From: “Erik E. Fair” (Time Keeper) <fair@clock.org>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 40ec98803d9910f85c2a3e8e0930ee1f7a8850e7f844327bae846034c5d1b7b8
Message ID: <v02110103ac99b201cba4@[204.179.132.4]>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1995-10-05 16:26:42 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 5 Oct 95 09:26:42 PDT
From: "Erik E. Fair" (Time Keeper) <fair@clock.org>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 95 09:26:42 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Rethinking the utility of netnews "cancel" control messages
Message-ID: <v02110103ac99b201cba4@[204.179.132.4]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
The day of unauthenticated netnews control messages of any kind is
basically over. We gotta:
1. turn off all automated system-wide control of netnews, or
2. properly authenticate all such messages (newgroup, rmgroup, cancel, etc.).
I think we also ought to think carefully about continuing to have a
"cancel" control message (and the Supercedes: header) any more,
authenticated or not - as useful as this mechanism occasionally is to
remove unsightly spams (and other Officially Troublesome Material), isn't
this kind of casual revisionism something that is, historically, to be
avoided?
If you had a netnews system which simply marked a message as cancelled in
some way, would you set your netnews reader to seek out cancelled messages?
Or ignore them?
If you were a librarian or historian operating The Official USENET Archive
of Everything, would you accept and process cancel control messages?
"Backbone cabal? What's that?"
Erik Fair <fair@noc.use.net>
Return to October 1995
Return to ““Erik E. Fair” (Time Keeper) <fair@clock.org>”
1995-10-05 (Thu, 5 Oct 95 09:26:42 PDT) - Rethinking the utility of netnews “cancel” control messages - “Erik E. Fair” (Time Keeper) <fair@clock.org>