🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <838395996snz@wash.demon.co.uk>
           john@wash.demon.co.uk "John Washington" writes:

> On Thursday, in article
>      <838310015snz@tgold.dialup.access.net> tgold@panix.com
>      "Anthony R. Gold" wrote:

> AG> If anyone thinks this is a GOOD THING, please make it optional, as I 
> AG> would prefer to opt out of this particular time saving feature.
> 
> Ahah, do I detect a touch of sarcasm?  I take it that, since you
> utter Good Thing with such vehemence, that you feel strongly about
> this principle?

No sarcasm was intended, and I apologise if any slipped in 
unintentionally, but indeed I do feel strongly about this.

> In which case, no doubt you'll be busy in the near future, integrating
> unbatch.exe into ka9q, to ensure that your news is finally filed
> before nntp.dat is updated.

If the nntp client had been designed to receive control over the 
unique and sole copies of news posting, then that would also have 
been appropriate. I am sure that mail2news gateways do offer this 
security to news articles, where indeed this is the situation.

> Personally I don't feel that strongly about the inconsistency, I
> just felt a mail post-processor might be an interesting conjecture
> and relatively easy to implement.  But do tell us WHY you would
> like to opt out.

It is NOT inconsistent, it is essential to the integrity of smtp 
which was designed to handle unique and irreplaceable data. The mail 
must be DELIVERED before signaling acceptance of control and thereby 
permitting the previous custodian of control up the chain to delete 
it. This also explains why mail is completely returned upon failure, 
and not merely a return of a report of failure.

Regards,
-- 
   Tony - G3SKR / AA2PM                  email: tgold@panix.com
                                                tgold@microvst.demon.co.uk
                                        packet: g3skr@n0ary.#nocal.ca.usa.na