Re: Usenet Gateway down.... for two weeks - Mailing list pgsql-www

From Marc G. Fournier
Subject Re: Usenet Gateway down.... for two weeks
Date
Msg-id 9B83E0AE5B6DF16B56BC02C4@ganymede.hub.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Usenet Gateway down.... for two weeks  ("Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>)
Responses Re: Usenet Gateway down.... for two weeks  (Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>)
List pgsql-www
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


> Is there any kind of test we could put in place to make sure this
> doesn't happen again? I mean I can't remember a single day in the last
> 5 years that hackers didn't get at least one message.

The only thing think of is to do something like:

# telnet localhost nntp
Trying ::1...
Trying 127.0.0.1...
Connected to localhost.
Escape character is '^]'.
200 news.hub.org InterNetNews NNRP server INN 2.4.3 ready (posting ok).
GROUP pgsql.hackers
211 48254 37 48358 pgsql.hackers

Now, that said, not sure what the numbers mean ... 48358 is the latest, and 37 
is the oldest article number based on the active file ... not sure what the 
211/48254 are though ...

The problem is that 38358 will increment if a posting comes in from the 
Internet itself, so you can't just check for that to increase, you'd have to 
take a look at the Path in the header of the article itself, and look for:

Path: news.hub.org!postgresql.org!pgsql-hackers-owner+m114209

which translates as news.hub.org received from postgresql.org ...


- ----
Marc G. Fournier           Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email . scrappy@hub.org                              MSN . scrappy@hub.org
Yahoo . yscrappy               Skype: hub.org        ICQ . 7615664
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFHu4ty4QvfyHIvDvMRAh/OAJ42XW8a+Cy3U2IDzs/Q/K1gklyqigCgznuQ
0i/BDIf9NlBH4hIfvJ0sFz0=
=n9N7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



pgsql-www by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: Usenet Gateway down.... for two weeks
Next
From: Devrim GÜNDÜZ
Date:
Subject: Re: Spam filters on the mailing lists