barrett@Daisy.EE.UND.AC.ZA (Alan P Barrett) (06/24/91)
[This is very similar to an earlier (now cancelled) article, in which I made the mistake of thinking that mini-inews ran on the remote site.] In article <1991Jun21.162641.900@mp.cs.niu.edu>, rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes: > Suppose I run a site reading news via nntp, and use your mini-inews which > generates a bad address on the 'Path:'. Here are some of the implications. > > 1. A user as a site which replies to the 'Path:' cannot reply to a > poster on my system. > > 2. The poster on my system will get less replies. > > 3. My news server host will have to bounce mail addressed to 'Path:'. > > 4. Some poor user on the news server host, whose login id happens to be > the same as that of the post on my site, may finish up being the > unintended victim of a flame fest intended for the poster at my site. > > Now I am quite willing to dismiss 1 and 2. But I will not dismiss 3 and 4 > as unimportant. Suppose I am a user at a site which gets an ordinary news feed, and whose news system name is a FQDN. Suppose that, in spite of the fact that news is available locally, I choose to post news over an nntp connection to a remote system (using the nntp POST command, possibly with the assistance of my own private copy of a mini-inews program). Suppose that the remote site's nntp server (possibly with the collaboration of the remote site's inews or my own mini-inews) generates a Path header that includes my local system name. Now my article will never get to my local site, nor to any other sites which are leaves served by my local site. I therefore claim that the Path header on articles submitted via the nntp POST command must not include my local system name in the Path line. (Although we aren't talking about gatewaying from mailing lists now, similar arguments apply to that case.) It seems to me that the correct thing is for the remote site to generate an Path line that points to a {bit bucket, auto-replyer, human administrator} on the remote site. The Path line should not include the originator's login id or site name. This seems to satisfy Neil's point 4 (and if the Path points to a bit bicket then I think that also satisfies point 3). --apb Alan Barrett, Dept. of Electronic Eng., Univ. of Natal, Durban, South Africa RFC822: barrett@ee.und.ac.za Bang: m2xenix!quagga!undeed!barrett
rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) (06/26/91)
In article <1991Jun24.152258.6663@Daisy.EE.UND.AC.ZA> barrett@Daisy.EE.UND.AC.ZA (Alan P Barrett) writes: >It seems to me that the correct thing is for the remote site to generate >an Path line that points to a {bit bucket, auto-replyer, human >administrator} on the remote site. The Path line should not include the >originator's login id or site name. This seems to satisfy Neil's point >4 (and if the Path points to a bit bicket then I think that also >satisfies point 3). Perhaps one should go further. How about the Path: ALWAYS pointing to a bit bucket, even when posted at a site with full news locally available. Then we get out of the state where some sites reply to 'From:' and some to 'Path:'. Is it time to force the issue? -- =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*= Neil W. Rickert, Computer Science <rickert@cs.niu.edu> Northern Illinois Univ. DeKalb, IL 60115 +1-815-753-6940
karl.kleinpaste@osc.edu (06/26/91)
rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu writes:
Perhaps one should go further. How about the Path: ALWAYS pointing to a
bit bucket, even when posted at a site with full news locally available.
Then we get out of the state where some sites reply to 'From:' and some to
'Path:'. Is it time to force the issue?
The news/mail gateways running on tut.cis.ohio-state.edu have been
generating "tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!unreplyable!garbage" in Path: for
mail->news postings for the past 6 months or so, including all
gnu.*.bug groups. No negative side effects, as far as I've seen.
Anyone replying to Path: has been getting bounce-o-grams.
I just hope there's no site out there named "unreplyable." :-)
--karlres@colnet.uucp (Rob Stampfli) (06/27/91)
>I just hope there's no site out there named "unreplyable." :-)
There is a site out there named "xyzzy". In both cases, I'd say they
get what they deserve.
--
Rob Stampfli, 614-864-9377, res@kd8wk.uucp (osu-cis!kd8wk!res), kd8wk@n8jyv.oha_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (Arthur Rubin) (06/27/91)
In <1991Jun26.213858.20789@colnet.uucp> res@colnet.uucp (Rob Stampfli) writes: >>I just hope there's no site out there named "unreplyable." :-) >There is a site out there named "xyzzy". In both cases, I'd say they >get what they deserve. Is "plover" out there too? -- 2165888@mcimail.com 70707.453@compuserve.com arthur@pnet01.cts.com (personal) a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (work) My opinions are my own, and do not represent those of my employer.
barrett@Daisy.EE.UND.AC.ZA (Alan P Barrett) (06/28/91)
rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu writes: > Perhaps one should go further. How about the Path: ALWAYS pointing to a > bit bucket, even when posted at a site with full news locally available. > Then we get out of the state where some sites reply to 'From:' and some to > 'Path:'. Is it time to force the issue? That's a good idea. We could even standardise the name of the bit bucket, as a first step towards migration to a path format that excludes the user name. karl.kleinpaste@osc.edu writes: > The news/mail gateways running on tut.cis.ohio-state.edu have been > generating "tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!unreplyable!garbage" in Path: for > mail->news postings for the past 6 months or so, including all > gnu.*.bug groups. No negative side effects, as far as I've seen. > Anyone replying to Path: has been getting bounce-o-grams. And I have been putting "undeed!fakefeed!news" in mail->news gatewayed messages here for about 18 months (ever since this site got connected). No negative side effects. --apb Alan Barrett, Dept. of Electronic Eng., Univ. of Natal, Durban, South Africa RFC822: barrett@ee.und.ac.za Bang: m2xenix!quagga!undeed!barrett
nickless@abacus.mcs.anl.gov (William Nickless) (06/28/91)
In article <a_rubin.678036834@dn71> a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (Arthur Rubin) writes: > >Is "plover" out there too? Yup. 140.221.3.11 plover.mcs.anl.gov plover But it doesn't have news or a uucp feed going through/near it. -- --- Bill Nickless <nickless@mcs.anl.gov> +1 708 972 7390 or +1 616 927 0982
moraes@cs.toronto.edu (Mark Moraes) (06/29/91)
Putting underscores in the "unreplyable" name is one way to at least ensure that it won't clash with a registered UUCP site name. The current UUCP Mapping Project checker rejects such site names.