1) The bot should reply *only* by email, and never on the newsgroup.
Oh, understood. You very *hate* the reply on the group's
Yes, because besides the fact that it pollutes the group, it is completely useless. Let me show why, and I will answer later to the rest of your message.
I can now explain my reason. Here are the possible situations when we try to write on usenet and want to know if it worked. 1) We can't write. 2) We can write, but not read. 3) We can write, and read, on our local server, but the post is not propagated to other servers. 4) All is working OK. In what situation would a bot be useful ? Situation 1 : No. The bot doesn't receive anything. Situation 2 : Only a bot replying via email can be useful. We won't read bot's replies on usenet. Situation 3 : No. The bot doesn't receive anything. Situation 4 : No. Because human responses are a lot more useful than the bot response. See my test <news:q2k573$gpd$, it received six responses from six different servers, the first one no more than one minute after I sent it (and read it myself). In conclusion : the bot replying on the newsgroup is only pollution. But the bot replying by email IS useful in situation 2. P.-S. : Also note that the current usenet responses of your bot don't respect the RFCs, because they include 8bit characters but they don't include the appropriate MIME headers. -- Olivier Miakinen
Le 27/01/2019 12:36, I aswered Ivo Gandolfo :
1) The bot should reply *only* by email, and never on the newsgroup.
Oh, understood. You very *hate* the reply on the group's
Yes, because besides the fact that it pollutes the group, it is
completely useless. Let me show why, and I will answer later to
the rest of your message.
I can now explain my reason.
Here are the possible situations when we try to write on usenet and
want to know if it worked.
1) We can't write.
2) We can write, but not read.
3) We can write, and read, on our local server, but the post is not
propagated to other servers.
4) All is working OK.
In what situation would a bot be useful ?
Situation 1 : No. The bot doesn't receive anything.
Situation 2 : Only a bot replying via email can be useful. We won't
read bot's replies on usenet.
Situation 3 : No. The bot doesn't receive anything.
Situation 4 : No. Because human responses are a lot more useful than the
bot response. See my test <news:q2k573$gpd$2@cabale.usenet-fr.net>, it
received six responses from six different servers, the first one no
more than one minute after I sent it (and read it myself).
In conclusion : the bot replying on the newsgroup is only pollution. But
the bot replying by email IS useful in situation 2.
P.-S. : Also note that the current usenet responses of your bot don't
respect the RFCs, because they include 8bit characters but they don't
include the appropriate MIME headers.
1) The bot should reply *only* by email, and never on the newsgroup.
Oh, understood. You very *hate* the reply on the group's
Yes, because besides the fact that it pollutes the group, it is completely useless. Let me show why, and I will answer later to the rest of your message.
I can now explain my reason. Here are the possible situations when we try to write on usenet and want to know if it worked. 1) We can't write. 2) We can write, but not read. 3) We can write, and read, on our local server, but the post is not propagated to other servers. 4) All is working OK. In what situation would a bot be useful ? Situation 1 : No. The bot doesn't receive anything. Situation 2 : Only a bot replying via email can be useful. We won't read bot's replies on usenet. Situation 3 : No. The bot doesn't receive anything. Situation 4 : No. Because human responses are a lot more useful than the bot response. See my test <news:q2k573$gpd$, it received six responses from six different servers, the first one no more than one minute after I sent it (and read it myself). In conclusion : the bot replying on the newsgroup is only pollution. But the bot replying by email IS useful in situation 2. P.-S. : Also note that the current usenet responses of your bot don't respect the RFCs, because they include 8bit characters but they don't include the appropriate MIME headers. -- Olivier Miakinen
Olivier Miakinen
[Supersedes] Le 27/01/2019 12:36, I answered Ivo Gandolfo :
1) The bot should reply *only* by email, and never on the newsgroup.
Oh, understood. You very *hate* the reply on the group's
Yes, because besides the fact that it pollutes the group, it is completely useless. Let me show why, and I will answer later to the rest of your message.
I can now explain my reason. Here are the possible situations when we try to write on usenet and want to know if it worked. 1) We can't write. 2) We can write, but not read. 3) We can write, and read, on our local server, but the post is not propagated to other servers. 4) All is working OK. In what situation would a bot be useful ? Situation 1 : No. The bot doesn't receive anything. Situation 2 : Only a bot replying via email can be useful. We won't read bot's replies on usenet. Situation 3 : No. The bot doesn't receive anything. Situation 4 : No. Because human responses are a lot more useful than the bot response. See my test <news:q2k573$gpd$, it received six responses from six different servers, the first one no more than one minute after I sent it (and read it myself). In conclusion : the bot replying on the newsgroup is only pollution. But the bot replying by email IS useful in situation 2. P.-S. : Also note that the current usenet responses of your bot don't respect the RFCs, because they include 8bit characters but they don't include the appropriate MIME headers. -- Olivier Miakinen
[Supersedes]
Le 27/01/2019 12:36, I answered Ivo Gandolfo :
1) The bot should reply *only* by email, and never on the newsgroup.
Oh, understood. You very *hate* the reply on the group's
Yes, because besides the fact that it pollutes the group, it is
completely useless. Let me show why, and I will answer later to
the rest of your message.
I can now explain my reason.
Here are the possible situations when we try to write on usenet and
want to know if it worked.
1) We can't write.
2) We can write, but not read.
3) We can write, and read, on our local server, but the post is not
propagated to other servers.
4) All is working OK.
In what situation would a bot be useful ?
Situation 1 : No. The bot doesn't receive anything.
Situation 2 : Only a bot replying via email can be useful. We won't
read bot's replies on usenet.
Situation 3 : No. The bot doesn't receive anything.
Situation 4 : No. Because human responses are a lot more useful than the
bot response. See my test <news:q2k573$gpd$2@cabale.usenet-fr.net>, it
received six responses from six different servers, the first one no
more than one minute after I sent it (and read it myself).
In conclusion : the bot replying on the newsgroup is only pollution. But
the bot replying by email IS useful in situation 2.
P.-S. : Also note that the current usenet responses of your bot don't
respect the RFCs, because they include 8bit characters but they don't
include the appropriate MIME headers.
[Supersedes] Le 27/01/2019 12:36, I answered Ivo Gandolfo :
1) The bot should reply *only* by email, and never on the newsgroup.
Oh, understood. You very *hate* the reply on the group's
Yes, because besides the fact that it pollutes the group, it is completely useless. Let me show why, and I will answer later to the rest of your message.
I can now explain my reason. Here are the possible situations when we try to write on usenet and want to know if it worked. 1) We can't write. 2) We can write, but not read. 3) We can write, and read, on our local server, but the post is not propagated to other servers. 4) All is working OK. In what situation would a bot be useful ? Situation 1 : No. The bot doesn't receive anything. Situation 2 : Only a bot replying via email can be useful. We won't read bot's replies on usenet. Situation 3 : No. The bot doesn't receive anything. Situation 4 : No. Because human responses are a lot more useful than the bot response. See my test <news:q2k573$gpd$, it received six responses from six different servers, the first one no more than one minute after I sent it (and read it myself). In conclusion : the bot replying on the newsgroup is only pollution. But the bot replying by email IS useful in situation 2. P.-S. : Also note that the current usenet responses of your bot don't respect the RFCs, because they include 8bit characters but they don't include the appropriate MIME headers. -- Olivier Miakinen
Olivier Miakinen
Le 27/01/2019 11:49, Ivo Gandolfo a écrit :
[the] initial version of the bot have similar code (not equal), but newer worked, or work with a "bug", and I don't understand why (you have areally noticed of them in previous test's in this year's).
Send me your code, I will see and try to find the bugs.
[..] reply in the group's, it's a "nice" feature.
No, it's not. See my other response.
I'm waiting for your reply/idea :)
I'm waiting for your code :) Alternatively, since it is GPL code, you can post it in a way that every interested people can see it. The more readers you have, the more chances there are that all bugs will be found. -- Olivier Miakinen
Le 27/01/2019 11:49, Ivo Gandolfo a écrit :
[the] initial version of the bot have similar code (not equal), but newer
worked, or work with a "bug", and I don't understand why (you have
areally noticed of them in previous test's in this year's).
Send me your code, I will see and try to find the bugs.
[..] reply in the group's, it's a "nice" feature.
No, it's not. See my other response.
I'm waiting for your reply/idea :)
I'm waiting for your code :)
Alternatively, since it is GPL code, you can post it in a way that
every interested people can see it. The more readers you have, the
more chances there are that all bugs will be found.
[the] initial version of the bot have similar code (not equal), but newer worked, or work with a "bug", and I don't understand why (you have areally noticed of them in previous test's in this year's).
Send me your code, I will see and try to find the bugs.
[..] reply in the group's, it's a "nice" feature.
No, it's not. See my other response.
I'm waiting for your reply/idea :)
I'm waiting for your code :) Alternatively, since it is GPL code, you can post it in a way that every interested people can see it. The more readers you have, the more chances there are that all bugs will be found. -- Olivier Miakinen
