Re: cr

Message-ID	<5276AFAA.80507@Damon-Family.org> (permalink)
From	Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.php
Subject	Re: cr
References	(6 earlier) <1434655.Yjjdx3QzlV@PointedEars.de> <wcEbu.10265$UA3.1277@en-nntp-08.dc1.easynews.com> <2853216.eVYhDPjVhS@PointedEars.de> <X6Fcu.100141$gp1.11611@en-nntp-16.dc1.easynews.com> <1476572.Laj1mbFmap@PointedEars.de>
Organization	Forte Inc. http://www.forteinc.com/apn/
Date	2013-11-03 15:18 -0500

Show all headers | View raw

On 11/3/13, 9:29 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Richard Damon wrote:

> It rather shows that you are trolling since you are at least vaguely aware 
> how Cancel messages work, and what they mean, and not only reply regardless 
> but also deny their significance.
> 
>> Cancel messages are purely advisory,
> 
> Cancel messages are control messages.  A news server may ignore them at own 
> risk.  That does not make them “purely advisory”.
> 
> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5536#section-3.2.3> pp.


Note that RFC5537 which defines the cancel message, describes it as a
request, and that serving agents may elect to honor them or not. It is
NOT "ignore at your own risk"
> 
>> and routinely ignored by the backbone
> 
> There is no “backbone”; Usenet is explicitly decentralized.  Each news 
> server administrator can set their own rules regarding to which messages to 
> accept from which peers, which to keep, and which to distribute to which 
> peers.
> 

Having a backbone and being decentralized are NOT contradictory states.
There is a backbone of "Tier 1" servers that handle most of the "long
haul" connections. These then peer with Tier 2 servers, and down the
line. Better lower tier servers will connect with multiple upstream
peers for redundancy.

>> because they are not authenticated.
> 
> Some news servers now require Cancel messages to be authenticated before 
> executed, that is, to match the lock-signature of the posting to be 
> canceled; others (like the one I am using since about 10 years) do not.
> 
>> It has been decades since one could expect a cancel to work.
> 
> Utter nonsense.  That a Cancel message works was the general idea.  It was 
> only after some people abused this feature that some servers decided to 
> ignore cancels or require authentication.
> 
And this abuse happened decades ago, my experience is that cancels did
not work in the mid 90's (which is about 2 decades ago). My experience
is that MOST servers ignore cancels, as they have for decades.

> The Internet draft for lock-signing messages, and cancel messages to match 
> that signature, is a lot younger than that.  And it has expired even though 
> it is implemented.
> 
> <http://wiki.killfile.org/projects/usenet/faqs/cancel/>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_message>
> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-usefor-cancel-lock-01>
> <http://individual.net/faq.php#1.12>
> 

An expired draft RFC does not establish rules to run the internet. The
fact that it IS an expired draft indicates that there were likely
problems in implementing it. There may be a few servers which implement
this, but that hardly makes it something to be counted on. Plus, since
your message didn't have the needed headers to begin with, this is
irrevelent.

> So much for *your* “understanding of Usenet and the applicability of RFCs”.  
> It is also exemplified by the way you changed the Subject header field 
> value.

That was purely accidental. A feline felt they were being ignore and
pushed some keys, as I was getting ready to send.

> F'up2 poster
Follow up ignored.
>

Thread

checking for audio playing ??? richard <noreply@example.com> - 2013-10-27 10:58 -0400
  Re: checking for audio playing ??? Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2013-10-27 16:45 +0100
    Re: checking for audio playing ??? richard <noreply@example.com> - 2013-10-27 12:01 -0400
  Re: checking for audio playing ??? Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2013-10-27 17:53 +0000
    Re: checking for audio playing ??? richard <noreply@example.com> - 2013-10-27 14:24 -0400
      Re: checking for audio playing ??? Doug Miller <doug_at_milmac_dot_com@example.com> - 2013-10-27 18:38 +0000
      Re: checking for audio playing ??? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2013-10-27 14:43 -0400
        Re: checking for audio playing ??? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-10-28 03:22 +0100
          Re: checking for audio playing ??? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-10-28 05:49 -0400
          Re: checking for audio playing ??? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2013-10-28 08:11 -0400
            Re: checking for audio playing ??? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-10-28 14:37 +0100
            Re: checking for audio playing ??? "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous@example.invalid> - 2013-10-28 13:49 +0000
            Re: checking for audio playing ??? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-10-28 10:01 -0400
            Re: checking for audio playing ??? Scott Johnson <noonehome@chalupasworld.com> - 2013-10-28 11:36 -0700
            Re: checking for audio playing ??? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2013-10-28 21:29 -0400
              Re: checking for audio playing ??? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-10-29 12:18 +0100
                cr Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2013-10-31 23:21 -0400
                Re: cr Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-11-03 15:29 +0100
                Re: cr Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-11-03 09:34 -0500
                Re: cr Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2013-11-03 15:18 -0500
            Re: checking for audio playing ??? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2013-10-29 20:12 +0100
              Re: checking for audio playing ??? Doug Miller <doug_at_milmac_dot_com@example.com> - 2013-10-29 20:21 +0000
          Re: checking for audio playing ??? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2013-10-29 20:10 +0100
            server-side vs.client-side (was: checking for audio playing ???) Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2013-10-29 21:45 +0100
              Re: server-side vs.client-side Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-10-29 20:54 -0400
                Re: server-side vs.client-side Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2013-10-30 03:18 +0100
                Re: server-side vs.client-side Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-10-29 22:31 -0400
                Re: server-side vs.client-side Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2013-10-30 09:20 +0100
                Re: server-side vs.client-side Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2013-10-30 19:04 +0100
                Re: server-side vs.client-side Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-10-30 14:58 -0400
                Re: server-side vs.client-side Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2013-10-30 20:54 +0100
                Re: server-side vs.client-side Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-10-30 16:21 -0400
                Re: server-side vs.client-side Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2013-10-30 21:55 +0100
                Re: server-side vs.client-side Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-10-30 17:07 -0400
                Re: server-side vs.client-side Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2013-10-31 09:40 +0100
                Re: server-side vs.client-side Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2013-10-31 23:03 +0100
                Re: server-side vs.client-side Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-10-31 20:38 -0400
                Re: server-side vs.client-side Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-11-02 17:57 +0100
                Re: server-side vs.client-side Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2013-11-02 19:36 +0100
                Re: server-side vs.client-side The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-11-02 18:44 +0000
                Re: server-side vs.client-side Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2013-11-03 00:28 +0000
                Re: server-side vs.client-side Doug Miller <doug_at_milmac_dot_com@example.com> - 2013-11-02 19:01 +0000
                Re: server-side vs.client-side Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-11-02 21:40 -0400
                Re: server-side vs.client-side Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2013-11-01 09:53 -0700
                Re: server-side vs.client-side Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-11-01 13:53 -0400
                Re: server-side vs.client-side Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2013-11-01 21:10 +0000
                Re: server-side vs.client-side The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-11-01 22:25 +0000
                Re: server-side vs.client-side Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2013-11-01 22:29 +0000
                Re: server-side vs.client-side Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-11-01 20:37 -0400
                Re: server-side vs.client-side Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2013-11-02 01:26 +0100
                Re: server-side vs.client-side The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-11-01 18:37 +0000
                Re: server-side vs.client-side Stefan+Usenet@Froehlich.Priv.at (Stefan Froehlich) - 2013-11-01 19:19 +0000
                Re: server-side vs.client-side Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2013-11-02 01:24 +0100
                Re: server-side vs.client-side Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-11-02 17:46 +0100
                Re: server-side vs.client-side Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2013-11-02 15:41 -0400
                Re: server-side vs.client-side Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2013-11-02 21:37 +0000
                Re: server-side vs.client-side Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2013-11-03 10:48 +0100
                Re: server-side vs.client-side Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2013-11-03 10:28 +0000
                Re: server-side vs.client-side Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2013-11-05 11:15 +0100
                Re: server-side vs.client-side Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2013-11-05 12:47 +0000
                Re: server-side vs.client-side Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-11-03 14:16 +0100
                Re: server-side vs.client-side Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2013-11-03 16:00 +0000
                Re: server-side vs.client-side Chuck Anderson <cycletourist@invalid.invalid> - 2013-11-03 14:52 -0700
                Re: server-side vs.client-side Chuck Anderson <cycletourist@invalid.invalid> - 2013-11-03 23:19 -0700
                Re: server-side vs.client-side Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2013-11-04 18:02 +0000
              Re: server-side vs.client-side Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2013-10-30 09:09 +0100
      Re: checking for audio playing ??? Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2013-10-28 15:23 +0000
        Re: checking for audio playing ??? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-10-28 16:56 +0000
  Re: checking for audio playing ??? Doug Miller <doug_at_milmac_dot_com@example.com> - 2013-10-27 18:22 +0000
  Re: checking for audio playing ??? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2013-10-28 20:02 +0100

csiph-web