Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!apple!well!jef From: jef@well.UUCP (Jef Poskanzer) Newsgroups: news.software.b Subject: Re: Anyone interested in end-to-end checksums in news? Message-ID: <14603@well.UUCP> Date: 17 Nov 89 07:23:32 GMT References: <1989Nov16.173359.22435@utzoo.uucp> Reply-To: Jef Poskanzer Organization: Paratheo-Anametamystikhood Of Eris Esoteric, Ada Lovelace Cabal Lines: 30 In the referenced message, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) wrote: }In article <14594@well.UUCP> Jef Poskanzer writes: }>Note that this means no more gratuitous header re-writing. Bet Henry }>like it for this reason... } }Alas, not so. Since it is *necessary* to rewrite the Path header, the }checksum has to be recomputed every time anyway. Huh? I didn't say no header re-writing, I said no gratuitous header re-writing. Did you read this: }>based on the entire article except the Path: and Checksum: headers. ^^^^^^ ^^^^^ ? Unless I'm missing something, you compute it once, when an article is submitted, and each site checks it upon reception. That's the whole point of an end-to-end check. Sure it means that the Path: is not protected, but I can live with that. As for the other issues you mentioned, that's why I proposed that this be voluntary. Some sites, mine certainly among them, will decide that reliable transport is more important than getting the miniscule number of articles that can get here only through EBCDIC links or other bogosities. --- Jef Jef Poskanzer jef@well.sf.ca.us {ucbvax, apple, hplabs}!well!jef "I do not believe that this generation of Americans is willing to resign itself to going to bed each night by the light of a Communist moon..." -- Lyndon B. Johnson