 | | NNTP interface broken? —Mike Walsh
|
| | | Did something change in the NNTP interface lately? I am seeing the same behavior as described in this article: (URL) had assumed that my Outlook Express installation had gotten confused (although it has never happened previously) and marked it up as (...) (21 years ago, 27-May-03, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: NNTP interface broken? —Cary Clark
|
| | | | | I'm seeing the same behavior as Mike, and the same number of unread articles in the same groups. Todd, is there anything we can do on our end to provide you with additional diagnostics? Cary (...) I >had assumed that my Outlook Express installation (...) (21 years ago, 27-May-03, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: NNTP interface broken? — Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) No. (...) When did you first observe this behavior? (...) Nothing has changed in the code. Some articles were retro-filtered to decode RFC2047 headers last night, however. (...) Can you tell me the subject lines of those two messages? (...) (...) (21 years ago, 27-May-03, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: NNTP interface broken? —Carlo Ottolina
|
| | | | | "Todd Lehman" <todd@lugnet.com> wrote in message news:HFJtGH.44C@lugnet.com... (...) This is the trace of a connection to lugnet.loc.it: ---...--- GROUP lugnet.loc.it 211 13384 1 13101 lugnet.loc.it ---...--- 13384 - 13101 = 283 283 is the number of (...) (21 years ago, 27-May-03, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: NNTP interface broken? — Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) What kind of trace is that? It doesn't look like a raw NNTP capture. Anyway, could you try something for me? Of those 283 messages, pick a few and download them, then restart Outlook and see how many it reports. (...) If you happen to know (...) (21 years ago, 27-May-03, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: NNTP interface broken? —Carlo Ottolina
|
| | | | | | "Todd Lehman" <todd@lugnet.com> wrote in message news:HFK07y.17Mo@lugnet.com... (...) It is just the NNTP part of the packets. I just did a trace with Ethereal, and this is what I get: GROUP lugnet.loc.eu 211 186 1 188 lugnet.loc.eu GROUP (...) (21 years ago, 27-May-03, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: NNTP interface broken? —Carlo Ottolina
|
| | | | | | | Ok, it seems you just fix it. This is what I get now: GROUP lugnet.loc.it 211 13087 1 13106 lugnet.loc.it "estimated" < "last": OE is fine with it. Thanks. BTW: why is "estimated" <> "last" - "first"? -- Cheers Carlo LugNet #24 (21 years ago, 27-May-03, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: NNTP interface broken? — Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) Ah, OK. I get the same thing by telnetting to port 119. Thanks. (...) OK, this group is correct. The last article number is 188, and there are 186 articles present, because 2 in this group were cancelled. (...) OK, this group is incorrect. The (...) (21 years ago, 27-May-03, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: NNTP interface broken? —Mike Walsh
|
| | | | "Todd Lehman" <todd@lugnet.com> wrote in message news:HFJtGH.44C@lugnet.com... [ ... snipped .. .] (...) to (...) is (...) In the last week or so. I was on the road for a good portion of last week and didn't reach LUGNET as much as I normally do. I (...) (21 years ago, 27-May-03, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| | | | |
