By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
459,932 Members | 1,529 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 459,932 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Missing the beginning of threads

P: n/a
In this newsgroup (and not others on the mailserver I use) I find that
most threads start with a "Re:" article, referfing to something that I
never see.

I'm reasonably competent with NNTP protocol (having used it for about 20
years) which is why I mention that other groups on the same server are
not affected. I think the problem in this group is recent (about 3
months) but I suffer memory problems, so I may be wrong about that.

My news client (Thunderbird, probably irrelevant) is set to expire
articles after 93 days, which is a lower limit than the server. Thus I
never see articles which have expired off the server. This may be where
the thread opening article(s) is going.

Is it likely that I'm seeing responses to articles which have exceeded
my self-imposed 93 day limit and been expired from my client? This
doesn't seem the sort of group where articles come back to life after
more than 93 days. Is it?

I view this group every day as my "first thing in the morning cathartic
experience" so I'm not likely to have missed the original starts of the
threads, yet none of the threads with missing openings seem familiar.

--
Steve Swift
http://www.swiftys.org.uk/swifty.html
http://www.ringers.org.uk
Jun 27 '08 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
3 Replies


P: n/a
Steve Swift wrote:
In this newsgroup (and not others on the mailserver I use) I find that
most threads start with a "Re:" article, referfing to something that I
never see.
Sorry, I failed to give a concrete example. The post:

"Re: Avoiding an Infinite Loop in Arbitrary eval(user_code)" by Dr J R
Stockton, 49 lines, dated 23/04/2008 20:44, is the first in the thread
that I see. What was the timestamp of the original POST in this thread?

I do have some filters in effect; maybe they are too aggressive.

--
Steve Swift
http://www.swiftys.org.uk/swifty.html
http://www.ringers.org.uk
Jun 27 '08 #2

P: n/a
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 08:53:45 +0200, Steve Swift <St***********@gmail.com>
wrote:
Steve Swift wrote:
>In this newsgroup (and not others on the mailserver I use) I find that
most threads start with a "Re:" article, referfing to something that I
never see.

Sorry, I failed to give a concrete example. The post:

"Re: Avoiding an Infinite Loop in Arbitrary eval(user_code)" by Dr J R
Stockton, 49 lines, dated 23/04/2008 20:44, is the first in the thread
that I see. What was the timestamp of the original POST in this thread?

Which is a reply to <48***********************@news.xs4all.nl>, Date: Wed,
23 Apr 2008 09:29:48 +0200, the original in that thread is from Bill Mill,
Message-ID:
<d8**********************************@y21g2000hsf. googlegroups.com>, Date:
Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:01:26 -0700 (PDT), so hardly expired, the References
header of both replies is OK AFAIK.

Some news servers are less reliable, you can check wether those
message-id's are actually on the server or not. (So wether the problem is
client or server).
--
Rik Wasmus
Jun 27 '08 #3

P: n/a
Steve Swift wrote on 24 apr 2008 in comp.lang.javascript:
In this newsgroup (and not others on the mailserver I use) I find that
most threads start with a "Re:" article, referfing to something that I
never see.
I'm reasonably competent with NNTP protocol (having used it for about 20
years)
You must be mistaken, mailservers do not "do" Usenet NNTP protocol,
It is news servers that do.

If it is only this NG, most probable the news server you use has set the
limit of retaining postings either by number or by expiring wrong,
that is wrong for your purpose.

Try another news server, or talk to the people of your one.

--
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)
Jun 27 '08 #4

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.