ietf-nntp Backfill: not again.

[Rich Salz]

I don't !@#$!#$ believe it.  Backfill was discussed to death here on
the list *after* the IETF meeting.

A master could split its feed for a slave into multiple processes and
such that the slave got 12, 13, 15, 16 from proc-A and then got 14 from
proc-B. If the slave is handling newsreaders, then *the site that is
doing this is misconfigured.*  Once a client has seen 13, been told 14
doesn't exist, and then got 15, *the client should not be expected to
try later on to see if 14 might exist.*  At most, one newsreader did
this because of a misinformed implementation at a large ISP, but that's
it.

On the other hand, if the slave is used for outbound feeds, then it
effectively has no clients, and the arrival order doesn't matter.

XREPLIC should not be part of the RFC because crossposted articles make
it all too easy to exceed the NNTP command-line length limit.
	/r$