Xref: utzoo news.admin:15608 news.software.b:8514 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!pacbell.com!tandem!zorch!xanthian From: xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) Newsgroups: news.admin,news.software.b Subject: Re: Articles rejected by C news at ukma Message-ID: <1991Jun29.111015.21291@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> Date: 29 Jun 91 11:10:15 GMT References: <1991Jun26.155257.5692@zoo.toronto.edu> <1991Jun28.165937.6399@zoo.toronto.edu> Organization: SF-Bay Public-Access Unix Lines: 43 henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: > mathew@mantis.co.uk (Giving C News a *HUG*) writes: >> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >>> ... To properly implement the robustness >>> principle, when you relay traffic you *must* >>> make sure it meets the specs, either by >>> repairing deviations or by rejecting >>> nonconforming articles. >> Right. But "rejecting nonconforming articles" is >> not being "liberal in what you accept". >> So C News does not obey the robustness principle >> of RFC1122 as written. > Perfection is not possible. We are as liberal as > we can be about accepting, given the constraint on > sending, the need for speed, and the grave dangers > of repair attempts. Rejecting > sufficiently-nonconforming input does not > contravene 1122; 1122 *demands* that in some > cases. Ah, yes, you've said that several times, each time being careful to avoid mentioning _which_ cases. So the question of interest, of course, is: does RFC 1122 demand that you reject _those articles under controversy_, or is this merely another clever distraction tactic you're using to try still longer to weasel out of the apology and admission of guilt for yet another Cnews design blunder (YACnDB(tm)) that should have been forthcoming long ago? I know you can do it: you apologized for flooding the net with old news. I can wait. Patience is one of my long suits. It comes with the grey hair. Kent, the man from xanth. -- Convener, rec.arts.sf.* grand reorganization.