Bruce Lilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Russ Allbery wrote: >> To take an example, if someone posts to a local Stanford newsgroup and >> also cc's [EMAIL PROTECTED], that message will show up at a mail >> to news gateway, since we gate all mail to postmaster into a newsgroup. >> And that gateway can't trust the Newsgroups header in the message; it >> will do completely the wrong thing.
> I don't see the problem; if the message hits an injector first and the > gateway also tries to inject to the specified stanford.foo or whatever > newsgroup as well as the gated postmaster group, surely the message-id > will already be there and there won't be a duplicate or other problem. You're missing a couple of things. First, the message has already been posted to the group the original poster was trying to post it to before it ever goes through the mail to news gateway. So if the gateway then can't post becuase of a duplicate message ID, the message never shows up in the postmaster group; in effect, the cc to postmaster doesn't work and the message is, from the perspective of people reading through that gateway, lost. That's obviously bad. Second, even if you could work around that, the newsgroups for gatewayed role address mail are not accessible to normal Stanford users for obvious reasons, which means that they also don't allow crossposting with regular Stanford groups. So even if you could patch the message up to crosspost, that doesn't work. There have to be two messages posted, to two separate groups, and the mail to news gateway has to ignore the Newsgroups header in the mailed copy that it receives. There's no other way to make this work. > And if by quirk the mailed copy hits the gateway before the posted copy > is injected, the same applies. So what's the problem? We actually want to see the message in both groups. :) > Is the postmaster gateway mangling message-ids or something? Of course. It has to. In fact, most non-trivial mail to news gateways have to rewrite message IDs. It's a requirement for any gateway of a mailing list that might be gatewayed by multiple people independently. As for the other issue of IMAP servers re-serving news messages via IMAP, I think we've pretty much talked around this issue. I continue to believe that there are points in the IMAP server code where it knows it's dealing with news articles and *could* do a conversion, for pretty much any IMAP server out there, although there may be some rare cases where it's tricky to find that spot. I also believe that this is rather annoying to have to do. I agree that if an existing IMAP gateway for news messages is presented with messages with UTF-8 headers, it's not going to work correctly, and that in some circumstances keeping such messages away from an IMAP gateway that's not yet been modified may be tricky. The rest I think is just disagreements of opinion over what level of backward compatibility is mandatory versus desireable, and since I'm not really arguing for solution (A) anyway, just trying to summarize it well enough that people can evaluate it, I think I'll leave it at that. I don't think at this point we're adding new information that would be of use to people who haven't yet made up their mind. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
