Re: Google/Gmail filter off

On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 19:35:18 -0400, Robert Carnegie: Fnord wrote
(in article
<5d3cb4ce-e447-441b-882f-66b363e6d70f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>):

J.J. O'Shea wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 10:33:21 -0400, Robert Carnegie: Fnord wrote
(in article
<e4547acd-2664-4fba-ab3f-f0f55eaec34a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>):

On Jun 29, 3:56 am, Stuart <bigdak...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 28, 11:20 am, Nashton <n...@xxxxx> wrote:

Stuart wrote:
On Jun 27, 7:16 am, "[M]adman" <ad...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
David Iain Greig wrote:
Ok, until this clears up, it's off again.
Give it a week and let's see.  The damn thing's not that complex,
if it's really Google we shall see.
Hopefully it is the script, at least I can fix that.
Fix it? I would hope you know how to do backups and use the last know
good
/conf

I haven't seen any my posts get lost, just arrive at random times.

Besides, do you think your pearls of "wisdom" are really worth backing
up?

Stuart

How can you "see" any posts get lost if they weren't posted, Einstein?

If I submit a post, and its not visible on the forum after a couple of
weeks,
I'd think I would be entitled to entertain the possibility they wound
up
in a bit bucket some where.

Was that hard?

Stuart

In fact DIG collects rejects, but I assume you don't have access to
them. And I'm in doubt that posts were all successfully received on
Darwin. Then they'd be nowhere.

I believe Nashton has experienced a loss of access as he describes,
maybe for want of fnord, maybe at DIG's whim, maybe gone down the data
drain - but has overestimated the length of it; I'm saying five weeks.

At most.

He insists on three months, despite the fact that Google says different.

So maybe there was another fault. Maybe DIG plunked him for the hell
of it. Who'd know?

The main problem is that he says that he hasn't been able to post for three
months, when there are posts visible from him in at least May. If he'd said
one month, well, I might have been mistaken about seeing posts of his in
June... but I _know_ that I say posts of his in April and May, and Google
agrees with me.


He's not currently using Google, except maybe to look for his posts.

He's using aioe for at least some posts. The Great Google Messup should not
have done anything to aioe.


In further checking, it appears that /my/ latest post visible in
search-by-date Gogle Groups history was, for quite a while, in a
thread of adman's: "Yes. They all fit. All the animals fit in Noah's
Ark." (That's him, not me.) That was May 26th, my contribution may
have been one on May 29th.

Anti-Google filtering was launched on June 9th.

Which means that there's probably no connection between his alleged missing
posts and the Great Google Messup.


The freeze of Google's archive index on /all/ groups that I was
participating in, now relieved, is probabl y not related to other
problems.

Here's a line iof inquiry. If I follow DIG's description of
moderation, posts are e-mailed from any NNTP server to Darwin and are
circulated in Usenet /from/ Darwin, not from Google or anywhere else.
They're supposed to be delivered, then approved and sent out, but does
testing and processing take place /during/ delivery? And could a news
server be so sensitive to slow e-mail delivery, slow because Darwin is
analysing the new message, that the process is aborted at that point?
And in that case, what happens to messages?


Don't know. The thing is, we merely have his word that he tried to post and
nothing happened. We _know_ that at least some posts arrived on t.o during
the time frame that he says that nothing showed. He is _still_ insisting that
_nothing_ showed during that time. This makes _everything_ he says
problematic, as, frankly, we can't trust him. He's straight-out lying when he
says that he was unable to post for three months. We _know_ he's flat-out
lying, because not only did I see the posts, but Google _still_ shows the
posts. And they were not delayed unusually; check the headers, compare them
to posts involved in the Great Google Messup which _were_ unusually delayed.
Look at the timestamps.

Looking at this set of headers, for example, shows a gap of under 15 minutes,
which is normal for posts going by way of the bot:

Path:
g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!darwin.ediacara..org!

there.is.no.cabal
From: Nashton <n...@xxxxx>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Further proof of Design.
Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 07:42:58 -0300
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Lines: 37
Sender: n...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Approved: robo...@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Message-ID: <gu6b3v$hre$1@xxxxxxxx>
References: <pujNl.38943$9a.20772@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: no.body@xxxxxxxxxxx
Reply-To: no.body@xxxxxxxxxxx
<92ib05d56eje91mk8mgi0h84rh18vknepa@xxxxxxx>
<VwqNl.38648$i9.29671@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<ij1d055han5uubp8jjk8jj2mr5a1g6ovvf@xxxxxxx>
NNTP-Posting-Host: darwin
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: darwin.ediacara.org 1241953035 96344 128.100.83.246 (10 May 2009
10:57:15 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 10:57:15 +0000 (UTC)
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 7GbD+idVpOsL7Dau/37g4A.user.aioe.org
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.7.9
Cancel-Lock: sha1:sIfzhyhnxFpGFWpiSilbqCrTuCc=
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Macintosh/20081209)

Note the Date: header, which shows a timestamp of 07:42:58 (-0300) 10 May
2009, or 10:42:58 10 May 2009 GMT, while the NNTP-Posting-Date: header shows
10:57:15 10 May 2009 UTC where UTC is GMT. 14 minutes 17 seconds delay.
Entirely within the normal 10 to 20 minute window for posting by Darwin. I've
had posts take considerably longer than that to show myself, and _I_ don't
scream 'conspiracy' when it happens.

And, oh, yeah, he's using aioe to post. It's extremely unlikely that the
allegedly missing posts would be connected to the Great Google Messup, as

1 this post, which he claims not to have seen, went out a full month before
DIG set up the alleged cause of the problem, the procmail filter (which I
personally think just happened to be set up at the time that Google screwed
up and which didn't cause the Great Google Messup...)

2 he's not using Google to post.

I don't know why he's lying, I don't know what he thinks he can possibly gain
by lying, but it's clear that he is.


--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: RAID 1
    ... >> repeated context that also clutters the archives, ... I suppose I should have given up on usenet ... he didn't have google to help sift through the cruft and probably ... It shows parts of your 100 most recent posts with links to the full text ...
    (comp.os.linux.networking)
  • Re: JSH: Measuring post impact
    ... but mostly I use Google. ... noticed their original postings. ... Today my posts do probably get read by thousands of people ... Do some searches on primes and probability now, ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Company claims Mac Clone.
    ... Being that I have not removed my posts from Google ... You were busted lying... ... Deal with the fact you were busted lying. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Google/Gmail filter off
    ... despite the fact that Google says different. ... except maybe to look for his posts. ... posts are e-mailed from any NNTP server to Darwin and are ... server be so sensitive to slow e-mail delivery, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: A rather timely documentary on UKTV History today..
    ... that you must have used Google to retrieve that quote. ... you must have used Google - you called me a liar. ... A lie by omission this time. ... Not verbatim posts, no. ...
    (uk.media.tv.misc)