| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 39 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 15:35:18 |
| Calls: | 176 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 118 |
| Messages: | 64,140 |
On Wed, 01 May 2024 20:07:14 +0200, you wrote to All:
Thanks Carlos!
Hello Carlos,
On Wed, 01 May 2024 20:07:14 +0200, you wrote to All:
Thanks Carlos!
Regards,
Nick
... Take my advice, I don't use it anyway.
--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20240309
* Origin: _thePharcyde distribution system (Wisconsin) (1:154/10)
Test.
...
---
* Origin: _thePharcyde distribution system (Wisconsin) (1:154/10)
I've improved that feature with this commit:
Thanks Carlos!
Test.
On Sat, 4 May 2024 05:43:00 -0500, Tommi Koivula -> Nicholas Boel wrote:
TK> Test.
TK> ...
TK> ---
TK> * Origin: _thePharcyde distribution system (Wisconsin) (1:154/10)
Not sure if you actually saw anything odd, but there was a typo in my
commit, pointed out by Carlos, that has since been fixed.
On Sat, 4 May 2024 05:43:00 -0500, Tommi Koivula -> Nicholas Boel wrote:
I've improved that feature with this commit:
Thanks Carlos!
Test.
Testing another typo fix in 2.4.3 commit.
Yes I did. I applied your pathes to smapinntpd, and then reverted back. Tested your server also.
Then I had no time to test more. ;)
Continuing now..
I think I've got it ok now. ;)
On Sat, 4 May 2024 23:48:18 +0300, Tommi Koivula -> Nicholas Boel wrote:
I think I've got it ok now. ;)
That's good. I was worried about you for a second there. ;)
BTW, is "@RFC-User-Agent:" a better choice over "NOTE:" according to
some such standards I don't care to read? I've noticed you recently
changed this.
BTW, is "@RFC-User-Agent:" a better choice over "NOTE:" according to
some such standards I don't care to read? I've noticed you recently
changed this.
I wanted to "log" something from nntp client to kludges. So NOTE was changed to what the client sends.. Just for testing..
X-SMAPI-Control: @RFC-User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64;
x64; rv:115.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/115.10
X-SMAPI-Control: @RFC-Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
X-SMAPI-Control: @RFC-Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
On Sun, 5 May 2024 00:14:44 +0300, Tommi Koivula -> Nicholas Boel wrote:
BTW, is "@RFC-User-Agent:" a better choice over "NOTE:" according to
some such standards I don't care to read? I've noticed you recently
changed this.
I wanted to "log" something from nntp client to kludges. So NOTE was changed to what the client sends.. Just for testing..
X-SMAPI-Control: @RFC-User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:115.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/115.10
X-SMAPI-Control: @RFC-Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
X-SMAPI-Control: @RFC-Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Is that specific to Thunderbird and/or Sylpheed? I believe slrn and tin
it doesn't use or display "RFC". It just sends "User-Agent:", "Content-Type:", and "Content-Transfer-Encoding:".
Is that specific to Thunderbird and/or Sylpheed? I believe slrn and tin
it doesn't use or display "RFC". It just sends "User-Agent:",
"Content-Type:", and "Content-Transfer-Encoding:".
The "RFC-" part of the kludge was added by me.
Is that specific to Thunderbird and/or Sylpheed? I believe slrn
and tin it doesn't use or display "RFC". It just sends
"User-Agent:", "Content-Type:", and
"Content-Transfer-Encoding:".
The "RFC-" part of the kludge was added by me.
I get that. But, did you get that from some technical document that
that should be in use?
Or is this something you've just done yourself because FMail adds a RFC-X-NO-ARCHIVE kludge?
From Wikipedia:
"The proper field to prevent a message from being archived is:
X-No-Archive: Yes (abbreviated as "XNAY")."
So I imagine what FMail is doing, isn't actually preventing messages
from being archived.
Or is this something you've just done yourself because FMail adds a
RFC-X-NO-ARCHIVE kludge?
Nothing to do with FMail. Actually I cannot find anything like that in fmail docs or in the code.
Maybe it is the GoldED of Wilfred that is adding that kludge. ;)
From Wikipedia:
"The proper field to prevent a message from being archived is:
X-No-Archive: Yes (abbreviated as "XNAY")."
So I imagine what FMail is doing, isn't actually preventing messages
from being archived.
In the fidonet, probably not.
I get that. But, did you get that from some technical document that
that should be in use?
Nope.. Just my own thing, something what soupgate does..
Or is this something you've just done yourself because FMail adds a
RFC-X-NO-ARCHIVE kludge?
Nothing to do with FMail. Actually I cannot find anything like that in fmail docs or in the code. Maybe it is the GoldED of Wilfred that is adding that kludge. ;)
It indeed has nothing to do with FMail.
Maybe it is the GoldED of Wilfred that is adding that kludge. ;)
That is true.
From Wikipedia:
"The proper field to prevent a message from being archived is:
X-No-Archive: Yes (abbreviated as "XNAY")."
So I imagine what FMail is doing, isn't actually preventing messages
from being archived.
I have no illusions about that. It's incase my messages are gated to newsgroups in some of the fido areas...
Right, but the question is (after reading that wiki site, and
finding no reference to said prefix), is if the newsgroup software
(s) are looking for an "X-NO-ARCHIVE" or an "RFC-X-NO-ARCHIVE"
header field. According to the above, adding the "RFC" prefix would
cause the search for the proper header field to fail, as would the
rest of the ones Tommi has changed. That's why I asked.
That's also possible. I just don't understand where the "RFC"
prefix came from for some of these headers (even the few already in
use in Fidonet). I can't find any reference to that prefix anywhere.
That's also possible. I just don't understand where the "RFC"
prefix came from for some of these headers (even the few already in
use in Fidonet). I can't find any reference to that prefix anywhere.
Well, even GoldED has some 'RFC' things in its internet support..
If some news archive software is searching for "X-NO-ARCHIVE", it might
be happy to find "RFC-X-NO-ARCHIVE". :)
Right, but the question is (after reading that wiki site, and finding
no reference to said prefix), is if the newsgroup software(s) are
looking for an "X-NO-ARCHIVE" or an "RFC-X-NO-ARCHIVE" header field. According to the above, adding the "RFC" prefix would cause the search
for the proper header field to fail, as would the rest of the ones
Tommi has changed. That's why I asked.