🚀 go-pugleaf

Me:
>>There is also the technical problem that you cannot remove the
>>article from aus.general without also removing it from
>>aus.politics, aus.org.efa and the other groups it was posted to.

Phil:
>I can now remove articles from just aus.general. (No great
>technological breakthough - I just found a useful part of NNTP
>that allows this.) I prefer to do this, rather than cancel
>articles, but even in the latter case, I don't see a problem with
>cancelling excessive or inappropriate crossposts. If it's in the
>wrong place, it's in the wrong place. It's too bad if it's also
>in the right place.

If this works, then good. (Don't for one minute think I am giving 
you any sort of mandate to do this, it is just the lesser of two 
evils).

I hope you thoroughly debug this before you unleash it on the 
unsuspecting public.

I saw a post about a "Supercedes:" header. Is this what you plan 
to use?

I would have thought that a news server would regard the 
superceding article as a new article, supposedly containing more 
up to date information.

A client connects to the news server and asks if there are
any new articles in aus.this-group-not-cancelled since date/time.

The client then picks up an article which it has really seen 
before. Sounds a bit like spam to me.

...Dave