Path: utzoo!attcan!sobmips!uunet!bfmny0!tneff
From: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff)
Newsgroups: news.software.b
Subject: Re: Anyone interested in end-to-end checksums in news?
Message-ID: <14923@bfmny0.UU.NET>
Date: 16 Nov 89 19:46:23 GMT
References: <14594@well.UUCP> <14922@bfmny0.UU.NET> <1989Nov16.173546.6101@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Reply-To: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff)
Lines: 20
Summary:
Expires:
Sender:
Followup-To:

Exempting specific header fields (Path, Xref) from checksumming is an
acceptable alternative to checksumming just the body, provided you don't
mind enthroning a specific set of headers in the RFC (this proposal
needs one, by the way).

I should point out that there is a limit to what you can do with a
proven-corrupted message if the corruption includes the header.
You cannot attempt to promulgate error information elsewhere,
because you do not know if the Message-ID is valid.

It seems worthwhile to log corrupted articles carefully including path
information, so that suspect links can be investigated.  The info could
be collected periodically a la Arbitron and collated centrally for
announcement on a new cable TV show, "Usenet's Most Wanted" :-)
-- 
"Of course, this is a, this is a Hunt, you   |  Tom Neff
will -- that will uncover a lot of things.   |  tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET
You open that scab, there's a hell of a lot
of things... This involves these Cubans, Hunt, and a lot of hanky-panky
that we have nothing to do with ourselves." -- RN 6/23/72