RE: [leafnode-list] Message-ID already in use.

["Jeff Grossman" <jeff@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Clemens Fischer [mailto:ino-waiting@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2002 2:55 PM
> To: leafnode-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> "Jeff Grossman" <jeff@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
> 
> > 1.  I run fetchnews.  I have 4 servers which I connect to.
> > 2.  Server number 1 posts the article.
> > 3.  Server number 2 does not carry the newsgroup, so nothing
happens.
> > 4.  Server number 3 tries to post the article, but the article is
> > already available upstream, so it discards it.
> > 5.  Server number 4 never tries to post the article because it is
> > already deleted.
> >
> > If you made sure that the post was at least tried at each server at
> > least once, I would not mind.  But, right now, server number 4 will
only
> > be able to get the post if it receives it from another server.  I
say
> > keep the article in the out.going queue for at least a complete
> > fetchnews run.
> 
> keeping articles for a complete run, until STAT or HEADERS verify it
> upstream is the current behaviour in leafnode+.  while feeding
> articles to numerous sites may increase reliability, it also causes
> useless network traffic.  there's a tradeoff.

That is not accurate.  Leafnode only keeps the article in the out.going
queue until it finds it in an upstream server.  According to my example
above, the message is removed from the queue before a complete fetchnews
run has finished.  I just think a complete fetchnews run has to finish
before the message is removed from the queue.

I understand your argument about the network traffic.  That is true, but
I think increased reliability is better.  Especially in a world when
usenet traffic is not very reliable.  Or at least most of the servers
out there are not very reliable.

> 
> one more thing to consider is the number of non-compliant servers that
> are even paid services.  people might want to use a server not
> carrying enough groups, but doesn't cost.  the tendency i've seen are
> more (non-)public servers carrying non-USENET groups like spamcop,
> sourceforge etc.
> 
> i'm in favour of the current scheme.

Jeff


-- 
leafnode-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- mailing list for leafnode
To unsubscribe, send mail with "unsubscribe" in the subject to the list