ietf-nntp <0> and message IDs

[Russ Allbery]

Matthias Andree <matthias.andree at gmx.de> writes:

> I find this contradictory and unhelpful. If the server must synthesize a
> message-ID, IMO it must also record the message-id in the article --

I really don't agree; I can think of a lot of servers that wouldn't need
to do this.

> otherwise, forwarding an article without Message-ID header to a
> different host _may_ generate a flood duplicates with various Message-ID
> headers that Usenet will never be able to get rid of,

Many, if not most, NNTP servers never forward messages to other hosts.

The problems that you're talking about seem to me to be Usenet problems,
not NNTP protocol problems, and therefore I would say they are properly
dealt with in a Usenet standard.

> - take reference to usefor drafts, make sure that the Message-ID is only
>   synthesized on POSTing a "proto-article" (MUST when POSTing, and MUST
>   NOT for IHAVE and other transport means)

I'm strongly opposed to any reference to the USEFOR drafts or to pulling
in proto-article language in this standard.

> One might just omit the first alternative and just require that the same
> Message-ID "MUST" be used when re-POST-ing the article. If there's a
> clear preference, then why offer the inferior alternative.

Because normally clients really should not supply their own message IDs
unless they have their own domain name.

> Note also that INN for example suggests a message ID in the 340 response
> to the POST command:

> 340 Ok, recommended ID <b6rttc$jm3$1 at hermes.example.org>

Yes, this would be a good area for a future extension (and it would be a
fairly straightforward extension to write).

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra at stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>