🚀 go-pugleaf

David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) <dformosa@zeta.org.au> writes:
> Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> wrote:

>> It's still a third-party cancel.  The fact that it's a legitimate
>> third- party cancel doesn't change that.  Third-party cancel just means
>> that the cancel is being issued by an entity that wasn't on the posting
>> path for the original message.

> I don't like this defintion.  Firstly it implies that a cancel is first
> party even if it is for a post that happened to pass threw a feeder box.

A feed server isn't part of the "posting path."  Once the article reaches
a feed server, it's already been posted.

> I would use the following therminology.

> 1st party:  Cancels by the Author.
> 2nd party:  Cancels by the Author's sysadmin and cancels of forgeries
> by victoms.
> 3rd party:  All outhers.

Once you implement strong authentication like cancel locks, putting
forgeries in the second-party group is basically impossible.  First and
second party cancels are ones that you can authenticate.  Third-party
cancels are ones that you can't, without something more heavy-weight.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)         <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>