brodie@fps.mcw.edu (10/18/89)
I found out by CHANCE that my news system had sent out a reply to a recent "version" request from uunet. I think that "requestable" control messages (uuname, version, sendsys) should be additionally handled by the following: 1) MAIL a copy of the request to USENET. This is done with "newgroup", "rmgroup", and (optionally) "cancel" messages. Why not the others? 2) NEWS_EXECUTE_CONTROL logical should also apply to these requests. I *really* would like to see item number 1) above implemented, and I doubt it's real tough (Geoff?). Number 2 is questionable. The way "version/sendsys/etc" are done now, is by a one-line log entry in RNEWS_xxxxx.LOG. I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't check these logs on a daily basis, only when I suspect there is a problem. Any comments, anyone? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kent C. Brodie - Systems Manager brodie@mcw.edu Medical College of Wisconsin +1 414 778 4500 "Gee, I hope these are the right coordinates..." -Chief O'Brian; STTNG
sloane@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (10/19/89)
In article <3209.253b4e14@fps.mcw.edu>, brodie@fps.mcw.edu writes: > I found out by CHANCE that my news system had sent out a reply to > a recent "version" request from uunet. > > I think that "requestable" control messages (uuname, version, sendsys) > should be additionally handled by the following: > > 1) MAIL a copy of the request to USENET. This is done with "newgroup", > "rmgroup", and (optionally) "cancel" messages. Why not the others? I suppose this is reasonable. Personally, I am registered to read the control group, so I see all this stuff anyway. If it is REALLY important that you see all the version and sendsys messages, just subscribe to control. I use a kill filter to skip over cancel messages. It seems harmless enough to send out the version number of the software without manual intervention. -- USmail: Bob Sloane, University of Kansas Computer Center, Lawrence, KS, 66045 E-mail: sloane@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu, sloane@ukanvax.bitnet, AT&T: (913)864-0444 "The scientific theory I like best is that the rings of Saturn are composed entirely of lost airline luggage." -- Mark Russell
gih900@UUNET.UU.NET (Geoff Huston) (10/20/89)
>In article <3209.253b4e14@fps.mcw.edu>, brodie@fps.mcw.edu writes: >> I found out by CHANCE that my news system had sent out a reply to >> a recent "version" request from uunet. >> >> I think that "requestable" control messages (uuname, version, sendsys) >> should be additionally handled by the following: >> >> 1) MAIL a copy of the request to USENET. This is done with "newgroup", >> "rmgroup", and (optionally) "cancel" messages. Why not the others? > >I suppose this is reasonable. Personally, I am registered to read the control >group, so I see all this stuff anyway. If it is REALLY important that you see >all the version and sendsys messages, just subscribe to control. I use a kill >filter to skip over cancel messages. It seems harmless enough to send out the >version number of the software without manual intervention. I've got to agree with BOb on this one - the uuname response from VMS is a null response - the version and sendsys responses are also automatic with the relevant information. I must admit that my view is that the provision of this information is a component of being a member of USENET, and that an automatic response is far more painless than sending yet another mail item to the local system manager to forward.... but like anything else in software these code decisions of mine are not cast in stone.... You can modify the posting code in NEWSADD.C to post the mail to the local senet address rather than the original poster in your version of NEWS... I would need a fair deal of response to change this default action in the distributed code as I'm sure that the majority of sys managers would find the automatic handling of these control postings a positive rather than a negative aspect of NEWS. Geoff Huston