Draft specification for future X-Trace header
md at linux.it
Tue Jul 4 21:20:45 UTC 2000
On Jul 04, Olaf Titz <olaf at bigred.inka.de> wrote:
>Any news system which an article crosses MAY insert an X-Trace header.
>However, this SHOULD NOT be done in the normal forwarding of articles,
>but only at injection points and gateways (of any kind).
I think this should really, really be a MUST NOT.
>header = "X-Trace:" LWSP systemid *(LWSP item)
>LWSP = linear-white-space
Does LWSP contains newlines? (To allow folding.)
>The first /ctoken/ SHOULD always be the base64 encoding of the original
>mail's Message-ID. If no such header is present, the news Message-ID
>generated by the gateway should be used. All gateways SHOULD use this
>information to prevent loops.
I don't think X-Trace should be extended to do that, it looks very
If Message-ID munging is a problem, the Message-IDs should be munged
the same way by all gateway. Look at News::Gateway about this topic.
>Any X-Trace header present in an article coming in, whether by POST or
>regular feed, MUST NOT be changed or deleted. One additional X-Trace
>header MAY be added. An article SHOULD NOT be rejected just because of
>the presence of an X-Trace header. (Note this is changed from current
I don't agree. Please provide a rationale.
How could people find the right header then?
> This information can be used for rate-limiting. However, if more
> than one X-Trace header is present, a rejection caused by comparing
> only one of them SHOULD NOT be noted in the article history (because
> it may have come from a legitimate POST feed).
POST newsfeeds are evil.
More information about the inn-workers