From: Robert Klemme <bob.news@...>
Date: 2004-06-01T18:38:41+09:00
Subject: Re: separating ruby-talk from comp.lang.ruby?


"daz" <dooby@d10.karoo.co.uk> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:xdydnRPKJ5nIACbdSa8jmA@karoo.co.uk...
>
> Robert Klemme wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Add all new messages since the highest saved message-id.
> > > Yes, it keeps track.
> > > NG -> ML direction seems to be flawless. [1]
> >
> > This doesn't seem to fit Martin's analysis: there seem to be messages
> > missing on both sides, don't they?
> >
>
> There were problems last year which were fixed by using the more
> reliable feed.  I think there was a brief problem in the NG -> ML
> direction very recently.  If folks are trying to fix things, this
> can be expected.  Martin's data are too broad.  The problem we're
> addressing started around Feb. this year.

Ah, I see.

> > Can we really be sure that message ID's follow this pattern?
>
> The message-id used is numeric; local to the news service.  It's nothing
> to do with those strings in the mail headers.

Ah, ok.  And of course we don't have a problem if mails reach the gateway in
a differnt order than they reached the mail exploder, have we?

> > > I'm confident that if the problem was further downstream than nntp.rb,
> > > there would be losses from sources other than ours.
> >
> > Do we know that there aren't?
> >
>
> The hardcore Usenet crew are really vocal when things go wrong with their
> communication network.  I don't know that there aren't problems but I
> can't contemplate that a serious snag with propagation would go unreported
> for 4 months.

Yeah, sounds reasonable.  I see, you already checked all those traps I was
imagining.  That's good to see - and unfortunate at the same time, because
it makes things harder. :-)

> > > NNTP seems to be a sub-protocol of SMTP.
> >
> > As I understand NNTP [...] rather different in nature.
> >
> > Maybe copying is not sufficient, maybe some header contents have to be
> > massaged in order to fit with NNTP.
> >
>
> <from RFC 1036>
> "The USENET News standard is more restrictive than the Internet standard,
> placing additional requirements on each message and forbidding use of
> certain Internet features. However, it should always be possible to use
> a tool expecting an Internet message to process a news message."
> </>

Well, yes.  But that's just the message format, which seems indeed a sub
format of SMTP.  But NNTP (and SMTP) is more than that.

> > Do you mean the selective transmission works only for mail -> news and
not
> > mail -> mail?  Now I'm confused here...
>
> Not by me, surely ;-)

Now I don't even know who confused me.  Was it me? :-)))

> All ML members post to a single recipient ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org.  It's
> up to the bulk mailer where it goes next.  The g/way is just one member.
> One scenario is that the missing messages are not getting to the gateway.
> If they did, they would be forwarded to c.l.ruby like the rest.
> That's my favourite suspicion and could easily be disproved by a single
> log entry for a message that failed to make the NG.
>
> With this single piece of evidence (which shouldn't be so difficult to
> obtain ...) we have instant progress rather than looking at every other
> non-possibility (which I, and others, have already done).
> If the log says a phantom message has been forwarded, it cuts the
> upstream right out of the equation and IMHO leaves nntp.rb only.
> Debugging is a lot easier when you know you're focusing on the right area
> and it's a pointless waste of time when you strongly suspect that the
> problem lies elsewhere.

Definitely!  So we'll wait and seen what we can learn from logs.

Regards

    robert