🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <11663@mirsa.inria.fr> weigl@sibelius.inria.fr (Konrad Weigl) writes:
>In article <1991Jun4.161440.4161@wynnds.xenitec.on.ca>, timk@wynnds.xenitec.on.ca (Tim Kuehn) writes:
>>posting a list of bad articles 
>> to a newsgroup. This falls down when you consider that some sites with a 
>> wide fan-out before hitting a current patchlevel Cnews site(s) could 
>> theoretically find themselves bombarded with email or the newsgroup flooded
>> with notifications. This is not good. 
>
>I am no *pro* in this field, but if a site identifying a bad article would first
>read the newsgroup before anything else is done, there would be no problem:
>If the article is posted already, no further reaction, else:
>
>Any site finding an unreported bad article informs source & posts simultaneously.
>
>Am I missing something?
>
Okay, I am no expert either, but couldn't a site which receives a badly
formatted header simply inform the site which passed it to them??  Something
like "Hey you, your routing bad messages!!!".  Then when that site recognizes
that it got a bad message the next day (8-), it tells the person who sent it.
Of course proper checks could be made to ensure that it wasn't the site it was
posted from.  If it is the posting site, a nasty-gram could be sent to the
user, and he would bitch because none of his news was getting out to the
world (like this one probably ;-).  Anyway, I am no expert, I was just curious.

	brian