“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
