ietf-nntp <0> and message IDs

Charles Lindsey chl at clw.cs.man.ac.uk
Mon Apr 7 04:51:04 PDT 2003


In <Dk9yakI3kuj+Ew75 at romana.davros.org> "Clive D. W. Feather" <clive at on-the-train.demon.co.uk> writes:

>In message <m3brzlkyuh.fsf at merlin.emma.line.org>, Matthias Andree 
><matthias.andree at gmx.de> writes
>>(Ceterum censeo "<0>" esse delendum).

>"esse delendum" or "delenum est"?

>>On the topic of how the Message-ID is to be obtained, and on the server
>>providing one, the Usefor drafts make a distinction between "Injecting"
>>and "Relaying" agents. Only the former are allowed to add the Message-ID
>>header (and turn a "Proto-Article" (which may lack Message-ID) into a
>>article that has all mandatory headers)) -- so POST might be able to add
>>the Message-ID, but not IHAVE. Opinions?

>I've been careful to distinguish the message-id and the contents of a 
>Message-ID header. IHAVE provides the message-id in the command. POST 
>doesn't provide one, so the server has to deduce one, either from the 
>header or from an oracle. I think my latest wording for POST meets that 
>requirement.

Yes, but I think the point is that if some extension provides a TAKETHIS
command, then failure to provide a message-id in the command, or as a
header in the article, should be a big No No, meriting a 5xx response.

Therefore, it should be made clear that "inventing" a message-id is ONLY
allowed with the POST command.

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl at clw.cs.man.ac.uk      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



More information about the ietf-nntp mailing list