Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!think!bloom-beacon!ambar
From: ambar@bloom-beacon.mit.edu (Jean Marie Diaz)
Newsgroups: news.software.b
Subject: Re: Supersedes problems with rapid-fire articles
Message-ID: <AMBAR.89Sep17221603@hodge.MIT.EDU>
Date: 18 Sep 89 02:16:03 GMT
References: <5200@looking.on.ca> <536@logicon.arpa> <3246@deimos.cis.ksu.edu>
	<1989Sep6.221624.28405@utzoo.uucp> <66812@uunet.UU.NET>
	<1989Sep7.192336.24604@utzoo.uucp> <9377@looking.on.ca>
Sender: daemon@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU
Organization: Madhouse International Technologies
Lines: 24
In-reply-to: brad@looking.on.ca's message of 8 Sep 89 06:34:05 GMT


   From: brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton)
   Date: 8 Sep 89 06:34:05 GMT

   The only reason to forward on a cancel message for a message that you
   haven't gotten yet is if you fear that:

	   your downstream sites also have an alternate feed, and

	   the alternate feed runs an old B news that ignores cancels
	   for messages that have not arrived, and

	   the alternate feed gets articles out of order, so that a
	   cancel arrives before a message.


   I hardly think this is worth it.

Given that these conditions apply to probably 90% of the NNTP-speaking
machines on the Internet, I think it is very much worth it.


				 AMBAR
ambar@bloom-beacon.mit.edu		   {mit-eddie,uunet}!bloom-beacon!ambar