 | | Re: NNTP interface broken?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
"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?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
"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)
|
| |
| | Re: NNTP interface broken?
|
|
"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?
|
|
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?
|
|
(...) 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)
|
