🚀 go-pugleaf

Julien �LIE <iulius@nom-de-mon-site.com.invalid> wrote:
>Hi Adam,

>>Checking the archived newgroup message at ftp.isc.org for
>>ba.broadcast.moderated, I don't see rone's note that it was reissued
>>with the correct header signature.

>ftp://ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/control/ba/ba.broadcast.moderated.gz
>contains the two newgroup messages sent.

Heh. I swear, rone's wasn't there when I looked just before writing this!

>>It appears that the incorrectly signed message was processed anyway,
>>which isn't supposed to happen.

>These two newgroup control articles were only archived, not processed
>for action.  Both of them have an invalid signature.

Oops. I wasn't thinking. The criteria for archiving messages are quite
relaxed.

>>The date header in the archived message doesn't match either of the
>>two messages sent. Is the date changed when a newgroup message is
>>archived?

>The Date: header seems fine (it is different from the first From line).

Hm. I compared the Date header in the messages as I received them and in
the archives; identical. Never mind.

>>http://ennui.org/ba/control.ctl

>>This isn't the current entry in control.ctl, so you want to update it?

>Information currently used is:
>    http://usenet.trigofacile.com/hierarchies/index.py?see=BA

>It looks as though:
> * the administrative group should be changed (ba.news.config -> ba.config);

Good point. The actual control.ctl entry isn't up-to-date either.
ba.config was started in a reorganization 11 years ago in which the
ba.news.* groups were rmgrouped, according to the initial newgroup
message for ba.config.