Re: X-trace considered harmful
Charles Lindsey <chl <at> clw.cs.man.ac.uk>
1999-07-01 09:57:38 GMT
In <19990630140958.22885 <at> main.templetons.com> Brad Templeton <brad <at> templetons.com> writes:
>Actually, you must have misread what I said. I said there were two options,
>one of which is to throw it away, the other of which is to integrate it.
>If integrated, the other options to consider are where to put the
>generated user-identity, either in the last entry, or right after the %.
>Both are valid.
I disagree. Anything added to the Path is _always_ prepended. An injector
either does that, or it throws it away and starts afresh (I prefer the
former as a general rule).
>The only thing not valid is accepting a path line with a '%' in it. That
>is a double injection, which should be an error. POST should not be used
>for articles being relayed. If you want to run a news server using
>suck and POST, you can do so, but you shold not relay for other people.
>Find somebody who will take your ihave feeds.
I agree with that bit about suck feeds, but I do not regard it as so bad
to refuse a '%' in the proto-path. It is a cause for suspicion, but is
likely harmless, and is always obvious. As I said before, it should not
arise in a "well-ordered net", but Real Nets are not always well-ordered
>Double inject would be fine if all injectors were minimal, adding only the
>path, but until they are so simple you don't want two sents of injectors
>trying to do the things injectors do.
Certainly a second injector should not be altering important headers. But