Re: ietf-nntp BCP for RFC977 server/RFC1036 interaction

[Chris Lewis <[e-mail]>]

In message "Re: ietf-nntp BCP for RFC977 server/RFC1036 interaction", 
'[e-mail]' writes:

>>If there are "hostile" hosts out there, then we should be spending the
>>effort to get them shut down rather than "breaking the rules" in order to 
>>let people get around these sites.

>Really?  Please tell me how you would handle Brad not wanting to send "bad"
>jokes to UWaterloo.  Please promise me that something like this will never
>happen again.  Please tell me why I, as a user, can't put "!synapse" so
>that you never see my postings.

In a very real sense, this is UWaterloo's problem.  If they don't want to
receive them, it's up to them to block them.  If it, on the other hand,
is the poster wanting to avoid a site even though the site does want them,
I'm not sure that Path aliasing is reliable enough anyways.  See discussions
on how badly configured the PSI servers are...

I would be more comfortable insisting that Path prefixes be done by IHAVE.

God knows I myself inject enough articles with prefix paths, but, I inject
via IHAVE.  By insisting on IHAVE, you put the onus on the news server
admin to "vet" any such use.  Which seems to me to be a reasonable restriction.

[I'm going to wait for the flurry to settle down, then post my arguments
as one fell swoop, plus a new draft.]
--
Chris Lewis, Senior Network Security Analyst, Nortel.
[e-mail]; Dept 4C16, Ottawa, Canada.  [phone].