From: stu@nemesis (Stuart Smith)
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 95 04:22:24 PDT
To: fair@clock.org
Subject: Re: Rethinking the utility of netnews "cancel" control messages
In-Reply-To: <v02110105ac99c03922dd@[204.179.132.4]>
Message-ID: <m0t2Ffg-0000VgC@nemesis>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article <v02110105ac99c03922dd@[204.179.132.4]> you write:
>The downsides of having the mechanism (especially unauthenticated) we see
>now: official and unofficial squelching of articles that someone doesn't
>like for whatever arbitrary or situational reason.

You miss an important point in the mechinism - individual sites *choose*
whether or not to pay any attention to cancels.  Theoretically, they could
be configured to only listen to cancels from certain places etc etc.  By all
means these should be authenticated, but it is vital to remember that this
is still (for now..) an anarchy.  I don't have to honour anyones cancels,
and if I do, and you don't like it - you don't have to get a news feed from
me.

- --
 Baba baby mama shaggy papa baba bro baba rock a shaggy baba sister
shag saggy hey doc baba baby shaggy hey baba can you dig it baba baba
E7 E3 90 7E 16 2E F3 45  *   Stuart Smith  *  28 24 2E C6 03 02 37 5C 
     <stu@nemesis.wimsey.com>  *  http://www.wimsey.com/~ssmith/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBMHj8pqi5iP4JtEWBAQHI+QP/dy3e6AfQ4OjRLjM723i8ZBCGSJdN7N8i
Iw6E+UwhkZxt5aEq6KQHr72TkGbz6wgUMOCFsdK0cJjpt3ubgi1RYjDiQPeYswkp
zK6/hnUnbpKAUE7h2BWLO+VYyoxxySCydigUthxWrG3p25eDJTYVhAw5gKsLrOJp
k/HDHNQ2IG8=
=ZBAz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----