From: daz <dooby@...10.karoo.co.uk>
Date: 2004-06-09T03:53:44+09:00
Subject: Re: Reply wasn't posted; will test new post


David A. Black wrote:
> Hi --
>
> On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, daz wrote:
>
> > 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 ?
>
> I think so, not because it is ideal or non-kludgy but because I want
> to see all the messages make it through, and, in practical terms, I
> think that's by far the highest-percentage way to make that happen.
>

By far the highest-percentage way to make that happen would be
to have a news host that doesn't locally filter outbound traffic :-)

It would be non-kludgy, require no changes to either g/w or
fml mailer software and allow 100% ML->NG mirroring -- like it
did before the end of January this year.

Do we know that it's not practical to achieve that, yet?

What software change/update was made on that server around Jan 28th ?

What protection is it trying to offer and to whom?
It can't be for security because day after day it's allowing the g/w
to "spoof with implicit permission" NG posts made up from ML members
emails.  But if you try posting a reply without a References: header
.... oh, no, sorry, we can't allow that, it might upset someone's
newsreader threading or something... and returns an NNTP error as if
it were an NNTP violation (which it isn't).

Could it have a bug which the authors might be grateful to know about?

Is there a possibility to register the g/w as a privileged user on it?

And other questions that we might ask before coming to a decision
about what would be the best way to proceed.


More cents,

daz