Re: New NNTP-I/F of the lists
| From: | Thomas | Date: | Sat, 07 Jul 2001 10:51:24 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: New NNTP-I/F of the lists | ||
| References: | 1 2 | Groups: | php.doc |
| Request: | Send a blank email to phpdoc+get-969335892@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
Hello Jim,
thanks for the answer, the rest is below:
> first off, what news client are you using?
Netscape 4.73.
> Thomas <tom@php.net> wrote:
> > 1.) I can't read several messages, but get the "message-headers" for
>
> i am able to retrieve all of the articles you listed just fine via the
> web interface to the nntp server at http://news.php.net/. it
> could be
> that your news client is being more picky about message contents than
> that interface is.
You were right with the client, I've just tried it with Outlook Expr. and
can read them there. I didn't know that there is already a web-interface,
but IMHO the usability of a web-i/f (in general, not esp. this one) can't be
as good as with a news-client. But anyhow, I appreciate your efforts!
> > 2.) Threading: e.g.
> > Bug #11833: Unsufficient docs M.Izydorski@rubikon.pl 2
> > Jul 2001 10:53 and
> > Bug #11833 Updated: Unsufficient docs goba@php.net 2
> > Jul 2001 11:06
> >
> > are 2 separated threads, as well as
>
> this may get resolved with new bug reports. (these weren't threaded
> with the old news server, either.)
That would be really great (Have to believe you with old server, can't proof
it :)
> in general, because these are really mail messages, the threading
> won't be as clean as a traditional newsgroup. (it really depends on
> how forgiving the client is of seeing 'In-Reply-To' headers versus
> 'References' headers.)
Hm... I'm not an expert, but if e.g.
"Re: [PHP-NOTES] note 13852 ....." works with
"Re: [PHP-DOC] Re: [PHP-NOTES] note 13852 .....",
Why doesn't then
"Re: [PHP-DEV] Security?" work with
"RE: [PHP-DOC] Re: [PHP-DEV] Security?" ?
And a general thought:
I've just seen the message:
"Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-DOC] Re: [PHP-DEV] Security?"
Is there a possiblity to stop this "re:[xx]re:[xx]re:[xx]"-inclusion after a
certain "cycle"? (but bring it into the thread :)?
> > Does anybody know who is in contact with the provider?
>
> we are the provider.
Great, than it is in our hands!
Best regards,
Thomas