IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Jack De Winter <jack@wildbear.on.ca> Thu, 19 December 1996 06:09 UTC

Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa24314; 19 Dec 96 1:09 EST
Received: from ACADEM2.ACADEM.COM by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa02243; 19 Dec 96 1:09 EST
Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by academ2.academ.com (8.8.3/8.7.3) id AAA12318 for ietf-nntp-outgoing; Thu, 19 Dec 1996 00:06:48 -0600 (CST)
X-Authentication-Warning: academ2.academ.com: majordomo set sender to owner-ietf-nntp using -f
Received: from academ.com (root@ACADEM.COM [198.137.249.2]) by academ2.academ.com (8.8.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id AAA12313 for <ietf-nntp@ACADEM2.ACADEM.COM>; Thu, 19 Dec 1996 00:06:46 -0600 (CST)
Received: from lacroix.wildbear.on.ca (lacroix.wildbear.on.ca [199.246.132.198]) by academ.com (8.8.3/8.7.1) with ESMTP id AAA09582 for <ietf-nntp@academ.com>; Thu, 19 Dec 1996 00:06:38 -0600 (CST)
Received: by lacroix.wildbear.on.ca from localhost (router,SLMailNT V3.0); Thu, 19 Dec 1996 00:59:41 -0500
Received: by lacroix.wildbear.on.ca from wildside.wildbear.on.ca (199.246.132.193::mail daemon,SLMailNT V3.0); Thu, 19 Dec 1996 00:59:34 -0500
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19961219010432.00e4f60c@lacroix>
X-Sender: "Jack De Winter" <jack@wildbear.on.ca>
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 01:04:33 -0500
To: Rich Salz <rsalz@osf.org>, evanc@synapse.net, rsalz@osf.org
From: Jack De Winter <jack@wildbear.on.ca>
Subject: Re: ietf-nntp BCP for RFC977 server/RFC1036 interaction
Cc: clewis@nortel.ca, ietf-nntp@academ.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-ietf-nntp@academ.com
Precedence: bulk

At 10:26 PM 12/18/96 -0500, Rich Salz wrote:
>What's the difference betwen IHAVE and POST?  On POST the server will
>add "missing" headers and do some other special work -- mailing to
>moderators, e.g.  Can you define any other difference?

The big difference is use.  POST assumes submission, IHAVE assumes relay.

>>I do not see any reason for standard readers to need to specify a Path. 
>
>Fine.  I do.

I can see servers defining the path, but could you tell us the reasons
for the client needing the path?

>>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.

I think the point was made that Paths help to track down offending
posts, or improperly implemented servers.  And what is this stuff about
'!synapse'?  Is this something in son-of-1036?

>>Gateways are somewhat trickier, in that I assume the case you mean is for
>>news-to-mail-to-news gatewaying, where you'd want to restore the path.  
>>What about posting it via ihave?  That would at least require the posting 
>>agent to have server access to the machine, something one could 
>>reasonably expect from a gateway.
>
>It would also require the gateway to know, e.g., about the moderated
>status of anything it gateways.

I am not sure about what everyone else thinks on this, but I would
want to include information about a gateway (properly noted somewhere
for trace information would be helpful as well).

regards,
Jack
-------------------------------------------------
Jack De Winter - Wildbear Consulting, Inc.
(519) 576-3873		http://www.wildbear.on.ca/

Author of SLMail(95/NT) (http://www.seattlelab.com/) and other great products.

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email