On Wed, 09 Mar 2011 00:06:01 +0000, yasar11732 wrote:
> Is this nntp service only for moderators or can anyone use it? If there
> is possibility that I can use it, what do I need to do?
There’s a FAQ about this on the FAQ page. 
Jim
–
Jim Henderson
openSUSE Forums Administrator
Forum Use Terms & Conditions at http://tinyurl.com/openSUSE-T-C
Hi, hi!
Maybe someone should add an explanation to that section why using NNTP by one and the web-interface by an other user will increase the probability of two nearly simultaneous answers to the same question 
Regards
Martin
On 03/09/2011 03:36 AM, pistazienfresser wrote:
> Maybe someone should add an explanation to that section why using NNTP
> by one and the web-interface by an other user will increase the
> probability of two nearly simultaneous answers to the same question 
OR two very different answers!
do you see either as a problem? i don’t in either case:
questioner gets two almost exactly the same answers, feels good
about the answer but still has the choice and responsibility to
accept/follow the advice given, or not…
questioner gets two widely different answers (one may be correct,
the other may not be) and hopefully is wise enough to wait for
another opinion, and/or check the “reputation” of the two answerers,
and/or check which answerer has been around (here) the longest, and/or
compare the number of replies of the two answerers, and/or ask some
probing questions in reply…
–
DenverD
CAVEAT: http://is.gd/bpoMD
[NNTP posted w/openSUSE 11.3, KDE4.5.5, Thunderbird3.0.11, nVidia
173.14.28 3D, Athlon 64 3000+]
“It is far easier to read, understand and follow the instructions than
to undo the problems caused by not.” DD 23 Jan 11
On Wed, 09 Mar 2011 02:36:01 +0000, pistazienfresser wrote:
> Maybe someone should add an explanation to that section why using NNTP
> by one and the web-interface by an other user will increase the
> probability of two nearly simultaneous answers to the same question
That’s not a bad idea…
Jim
–
Jim Henderson
openSUSE Forums Administrator
Forum Use Terms & Conditions at http://tinyurl.com/openSUSE-T-C
On 03/04/2011 05:06 PM, malcolmlewis wrote:
> That does happen on occasions, if the post is is synced and the nntp
> cron job runs, but the 10 minute edit window is still open for the
> poster and they edit their post.
apparently this old problem continues…causing me to wonder if it
will ever be fixed? (or is even on the to be fixed list–is a bugzilla
in order??)
i so say because today i see a forum user kicking back a little because
from their view i didn’t read their message…
which i did not read it all…because i could not! see post #1 in the
http forum: http://forums.opensuse.org/showthread.php?t=477555
and, compare it to what i see in my nntp client
http://susepaste.org/55041110
sad state of affairs: an internet technology leader can’t get this right
after how many years (4?)?
it is easy: just stop sweeping http postings to the nntp side until
after the http side edit limit is reached.
–
dd
Am 20.08.2012 10:25, schrieb dd@home.dk:
> and, compare it to what i see in my nntp client
> http://susepaste.org/55041110
Which is exactly what I also see on the nntp side, while there is a
detailed post on the html side.
–
PC: oS 12.2 x86_64 | i7-2600@3.40GHz | 16GB | KDE 4.8.4 | GeForce GT 420
ThinkPad E320: oS 12.1 x86_64 | i3@2.30GHz | 8GB | KDE 4.8.5 | HD 3000
eCAFE 800: oS 12.1 i586 | AMD Geode LX 800@500MHz | 512MB | KDE 3.5.10
On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 08:25:13 +0000, dd wrote:
> On 03/04/2011 05:06 PM, malcolmlewis wrote:
>> That does happen on occasions, if the post is is synced and the nntp
>> cron job runs, but the 10 minute edit window is still open for the
>> poster and they edit their post.
>
> apparently this old problem continues…causing me to wonder if it
> will ever be fixed? (or is even on the to be fixed list–is a bugzilla
> in order??)
>
> i so say because today i see a forum user kicking back a little because
> from their view i didn’t read their message…
>
> which i did not read it all…because i could not! see post #1 in the
> http forum: http://forums.opensuse.org/showthread.php?t=477555
>
> and, compare it to what i see in my nntp client
> http://susepaste.org/55041110
>
> sad state of affairs: an internet technology leader can’t get this right
> after how many years (4?)?
>
> it is easy: just stop sweeping http postings to the nntp side until
> after the http side edit limit is reached.
It is not actually an easy problem to solve, as I’ve explained before.
But thank you for your input - it has been noted.
Jim
–
Jim Henderson
openSUSE Forums Administrator
Forum Use Terms & Conditions at http://tinyurl.com/openSUSE-T-C
Testing a line with a lone dot at the end - the next line should disappear on nntp side .
This line should not get the nntp side.
On 2012-08-20 10:25, dd@home.dk wrote:
> it is easy: just stop sweeping http postings to the nntp side until after the http side edit
> limit is reached.
I think that that was not the problem, but the lone dot at the end of the first line. I’m going
to test that in a minute.
–
Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R.
(from 12.1 x86_64 “Asparagus” at Telcontar)
Am 20.08.2012 23:56, schrieb robin listas:
>
> dd@home.dk;2480976 Wrote:
>> On 03/04/2011 05:06 PM, malcolmlewis wrote:
>>
>> sad state of affairs: an internet technology leader can’t get this
>> right
>> after how many years (4?)?
>> –
>> dd
>
> Testing a line with a lone dot at the end - the next line should
> disappear on nntp side .
> This line should not get the nntp side.
>
>
The line is visible via nntp.
–
PC: oS 12.2 x86_64 | i7-2600@3.40GHz | 16GB | KDE 4.8.4 | GeForce GT 420
ThinkPad E320: oS 12.1 x86_64 | i3@2.30GHz | 8GB | KDE 4.8.5 | HD 3000
eCAFE 800: oS 12.1 i586 | AMD Geode LX 800@500MHz | 512MB | KDE 3.5.10
On 2012-08-21 00:06, Martin Helm wrote:
> Am 20.08.2012 23:56, schrieb robin listas:
>> Testing a line with a lone dot at the end - the next line should
>> disappear on nntp side .
>> This line should not get the nntp side.
>>
>>
> The line is visible via nntp.
Yes…
–
Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R.
(from 12.1 x86_64 “Asparagus” at Telcontar)
On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 21:47:13 +0000, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> On 2012-08-20 10:25, dd@home.dk wrote:
>
>> it is easy: just stop sweeping http postings to the nntp side until
>> after the http side edit limit is reached.
>
> I think that that was not the problem, but the lone dot at the end of
> the first line. I’m going to test that in a minute.
That problem did get fixed, that was fairly easy to fix once it was
identified.
Jim Henderson
openSUSE Forums Administrator
Forum Use Terms & Conditions at http://tinyurl.com/openSUSE-T-C
On 08/21/2012 12:18 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> On 2012-08-21 00:06, Martin Helm wrote:
>> Am 20.08.2012 23:56, schrieb robin listas:
>
>>> Testing a line with a lone dot at the end - the next line should
>>> disappear on nntp side .
>>> This line should not get the nntp side.
>>>
>>>
>> The line is visible via nntp.
>
> Yes…
i had forgotten about the lone dot problem…i believe it comes when a
line begins with a single dot followed by a carriage return…if that
is correct you should soon see this message end abruptly
…
if the message continues then either that was repaired or it needs to be
a lone dot followed by a space or two, like this
…
or this
…
–
dd
On 08/21/2012 09:27 AM, dd@home.dk wrote:
> i had forgotten about the lone dot problem…i believe it comes when a
> line begins with a single dot followed by a carriage return…if that
> is correct you should soon see this message end abruptly
> .
amazing…on the nntp side a lone dot is seen…on the http side TWO
dots (so, someone fixed that problem, by adding a dot after a lone dot
at the beginning of a line)
good on’em!
–
dd
On 2012-08-21 11:18, dd@home.dk wrote:
> On 08/21/2012 09:27 AM, dd@home.dk wrote:
>> i had forgotten about the lone dot problem…i believe it comes when a
>> line begins with a single dot followed by a carriage return…if that
>> is correct you should soon see this message end abruptly
>> .
>
> amazing…on the nntp side a lone dot is seen…on the http side TWO dots (so, someone fixed
> that problem, by adding a dot after a lone dot at the beginning of a line)
>
> good on’em!
Yes, that’s what Jims said. Obviously they did some “hacking” like duplicating dots to bypass
that lone dot (un)happy trigger.
By the way, just saw a post from swerdna duplicated with slight differences on the nntp side.
Another instance of gateway firing before an edit, which Jim said was very rare to consider an
issue >:-)
–
Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R.
(from 12.1 x86_64 “Asparagus” at Telcontar)
On 08/21/2012 09:33 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> By the way, just saw a post from swerdna duplicated with slight differences on the nntp side.
> Another instance of gateway firing before an edit, which Jim said was very rare to consider an
> issue >:-)
i saw that swerdna double post also…but, it was an nntp post and i
guessed that rather than it being a gateway problem, he just posted
twice–there were two different time stamps (iirc)
–
dd
On 2012-08-21 21:48, dd@home.dk wrote:
> On 08/21/2012 09:33 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>> By the way, just saw a post from swerdna duplicated with slight differences on the nntp side.
>> Another instance of gateway firing before an edit, which Jim said was very rare to consider an
>> issue >:-)
>
> i saw that swerdna double post also…but, it was an nntp post and i guessed that rather than it
> being a gateway problem, he just posted twice–there were two different time stamps (iirc)
Ah, then I was mistaken.
–
Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R.
(from 11.4 x86_64 “Celadon” (Minas Tirith))