Cancel distribution network ideas
md at linux.it
Sun Apr 16 19:14:08 UTC 2000
On Apr 15, Olaf Titz <olaf at bigred.inka.de> wrote:
>This is basically like NoCeM with all the formatting removed, and
>without indication of the target newsgroups. (Should we keep the
Yes, because sites which don't get a full feed want cancels, but
will not want to waste bandwidth for cancels in groups they don't carry.
>- Receive messages on a UDP port,
>- Accept connections from configured peers on a TCP port,
What about UUCP systems?
>Message loop detection:
>- Each message contains a hop counter which is incremented on the way.
> When it reaches a configured maximum, the message is discarded.
>- Messages carry a timestamp, they are discarded when too old.
This is very ugly because a lot of cancels will be sent more than one
time to the same peer. You are stripping a lot to reduce size, but you
have not showed why you think current cancels are too big.
>- It can be assumed that one issuer does not issue more than one
> message with the same timestamp (i.e. more than one per second).
You can't assume this! Most cancelbots generates more than one cancel
Why reinventing the wheel? I think cancels should be carried with the
same protocol of normal articles, because that will solve all problems
except authentication. I think we should consider developing (another)
extension for authenticating traditional cancels or maybe a new kind of
More information about the inn-workers