I think that if they only block the sites which are known
to be in the business of supporting spam, they still block
the great majority of it. In that case they don't have to
scan the junk because no valid email comes from those
sites.
> I get the impression that many of the archivbe sites actually start by
> mirroring RTFM, the one at mcgill for example.
On the other hand, I'm pretty sure Utrecht gets theirs from
postings. I don't know about others.
> You send something and wait a few days, and then relaize that you sent
> the wrong thing...
What did you send that got no response? AFAIK the server
sends you a response if 1) you send to the correct address,
and 2) your reply address is correct. Perhaps we could add
something to the guidelines to the effect of "the server
normally responds within a few minutes" to prevent someone
waiting a few days thinking the server is just busy. Again
though this should not be an issue if you got the
destination and return addresses correct.
> > Where did you think the server required part1 etc? AFAIK it
> > does not.
>
> >From reading the documentation. perhaps it is just a sugestion, but
> seemed to be "required" and without Actuall real-time feedback....
I think you've got the news.answers guidelines and the FAQ
posting server guidelines blended, which is understandable.
The FAQ posting server guidelines only mention "part1" in
the very last section, under the REORDER command, which
typically is not a high priority topic for most of us. The
news.answers guidelines do say (under 2.4 Multiple part
postings, C. Archive-name)
Multi-part postings should be named "name/part1", "name/part2",
etc.
However, the very next sentence is
If the parts of the postings are split by topic rather than
by size, then you can use short topic names instead.
and this is confirmed by examples. Once one gets to this
point in the document, it seems clear, but there's nothing
immediately under the 2.4 heading to define a multiple part
posting. Perhaps this leads to some confusion. I suggest
the following text for the 2.4 heading:
A "multiple part posting" is two or more related postings.
This may consist of a logically single posting divided to
limit the size of the actual articles, or logically
distinct postings. If it's split by size, the subject and
archive-name should include the part number but be
otherwise the same for all parts. If it's split logically,
you can use the same method or you can use distinct
subjects and archive names. See below for examples. If you
use the "part*" method, all the parts will get a single
entry in the LoPIP (see section 3.2); if you use the
logically distinct method, each section will get a separate
entry in the LoPIP.
(I gather that this is mostly manual, as I see several
variations in the LoPIP. I also note that I managed to
violated what I just described, as I use both "part n of m"
but subjects which are distinct in other ways as well. I'll
fix that on my next reorganization, which I'll do in my
Copious Spare Time(tm)).
Edward Reid
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Internet FAQ Consortium, 1997
All rights reserved