Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site talcott.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!panda!talcott!gst
From: gst@talcott.UUCP (Gary S. Trujillo)
Newsgroups: net.sources.bugs
Subject: Re: A proposal for a consistent REPOST scheme
Message-ID: <560@talcott.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 29-Jan-86 23:34:53 EST
Article-I.D.: talcott.560
Posted: Wed Jan 29 23:34:53 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 1-Feb-86 03:13:09 EST
References: <3473@glacier.ARPA>
Organization: Harvard Univ. Sociology Dept. Cambridge. MA
Lines: 34
Summary: Question regarding Brian Reid's proposal for reposting

In article <3473@glacier.ARPA>, reid@glacier.ARPA (Brian Reid) writes:
> 
> Reposting is a nuisance. The net is flooded with a lot of requests for
> reposting, and (invisibly) the mail system is flooded with the replies.
> 
> ...
> 
> The right thing to do is for each reposting request to have a serial number
> or a Repost-request-ID.
> 
> ...
> 
> I believe that all of this algorithm can be easily implemented in a simple
> "repost" program, which I propose to write and post in the next week or two
> unless I hear wild complaints about the idea in the interim.
> -- 
> 	Brian Reid	decwrl!glacier!reid
> 	Stanford	reid@SU-Glacier.ARPA

What happens when someone blows it and reposts incorrectly, either
intentionally or unintentionally?  Especially in the case of source
code, I would imagine there could be massive confusion >= that which
already comes into being with multiple repostings.  One of the many
problems is that, depending on how messages bearing the same message-ID
propogate through the net, recipients end up potentially getting somewhat
or very different versions of something.  And what about the malicious
reposter who changes a few lines here and there?  Seems to me that if
the scheme is to work, it should be only the author who is allowed to
repost (maybe that makes it a different scheme).  I tend to think
mod.sources is a somewhat better solution in this case, for reasons
already cited in other discussions.
-- 
	Gary Trujillo
	(harvard!talcott!gst)