From: daz Date: 2004-06-08T13:53:40+09:00 Subject: Re: Reply wasn't posted; will test new post Thomas Fini Hansen wrote : > > OK, now you lost me. If this summary helps, please re-read the rest of your message and see why it would add to the confusion if I tried to unravel that knot :-) ----- The reason why some ML->NG messages were/are being dropped is because the server at news.zrz.tu-berlin.de ("news.zrz") is rejecting them as being invalid. As I understand it, David and Dennis were able to reduce the number of rejections by adding to the headers from within the g/way software ("rubygate"). David's messages (and some others) are now getting through. (Dennis had been careful to point out that he hadn't been expecting 100% success from the change.) Botp then found that one of his ruby-talk emails didn't get to c.l.ruby. I noticed another. - - - All the various email apps (Mail User Agents - MUAs) around produce their own sets of "correct" headers. The gateway (ML->NG direction) converts mail from ruby-talk to news by filtering out non-news headers and tries to post to comp.lang.ruby using NNTP via "news.zrz" (the news host). ruby-talk ML <--> rubygate <--> "news.zrz" <--> Usenet (c.l.ruby) My observation is that "news.zrz" also has an opinion on which combinations of outbound headers are "correct" and that the criteria for "correctness" are stricter than RFC850 for Usenet. My news host, for example, will accept the exact same message that "news.zrz" rejects. It appears on Usenet. - - - To fix the problems, Dennis has suggested that we could try to find a formal header structure to smooth over the anomalies. Indeed, it might be possible to adapt the output from the many MUAs into a normalised form. My question is: Is this the best way to proceed ? The manipulation of headers would be to overcome the "news.zrz" restrictions; not to make them acceptable to Usenet. (Usenet would accept them from rubygate *without change*). - - - I wouldn't want the gateway to be moved again because the service at TU-Berlin has appeared to be stable and fast. At the same time, we can't ask TU-Berlin to change the software on their news host. IMHO, we shouldn't be complicating the gateway or ruby-talk mailer software to satisfy the requirements of our current service which will not accept all RFC850 news posts. Proof, from earlier, is on Google, Usenet and ruby-talk archive - not a wild claim. -- daz If things are less clear, there may be some details in previous postings on this subject which need to be unlearnt.