Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!dali.cs.montana.edu!mathisen
From: mathisen@dali.cs.montana.edu (Jaye Mathisen)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: "peer review" style of moderation
Message-ID: <3021@dali>
Date: 2 Dec 90 05:55:26 GMT
References: <1990Nov28.170948.11146@sceard.Sceard.COM> <1990Nov30.022320.6793@ico.isc.com> <abeals.659990424@melange>
Organization: Montana State University, Dept. of Computer Science, Bozeman MT 59717
Lines: 15

In article <abeals.659990424@melange> abeals@autodesk.com (Plu festu, uloj) writes:
>for example, if the original message-id of the submission mail message
>was "<123456@mintaka.bedford.com>", the modified message-id of the
>posted message would be something like
>"<comp.unix.sources-123456@mintaka.bedford.com>".  Thus, if multiple
>moderators posted the same message, the news software would reject the
>posting as a duplicate, as it would already have a message by that
>message-id in its history database.


All kinds of problems here...  Take the case of moderator A and B both
submit package X, however A does it in 5 parts, and B does it in 6...  Oops,
there's an extra part here.  Of course, you could add additional headers
to assist in taking care of this, but all in all it sounds like far more
trouble than it's worth.


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com