From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Thu Aug 02 00:20:35 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGSAt-0007el-PR for usefor-archive@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Aug 2007 00:20:35 -0400 Received: from balder-227.proper.com ([192.245.12.227]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGSAs-0002GD-A2 for usefor-archive@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Aug 2007 00:20:35 -0400 Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l724HulZ039742 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 1 Aug 2007 21:17:56 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id l724Huxq039741; Wed, 1 Aug 2007 21:17:56 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lon-mail-4.gradwell.net (lon-mail-4.gradwell.net [193.111.201.130]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l724HrAZ039735 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2007 21:17:54 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from [80.175.135.89] ([80.175.135.89] helo=clerew.man.ac.uk country=GB ident=postmaster^pop3#clerew#man$ac#uk) by lon-mail-4.gradwell.net with esmtpa (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.243) id 46b15af0.15d3d.2ff for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Thu, 2 Aug 2007 05:17:52 +0100 (envelope-sender ) Received: from clerew.man.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id l724HqT8027887 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2007 05:17:52 +0100 (BST) Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7/Submit) id l724Howf027884 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Thu, 2 Aug 2007 05:17:50 +0100 (BST) To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:24731 Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: #1416 Injection-Date: proposed diff Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <873azoqdqo.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87bqe0dsia.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <874pjm3bfi.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87ps29volj.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87ejiofo7s.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 20:23:57 GMT Lines: 33 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: X-Spam-Score: 1.9 (+) X-Scan-Signature: ea4ac80f790299f943f0a53be7e1a21a In <87ejiofo7s.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Russ Allbery writes: >"Charles Lindsey" writes: >> Russ Allbery writes: >>> So he still knows he's reinjecting (or not) and therefore his software >>> still handles Injection-Date properly unless his software has been >>> broken all along for comp.* as well. >> No, he thinks he is just relaying an article to comp.misc. >Not if he's using POST he doesn't, and if he's not using POST, he's not >reinjecting. Yes, but even if the mail is sent to a site where your configuration causes POST to be used, it is still pretty easy to inadvertently misconfigure a sys file so that the effect happens. And it may be an awful long time before the guy recognizes that he is misconfigured. I should know, because I once had a sys file misconfigured in that way, and it was some time before I noticed that I was sending out far more material than I should. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Thu Aug 02 00:29:43 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGSJj-0006A5-Jk for usefor-archive@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Aug 2007 00:29:43 -0400 Received: from balder-227.proper.com ([192.245.12.227]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGSJi-0002O5-9J for usefor-archive@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Aug 2007 00:29:43 -0400 Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l724Rf5v040292 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 1 Aug 2007 21:27:42 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id l724RftL040291; Wed, 1 Aug 2007 21:27:41 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp3.stanford.edu (smtp3.Stanford.EDU [171.67.20.26]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l724Rf9D040285 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2007 21:27:41 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from smtp3.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 899DC4C16E for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2007 21:27:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp3.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7268F4C144 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2007 21:27:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 69313E7B87; Wed, 1 Aug 2007 21:27:40 -0700 (PDT) From: Russ Allbery To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: #1416 Injection-Date: proposed diff In-Reply-To: (Charles Lindsey's message of "Wed, 1 Aug 2007 20:23:57 GMT") Organization: The Eyrie References: <873azoqdqo.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87bqe0dsia.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <874pjm3bfi.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87ps29volj.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87ejiofo7s.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 21:27:40 -0700 Message-ID: <87bqdqy30j.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: b19722fc8d3865b147c75ae2495625f2 "Charles Lindsey" writes: > Russ Allbery writes: >> Not if he's using POST he doesn't, and if he's not using POST, he's not >> reinjecting. > Yes, but even if the mail is sent to a site where your configuration > causes POST to be used, it is still pretty easy to inadvertently > misconfigure a sys file so that the effect happens. And it may be an > awful long time before the guy recognizes that he is misconfigured. I don't know if I'm just not being clear or why we're having so much trouble communicating. If he has *any* software installed on his system *anywhere* that will taken an existing post and reinject it, he has reinjection software. He therefore knows he has reinjection software and it is his responsibility to configure it to do the right thing (and the right thing does not depend on hierarchy or where the post is going). It is not possible for him to be doing reinjection and not know it. Regular news software does not do reinjection. He has explicitly installed and configured software to do that, and that software can therefore be configured appropriately. It doesn't matter whether it's possible to accidentally direct posts to it or not. That's not at all the point. The point is that there's normal news software and there's reinjection software and it's quite clear which is which. There's no ambiguity about what a particular piece of software is doing. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Fri Aug 03 00:20:24 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGoeG-0001fw-17 for usefor-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Aug 2007 00:20:24 -0400 Received: from balder-227.proper.com ([192.245.12.227]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGoeE-0003Mz-HM for usefor-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Aug 2007 00:20:24 -0400 Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l734Hews063759 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 2 Aug 2007 21:17:40 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id l734HePX063758; Thu, 2 Aug 2007 21:17:40 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lon-mail-4.gradwell.net (lon-mail-4.gradwell.net [193.111.201.130]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l734HdXS063752 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2007 21:17:39 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from [80.175.135.89] ([80.175.135.89] helo=clerew.man.ac.uk country=GB ident=postmaster#pop3$clerew#man#ac&uk) by lon-mail-4.gradwell.net with esmtpa (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.243) id 46b2ac62.8b19.85 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Fri, 3 Aug 2007 05:17:38 +0100 (envelope-sender ) Received: from clerew.man.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id l734HVPa012216 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2007 05:17:31 +0100 (BST) Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7/Submit) id l734HUFJ012213 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Fri, 3 Aug 2007 05:17:30 +0100 (BST) To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:24733 Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: #1416 Injection-Date: proposed diff Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <873azoqdqo.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87bqe0dsia.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <874pjm3bfi.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87ps29volj.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87ejiofo7s.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87bqdqy30j.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 17:38:04 GMT Lines: 70 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: X-Spam-Score: 1.9 (+) X-Scan-Signature: c0bedb65cce30976f0bf60a0a39edea4 In <87bqdqy30j.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Russ Allbery writes: >I don't know if I'm just not being clear or why we're having so much >trouble communicating. >If he has *any* software installed on his system *anywhere* that will >taken an existing post and reinject it, he has reinjection software. He >therefore knows he has reinjection software and it is his responsibility >to configure it to do the right thing (and the right thing does not depend >on hierarchy or where the post is going). It is not possible for him to >be doing reinjection and not know it. On the contrary, it is perfectly possible if you are using CNEWS (and probably BNEWS before it). I wouldn't know what INN would do. CNEWS out of the box is configured to use UUCP, and its facilities for using NNTP are somewhat rudimentary. But if you provide it with a script that will call some NNTP server using the proper POST command, then it will use it. So this guy has arranged to use such a script to inject stuff both to the central node of his local network and to the server provided by his ISP. And he has configured his sys file to send articles to the local groups to the that central node, and usenet groups to his ISP. And he honestly believes that everything he sends is injecting to exactly one of those servers. And his sysfile also ensures that stuff arriving from one of those servers is never sent back to it (by looking at the incoming Paths, of course). And it all appears to work. Now you may argue that using a full-fledged server such as CNEWS at home is a dangerous tool in the hands of the unskilled, but lots of people find it convenient to do it, and you may be sure that some of them are less skilled than others. What this guy forgot, of course, is the case of cross posts between local and Usenet groups (which were doubtless very rare anyway). But as he has it, such an article arriving from the central server of the local network will get sent out on the Usenet link. The sys file can easily be configured to prevent that, once you have been made aware of the problem. But for sure you cannot say that this guy "knew" that his system might reinject; you can say that he SHOULD have known it, but in fact for an unskilled bloke he did pretty well to get it configured as well as he did. > Regular news software does not do >reinjection. He has explicitly installed and configured software to do >that, and that software can therefore be configured appropriately. What is "regular news software"? >It doesn't matter whether it's possible to accidentally direct posts to it >or not. That's not at all the point. The point is that there's normal >news software and there's reinjection software and it's quite clear which >is which. And there is also software which can do both. It would not surprise me that INN could have been misconfigured in that way, but my knowledge of INN is extremely limited. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Fri Aug 03 01:03:06 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGpJa-0008On-Bl for usefor-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Aug 2007 01:03:06 -0400 Received: from balder-227.proper.com ([192.245.12.227]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGpJZ-00054v-MG for usefor-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Aug 2007 01:03:06 -0400 Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l73506jl067129 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 2 Aug 2007 22:00:06 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id l73506iU067128; Thu, 2 Aug 2007 22:00:06 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp2.stanford.edu (smtp2.Stanford.EDU [171.67.20.25]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l735048P067122 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2007 22:00:05 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from smtp2.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id AE0014C210 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2007 21:59:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp2.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40CD14C758 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2007 21:39:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 3AD7AE7B5A; Thu, 2 Aug 2007 21:39:21 -0700 (PDT) From: Russ Allbery To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: #1416 Injection-Date: proposed diff In-Reply-To: (Charles Lindsey's message of "Thu, 2 Aug 2007 17:38:04 GMT") Organization: The Eyrie References: <873azoqdqo.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87bqe0dsia.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <874pjm3bfi.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87ps29volj.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87ejiofo7s.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87bqdqy30j.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 21:39:21 -0700 Message-ID: <87lkcts03q.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 69a74e02bbee44ab4f8eafdbcedd94a1 "Charles Lindsey" writes: > CNEWS out of the box is configured to use UUCP, and its facilities for > using NNTP are somewhat rudimentary. But if you provide it with a script > that will call some NNTP server using the proper POST command, then it > will use it. Then that script is reinjection software. So the person who wrote that script is doing reinjection, and is responsible for following the rules for doing so. And that person *wrote* reinjection software, so certainly knows that he's doing reinjection. (He may not, however, know that's what it's called, or that it's potentially dangerous.) > Now you may argue that using a full-fledged server such as CNEWS at home > is a dangerous tool in the hands of the unskilled, but lots of people > find it convenient to do it, and you may be sure that some of them are > less skilled than others. CNEWS is just fine on this particular front. CNEWS contains no reinjection software. The script is what's causing any potential problems, since it's now doing reinjection, which is inherently tricky and must be done carefully. > But for sure you cannot say that this guy "knew" that his system might > reinject; But he wrote a script that didn't otherwise exist specifically to do so! > What is "regular news software"? Software like CNEWS, or trn, or Netscape, or any other bit of software that uses the normal convention of POST for injection and IHAVE for relaying and which doesn't POST articles it obtained from elsewhere. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Fri Aug 03 12:15:21 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGzo9-0005xq-3A for usefor-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Aug 2007 12:15:21 -0400 Received: from balder-227.proper.com ([192.245.12.227]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGzo8-0007eJ-H7 for usefor-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Aug 2007 12:15:20 -0400 Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l73GC5E9032869 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 3 Aug 2007 09:12:06 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id l73GC50e032868; Fri, 3 Aug 2007 09:12:05 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lon-mail-4.gradwell.net (lon-mail-4.gradwell.net [193.111.201.130]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l73GC4dx032847 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2007 09:12:05 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from [80.175.135.89] ([80.175.135.89] helo=clerew.man.ac.uk country=GB ident=postmaster^pop3&clerew$man#ac$uk) by lon-mail-4.gradwell.net with esmtpa (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.243) id 46b353d3.f76a.54b for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Fri, 3 Aug 2007 17:12:03 +0100 (envelope-sender ) Received: from clerew.man.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id l73GC1Nd009185 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2007 17:12:01 +0100 (BST) Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7/Submit) id l73GC1MV009182 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Fri, 3 Aug 2007 17:12:01 +0100 (BST) To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:24735 Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: #1416 Injection-Date: proposed diff Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <873azoqdqo.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87bqe0dsia.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <874pjm3bfi.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87ps29volj.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87ejiofo7s.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87bqdqy30j.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87lkcts03q.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 13:01:21 GMT Lines: 47 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: X-Spam-Score: 1.4 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 21c69d3cfc2dd19218717dbe1d974352 In <87lkcts03q.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Russ Allbery writes: >"Charles Lindsey" writes: >> CNEWS out of the box is configured to use UUCP, and its facilities for >> using NNTP are somewhat rudimentary. But if you provide it with a script >> that will call some NNTP server using the proper POST command, then it >> will use it. >Then that script is reinjection software. So the person who wrote that >script is doing reinjection, and is responsible for following the rules >for doing so. And that person *wrote* reinjection software, so certainly >knows that he's doing reinjection. (He may not, however, know that's what >it's called, or that it's potentially dangerous.) Yes, I suppose he is technically doing reinjection, since he injected it into his own server, and his own server then reinjected when it sent it on. But that is little more than hair splitting, since the article as thus injected the first time is still a valid proto-article, and contains no evidence of the event apart from an entry in the Path (and odd entries at the RH end of the Path are commonly put there for all sorts of odd reasons). That will, of course, change when once injected articles contain Injection-Info and Injection-Date headers, etc, and if the man takes steps to remove those then he is getting to more dangerous ground. But that 'technical' reinjection was not the cause of the problem. The man was totally convinced that he was not doing multi-injection (and so maybe saw no reason to provide an Injection-Date). But, in fact he was multi-injecting, in the one rare case that he had overlooked (and that is typical of the way that "leaks" come about). And I did not necessarily mean to imply that that he had written that script himself - it could have been obtained from all sorts of sources. And he would probably argue, also, that his whole setup - newsreader, CNEWS and all - could legitimately be regarded as one large MUA, since he intended it to appear that way to the world outside. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Fri Aug 03 12:56:27 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IH0Rv-0004CC-HR for usefor-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Aug 2007 12:56:27 -0400 Received: from balder-227.proper.com ([192.245.12.227]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IH0Ru-0000Du-TI for usefor-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Aug 2007 12:56:27 -0400 Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l73GqSRv035639 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 3 Aug 2007 09:52:28 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id l73GqST7035638; Fri, 3 Aug 2007 09:52:28 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp2.stanford.edu (smtp2.Stanford.EDU [171.67.20.25]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l73GqRkf035631 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2007 09:52:28 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from smtp2.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 7E0484C5B4 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2007 09:52:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp2.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4292F4C5B3 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2007 09:52:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 3FEF0E7E3B; Fri, 3 Aug 2007 09:52:27 -0700 (PDT) From: Russ Allbery To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: #1416 Injection-Date: proposed diff In-Reply-To: (Charles Lindsey's message of "Fri, 3 Aug 2007 13:01:21 GMT") Organization: The Eyrie References: <873azoqdqo.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87bqe0dsia.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <874pjm3bfi.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87ps29volj.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87ejiofo7s.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87bqdqy30j.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87lkcts03q.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 09:52:27 -0700 Message-ID: <87y7gs4l2s.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: b280b4db656c3ca28dd62e5e0b03daa8 "Charles Lindsey" writes: > Yes, I suppose he is technically doing reinjection, since he injected it > into his own server, and his own server then reinjected when it sent it > on. There's nothing technical about it. That's exactly what he's doing. > But that is little more than hair splitting, since the article as thus > injected the first time is still a valid proto-article, and contains no > evidence of the event apart from an entry in the Path (and odd entries > at the RH end of the Path are commonly put there for all sorts of odd > reasons). It's not hair-splitting -- it's the entire point. This is why strict definitions of agents and strict statements about flow between those agents are important! Someone who takes an existing news article and injects it again, rather than taking the same proto-article and injecting it in multiple locations, is reinjecting. They therefore are responsible for getting the details right as described in our draft. It's possible that this will mean specifically *not* doing some things, rather than anything they have to do. But any time you do that, no matter why you're doing that, you're doing reinjection and have to pay attention to the relevant parts of the protocol. > But that 'technical' reinjection was not the cause of the problem. The > man was totally convinced that he was not doing multi-injection (and so > maybe saw no reason to provide an Injection-Date). He's doing multiple serial injection, not multiple parallel injection. Yeah, we definitely do need to clarify terms here; I can see how it's hard to have a conversation about this with the current terms. I think we should probably go back to the terms we were using before and use: multiple injection: sending the same proto-article to multiple injecting agents. reinjection: taking a netnews article, converting it back into a proto-article, and sending it to an injecting agent. By those definitions, he's not doing multiple injection because they're mutually exclusive. (Well, unless his conversion process recovers exactly the same proto-article as he had originally, which one can do with care in a local news environment that's under one's complete control, but which is not horribly interesting in the general case.) > But, in fact he was multi-injecting, He was injecting once and then reinjecting, thereby leaving himself open to all of the possible problems created by running the article through an injecting agent more than once. He SHOULD be doing multiple injection instead (as defined above), for precisely that reason. Of course, he certainly MAY add Injection-Date headers regardless, to be more robust against people (including possibly himself) violating that SHOULD. > And I did not necessarily mean to imply that that he had written that > script himself - it could have been obtained from all sorts of sources. This still isn't creating a situation where no one has responsibility for knowing that reinjection is happening. > And he would probably argue, also, that his whole setup - newsreader, > CNEWS and all - could legitimately be regarded as one large MUA, since > he intended it to appear that way to the world outside. Posting agent, you mean, I assume. Sure, if he wants to argue that, he can analyze it on that basis, but that means he can't do IHAVE to any other site. As soon as his supposed posting agent starts also acting like an injecting or relaying agent, doing things that posting agents don't do, it's clear that he can't treat it as a single monolithic entity and has to analyze the components for compliance. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Sat Aug 04 14:44:34 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IHOc6-0007uG-JJ for usefor-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sat, 04 Aug 2007 14:44:34 -0400 Received: from balder-227.proper.com ([192.245.12.227]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IHOc5-0006YT-OY for usefor-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sat, 04 Aug 2007 14:44:34 -0400 Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l74IfuoX046065 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 4 Aug 2007 11:41:56 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id l74Ifuhv046064; Sat, 4 Aug 2007 11:41:56 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l74IfsYw046053 for ; Sat, 4 Aug 2007 11:41:55 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from harald@alvestrand.no) Received: from localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D0952596BB; Sat, 4 Aug 2007 20:41:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 18328-02; Sat, 4 Aug 2007 20:41:49 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [172.28.62.111] (162.80-203-220.nextgentel.com [80.203.220.162]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id C78C62596BA; Sat, 4 Aug 2007 20:41:48 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 20:40:26 +0200 From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand To: Russ Allbery , ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Definitions (Re: #1416 Injection-Date: proposed diff) Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <87y7gs4l2s.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> References: <873azoqdqo.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87bqe0dsia.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <874pjm3bfi.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87ps29volj.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87ejiofo7s.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87bqdqy30j.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87lkcts03q.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87y7gs4l2s.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.7 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at alvestrand.no Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: ea4ac80f790299f943f0a53be7e1a21a Changing the subject line once in a while is a nice thing.... --On 3. august 2007 09:52 -0700 Russ Allbery wrote: > > multiple injection: sending the same proto-article to multiple > injecting agents. > > reinjection: taking a netnews article, converting it back into a > proto-article, and sending it to an injecting agent. > > By those definitions, he's not doing multiple injection because they're > mutually exclusive. (Well, unless his conversion process recovers exactly > the same proto-article as he had originally, which one can do with care in > a local news environment that's under one's complete control, but which is > not horribly interesting in the general case.) > I would call reinjection a subset of multiple injection. The article *purports* to be the same article (same Date:, same Message-ID), and the Netnews networks will treat it as if it was the same article. Any errors resulting in differences between the two articles are just that - errors. Harald From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Sat Aug 04 15:08:40 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IHOzQ-0000xQ-Ct for usefor-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sat, 04 Aug 2007 15:08:40 -0400 Received: from balder-227.proper.com ([192.245.12.227]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IHOzP-0006qv-Sl for usefor-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sat, 04 Aug 2007 15:08:40 -0400 Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l74J6sjN047503 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 4 Aug 2007 12:06:55 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id l74J6sSx047502; Sat, 4 Aug 2007 12:06:54 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp3.stanford.edu (smtp3.Stanford.EDU [171.67.20.26]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l74J6qqX047493 for ; Sat, 4 Aug 2007 12:06:52 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from smtp3.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 9C49E4C76C for ; Sat, 4 Aug 2007 12:06:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp3.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 811934C6A8 for ; Sat, 4 Aug 2007 12:06:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 7C6D9E7929; Sat, 4 Aug 2007 12:06:49 -0700 (PDT) From: Russ Allbery To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Definitions (Re: #1416 Injection-Date: proposed diff) In-Reply-To: (Harald Tveit Alvestrand's message of "Sat, 04 Aug 2007 20:40:26 +0200") Organization: The Eyrie References: <873azoqdqo.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87bqe0dsia.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <874pjm3bfi.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87ps29volj.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87ejiofo7s.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87bqdqy30j.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87lkcts03q.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87y7gs4l2s.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 12:06:49 -0700 Message-ID: <878x8r9l12.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: ffa9dfbbe7cc58b3fa6b8ae3e57b0aa3 Harald Tveit Alvestrand writes: > --On 3. august 2007 09:52 -0700 Russ Allbery wrote: >> multiple injection: sending the same proto-article to multiple >> injecting agents. >> >> reinjection: taking a netnews article, converting it back into a >> proto-article, and sending it to an injecting agent. >> >> By those definitions, he's not doing multiple injection because they're >> mutually exclusive. (Well, unless his conversion process recovers exactly >> the same proto-article as he had originally, which one can do with care in >> a local news environment that's under one's complete control, but which is >> not horribly interesting in the general case.) > I would call reinjection a subset of multiple injection. That's the approach I was taking, but it means that there isn't a term we can use to talk about the subset of multiple injection that's *not* reinjection, the approach that we're encouraging. Which was proving challenging. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Mon Aug 06 03:18:08 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IHwqt-0008Qw-VQ for usefor-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 06 Aug 2007 03:18:07 -0400 Received: from balder-227.proper.com ([192.245.12.227]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IHwqt-0005lp-CP for usefor-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 06 Aug 2007 03:18:07 -0400 Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l767FbPi074303 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 6 Aug 2007 00:15:37 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id l767FbKx074302; Mon, 6 Aug 2007 00:15:37 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l767FYlt074293 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2007 00:15:35 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from harald@alvestrand.no) Received: from localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BADD2580D3; Mon, 6 Aug 2007 09:15:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 23710-08; Mon, 6 Aug 2007 09:15:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id A36CF2580D1; Mon, 6 Aug 2007 09:15:29 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <46B6CA91.5070500@alvestrand.no> Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 09:15:29 +0200 From: Harald Alvestrand User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20070604) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Russ Allbery Cc: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Definitions (Re: #1416 Injection-Date: proposed diff) References: <873azoqdqo.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87bqe0dsia.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <874pjm3bfi.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87ps29volj.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87ejiofo7s.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87bqdqy30j.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87lkcts03q.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87y7gs4l2s.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <878x8r9l12.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> In-Reply-To: <878x8r9l12.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at alvestrand.no Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: cf4fa59384e76e63313391b70cd0dd25 Russ Allbery wrote: > H > >> I would call reinjection a subset of multiple injection. >> > > That's the approach I was taking, but it means that there isn't a term we > can use to talk about the subset of multiple injection that's *not* > reinjection, the approach that we're encouraging. Which was proving > challenging. > > "Parallel injection"? From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Mon Aug 06 04:04:28 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IHxZk-0004A1-ED for usefor-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 06 Aug 2007 04:04:28 -0400 Received: from balder-227.proper.com ([192.245.12.227]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IHxZj-0007cY-QK for usefor-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 06 Aug 2007 04:04:28 -0400 Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l7682Z1h076668 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 6 Aug 2007 01:02:35 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id l7682Zrm076667; Mon, 6 Aug 2007 01:02:35 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp3.stanford.edu (smtp3.Stanford.EDU [171.67.20.26]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l7682Yb2076660 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2007 01:02:34 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from smtp3.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id D10FD4C8FC for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2007 01:02:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp3.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C08854C8FA for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2007 01:02:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id BE1F6E79AA; Mon, 6 Aug 2007 01:02:33 -0700 (PDT) From: Russ Allbery To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Definitions (Re: #1416 Injection-Date: proposed diff) In-Reply-To: <46B6CA91.5070500@alvestrand.no> (Harald Alvestrand's message of "Mon, 06 Aug 2007 09:15:29 +0200") Organization: The Eyrie References: <873azoqdqo.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87bqe0dsia.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <874pjm3bfi.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87ps29volj.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87ejiofo7s.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87bqdqy30j.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87lkcts03q.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87y7gs4l2s.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <878x8r9l12.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <46B6CA91.5070500@alvestrand.no> Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 01:02:33 -0700 Message-ID: <87d4y1drae.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 856eb5f76e7a34990d1d457d8e8e5b7f Harald Alvestrand writes: > Russ Allbery wrote: >> That's the approach I was taking, but it means that there isn't a term >> we can use to talk about the subset of multiple injection that's *not* >> reinjection, the approach that we're encouraging. Which was proving >> challenging. > "Parallel injection"? That would work. Shall I add all three definitions to the definitions section? Or, asked better, does anyone have any objections to me doing so? -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Mon Aug 06 12:16:11 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1II5Fb-0007tb-IH for usefor-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 06 Aug 2007 12:16:11 -0400 Received: from balder-227.proper.com ([192.245.12.227]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1II5FZ-0001V0-RU for usefor-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 06 Aug 2007 12:16:11 -0400 Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l76GCA0q024383 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 6 Aug 2007 09:12:10 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id l76GCAe6024382; Mon, 6 Aug 2007 09:12:10 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lon-mail-4.gradwell.net (lon-mail-4.gradwell.net [193.111.201.130]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l76GC8oI024375 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2007 09:12:09 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from [80.175.135.89] ([80.175.135.89] helo=clerew.man.ac.uk country=GB ident=postmaster#pop3*clerew&man*ac*uk) by lon-mail-4.gradwell.net with esmtpa (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.243) id 46b74857.10e06.14 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Mon, 6 Aug 2007 17:12:07 +0100 (envelope-sender ) Received: from clerew.man.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id l76GC2S3017399 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2007 17:12:02 +0100 (BST) Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7/Submit) id l76GC1Wj017394 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Mon, 6 Aug 2007 17:12:01 +0100 (BST) To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:24739 Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: #1416 Injection-Date: proposed diff Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <873azoqdqo.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87bqe0dsia.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <874pjm3bfi.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87ps29volj.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87ejiofo7s.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87bqdqy30j.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87lkcts03q.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87y7gs4l2s.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 15:57:06 GMT Lines: 70 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: c0bedb65cce30976f0bf60a0a39edea4 In <87y7gs4l2s.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Russ Allbery writes: >"Charles Lindsey" writes: >He's doing multiple serial injection, not multiple parallel injection. >Yeah, we definitely do need to clarify terms here; I can see how it's hard >to have a conversation about this with the current terms. I think we >should probably go back to the terms we were using before and use: > multiple injection: sending the same proto-article to multiple > injecting agents. > reinjection: taking a netnews article, converting it back into a > proto-article, and sending it to an injecting agent. Yes, I think the terminology is really the point at issue. The actual protocol (who MUST/SHOULD/MAY do what, and when) is described correctly in what you have already written (apart from small differences between IR and IC, which are a separate issue). >By those definitions, he's not doing multiple injection because they're >mutually exclusive. (Well, unless his conversion process recovers exactly >the same proto-article as he had originally, which one can do with care in >a local news environment that's under one's complete control, but which is >not horribly interesting in the general case.) >> But, in fact he was multi-injecting, >He was injecting once and then reinjecting, thereby leaving himself open >to all of the possible problems created by running the article through an >injecting agent more than once. He SHOULD be doing multiple injection >instead (as defined above), for precisely that reason. No, this particular guy could not have done multiple injection, because he was not the original injector of that article. What he should have done is refrain from doing anything in this situation. Of course, if the original genuine injector had managed to put an Injection-Date there, then the possibility of harm arrising from what we should now call the reinjection is much reduced. >> And he would probably argue, also, that his whole setup - newsreader, >> CNEWS and all - could legitimately be regarded as one large MUA, since >> he intended it to appear that way to the world outside. >Posting agent, you mean, I assume. Posting/reading/followup. >Sure, if he wants to argue that, he can analyze it on that basis, but that >means he can't do IHAVE to any other site. Absolutely, but in this particular scenarion he wasn't (though there are a bunch of other scenarios where that might have been a problem). As we have said before, such leaks are bound to arise in the real world whatever we say, and insisting that an Injection-Date, once added, is NEVER removed protects against lots of them. But your wording now says that, which is fine. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Tue Aug 07 07:16:29 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IIN34-0007Uh-Td for usefor-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 07 Aug 2007 07:16:28 -0400 Received: from balder-227.proper.com ([192.245.12.227]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IIN33-0004ZT-Et for usefor-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 07 Aug 2007 07:16:26 -0400 Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l77BCRhv010530 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 7 Aug 2007 04:12:27 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id l77BCRS2010529; Tue, 7 Aug 2007 04:12:27 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lon-mail-1.gradwell.net (lon-mail-1.gradwell.net [193.111.201.125]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l77BCPA0010522 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2007 04:12:26 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from [80.175.135.89] ([80.175.135.89] helo=clerew.man.ac.uk country=GB ident=postmaster^pop3#clerew$man$ac*uk) by lon-mail-1.gradwell.net with esmtpa (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.243) id 46b85398.14fa0.27d for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Tue, 7 Aug 2007 12:12:24 +0100 (envelope-sender ) Received: from clerew.man.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id l77BC29r012117 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2007 12:12:02 +0100 (BST) Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7/Submit) id l77BC1aN012114 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Tue, 7 Aug 2007 12:12:01 +0100 (BST) To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:24742 Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: Definitions (Re: #1416 Injection-Date: proposed diff) Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <873azoqdqo.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87bqe0dsia.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <874pjm3bfi.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87ps29volj.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87ejiofo7s.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87bqdqy30j.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87lkcts03q.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87y7gs4l2s.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <878x8r9l12.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <46B6CA91.5070500@alvestrand.no> <87d4y1drae.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 10:58:48 GMT Lines: 24 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7d33c50f3756db14428398e2bdedd581 In <87d4y1drae.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Russ Allbery writes: >Harald Alvestrand writes: >> "Parallel injection"? >That would work. Shall I add all three definitions to the definitions >section? Or, asked better, does anyone have any objections to me doing >so? I am not sure there are three separate concepts. I think maybe "parallel injection" and "reinjection" are the two most useful. But Russ should play around with some wordings and see how they would work out. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 From owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Wed Aug 15 00:17:32 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ILAK4-00024G-P2 for usefor-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 15 Aug 2007 00:17:32 -0400 Received: from balder-227.proper.com ([192.245.12.227]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ILAK3-0000Pp-8e for usefor-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 15 Aug 2007 00:17:32 -0400 Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l7F4DOop084993 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 14 Aug 2007 21:13:24 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id l7F4DOa3084992; Tue, 14 Aug 2007 21:13:24 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail120.messagelabs.com (mail120.messagelabs.com [216.82.250.83]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l7F4DKxe084955 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 14 Aug 2007 21:13:21 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from tony@att.com) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: tony@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-9.tower-120.messagelabs.com!1187151198!24731320!1 X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.12.11; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.128.149] Received: (qmail 26538 invoked from network); 15 Aug 2007 04:13:19 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp9.sbc.com (HELO flph024.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com) (144.160.128.149) by server-9.tower-120.messagelabs.com with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 15 Aug 2007 04:13:19 -0000 Received: from enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by flph024.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l7F4DIlW001994; Tue, 14 Aug 2007 21:13:18 -0700 Received: from flph023.ffdc.sbc.com (flph023.ffdc.sbc.com [150.234.117.36]) by flph024.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l7F4DFO2001981; Tue, 14 Aug 2007 21:13:15 -0700 Received: from ffdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by flph023.ffdc.sbc.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l7F4DFnV006616; Tue, 14 Aug 2007 21:13:15 -0700 Received: from maillennium.att.com (dns.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by flph023.ffdc.sbc.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l7F4DCuZ006599; Tue, 14 Aug 2007 21:13:13 -0700 Received: from [135.210.112.131] (unknown[135.210.112.131](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with ESMTP id <20070815041310gw10010gb2e> (Authid: tony); Wed, 15 Aug 2007 04:13:12 +0000 Message-ID: <46C27D22.2080103@att.com> Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 00:12:18 -0400 From: Tony Hansen User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-822 mailing list CC: SMTP Interest Group , LEMONADE WG , IMAP extensions mailing list , EAI WG , POP3 extensions mailing list , USEFOR WG , SIMPLE WG Subject: Re: Mailing List Last Call for 2822 update internet-draft References: <46A82184.7030200@att.com> In-Reply-To: <46A82184.7030200@att.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8 The mailing list last call for the 2822 update is now over. I believe we have mailing list consensus on the issues that have been raised during the last call. After an updated draft is posted by Pete, we'll be moving the draft forward to IETF last call. Tony Tony Hansen wrote: > There have been some comments on draft-resnick-2822upd-* but they have > dwindled down to none. > > This is a "formal" Mailing List Last Call on > draft-resnick-2822upd-02.txt. The last call will last for two weeks > time, ending on August 10, 2007. > > The document will be discussed on the 822 mailing list, > . Please send your comments there. Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l7F4DOop084993 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 14 Aug 2007 21:13:24 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id l7F4DOa3084992; Tue, 14 Aug 2007 21:13:24 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail120.messagelabs.com (mail120.messagelabs.com [216.82.250.83]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l7F4DKxe084955 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 14 Aug 2007 21:13:21 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from tony@att.com) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: tony@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-9.tower-120.messagelabs.com!1187151198!24731320!1 X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.12.11; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.128.149] Received: (qmail 26538 invoked from network); 15 Aug 2007 04:13:19 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp9.sbc.com (HELO flph024.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com) (144.160.128.149) by server-9.tower-120.messagelabs.com with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 15 Aug 2007 04:13:19 -0000 Received: from enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by flph024.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l7F4DIlW001994; Tue, 14 Aug 2007 21:13:18 -0700 Received: from flph023.ffdc.sbc.com (flph023.ffdc.sbc.com [150.234.117.36]) by flph024.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l7F4DFO2001981; Tue, 14 Aug 2007 21:13:15 -0700 Received: from ffdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by flph023.ffdc.sbc.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l7F4DFnV006616; Tue, 14 Aug 2007 21:13:15 -0700 Received: from maillennium.att.com (dns.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by flph023.ffdc.sbc.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l7F4DCuZ006599; Tue, 14 Aug 2007 21:13:13 -0700 Received: from [135.210.112.131] (unknown[135.210.112.131](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with ESMTP id <20070815041310gw10010gb2e> (Authid: tony); Wed, 15 Aug 2007 04:13:12 +0000 Message-ID: <46C27D22.2080103@att.com> Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 00:12:18 -0400 From: Tony Hansen User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-822 mailing list CC: SMTP Interest Group , LEMONADE WG , IMAP extensions mailing list , EAI WG , POP3 extensions mailing list , USEFOR WG , SIMPLE WG Subject: Re: Mailing List Last Call for 2822 update internet-draft References: <46A82184.7030200@att.com> In-Reply-To: <46A82184.7030200@att.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: The mailing list last call for the 2822 update is now over. I believe we have mailing list consensus on the issues that have been raised during the last call. After an updated draft is posted by Pete, we'll be moving the draft forward to IETF last call. Tony Tony Hansen wrote: > There have been some comments on draft-resnick-2822upd-* but they have > dwindled down to none. > > This is a "formal" Mailing List Last Call on > draft-resnick-2822upd-02.txt. The last call will last for two weeks > time, ending on August 10, 2007. > > The document will be discussed on the 822 mailing list, > . Please send your comments there. Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l77BCRhv010530 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 7 Aug 2007 04:12:27 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id l77BCRS2010529; Tue, 7 Aug 2007 04:12:27 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lon-mail-1.gradwell.net (lon-mail-1.gradwell.net [193.111.201.125]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l77BCPA0010522 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2007 04:12:26 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from [80.175.135.89] ([80.175.135.89] helo=clerew.man.ac.uk country=GB ident=postmaster^pop3#clerew$man$ac*uk) by lon-mail-1.gradwell.net with esmtpa (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.243) id 46b85398.14fa0.27d for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Tue, 7 Aug 2007 12:12:24 +0100 (envelope-sender ) Received: from clerew.man.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id l77BC29r012117 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2007 12:12:02 +0100 (BST) Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7/Submit) id l77BC1aN012114 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Tue, 7 Aug 2007 12:12:01 +0100 (BST) To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:24742 Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: Definitions (Re: #1416 Injection-Date: proposed diff) Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <873azoqdqo.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87bqe0dsia.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <874pjm3bfi.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87ps29volj.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87ejiofo7s.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87bqdqy30j.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87lkcts03q.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87y7gs4l2s.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <878x8r9l12.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <46B6CA91.5070500@alvestrand.no> <87d4y1drae.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 10:58:48 GMT Lines: 24 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <87d4y1drae.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Russ Allbery writes: >Harald Alvestrand writes: >> "Parallel injection"? >That would work. Shall I add all three definitions to the definitions >section? Or, asked better, does anyone have any objections to me doing >so? I am not sure there are three separate concepts. I think maybe "parallel injection" and "reinjection" are the two most useful. But Russ should play around with some wordings and see how they would work out. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l76GCA0q024383 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 6 Aug 2007 09:12:10 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id l76GCAe6024382; Mon, 6 Aug 2007 09:12:10 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lon-mail-4.gradwell.net (lon-mail-4.gradwell.net [193.111.201.130]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l76GC8oI024375 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2007 09:12:09 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from [80.175.135.89] ([80.175.135.89] helo=clerew.man.ac.uk country=GB ident=postmaster#pop3*clerew&man*ac*uk) by lon-mail-4.gradwell.net with esmtpa (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.243) id 46b74857.10e06.14 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Mon, 6 Aug 2007 17:12:07 +0100 (envelope-sender ) Received: from clerew.man.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id l76GC2S3017399 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2007 17:12:02 +0100 (BST) Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7/Submit) id l76GC1Wj017394 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Mon, 6 Aug 2007 17:12:01 +0100 (BST) To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:24739 Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: #1416 Injection-Date: proposed diff Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <873azoqdqo.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87bqe0dsia.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <874pjm3bfi.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87ps29volj.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87ejiofo7s.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87bqdqy30j.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87lkcts03q.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87y7gs4l2s.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 15:57:06 GMT Lines: 70 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <87y7gs4l2s.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Russ Allbery writes: >"Charles Lindsey" writes: >He's doing multiple serial injection, not multiple parallel injection. >Yeah, we definitely do need to clarify terms here; I can see how it's hard >to have a conversation about this with the current terms. I think we >should probably go back to the terms we were using before and use: > multiple injection: sending the same proto-article to multiple > injecting agents. > reinjection: taking a netnews article, converting it back into a > proto-article, and sending it to an injecting agent. Yes, I think the terminology is really the point at issue. The actual protocol (who MUST/SHOULD/MAY do what, and when) is described correctly in what you have already written (apart from small differences between IR and IC, which are a separate issue). >By those definitions, he's not doing multiple injection because they're >mutually exclusive. (Well, unless his conversion process recovers exactly >the same proto-article as he had originally, which one can do with care in >a local news environment that's under one's complete control, but which is >not horribly interesting in the general case.) >> But, in fact he was multi-injecting, >He was injecting once and then reinjecting, thereby leaving himself open >to all of the possible problems created by running the article through an >injecting agent more than once. He SHOULD be doing multiple injection >instead (as defined above), for precisely that reason. No, this particular guy could not have done multiple injection, because he was not the original injector of that article. What he should have done is refrain from doing anything in this situation. Of course, if the original genuine injector had managed to put an Injection-Date there, then the possibility of harm arrising from what we should now call the reinjection is much reduced. >> And he would probably argue, also, that his whole setup - newsreader, >> CNEWS and all - could legitimately be regarded as one large MUA, since >> he intended it to appear that way to the world outside. >Posting agent, you mean, I assume. Posting/reading/followup. >Sure, if he wants to argue that, he can analyze it on that basis, but that >means he can't do IHAVE to any other site. Absolutely, but in this particular scenarion he wasn't (though there are a bunch of other scenarios where that might have been a problem). As we have said before, such leaks are bound to arise in the real world whatever we say, and insisting that an Injection-Date, once added, is NEVER removed protects against lots of them. But your wording now says that, which is fine. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l7682Z1h076668 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 6 Aug 2007 01:02:35 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id l7682Zrm076667; Mon, 6 Aug 2007 01:02:35 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp3.stanford.edu (smtp3.Stanford.EDU [171.67.20.26]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l7682Yb2076660 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2007 01:02:34 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from smtp3.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id D10FD4C8FC for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2007 01:02:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp3.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C08854C8FA for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2007 01:02:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id BE1F6E79AA; Mon, 6 Aug 2007 01:02:33 -0700 (PDT) From: Russ Allbery To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Definitions (Re: #1416 Injection-Date: proposed diff) In-Reply-To: <46B6CA91.5070500@alvestrand.no> (Harald Alvestrand's message of "Mon, 06 Aug 2007 09:15:29 +0200") Organization: The Eyrie References: <873azoqdqo.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87bqe0dsia.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <874pjm3bfi.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87ps29volj.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87ejiofo7s.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87bqdqy30j.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87lkcts03q.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87y7gs4l2s.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <878x8r9l12.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <46B6CA91.5070500@alvestrand.no> Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 01:02:33 -0700 Message-ID: <87d4y1drae.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Harald Alvestrand writes: > Russ Allbery wrote: >> That's the approach I was taking, but it means that there isn't a term >> we can use to talk about the subset of multiple injection that's *not* >> reinjection, the approach that we're encouraging. Which was proving >> challenging. > "Parallel injection"? That would work. Shall I add all three definitions to the definitions section? Or, asked better, does anyone have any objections to me doing so? -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l767FbPi074303 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 6 Aug 2007 00:15:37 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id l767FbKx074302; Mon, 6 Aug 2007 00:15:37 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l767FYlt074293 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2007 00:15:35 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from harald@alvestrand.no) Received: from localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BADD2580D3; Mon, 6 Aug 2007 09:15:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 23710-08; Mon, 6 Aug 2007 09:15:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id A36CF2580D1; Mon, 6 Aug 2007 09:15:29 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <46B6CA91.5070500@alvestrand.no> Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 09:15:29 +0200 From: Harald Alvestrand User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20070604) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Russ Allbery Cc: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Definitions (Re: #1416 Injection-Date: proposed diff) References: <873azoqdqo.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87bqe0dsia.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <874pjm3bfi.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87ps29volj.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87ejiofo7s.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87bqdqy30j.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87lkcts03q.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87y7gs4l2s.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <878x8r9l12.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> In-Reply-To: <878x8r9l12.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at alvestrand.no Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Russ Allbery wrote: > H > >> I would call reinjection a subset of multiple injection. >> > > That's the approach I was taking, but it means that there isn't a term we > can use to talk about the subset of multiple injection that's *not* > reinjection, the approach that we're encouraging. Which was proving > challenging. > > "Parallel injection"? Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l74J6sjN047503 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 4 Aug 2007 12:06:55 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id l74J6sSx047502; Sat, 4 Aug 2007 12:06:54 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp3.stanford.edu (smtp3.Stanford.EDU [171.67.20.26]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l74J6qqX047493 for ; Sat, 4 Aug 2007 12:06:52 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from smtp3.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 9C49E4C76C for ; Sat, 4 Aug 2007 12:06:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp3.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 811934C6A8 for ; Sat, 4 Aug 2007 12:06:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 7C6D9E7929; Sat, 4 Aug 2007 12:06:49 -0700 (PDT) From: Russ Allbery To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: Definitions (Re: #1416 Injection-Date: proposed diff) In-Reply-To: (Harald Tveit Alvestrand's message of "Sat, 04 Aug 2007 20:40:26 +0200") Organization: The Eyrie References: <873azoqdqo.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87bqe0dsia.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <874pjm3bfi.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87ps29volj.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87ejiofo7s.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87bqdqy30j.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87lkcts03q.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87y7gs4l2s.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 12:06:49 -0700 Message-ID: <878x8r9l12.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Harald Tveit Alvestrand writes: > --On 3. august 2007 09:52 -0700 Russ Allbery wrote: >> multiple injection: sending the same proto-article to multiple >> injecting agents. >> >> reinjection: taking a netnews article, converting it back into a >> proto-article, and sending it to an injecting agent. >> >> By those definitions, he's not doing multiple injection because they're >> mutually exclusive. (Well, unless his conversion process recovers exactly >> the same proto-article as he had originally, which one can do with care in >> a local news environment that's under one's complete control, but which is >> not horribly interesting in the general case.) > I would call reinjection a subset of multiple injection. That's the approach I was taking, but it means that there isn't a term we can use to talk about the subset of multiple injection that's *not* reinjection, the approach that we're encouraging. Which was proving challenging. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l74IfuoX046065 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 4 Aug 2007 11:41:56 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id l74Ifuhv046064; Sat, 4 Aug 2007 11:41:56 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l74IfsYw046053 for ; Sat, 4 Aug 2007 11:41:55 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from harald@alvestrand.no) Received: from localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D0952596BB; Sat, 4 Aug 2007 20:41:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 18328-02; Sat, 4 Aug 2007 20:41:49 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [172.28.62.111] (162.80-203-220.nextgentel.com [80.203.220.162]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id C78C62596BA; Sat, 4 Aug 2007 20:41:48 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 20:40:26 +0200 From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand To: Russ Allbery , ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Definitions (Re: #1416 Injection-Date: proposed diff) Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <87y7gs4l2s.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> References: <873azoqdqo.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87bqe0dsia.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <874pjm3bfi.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87ps29volj.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87ejiofo7s.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87bqdqy30j.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87lkcts03q.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87y7gs4l2s.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.7 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at alvestrand.no Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Changing the subject line once in a while is a nice thing.... --On 3. august 2007 09:52 -0700 Russ Allbery wrote: > > multiple injection: sending the same proto-article to multiple > injecting agents. > > reinjection: taking a netnews article, converting it back into a > proto-article, and sending it to an injecting agent. > > By those definitions, he's not doing multiple injection because they're > mutually exclusive. (Well, unless his conversion process recovers exactly > the same proto-article as he had originally, which one can do with care in > a local news environment that's under one's complete control, but which is > not horribly interesting in the general case.) > I would call reinjection a subset of multiple injection. The article *purports* to be the same article (same Date:, same Message-ID), and the Netnews networks will treat it as if it was the same article. Any errors resulting in differences between the two articles are just that - errors. Harald Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l73GqSRv035639 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 3 Aug 2007 09:52:28 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id l73GqST7035638; Fri, 3 Aug 2007 09:52:28 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp2.stanford.edu (smtp2.Stanford.EDU [171.67.20.25]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l73GqRkf035631 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2007 09:52:28 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from smtp2.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 7E0484C5B4 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2007 09:52:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp2.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4292F4C5B3 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2007 09:52:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 3FEF0E7E3B; Fri, 3 Aug 2007 09:52:27 -0700 (PDT) From: Russ Allbery To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: #1416 Injection-Date: proposed diff In-Reply-To: (Charles Lindsey's message of "Fri, 3 Aug 2007 13:01:21 GMT") Organization: The Eyrie References: <873azoqdqo.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87bqe0dsia.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <874pjm3bfi.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87ps29volj.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87ejiofo7s.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87bqdqy30j.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87lkcts03q.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 09:52:27 -0700 Message-ID: <87y7gs4l2s.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: "Charles Lindsey" writes: > Yes, I suppose he is technically doing reinjection, since he injected it > into his own server, and his own server then reinjected when it sent it > on. There's nothing technical about it. That's exactly what he's doing. > But that is little more than hair splitting, since the article as thus > injected the first time is still a valid proto-article, and contains no > evidence of the event apart from an entry in the Path (and odd entries > at the RH end of the Path are commonly put there for all sorts of odd > reasons). It's not hair-splitting -- it's the entire point. This is why strict definitions of agents and strict statements about flow between those agents are important! Someone who takes an existing news article and injects it again, rather than taking the same proto-article and injecting it in multiple locations, is reinjecting. They therefore are responsible for getting the details right as described in our draft. It's possible that this will mean specifically *not* doing some things, rather than anything they have to do. But any time you do that, no matter why you're doing that, you're doing reinjection and have to pay attention to the relevant parts of the protocol. > But that 'technical' reinjection was not the cause of the problem. The > man was totally convinced that he was not doing multi-injection (and so > maybe saw no reason to provide an Injection-Date). He's doing multiple serial injection, not multiple parallel injection. Yeah, we definitely do need to clarify terms here; I can see how it's hard to have a conversation about this with the current terms. I think we should probably go back to the terms we were using before and use: multiple injection: sending the same proto-article to multiple injecting agents. reinjection: taking a netnews article, converting it back into a proto-article, and sending it to an injecting agent. By those definitions, he's not doing multiple injection because they're mutually exclusive. (Well, unless his conversion process recovers exactly the same proto-article as he had originally, which one can do with care in a local news environment that's under one's complete control, but which is not horribly interesting in the general case.) > But, in fact he was multi-injecting, He was injecting once and then reinjecting, thereby leaving himself open to all of the possible problems created by running the article through an injecting agent more than once. He SHOULD be doing multiple injection instead (as defined above), for precisely that reason. Of course, he certainly MAY add Injection-Date headers regardless, to be more robust against people (including possibly himself) violating that SHOULD. > And I did not necessarily mean to imply that that he had written that > script himself - it could have been obtained from all sorts of sources. This still isn't creating a situation where no one has responsibility for knowing that reinjection is happening. > And he would probably argue, also, that his whole setup - newsreader, > CNEWS and all - could legitimately be regarded as one large MUA, since > he intended it to appear that way to the world outside. Posting agent, you mean, I assume. Sure, if he wants to argue that, he can analyze it on that basis, but that means he can't do IHAVE to any other site. As soon as his supposed posting agent starts also acting like an injecting or relaying agent, doing things that posting agents don't do, it's clear that he can't treat it as a single monolithic entity and has to analyze the components for compliance. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l73GC5E9032869 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 3 Aug 2007 09:12:06 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id l73GC50e032868; Fri, 3 Aug 2007 09:12:05 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lon-mail-4.gradwell.net (lon-mail-4.gradwell.net [193.111.201.130]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l73GC4dx032847 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2007 09:12:05 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from [80.175.135.89] ([80.175.135.89] helo=clerew.man.ac.uk country=GB ident=postmaster^pop3&clerew$man#ac$uk) by lon-mail-4.gradwell.net with esmtpa (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.243) id 46b353d3.f76a.54b for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Fri, 3 Aug 2007 17:12:03 +0100 (envelope-sender ) Received: from clerew.man.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id l73GC1Nd009185 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2007 17:12:01 +0100 (BST) Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7/Submit) id l73GC1MV009182 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Fri, 3 Aug 2007 17:12:01 +0100 (BST) To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:24735 Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: #1416 Injection-Date: proposed diff Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <873azoqdqo.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87bqe0dsia.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <874pjm3bfi.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87ps29volj.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87ejiofo7s.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87bqdqy30j.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87lkcts03q.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 13:01:21 GMT Lines: 47 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <87lkcts03q.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Russ Allbery writes: >"Charles Lindsey" writes: >> CNEWS out of the box is configured to use UUCP, and its facilities for >> using NNTP are somewhat rudimentary. But if you provide it with a script >> that will call some NNTP server using the proper POST command, then it >> will use it. >Then that script is reinjection software. So the person who wrote that >script is doing reinjection, and is responsible for following the rules >for doing so. And that person *wrote* reinjection software, so certainly >knows that he's doing reinjection. (He may not, however, know that's what >it's called, or that it's potentially dangerous.) Yes, I suppose he is technically doing reinjection, since he injected it into his own server, and his own server then reinjected when it sent it on. But that is little more than hair splitting, since the article as thus injected the first time is still a valid proto-article, and contains no evidence of the event apart from an entry in the Path (and odd entries at the RH end of the Path are commonly put there for all sorts of odd reasons). That will, of course, change when once injected articles contain Injection-Info and Injection-Date headers, etc, and if the man takes steps to remove those then he is getting to more dangerous ground. But that 'technical' reinjection was not the cause of the problem. The man was totally convinced that he was not doing multi-injection (and so maybe saw no reason to provide an Injection-Date). But, in fact he was multi-injecting, in the one rare case that he had overlooked (and that is typical of the way that "leaks" come about). And I did not necessarily mean to imply that that he had written that script himself - it could have been obtained from all sorts of sources. And he would probably argue, also, that his whole setup - newsreader, CNEWS and all - could legitimately be regarded as one large MUA, since he intended it to appear that way to the world outside. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l73506jl067129 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 2 Aug 2007 22:00:06 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id l73506iU067128; Thu, 2 Aug 2007 22:00:06 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp2.stanford.edu (smtp2.Stanford.EDU [171.67.20.25]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l735048P067122 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2007 22:00:05 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from smtp2.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id AE0014C210 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2007 21:59:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp2.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40CD14C758 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2007 21:39:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 3AD7AE7B5A; Thu, 2 Aug 2007 21:39:21 -0700 (PDT) From: Russ Allbery To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: #1416 Injection-Date: proposed diff In-Reply-To: (Charles Lindsey's message of "Thu, 2 Aug 2007 17:38:04 GMT") Organization: The Eyrie References: <873azoqdqo.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87bqe0dsia.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <874pjm3bfi.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87ps29volj.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87ejiofo7s.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87bqdqy30j.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 21:39:21 -0700 Message-ID: <87lkcts03q.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: "Charles Lindsey" writes: > CNEWS out of the box is configured to use UUCP, and its facilities for > using NNTP are somewhat rudimentary. But if you provide it with a script > that will call some NNTP server using the proper POST command, then it > will use it. Then that script is reinjection software. So the person who wrote that script is doing reinjection, and is responsible for following the rules for doing so. And that person *wrote* reinjection software, so certainly knows that he's doing reinjection. (He may not, however, know that's what it's called, or that it's potentially dangerous.) > Now you may argue that using a full-fledged server such as CNEWS at home > is a dangerous tool in the hands of the unskilled, but lots of people > find it convenient to do it, and you may be sure that some of them are > less skilled than others. CNEWS is just fine on this particular front. CNEWS contains no reinjection software. The script is what's causing any potential problems, since it's now doing reinjection, which is inherently tricky and must be done carefully. > But for sure you cannot say that this guy "knew" that his system might > reinject; But he wrote a script that didn't otherwise exist specifically to do so! > What is "regular news software"? Software like CNEWS, or trn, or Netscape, or any other bit of software that uses the normal convention of POST for injection and IHAVE for relaying and which doesn't POST articles it obtained from elsewhere. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l734Hews063759 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 2 Aug 2007 21:17:40 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id l734HePX063758; Thu, 2 Aug 2007 21:17:40 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lon-mail-4.gradwell.net (lon-mail-4.gradwell.net [193.111.201.130]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l734HdXS063752 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2007 21:17:39 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from [80.175.135.89] ([80.175.135.89] helo=clerew.man.ac.uk country=GB ident=postmaster#pop3$clerew#man#ac&uk) by lon-mail-4.gradwell.net with esmtpa (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.243) id 46b2ac62.8b19.85 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Fri, 3 Aug 2007 05:17:38 +0100 (envelope-sender ) Received: from clerew.man.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id l734HVPa012216 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2007 05:17:31 +0100 (BST) Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7/Submit) id l734HUFJ012213 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Fri, 3 Aug 2007 05:17:30 +0100 (BST) To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:24733 Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: #1416 Injection-Date: proposed diff Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <873azoqdqo.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87bqe0dsia.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <874pjm3bfi.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87ps29volj.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87ejiofo7s.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87bqdqy30j.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 17:38:04 GMT Lines: 70 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <87bqdqy30j.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Russ Allbery writes: >I don't know if I'm just not being clear or why we're having so much >trouble communicating. >If he has *any* software installed on his system *anywhere* that will >taken an existing post and reinject it, he has reinjection software. He >therefore knows he has reinjection software and it is his responsibility >to configure it to do the right thing (and the right thing does not depend >on hierarchy or where the post is going). It is not possible for him to >be doing reinjection and not know it. On the contrary, it is perfectly possible if you are using CNEWS (and probably BNEWS before it). I wouldn't know what INN would do. CNEWS out of the box is configured to use UUCP, and its facilities for using NNTP are somewhat rudimentary. But if you provide it with a script that will call some NNTP server using the proper POST command, then it will use it. So this guy has arranged to use such a script to inject stuff both to the central node of his local network and to the server provided by his ISP. And he has configured his sys file to send articles to the local groups to the that central node, and usenet groups to his ISP. And he honestly believes that everything he sends is injecting to exactly one of those servers. And his sysfile also ensures that stuff arriving from one of those servers is never sent back to it (by looking at the incoming Paths, of course). And it all appears to work. Now you may argue that using a full-fledged server such as CNEWS at home is a dangerous tool in the hands of the unskilled, but lots of people find it convenient to do it, and you may be sure that some of them are less skilled than others. What this guy forgot, of course, is the case of cross posts between local and Usenet groups (which were doubtless very rare anyway). But as he has it, such an article arriving from the central server of the local network will get sent out on the Usenet link. The sys file can easily be configured to prevent that, once you have been made aware of the problem. But for sure you cannot say that this guy "knew" that his system might reinject; you can say that he SHOULD have known it, but in fact for an unskilled bloke he did pretty well to get it configured as well as he did. > Regular news software does not do >reinjection. He has explicitly installed and configured software to do >that, and that software can therefore be configured appropriately. What is "regular news software"? >It doesn't matter whether it's possible to accidentally direct posts to it >or not. That's not at all the point. The point is that there's normal >news software and there's reinjection software and it's quite clear which >is which. And there is also software which can do both. It would not surprise me that INN could have been misconfigured in that way, but my knowledge of INN is extremely limited. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l724Rf5v040292 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 1 Aug 2007 21:27:42 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id l724RftL040291; Wed, 1 Aug 2007 21:27:41 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp3.stanford.edu (smtp3.Stanford.EDU [171.67.20.26]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l724Rf9D040285 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2007 21:27:41 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from rra@stanford.edu) Received: from smtp3.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 899DC4C16E for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2007 21:27:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp3.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7268F4C144 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2007 21:27:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 69313E7B87; Wed, 1 Aug 2007 21:27:40 -0700 (PDT) From: Russ Allbery To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Subject: Re: #1416 Injection-Date: proposed diff In-Reply-To: (Charles Lindsey's message of "Wed, 1 Aug 2007 20:23:57 GMT") Organization: The Eyrie References: <873azoqdqo.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87bqe0dsia.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <874pjm3bfi.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87ps29volj.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87ejiofo7s.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 21:27:40 -0700 Message-ID: <87bqdqy30j.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: "Charles Lindsey" writes: > Russ Allbery writes: >> Not if he's using POST he doesn't, and if he's not using POST, he's not >> reinjecting. > Yes, but even if the mail is sent to a site where your configuration > causes POST to be used, it is still pretty easy to inadvertently > misconfigure a sys file so that the effect happens. And it may be an > awful long time before the guy recognizes that he is misconfigured. I don't know if I'm just not being clear or why we're having so much trouble communicating. If he has *any* software installed on his system *anywhere* that will taken an existing post and reinject it, he has reinjection software. He therefore knows he has reinjection software and it is his responsibility to configure it to do the right thing (and the right thing does not depend on hierarchy or where the post is going). It is not possible for him to be doing reinjection and not know it. Regular news software does not do reinjection. He has explicitly installed and configured software to do that, and that software can therefore be configured appropriately. It doesn't matter whether it's possible to accidentally direct posts to it or not. That's not at all the point. The point is that there's normal news software and there's reinjection software and it's quite clear which is which. There's no ambiguity about what a particular piece of software is doing. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l724HulZ039742 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 1 Aug 2007 21:17:56 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id l724Huxq039741; Wed, 1 Aug 2007 21:17:56 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from lon-mail-4.gradwell.net (lon-mail-4.gradwell.net [193.111.201.130]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l724HrAZ039735 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2007 21:17:54 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from news@clerew.man.ac.uk) Received: from [80.175.135.89] ([80.175.135.89] helo=clerew.man.ac.uk country=GB ident=postmaster^pop3#clerew#man$ac#uk) by lon-mail-4.gradwell.net with esmtpa (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.243) id 46b15af0.15d3d.2ff for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Thu, 2 Aug 2007 05:17:52 +0100 (envelope-sender ) Received: from clerew.man.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id l724HqT8027887 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2007 05:17:52 +0100 (BST) Received: (from news@localhost) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7/Submit) id l724Howf027884 for ietf-usefor@imc.org; Thu, 2 Aug 2007 05:17:50 +0100 (BST) To: ietf-usefor@imc.org Xref: clerew local.usefor:24731 Path: clerew!chl From: "Charles Lindsey" Subject: Re: #1416 Injection-Date: proposed diff Message-ID: X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV) References: <873azoqdqo.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87bqe0dsia.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <874pjm3bfi.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87ps29volj.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <87ejiofo7s.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 20:23:57 GMT Lines: 33 Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In <87ejiofo7s.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Russ Allbery writes: >"Charles Lindsey" writes: >> Russ Allbery writes: >>> So he still knows he's reinjecting (or not) and therefore his software >>> still handles Injection-Date properly unless his software has been >>> broken all along for comp.* as well. >> No, he thinks he is just relaying an article to comp.misc. >Not if he's using POST he doesn't, and if he's not using POST, he's not >reinjecting. Yes, but even if the mail is sent to a site where your configuration causes POST to be used, it is still pretty easy to inadvertently misconfigure a sys file so that the effect happens. And it may be an awful long time before the guy recognizes that he is misconfigured. I should know, because I once had a sys file misconfigured in that way, and it was some time before I noticed that I was sending out far more material than I should. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5