 | | Re: Posting problem with the web-interface!
|
|
(...) Well, isn't that a fine bunch of potatoes. Hrmrm. Here's what shows up in the dead-articles file on the server (indented with | character)... |X-Nntp-Posting-Host: lugnet.com |Newsgroups: lugnet.off-topic.debate |References: (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Posting problem with the web-interface!
|
|
(...) Whoa, I *thought* that sounded familiar... (URL) Dig, dig, dig... --Todd (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Posting problem with the web-interface!
|
|
(...) There's also that <Fny956 thingy. That should rightfully be trimmed by the newsserver, being not a valid Reference (them things, say the RFC, are enclosed in <>'s). Anyway, by my count, there are exactly 511 characters in that reference. 512 (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Posting problem with the web-interface!
|
|
(...) Yeah.. I asked a few times about the related problem where the end of References: and the other headers after it show up after a \n. I suspect that CNews always inserts a \n after truncating a References: line to 511 (why not 512 beats me), (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Posting problem with the web-interface!
|
|
On Sat, 8 Jan 2000 04:45:50 GMT, jasper@janssen.dynip.com (Jasper Janssen) wrote: References: <Fnv9B7.H2D@lugnet.com> <387356CD.F163AA7@voyager.net> <3882db17.91566531@lugnet.com> <38741821.9B62453@uswest.net> <38741B3F.F8D3F7F6@voyager.net> (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Posting problem with the web-interface!
|
|
(...) Eeek, but it shouldn't *chop* at 512 characters, should it?! :-p What you said before -- keeping the first reference and eliminating some of the middle ones -- seems much more sane. That way they're all still <.*> . (...) slrn? (...) Dunno. (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Posting problem with the web-interface!
|
|
(...) No. See <URL:(URL) and <URL:(URL) The magic number seems to actually be 998. (...) Yes. From the GNKSA, above: <<Followup agents SHOULD not shorten References headers. If it is absolutely necessary to shorten the header, as a des- perate last (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Posting problem with the web-interface!
|
|
(...) Note that the GNKSA is here itself quoting another document, the in-progress update for RFC 1036. (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Posting problem with the web-interface!
|
|
(...) Ok, I think I've finally got it narrowed down. Looks like there's a horrible bug in the spawn() function of spawn.c of the NNTP Reference Implementation. Here's the loop where it spools stdin out to a tempfile, minus a few superfluous lines of (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Posting problem with the web-interface!
|
|
(...) I think you are correct. 1038 doesn't seem to specify any limit. The Internet draft at <URL:(URL) suggests 998 as a _minimum_ ("MUST") and lines of arbitrary length as recommended ("SHOULD"). I'm not sure where they got that number from; it (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Posting problem with the web-interface!
|
|
(...) This is clear at least - Todd, CNews is in violation of this. I think implementing it could be a good idea, but not high-priority at this time, as I haven't noticed anything breaking from them. (...) Ah, the infamous Son-of. The problem there (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Posting problem with the web-interface!
|
|
(...) Doesn't mean it's no longer relevant. (...) Ah, yes. That's right. That was the conclusion on ASR last time. Typical misinterpretation. (...) It sounds completely arbitrary. The only limit found commonly in the wild is the 512 one. Jasper (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Posting problem with the web-interface!
|
|
(...) I just noticed a post in the web interface yesterday to which the "Message is in Reply To:" was obviously and completely wrong. May be related. I'll go search for it again..... (...) Yes, but since this is an issue to which the existing RFCs (...) (25 years ago, 9-Jan-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Posting problem with the web-interface!
|
|
(...) Obsolete: no longer in use or no longer useful. D'ya have a different meaning for obsolete than I do? (25 years ago, 9-Jan-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Posting problem with the web-interface!
|
|
(...) In RFCs, yeah. 850 is obsoleted, but that doesn't mean there aren't still clients, or even transports, that still are compliant with 850 rather than 1036. Jasper (25 years ago, 9-Jan-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
