[ntp:questions] Odd (mis)behavior when reference clock fails

Kevin Oberman oberman at es.net
Fri Sep 19 15:35:50 UTC 2008


> From: Steve Kostecke <kostecke at ntp.org>
> Date: 19 Sep 2008 12:21:19 GMT
> Sender: questions-bounces+oberman=es.net at lists.ntp.org
> 
> 
> On 2008-09-19, David Woolley <david at ex.djwhome.demon.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > Firstly, the original of this thread root has been demimed out of 
> > existence by the mail to news gateway.  I thought the official line is 
> > that what went out to the mailing list was the same that which went to 
> > the newsgroup.
> 
> Thank-you so much for your sarcasm. It goes so far in helping to make
> things work better.
> 
> All articles which are posted to the news-group are forwarded to the
> mailing list after MIME stripping (see the further discussion below).
> 
> All messages which are posted to the mailing list, with a very small
> number of exceptions, are injected to the news group.
> 
> > All that remains is:
> >
> > >  [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type multipart/signed]
> 
> This occured because the OP insists on digitally signing his mailing list
> posts.
> 
> In the past we have received numerous loud complaints which voiced
> strong objections to certain types of content crossing the gateway from
> mail to news. Vociferous complaints have been made about virtually every
> form of content which is not plain text.
> 
> We have also received numerous complaints about undesireable content
> (e.g. MI5 complaints) propagating from news to mail.
> 
> We have made an effort to ensure that _only_ the content and formatting
> which has been deemed acceptable by the participants in this news group
> is allowed to propagate from mail to news.
> 
> Unfortunately in the _very_ few cases that something not been processed
> correctly we receive more complaints.
> 
> So far no one, not even _you_, has come forward with any vaguely
> constructive suggestions. Nor has anyone displayed an interest in doing
> anything more than mashing their reply button.
> 
> > Please reply in plain text,
> 
> I have directly contact the OP each time that he sends a signed message
> and asked that he resend the message without the signature. To this date
> he has failed to do so.
> 
> -- 
> Steve Kostecke <kostecke at ntp.org>
> NTP Public Services Project - http://support.ntp.org/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> questions mailing list
> questions at lists.ntp.org
> https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
> 

Sorry, but my e-mail system is configured to sign ALL messages. This is
simply the policy. I just sent out one that I tried to over-ride that. I
don't know if it worked as it's not supposed to be "over-rideable". I'm
doing the same with this one, so it may or may not go out.

I don't deal with Usenet server software and have not for about 15
years, so I can't claim to know what "state-of-the-art" is, but dumping
a message because of it being MIME, a standard that has been supported
in most mail software for over 15 years, when the type of the mail
"part" is test/plain, baffles me. If the gateway wants to dump the
signature, that's no big deal, but I don't know why it would dump the
text/plain part. The whole idea of signed clear-text was that it would
"just work" with all software, whether it "knew" anything about PGP or
even MIME.

None the less, it's a volunteer effort and I can't really complain
unless I'm willing to do it, myself, and I'm not. I guess I'll just have
to live with a lot of folks not seeing my occasional messages.
-- 
R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer
Energy Sciences Network (ESnet)
Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab)
E-mail: oberman at es.net			Phone: +1 510 486-8634
Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4  EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751



More information about the questions mailing list