Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uunet!maverick.ksu.ksu.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!mp.cs.niu.edu!rickert
From: rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Newsgroups: news.software.b
Subject: Re: How to handle article cancellations?
Message-ID: <1991Feb6.195500.21409@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Date: 6 Feb 91 19:55:00 GMT
References: <3258@litchi.bbn.com>
Organization: Northern Illinois University
Lines: 30

In article <3258@litchi.bbn.com> rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) writes:
>What verification should be done on cancel messages?
>
>Anyhow, which method seems better?  Comments to me will be summarized, but a
>public discussion might not be a bad thing.
>	/r$

 I tend to support Geoff's philosophy.  Many newsreaders already make it hard
to cancel if you are not the originator of the message.  Anyone who knows
enough to bypass those checks also knows enough to bypass the other checks.

 Given recent events, I think I would favor a 'cancel' philosophy whereby
cancellation of article 'nnn' simply renamed the article ',nnn' instead of
removing it.  (For a cross-posted article, it would remove from all but the
first newsgroup, and rename in the first news group).  The actual removal of
cancelled articles would then be done during the nightly expire run, either
by 'expire' itself, or by a script run at about the same time.  Paranoid
administrators could delay the physical removal of cancelled articles for a
day or two if they wished.

 --------------
 Thought for the day:  What if all news administrators set up their systems
to add 'tygra!' to the beginning of the 'Path: ' string of all news passing
through their sites?  Would the problems we have been seeing then dry up?

-- 
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
  Neil W. Rickert, Computer Science               <rickert@cs.niu.edu>
  Northern Illinois Univ.
  DeKalb, IL 60115                                   +1-815-753-6940