On Wed, 4 Aug 1993 01:35:07 -0400 Chris Lewis <[log in to unmask]>
said:
 
>5) As a stopgap kludge, FAQ writers can diddle the contents of their
>   articles every time they send it if there are no other changes.  But
>   this is solving the wrong problem.  The article is a duplicate.
>   It is supposed to be.
 
It is a duplicate in the sense that  the contents are the same. But it is
NOT a computer-induced copy of  the same human-induced posting. In usenet
terms, it hasn't got  the same message ID. You send  the FAQ every month,
explicitly, for a  very good reason: you want it  distributed so that new
subscribers can pick up useful information and ask less novice questions.
It would be incorrect  to quietly trash the FAQ on the  basis that it was
already posted  one month ago. You  need the kludge for  the FAQ because,
unlike normal messages, you explicitly  acknowledge the fact that the FAQ
doesn't  change  every month  but  should  be redistributed  every  month
anyway, for the benefit of new  subscribers or people who wiped out their
hard disk or whatever. This could be implemented by adding a header field
with  'Post-Anyway: TRUE',  but  things being  as they  are  there is  no
guarantee this header won't be swallowed somewhere on the way between you
and the mailing  list, so it isn't a workable  solution. The simplest and
safest solution is to time-stamp the  body of your FAQ's. This also gives
users the  opportunity to know  when they can expect  a new FAQ.  For the
reasons  I mentioned  above,  the  RFC822 'Date:'  field  is pretty  much
meaningless -  it can have  been updated  or inserted anywhere  along the
line.
 
  Eric