Re: NTP shows all servers in condition "reject"

On 2008-06-12, David Woolley <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Steve Kostecke wrote:

I've compared the copy of the message in the questions archive and
a decoded copy of the message that was delivered to our primary
upstream server. Both are identical.

Was it already broken then? You seem to have quoted from it as though
it wasn't broken, which suggests not; the nature of the damage is
such that any MIME capable tool would be unable to compensate for the
error.

I was discussing the original article in this thread (the article that
appears to have not fully propagated) not the OP's second article (the
one you replied to).

The original message was received by the questions list, distributed
to the subscribers, and archived. The body of this message was
BASE64 encoded. I have compared the message in the Mailman archive
(pre-gateway) with the article in the gateway news spool and the article
delivered to both our primary and back-up upstream news servers. All of
the copies of this original message/article (both pre and post gateway)
are identical AFAIKT.

I received, and replied to, the original article via the back-up
news-server (which I operate). But I have not as yet been able to
determine why the article did not propagate beyond our primary or
back-up systems. Nor have I had an opportunity to trace the processing
of the OP's second article.

So you'll need to cast aspersions elsewhere.

If it wasn't broken before reaching the gateway,

Which "it" are you talking about here? The OP's original article or his
second article.

it got broken on the common path between the gateway and both me and
Google.

If you truly understood Usenet you would know that there are no
absolutes.

So, if it wasn't already broken,

You are obsessed with that word, aren't you.

and the gateway is not MIME decoding the body, or adding a bogus
header,

You moan when articles containing HTML and other MIME cruft show up in
the news-group.

You moan when articles are not perfectly formed after the offending bits
are stripped out.

You simply can not have it both ways.

You really ought to shut off the grindstone, put down the axe, and
concentrate on making constructive contributions. This entire issue
pales in comparision to the abysmal quoting practices, rampant thread
drift, and general cluelessness prevalent across the board in Usenet.

Don't bother complaining about having to reformat quoted material in
replies. Anyone who cares a whit about their readers reformats as
necessary.

and given the importance of the Google archive,

The only important thing about the Google archive is the advertising
revenue it generates.

the gateway's USENET injection point needs to be moved so that there
are no broken USENET relays between it and Google.

We use the assets available to us. And they generally work without a
problem.

This is the path to Google:

Path:
g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!news1.google.com!\
newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.isc.org!psp2.ntp.org!lists.ntp.org

and this is the path to me:
Path:
news.aaisp.net.uk!news-peer-lilac.gradwell.net!news.glorb.com!\
news.isc.org!psp2.ntp.org!lists.ntp.org

That is _one_ set of paths from our primary upstream news-server. But it
is not the only path that the articles may take.

Assuming that:

1) there aren't two different servers breaking the article in the same
way;

There's that word again.

2) it wasn't broken on input to isc.org:

it looks like the only possible sources of damage are:

lists.ntp.org (the gateway?)
psp2.ntp.org, and
news.isc.org

all of which seem to me to be owned by ISC.

You're a bit confused here. The only one of those three systems which is
owned and operated by ISC is news.isc.org. Further, that list contains a
system which is not involved in the gateway path and it incorrectly
identifies lists.ntp.org as the gateway.

I seem to remember a lot of confusion being caused, in the past,

Another case of unilateral confusion.

by another article that was damaged in a similar way, but can't
remember whether the cause was ever diagnosed.

(You can see Google's broken copy at:

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.protocols.time.ntp/msg/\
6f1ead8cdd0b0b4b?dmode=source

Follow the "view parsed" link to see what it looks like in a MIME
capable reader.)

It's a little mis-formatted. 'Tis but a drop in the bucket.

--
Steve Kostecke <kostecke@xxxxxxx>
NTP Public Services Project - http://support.ntp.org/
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: PPTP Site-to-Site VPN problem
    ... My understanding has always been that if you route between 2 or more different subnets then there has to be a gateway defined. ... If routing on a single subnet then no gateway needs to be defined. ... the RRAS service on the servers. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.networking)
  • How To Configure Root Hints vs. Forwarding for Locations Having Different Internet Gateways
    ... My question concerns proper settings for Server 2003 DNS root hints ... I am aware of the need to remove the standard root name servers from ... resolution requests to go to the correct gateway address instead of to ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.dns)
  • Re: dhcpd gateway settings
    ... It doesn't *have* to be the gateway to do that. ... not just something else on the same network. ... If the computers on the 192.168.0 and 192.168.1 subnets are actually ... In general, you give all your servers ...
    (Fedora)
  • Re: Changing the default source address for an OpenBSD router?
    ... static, you need to use gateway; if dynamic, the dhcpserver needs to provide a gateway. ... Upstream towards the Internet: ... packets transmitted, 0 packets received, 100.0% packet loss ... Or setting mygateto the public address of your gateway. ...
    (comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc)
  • Re: DC diag ERROR
    ... not on its own subnet, which means you need a gateway to communicate the DNS ... servers at your ISP, since they are also not on your subnet. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.dns)