Draft specification for future X-Trace header

Marco d'Itri md at linux.it
Wed Jul 5 16:53:31 UTC 2000

On Jul 05, Olaf Titz <olaf at bigred.inka.de> wrote:

 >>  >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.
 >OK. But "normal forwarding" is not exactly defined.
I propose:

The header MUST NOT be added by agents other than injectors.
(Or something which actually means something in English.)

 >> I don't think X-Trace should be extended to do that, it looks very
 >> unclean.
 >> 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.
 >The problem is precisely that you can't count on all gateways to
 >behave well.
And why would you count on all gateways supporting X-Trace?

 >(Some incoming messages even don't have a Message-ID at all.)
Just hash the body in a standard way.

 >> How could people find the right header then?
 >By the /systemid/ item. If someone finds a problem and can't see the
 >precise source, he should contact the administrators at all the
 >systems listed in X-Trace headers.
Cool. So spammer would just add a bunch of X-Trace headers and let
people pick the right one...

 >> POST newsfeeds are evil.
 >But in the real world you can't avoid them. There is no other way for
This is not true. Nobody will accept your argument for allowing them.


More information about the inn-workers mailing list