Re: [1586] Multiple POSTED in Path: header

Charles Lindsey wrote:
> 3.4.1 of the present draft contains:
>
> A proto-article has the same format as a normal article except that
> the Injection-Info and Xref header fields MUST NOT be present; the
> Path header field SHOULD NOT contain a "POSTED" <diag-keyword>; and
> any of the following mandatory header fields MAY be omitted:
> Message-ID, Date, and Path. In all other respects, a proto-article
> MUST be a valid Netnews article. In particular, the header fields
> which may be omitted MUST NOT be present with invalid content.
>
> That "SHOULD NOT" was formerly "MUST NOT", so it is an improvement.
>
> But I propose changing it to:
>
> .. the Path header field MAY contain a "POSTED" <diag-keyword>; ...
>
> and adding a NOTE such as the following:
>
>    NOTE: Whereas the presence of two "POSTED" <diag-keyword>s will often
>    indicate a malicious attempt to disguise the true origin of an article,
>    it could also arise following some ususual gatewaying or injecting
>    scenario (taking advantage of the "MAY contain" above), in which case
>    it could be useful for detecting unintended loops or mismanaged
>    gateways. The whole intent of these <path-diagnostic)s is to assist
>    humans in assessing unusual situations, and it would be unwise for
>    subsequent agents automatically to assume one possibility or the other.
>
> Essentially, I am arguing for not throwing away any information which might
> be of subsequent diagnostic use, possibly at the expense of making people
> think a bit before accusing posters of trollery. It is up to the "netkops"
> to deal with these issues, and our draft should not try to prejudge their
> efforts.
>   

I disagree with this idea, and think we should keep the SHOULD NOT.

Not throwing away information can be accomplished by tricks like 
Old-Path:. As the proposed note effectively says, saying that multiple 
POSTs are generally acceptable is an invitation to the script kiddies to 
play with it.

                    Harald