🚀 go-pugleaf

On 15 Jun 1999 17:51:46 -0700, Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> wrote:
>In news.admin.misc, Jay Denebeim <denebeim@deepthot.aurora.co.us> writes:

[...]

>> Not by any standards I've ever heard of.  A forgery is treated just the
>> same as one of your own posts by your news software, I doubt you could
>> find anyone who says it's not your right to cancel a forgery made in
>> your name.
>
>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.

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.

-- 
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://www.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.