Article delegate-en/1330 of [1-5169] on the server localhost:119
  upper oldest olders older1 this newer1 newers latest
search
[Top/Up] [oldest] - [Older+chunk] - [Newer+chunk] - [newest + Check]
[Reference:<_A1329@delegate-en.ML_>]
Newsgroups: mail-lists.delegate-en

[DeleGate-En] Re: nntp posting limit?
16 Sep 2001 20:24:17 GMT feedback@delegate.org (Yutaka Sato)


In message <_A1329@delegate-en.ML_> on 09/17/01(04:41:24)
you "Mr. Sharkey" <pfycqbdyi-jqwqhpejm6xr.ml@ml.delegate.org> wrote:
 |Ok, this is wht is recorded - It's worthwhile to note that after the

Thank you.  I've become confident that the cause of the problem
is because the server does not respond at the end of POSTed data.

 |final '.^M', nothing I type is transmitted (at least, nothing shows up
 |in the log), nor is the disconnection recorded in the log when I disconnect:

It is normal because the DeleGate is waiting the response from the
server and without the response the DeleGate cannot go forward.

 |From: test@test..^M
 |Newsgroups: alt.test^M
 |Subject: test^M
 |Date: Friday, 16-Sept-01 16:14:55 EST^M
 |Followup-To: alt.test^M
 |Expires: Saturday, 17-Sept-01 00:00:00 EST^M
 |Date-Received: Friday, 16-Sept-01 16:59:30 EST^M
 |Organization: Test^M
 |X-Forwarded: by - (DeleGate/7.5.2)^M
 |^M
 |123456789-123456789-123456789-123456789-123456789-123456789-123456789-123456789-123456789-123456789-^M
 |
 |(22 lines snipped
 |
 |123456789-123456789-123456789-123456789-123456789-123456789-123456789-123456789-123456789-123456789-^M
 |.^M

Could you test what will happen if you post this record of message
as a whole (removing ^M at line end, sending ending "." line at the
same time) to the server by hand ?
 
 |This is when it's in the process of hanging -
 |(btw - upgraded to v 7.5.2, but no differnece)
 |
 |root@solar:~/delegate7.5.2 # gdb src/delegated 9683

You must inspect the hanging process rather than the main process
of DeleGate, the pid is 10341 in this case.

 |09/16 15:16:36.99 [10341] 1+0: NNTP POST: 340 Send Article to be Posted^M


By the way, the enclosed patch, which repaces the copyfile() function
with four lines of code with informational loggin, might change your
situation .  Try it please.

Cheers,
Yutaka
--
  @ @ Yutaka Sato <y.sato@delegate.org> http://www.delegate.org/y.sato/
 ( - ) National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST)
_<   >_ 1-1-4 Umezono, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, 305-8568 Japan



*** ../752/src/nntp.c	Wed Aug 29 02:55:09 2001
--- nntp.c	Mon Sep 17 05:01:25 2001
***************
*** 2653,2659 ****
  		fputs(line,ts);
  	    }
  	}
! 	copyfile1(artfp,ts);
  }
  
  static NNTP_POST(nc,fc,tc,curgroup,nserv,servers)
--- 2653,2662 ----
  		fputs(line,ts);
  	    }
  	}
! 	RFC821_skipbody(artfp,ts,line,sizeof(line));
! 	fflush(ts);
! 	daemonlog("E","POST ended with: %s\n",line);
! 	fputs(line,ts);
  }
  
  static NNTP_POST(nc,fc,tc,curgroup,nserv,servers)

  admin search upper oldest olders older1 this newer1 newers latest
[Top/Up] [oldest] - [Older+chunk] - [Newer+chunk] - [newest + Check]
@_@V