure. If we agree on the effects we want to achieve, then I am due for a
careful read through the whole document to see what final inconsistencies
might be lurking there,
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 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