Re: Multiple IP addresses and certificate "common name"

In article <W7ghg.7$ti3.1812@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> "Taylor, Grant"
<gtaylor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Aside: Perhaps you could try to make your followups follow the Usenet
standards, i.e. have a valid References: header to allow them to be
properly threaded? It is possible even when using a news<->mail gateway,
provided the gateway SW and MUA used is clueful enough.

I'll work on my NNTP <-> SMTP gateway as it may indeed be having some
problems. However if you are referencing your "In article..." lines
below,

No, the text "a valid References: header" refers to the References:
header... See RFC 1036.

I am far from the only person not posting them. In a quick look
back I only see about 1/3 of the posts have that. I'm not saying that
they should not be there, I'm just saying that I'm not the only one not
putting them.

There's no need to have the full "In article ..." etc etc stuff that my
newsreader happens to produce, "<Name> wrote:" is fine, the purpose is
just to be able to figure out who said what - which of course is extra
hard when neither attribution nor References: header is present. I don't
know which articles you looked at, but scanning some 100 articles in
this group, the only followups with unattributed quotes that I found
were yours.

In article
<mailman.102.1149558814.30248.comp.mail.sendmail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Grant Taylor <gtaylor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

Attribution of quotes is also the norm on Usenet, but given the current
proliferation of people who think that Usenet is just a web forum
invented by Google and don't quote at all, I guess unattributed quotes
are better than none...

In my opinion your statement "...given the current proliferation of
people who think that Usenet is just a web forum invented by Google..."
is extremely presumptuous. I know many a person that does use NNTP and
they all know that it is much more than just something from Google.
Many of whom know that Google provided a convenient interface to access
said NNTP service.

Which of course doesn't contradict the easily observable fact that there
is a lot of people posting from Google without understanding the
mechanisms and conventions of Usenet - no need to presume anything about
that. There are even people putting up web pages to try to remedy the
situation, see e.g. http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/ . In the little
scan I did, I found many followups that totally lacked quoting - without
exception they were posted from Google.

Here's a thought. Rather than complaining to the "Lay People / Users"
complain to the people that would be responsible to correct the problems
that you are complaining about. I.e. if you do not like the way that
Google posts news, complain to Google to have them fix their interface.

But I have, long ago, using the handy link on the above page. And Google
doesn't *prevent* people from posting the right way, it just doesn't
make it the default. And "complaining" or not, as long as Google has the
interface it has, it's actually useful for those that use it for posting
to be aware of the issue, to avoid having their followups met with "What
are you talking about?" if not totally ignored. Btw, followups from
Google do have perfect References: header, which at least makes it
possible to find the post that is followed-up to, given a good quality
newsfeed and a capable newsreader.

No, I did not "...conclude..." any thing. I simply errored on the side
of caution as well as stating that I was not sure. I was simply giving
a heads up on a potential caveat so someone else would be aware of what
they might be doing while wielding a sword.

Not that it matters, but I can't really agree with that description,
since in this thread you were the one that first brought up the idea of
running multiple instances of sendmail, and immediately followed it with
"I'd make sure that each was using a different queue".

There's no "may" about the queue runners or the processes forked by the
main daemon to serve the individual connection, it most definitely
works, and must work. The only issue that running multiple "main"
daemons adds is the *creation* of *new* files in the queue by processes
that don't have a common sendmail ancestor. But as far as I know the
"main" daemon doesn't play any role in the creation of those files
(e.g. it doesn't hand out the unique queue ID that the name is based on
or somesuch), so it should be quite irrelevant whether the
per-connection processes (which do create the files) have a common
"main" daemon as ancestor or not.

The understanding that I had was not so much having to do with the
creation of new queue files,

No, but as I explained to you in the text above, this is the *only*
thing that is different when running multiple instances.

but rather making sure that multiple queue
runners did not try to process the same queue file at the same time.

This is of course not a problem, as I have been trying to explain for a
while now, with examples of how it must be handled even if *not* running
multiple instances. Sendmail will not make a mess of the queue just
because you fire up a couple of 'sendmail -q &' when you think the
forked queue runner (which need not be singular either) is doing its job
too slowly.

--Per Hedeland
per@xxxxxxxxxxxx
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Broken References - missing MIDs
    ... Notice the extra white space in the References line. ... Google have deliberately implemented some new way of Doing Evil. ... References header but left the tab in place between two MIDs. ... non-folding tab, ignoring it and starting a new, broken References ...
    (news.software.readers)
  • Re: select and filehandle <3abd05ad-0d59-400f-9882-f70061e8f851@m45g2000hsb.googlegr
    ... Your "References:" header is missing and your references are showing up ... Known problem with Google, slrn, and some newsservers: ... Google creates extremely long message-ids. ...
    (comp.lang.perl.misc)
  • Re: X-No-Archive, here we go again ;-)
    ... Only google expires them in a week. ... We all know Google Groups ... Google will honor this header. ... Before 1992, and at my university, posts never expired until disk space ...
    (news.software.readers)
  • Re: X-No-archive considered harmful
    ... If Google didn't heed that header or have some other opt-out ... Their archive includes posts that predate Deja, ... Perhaps the earth was just reacting ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: X-No-archive considered harmful
    ... If Google didn't heed that header or have some other opt-out ... Their archive includes posts that predate Deja, ... Perhaps the earth was just reacting ...
    (sci.math)
Loading