To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.admin.generalOpen lugnet.admin.general in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Administrative / General / 1425
1424  |  1426
Subject: 
Re: Uh Oh... (was Traffic Error )
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.admin.general
Date: 
Mon, 19 Apr 1999 23:06:26 GMT
Viewed: 
986 times
  
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
In lugnet.admin.general, radiotitan@yahoo.com (Tom McDonald) writes:
But if you don't want to let this go, I'll be happy to answer questions.

I don't want to let something go that might conceivably be a bug somewhere.
That wouldn't be good.  Someone (...or...some...thing ;) caused the server
to repost the message a second time.  Unless there is some really horrible
strange bug somewhere, the only way this could happen is if the server was
explicitly asked to do so by a client (browser).

Your first message is dated Sat, 17 Apr 1999 00:28:10 GMT, and the second is
dated Sat, 17 Apr 1999 05:34:07 GMT.  In local time (EDT) these are shifted
back 4 hours.  Looking at the webserver logs, here's where the first one
shows up:

  IP Addr: 199.174.96.18
     Date: 16/Apr/1999:20:28:12 -0400
=> Request: POST /news/post/submit.cgi HTTP/1.1
   Result: 200 (OK)
    Bytes: 1008
  Referer: http://www.lugnet.com/news/post/?lugnet.admin.general:1404
  Browser: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.01; Windows 98)

And here is where the second one shows up:

  IP Addr: 199.174.98.143
     Date: 17/Apr/1999:01:33:37 -0400
  Request: GET /news/traffic/ HTTP/1.1
   Result: 200 (OK)
    Bytes: 11958
  Referer: http://www.lugnet.com/news/post/submit.cgi
  Browser: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.01; Windows 98)

  IP Addr: 199.174.98.143
     Date: 17/Apr/1999:01:34:09 -0400
=> Request: POST /news/post/submit.cgi HTTP/1.1
   Result: 200 (OK)
    Bytes: 1008
  Referer: http://www.lugnet.com/news/post/?lugnet.admin.general:1404
  Browser: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.01; Windows 98)

  IP Addr: 199.174.98.143
     Date: 17/Apr/1999:01:34:11 -0400
  Request: GET /news/post/?lugnet.admin.general:1404 HTTP/1.1"
   Result: 200 (OK)
    Bytes: 8124
  Referer: http://www.lugnet.com/news/display.cgi?lugnet.admin.general:1404
  Browser: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.01; Windows 98)

  IP Addr: 199.174.98.143
     Date: 17/Apr/1999:01:34:16 -0400
  Request: GET /news/traffic/ HTTP/1.1
   Result: 200 (OK)
    Bytes: -
  Referer: http://www.lugnet.com/news/post/submit.cgi
  Browser: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.01; Windows 98)

(Your IP address changed between the time the first message was posted and
the time the second message was posted.  Is this what you meant by logged
out and back in?  Are you on a dynamic IP (not static IP) connection?)

I don't know. I'm just using my one machine at home with Mindspring as my ISP.
I don't remember if I had to disconnect that night, but probly did. (I have a
bad headache right now and I'm pumped full of ibuprofen :(


It looks from the logs like you visited the traffic page at 1:33am EDT
(10:33pm PDT), then went back to another page or window where the old form
was, then you clicked the "Post Message" button for some reason (probably
accidentally), and then after posting this new article #1409, you hit the
Back button twice and hit Reload to clear out the form, presumably in
anticipation of composing a new message or just to see what was going on.
Then you visited the traffic page again, and then there was a 17 minute gap
of activity from your IP address, and then you submitted article #1410 (log
entry not shown above).

So as far as I can tell, it *definitely* looks like you did indeed --
somehow -- explicitly ask the server to post the message twice.

I wouldn't have made a good lawyer. I'm just calling like I thought I saw it
but I could be mistaken and I've got no witnesses. I'm not trying to change my
tune either, but I guess I did what you said. <sigh> And I *wanted* to be a
systems analyst when I grew up :)


I see that you are running a version of Microshaft Internet Explorer which
is masquerading as Netscape Navigator.  If you don't remember clicking the
"Post Message" button, then you may want to seriously consider ditching
that piece of garbage MSIE and switching to Netscape.  :)

Wow. I didn't know that. I'll have to look into that. I bought my machine
prebuilt but new, so who knows what they did to it before I got it? I use
Netscape at work but thought I was using only MSIE 4 at home. I do like
Netscape though.


Some final questions:

- When you say you spent 5 continual hours on the machine, do you mean that
you were sitting at the console without getting up?

Not in this house. I probably never get more than an hour or two at the most
of contiguous computering. For some reason I was thinking that I saw this
"error" from work where I couldn't be on more than 5 hours. But your
timestamping says otherwise and I believe it. The strange thing is having all
that text that I wrote still hang out on a page for five hours. I mean, I like
to ego surf occasionally, but that's really pushing it.


Did anyone else (a
prankster, perhaps?) have access to the machine during those 5 hours?

My 2-yr-old daughter has been known to point and click successfully. She could
be the culprit, but she's also one of the reasons I can't stay on in larger of
chunks time.


- Have you ever experienced drug-related blackouts?

Hey, I resemble that remark! :) But it's been years and I never did acid. And
thanks for thinking those blackouts were drug-related and not a symptom of
acute schizophrenia ;)

I don't think it was a bug after all. It's probly just as you described it. If
it is a bug it will show up again again again again again again again again
again again again again again again again again again again again again again
again again again again again again again again again again again.

(ending with small (and really old) joke)

-Tom McD.



Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Uh Oh... (was Traffic Error )
 
(...) I don't want to let something go that might conceivably be a bug somewhere. That wouldn't be good. Someone (...or...some...thing ;) caused the server to repost the message a second time. Unless there is some really horrible strange bug (...) (26 years ago, 19-Apr-99, to lugnet.admin.general)

27 Messages in This Thread:






Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR