We are now running on my new gateway code that will hopefully get even more messages across the Usenet divide.
Please help me keep an eye on the gateway these next couple of days and verify that it's running as planned. You can email issues to me privately at this address.
James Edward Gray II
Hey James,
Have you got it on TMail now?
If so and you hit bugs wrt TMail let me know... we'll get them fixed asap.
Mikel
On 10/30/07, James Edward Gray II <james@grayproductions.net> wrote:
We are now running on my new gateway code that will hopefully get
even more messages across the Usenet divide.Please help me keep an eye on the gateway these next couple of days
and verify that it's running as planned. You can email issues to me
privately at this address.James Edward Gray II
My upgrade did not go as planned and I have reverted, while I figure it out. Some messages were not gated. I apologize.
James Edward Gray II
On Oct 29, 2007, at 7:37 PM, James Edward Gray II wrote:
We are now running on my new gateway code that will hopefully get even more messages across the Usenet divide.
Please help me keep an eye on the gateway these next couple of days and verify that it's running as planned. You can email issues to me privately at this address.
The TMail team tried to squeeze in a fix for our new gateway script and I tried another deploy this morning. Unfortunately, it still didn't work for our needs. We ran into the same issue in a different place.
I've reverted the gateway code again. I was watching for the issue this time and caught it fast. I believe only one message was not gated.
I apologize again for the continuing issues. We'll get this stuff sorted out eventually and hopefully the new features will have been worth the effort.
James Edward Gray II
On Oct 29, 2007, at 7:37 PM, James Edward Gray II wrote:
We are now running on my new gateway code that will hopefully get even more messages across the Usenet divide.
Usenet readers, can you confirm the gateway is functioning as expected again? My logs tell me messages are being gated again, but Google Groups (my Usenet debugging tool) seems slow to update tonight.
James Edward Gray II
On Oct 29, 2007, at 7:57 PM, James Edward Gray II wrote:
On Oct 29, 2007, at 7:37 PM, James Edward Gray II wrote:
We are now running on my new gateway code that will hopefully get even more messages across the Usenet divide.
Please help me keep an eye on the gateway these next couple of days and verify that it's running as planned. You can email issues to me privately at this address.
My upgrade did not go as planned and I have reverted, while I figure it out.
Have you got it on TMail now?
My new version uses TMail, yes.
If so and you hit bugs wrt TMail let me know... we'll get them fixed asap.
I did have to revert because Usenet was rejecting my posts. It's how TMail is doing the headers. For example, TMail constructed a header like:
"X-Ruby-Talk:\r\n\t<11152772-AAFA-4614-95FD-9071A4BDF4A1@grayproductions.net>\r\n"
My Usenet host rejected that header because it didn't have a space after the colon.
I'm hesitant to call that a bug since I'm trying to use an email library for Usenet posts. Does anyone know if this is a strict requirement of Usenet posts and/or email?
James Edward Gray II
On Oct 29, 2007, at 7:55 PM, Mikel Lindsaar wrote:
The new gateway is now in place and does seem to be gating messages. Hooray for the fixes added to TMail just for us!
I'll try to monitor the gateway a bit over the next couple of days to make sure it's doing its job. Help me out though and email me if you notice oddities.
Thanks all. Sorry this took so long.
James Edward Gray II
James,
Unless anyone has anything to the contrary, per this RFC it looks like a bug.
I've quoted the RFC below.
James, could you give me a test case for it - or at least the email or
way you created the email and I'll get this nutted out.
Regards
Mikel
Quote from RFC 822:
August 13, 1982 - 4 - RFC #822
Standard for ARPA Internet Text Messages
3. LEXICAL ANALYSIS OF MESSAGES
3.1. GENERAL DESCRIPTION
A message consists of header fields and, optionally, a body.
The body is simply a sequence of lines containing ASCII charac-
ters. It is separated from the headers by a null line (i.e., a
line with nothing preceding the CRLF).
3.1.1. LONG HEADER FIELDS
Each header field can be viewed as a single, logical line of
ASCII characters, comprising a field-name and a field-body.
For convenience, the field-body portion of this conceptual
entity can be split into a multiple-line representation; this
is called "folding". The general rule is that wherever there
may be linear-white-space (NOT simply LWSP-chars), a CRLF
immediately followed by AT LEAST one LWSP-char may instead be
inserted. Thus, the single line
can be represented as:
JJV@BBN
and
<ddd@ Org>, JJV
@BBN
and
J. Harvey" <ddd @ Org>, JJV @ BBN
The process of moving from this folded multiple-line
representation of a header field to its single line represen-
tation is called "unfolding". Unfolding is accomplished by
regarding CRLF immediately followed by a LWSP-char as
equivalent to the LWSP-char.
Note: While the standard permits folding wherever linear-
white-space is permitted, it is recommended that struc-
tured fields, such as those containing addresses, limit
folding to higher-level syntactic breaks. For address
fields, it is recommended that such folding occur
To: "Joe & J. Harvey" <ddd @Org>, JJV @ BBN
To: "Joe & J. Harvey" <ddd @ Org>,
To: "Joe & J. Harvey"
To: "Joe &
On 10/30/07, James Edward Gray II <james@grayproductions.net> wrote:
On Oct 29, 2007, at 7:55 PM, Mikel Lindsaar wrote:
> Have you got it on TMail now?
My new version uses TMail, yes.
> If so and you hit bugs wrt TMail let me know... we'll get them
> fixed asap.I did have to revert because Usenet was rejecting my posts. It's how
TMail is doing the headers. For example, TMail constructed a header
like:"X-Ruby-Talk:\r\n\t<11152772-
AAFA-4614-95FD-9071A4BDF4A1@grayproductions.net>\r\n"My Usenet host rejected that header because it didn't have a space
after the colon.I'm hesitant to call that a bug since I'm trying to use an email
library for Usenet posts. Does anyone know if this is a strict
requirement of Usenet posts and/or email?James Edward Gray II
I did have to revert because Usenet was rejecting my posts. It's how
TMail is doing the headers. For example, TMail constructed a header
like:"X-Ruby-Talk:\r\n\t<11152772-
AAFA-4614-95FD-9071A4BDF4A1@grayproductions.net>\r\n"
James, I just tried this and get a different result:
irb(main):007:0> mail = TMail::Mail.new
=> #<TMail::Mail port=#<TMail::StringPort:id=0xa7fa80> bodyport=nil>
irb(main):008:0> mail['X-Ruby-Talk'] =
'<11152772-AAFA-4614-95FD-9071A4BDF4A1@grayproductions.net>'
=> "<11152772-AAFA-4614-95FD-9071A4BDF4A1@grayproductions.net>"
irb(main):009:0> mail.to_s
=> "X-Ruby-Talk: <11152772-AAFA-4614-95FD-9071A4BDF4A1@grayproductions.net>\n\n"
Leaves a space after the colon and doesn't introduce a line feed 
Using TMail 1.1.0...
Mikel
I did have to revert because Usenet was rejecting my posts. It's how
TMail is doing the headers. For example, TMail constructed a header
like:"X-Ruby-Talk:\r\n\t<11152772-
AAFA-4614-95FD-9071A4BDF4A1@grayproductions.net>\r\n"
Double-plus-ungood. Strictly, it _may_ be an acceptable folded header,
but it's the first time I see that kind of syntax in the wild (with the
break directly after the colon).
My Usenet host rejected that header because it didn't have a space
after the colon.I'm hesitant to call that a bug since I'm trying to use an email
library for Usenet posts. Does anyone know if this is a strict
requirement of Usenet posts and/or email?
Yes, both. Usenet and mail use the same generic message format (RFC
2822 [1]). The headers used and the signification of those may be
slightly different, but the messages are to be structured the same way.
The real difference comes from the administrative standpoint, where
rules governing (the text part of) Usenet are much more restrictive
(since there are nothing like a binary email address versus a text only
email address).
Fred
[1] : ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc2822.txt
Le 30 octobre 2007 à 04:01, James Edward Gray II a écrit :
--
Face it: the people doing the hiring are morons. So are the venture
capitalists, for ever letting most of the dot-coms see any light other
than the BOFH lighting his flamethrower.
(Dan Holdsworth in the SDM)
Just a small update on how this went…
According to my scan of the log this morning, every email the gateway sent since yesterday's upgrade was accepted by Usenet. I was even able to find messages modified by the gateway and they looked great on comp.lang.ruby.
This transition appears to be a success.
James Edward Gray II
On Nov 1, 2007, at 7:34 AM, James Edward Gray II wrote:
The new gateway is now in place and does seem to be gating messages.
I did have to revert because Usenet was rejecting my posts. It's how
TMail is doing the headers. For example, TMail constructed a header
like:"X-Ruby-Talk:\r\n\t<11152772-
AAFA-4614-95FD-9071A4BDF4A1@grayproductions.net>\r\n"James, I just tried this and get a different result:
irb(main):007:0> mail = TMail::Mail.new
=> #<TMail::Mail port=#<TMail::StringPort:id=0xa7fa80> bodyport=nil>
irb(main):008:0> mail['X-Ruby-Talk'] =
'<11152772-AAFA-4614-95FD-9071A4BDF4A1@grayproductions.net>'
=> "<11152772-AAFA-4614-95FD-9071A4BDF4A1@grayproductions.net>"
irb(main):009:0> mail.to_s
=> "X-Ruby-Talk: <11152772-AAFA-4614-95FD-9071A4BDF4A1@grayproductions.net>\n\n"Leaves a space after the colon and doesn't introduce a line feed
The gateway code was using the encoded() method:
>> require "tmail"
=> true
>> mail = TMail::Mail.new
=> #<TMail::Mail port=#<TMail::StringPort:id=0xa26cb4> bodyport=nil>
>> mail["X-Ruby-Talk"] = "<11152772-AAFA-4614-95FD-9071A4BDF4A1@grayproductions.net>"
=> "<11152772-AAFA-4614-95FD-9071A4BDF4A1@grayproductions.net>"
>> mail.to_s
=> "X-Ruby-Talk: <11152772-AAFA-4614-95FD-9071A4BDF4A1@grayproductions.net>\n\n"
>> mail.encoded
=> "X-Ruby-Talk:\r\n\t<11152772-AAFA-4614-95FD-9071A4BDF4A1@grayproductions.net>\r\n\r\n"
Is that not what I should be doing?
James Edward Gray II
On Oct 30, 2007, at 12:39 AM, Mikel Lindsaar wrote:
Hi,
Just a small update on how this went…
Thank you.
According to my scan of the log this morning, every email the gateway
sent since yesterday's upgrade was accepted by Usenet. I was even
able to find messages modified by the gateway and they looked great
on comp.lang.ruby.This transition appears to be a success.
James Edward Gray II
Arlen
On Fri, 2007-11-02 at 21:48 +0900, James Edward Gray II wrote:
Brilliant work. Out of curiosity, is there any part of the gateway
that'd be worth extracting as a more general library or utility?
martin
On 11/2/07, James Edward Gray II <james@grayproductions.net> wrote:
According to my scan of the log this morning, every email the gateway
sent since yesterday's upgrade was accepted by Usenet. I was even
able to find messages modified by the gateway and they looked great
on comp.lang.ruby.This transition appears to be a success.
No, you are doing it right. Looks like a bug. I'll get onto it.
Added a bug report
http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=15194&group_id=4512&atid=17370
Regards
Mikel
On 10/31/07, James Edward Gray II <james@grayproductions.net> wrote:
On Oct 30, 2007, at 12:39 AM, Mikel Lindsaar wrote:
>> I did have to revert because Usenet was rejecting my posts. It's how
>> TMail is doing the headers. For example, TMail constructed a header
>> like:
>>
>> "X-Ruby-Talk:\r\n\t<11152772-
>> AAFA-4614-95FD-9071A4BDF4A1@grayproductions.net>\r\n"
>
> James, I just tried this and get a different result:
>
> irb(main):007:0> mail = TMail::Mail.new
> => #<TMail::Mail port=#<TMail::StringPort:id=0xa7fa80> bodyport=nil>
> irb(main):008:0> mail['X-Ruby-Talk'] =
> '<11152772-AAFA-4614-95FD-9071A4BDF4A1@grayproductions.net>'
> => "<11152772-AAFA-4614-95FD-9071A4BDF4A1@grayproductions.net>"
> irb(main):009:0> mail.to_s
> => "X-Ruby-Talk: <11152772-
> AAFA-4614-95FD-9071A4BDF4A1@grayproductions.net>\n\n"
>
> Leaves a space after the colon and doesn't introduce a line feedThe gateway code was using the encoded() method:
>> require "tmail"
=> true
>> mail = TMail::Mail.new
=> #<TMail::Mail port=#<TMail::StringPort:id=0xa26cb4> bodyport=nil>
>> mail["X-Ruby-Talk"] = "<11152772-
AAFA-4614-95FD-9071A4BDF4A1@grayproductions.net>"
=> "<11152772-AAFA-4614-95FD-9071A4BDF4A1@grayproductions.net>"
>> mail.to_s
=> "X-Ruby-Talk: <11152772-
AAFA-4614-95FD-9071A4BDF4A1@grayproductions.net>\n\n"
>> mail.encoded
=> "X-Ruby-Talk:\r\n\t<11152772-
AAFA-4614-95FD-9071A4BDF4A1@grayproductions.net>\r\n\r\n"Is that not what I should be doing?
James Edward Gray II
Thanks for your work James.
Mikel
On 11/3/07, Arlen Christian Mart Cuss <celtic@sairyx.org> wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, 2007-11-02 at 21:48 +0900, James Edward Gray II wrote:
> Just a small update on how this went…Thank you.
>
> According to my scan of the log this morning, every email the gateway
> sent since yesterday's upgrade was accepted by Usenet. I was even
> able to find messages modified by the gateway and they looked great
> on comp.lang.ruby.
>
> This transition appears to be a success.
>
> James Edward Gray II
>
>Arlen
Well, the gateway is now just a bit of glue code between TMail and Net::NNTP, so I guess you could say that it has.
James Edward Gray II
On Nov 5, 2007, at 6:45 PM, Martin DeMello wrote:
On 11/2/07, James Edward Gray II <james@grayproductions.net> wrote:
According to my scan of the log this morning, every email the gateway
sent since yesterday's upgrade was accepted by Usenet. I was even
able to find messages modified by the gateway and they looked great
on comp.lang.ruby.This transition appears to be a success.
Brilliant work. Out of curiosity, is there any part of the gateway
that'd be worth extracting as a more general library or utility?
Mikel, if you could email me (private is fine) when there's a new version of TMail I could try that would be great. I would love to try another deploy of my improved gateway code. Thanks.
James Edward Gray II
On Oct 30, 2007, at 8:41 AM, Mikel Lindsaar wrote:
No, you are doing it right. Looks like a bug. I'll get onto it.
Added a bug report
http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=15194&group_id=4512&atid=17370
In article <57a815bf0711030047x813fe18r6f6d79c1be251092@mail.gmail.com>,
raasdnil@gmail.com writes:
Thanks for your work James.
> > According to my scan of the log this morning, every email the gateway
> > sent since yesterday's upgrade was accepted by Usenet. I was even
> > able to find messages modified by the gateway and they looked great
> > on comp.lang.ruby.
> >
> > This transition appears to be a success.
> >
> > James Edward Gray II
Well, there appears to be at least one little glitch remaining.
The following header line in the immediately referenced article
shouldn't appear with an unencoded article body:
Content-Transfer-Encoding: Base64
It's possible that the error was in the originally submitted
message, but I'd guess that it's more likely that the gateway
translated the body but failed to update the header. In any case,
here's some more of the header for message identification:
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ruby
Message-ID: <57a815bf0711030047x813fe18r6f6d79c1be251092@mail.gmail.com>
X-Trace: talisker.lacave.net 1194076112 58526 65.111.164.187 (3 Nov 2007 07:48:32 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 07:48:32 +0000 (UTC)
X-Mail-Count: 277342
X-Ml-Name: ruby-talk
X-Rubymirror: Yes
X-Ruby-Talk: <57a815bf0711030047x813fe18r6f6d79c1be251092@mail.gmail.com>
And just as a side remark, I'll note that the following comment
should be wrapped at normal text width.
X-Received-From: This message has been automatically forwarded from the
ruby-talk mailing list by a gateway at comp.lang.ruby. If it is SPAM, it did
not originate at comp.lang.ruby. Please report the original sender, and not
us. Thanks! For more details about this gateway, please visit: Gray Soft / Not Found
Thanks for maintaining the gateway,
- dmw
From: raasdnil@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Gateway Upgraded
Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 02:47:50 -0500
--
. Douglas Wells . Connection Technologies .
. Internet: -sp9804- -at - contek.com- .
Maybe we could make it an extension to TMail...
email.to_nntp
Or something?
Haven't looked into this at all and right now for me the priority is
trying to make the documentation for TMail and fix exisitng bugs, but
I think that would be a useful feature to add.
What do you think James?
Regards
Mikel
On 11/6/07, James Edward Gray II <james@grayproductions.net> wrote:
On Nov 5, 2007, at 6:45 PM, Martin DeMello wrote:
> On 11/2/07, James Edward Gray II <james@grayproductions.net> wrote:
>>
>> According to my scan of the log this morning, every email the gateway
>> sent since yesterday's upgrade was accepted by Usenet. I was even
>> able to find messages modified by the gateway and they looked great
>> on comp.lang.ruby.
>>
>> This transition appears to be a success.
>
> Brilliant work. Out of curiosity, is there any part of the gateway
> that'd be worth extracting as a more general library or utility?Well, the gateway is now just a bit of glue code between TMail and
Net::NNTP, so I guess you could say that it has.James Edward Gray II