 | | Another missing message (was Re: Posts expiring?)
|
|
(...) Oops, I just found another missing message: lugnet.announce:37 So that may be a worthwhile idea, as there are almost certainly more. By the way, the subject of that message was "Disclosure of your real name"--I was just trying to figure out (...) (2 weeks ago, 9-Jun-26, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Another missing message (was Re: Posts expiring?)
|
|
(...) Wow, that's odd. Thanks for noticing and reporting. (...) Thanks again! I don't know if it's a clue that will be ultimately useful, but it's definitely intriguing. The post absolutely should not be missing, and its absence is indicative of a (...) (2 weeks ago, 10-Jun-26, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Another missing message (was Re: Posts expiring?)
|
|
(...) "odd" is a very fitting term I should say. I've done a compare with the oldest available live backup and found a total of _three_ articles missing, namely: ./lugnet/announce/brickset/3 ./lugnet/announce/37 ./lugnet/disney/125 These have now (...) (2 weeks ago, 10-Jun-26, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Another missing message (was Re: Posts expiring?)
|
|
(...) Thank you, Jerry! <3 <3 <3 --Todd (2 weeks ago, 10-Jun-26, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Another missing message (was Re: Posts expiring?)
|
|
(...) That message was definitely there just the other day, my newsreader downloaded it, marked it read, etc. (and I also specifically remember reading it). So it went AWOL the same time as those other ones on Monday. I notice that that message (...) (2 weeks ago, 10-Jun-26, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Another missing message (was Re: Posts expiring?)
|
|
(...) Yes, thank you! Although I'm not sure we would have missed that one from /disney… ;-) (2 weeks ago, 10-Jun-26, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Another missing message (was Re: Posts expiring?)
|
|
(...) Thank you, Nathan! I think we have our smoking gun. Inside an older snapshot, I just did this: $ cd news/art/lugnet/announce $ grep ^Expires: * 1:Expires: Fri, 1 Jan 2010 00:00:00 GMT 2:Expires: Fri, 1 Jan 2010 00:00:00 GMT 37:Expires: Fri, 1 (...) (2 weeks ago, 10-Jun-26, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Another missing message (was Re: Posts expiring?)
|
|
(...) Huh. I wonder why that message 37 got an Expires header, but no others? Copy/paste remnant?? (...) I'm not sure why, but I am pretty sure you did it on purpose: https://news.lugnet....eral/?n=38 :-) (...) Yeah, they do break the pattern, don't (...) (2 weeks ago, 10-Jun-26, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Another missing message (was Re: Posts expiring?)
|
|
(...) I wonder that, too. According to the articles, headers, it was posted via NNTP over TCP/IP using an NNTP client called Forte, rather than generated via script on the server via internal article injection like the 1/2 articles were. There's (...) (2 weeks ago, 10-Jun-26, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Another missing message (was Re: Posts expiring?)
|
|
(...) Oh, here's what must the problem: this message (of all messages, irony of ironies) is missing its X-Real-Life-Name header. It must have suffered an existential crisis and imploded. :-D (2 weeks ago, 11-Jun-26, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Another missing message (was Re: Posts expiring?)
|
|
(...) You have a very keen eye! That is interesting and ironic indeed! The post says the feature "was recently added" (past tense), which means that lugnet.announce:37 should have had that header inserted. In fact, #36 and #38 (before and after) (...) (2 weeks ago, 11-Jun-26, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Arcane technical history of LUGNET
|
|
(...) That, or an insistent mind. ;-) (...) Yeah, this is what I was noticing earlier, that I thought might be a clue to the problem. (I now think it's a mirage, a nothing-burger.) "Recently added" turns out to be 9/30/98, two days after launch; (...) (2 weeks ago, 11-Jun-26, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Arcane technical history of LUGNET
|
|
(...) Both are good! (...) Hmm, ya, unfortunately we didn't keep records on that, but I *think* it only applied forward...but if anything retroactively were applied, I reckon it would have been only in cases where someone had disclosed the (...) (2 weeks ago, 11-Jun-26, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Arcane technical history of LUGNET
|
|
(...) I did, actually. The Wayback Machine has also been helpful in my trip down memory lane, and an early "What's New on LUGNET" page mentions it. :-) (...) 'Twould be interesting to read, I've no doubt! I mentioned before about the RTL archive, (...) (1 week ago, 12-Jun-26, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
