[Pan-users] Re: posting server according to the group one?

[Duncan]

Matej Cepl <address@hidden> posted
address@hidden, excerpted below, on  Tue, 26 May 2009 08:53:06
+0000:

> Duncan, Tue, 26 May 2009 02:27:24 +0000:
>> For text-only, /possibly/ but it'd surprise me.
> 
> You're probably right.
> 
>>> a) identity for posting ... yes, of course, I understand need for
>>> double identity, but then it should be really identity,
>> 
>> Real identity?  You lost me at that point.
> 
> Identity meaning a collection of your name, email address, signature,
> maybe something else.

So you're saying the posting server doesn't fit?  I can see that view if 
you think of the "posting profile" is /only/ identity information, but 
not if it's "what it's labeled on the can" so to speak, a "posting 
profile" containing everything one can set controlling posting, including 
identity but also including where one posts.

>>> 3) usenet with (currently, but it may change anytime)
>>> news.felk.cvut.cz, which is for "the real Usenet" (whatever it is).
>> 
>> I don't really like the analogy but OK...
> 
> Why?

Because to me, "network" means something rather different, more the 
routing subnet, normally either IP or DNS level, or possibly layer 3, 
under the IP, not the "application level" aka layer 7 (or possibly 6) 
level stuff.  Yes, network can be used at the higher level, as it is for 
IRC, but I just don't personally like that terminology, because as a 
sysadmin and occasional IP networking troubleshooter, I'm far too used to 
thinking of it at the IP routing level.

That's why I let it be...

>>> The point is that separate network doesn't have to correspond to the
>>> real piece of hardware and in the ideal case you could change servers
>>> without disrupting organization of your messages.
>> 
>> Except that normally, each server has its own per-group sequence
>> numbering, even if they carry the same groups.
> 
> I am not saying that it is EASY to do transfer among different newsgroup
> servers, just that my proposal would make it possible at all.

Well, USENET is what it is.  You're not going to change how possible it 
is to switch between servers at our level.  Meanwhile, it's already 
possible to do.  Just change the address for a given server to point at a 
different one, and... you've switched servers!  (Note that I've never 
actually tried this with existing tasks scheduled, to see if pan switches 
them over to the new one in the middle of the task, or whether it only 
affects new tasks, or perhaps stopped and restarted tasks.)

But as I said, don't try it unless you're willing to lose your read-
message tracking and have a couple other complications, since that's 
what's likely to happen.

It's also easy to change the server you post to.  Simply choose another 
posting profile setup with the selected posting server.

Meanwhile, "my proposal" (meaning yours).  I think I missed it.  I did 
say I'm open to suggestions (as is Charles and I'd think, the group/
list).  However, unless I missed it, your "proposal" is only half there.  
I see something about separating it from the posting profile, which is 
all fine and good, but I don't see anything concrete about where to 
actually /put/ it then!

But I'm also getting the feeling the same words mean somewhat different 
things to us, sort of how two people can say dog, and one person sees an 
image of a St. Bernard in their head while another sees a poodle (and a 
third and fourth see a dalmatian and a greyhound).  That network thing 
was my first clue, but I get the distinct impression it's way more than 
that.

I'm actually finding it somewhat fascinating and amusing, as well as 
challenging.  But if we're as different in our thinking as I'm beginning 
to think we might be, we'll never entirely agree, but that's OK too, as 
long as pan remains functional.  And if it's more intuitive for others, 
and perhaps even for me, once I quite figure out what the images you have 
in your head are =:^), great!  Pan will be the better for it!

>> Well, just have one profile, copied three times, with a different
>> server selected for each.  That's not too difficult, particularly if
>> you're using an external sig (file or executable generator) and don't
>> have custom headers.
> 
> yes, of course, there is this kludge as a workaround, but I have general
> distaste for copying information to different places ... I am not saying
> it is not possible to survive without this change I propose, just that
> it shows ugliness of the original design. Moreover, with my suggestion
> you can do automatic assignement of news network to particular
> newsgroup, so that pan could switch among different networks
> automagically.

If I had a better idea of where and how you picture it as working, I 
think I might agree.  =:^S  But I still don't see how it's possible to 
automagically read a user's mind and figure out which server he wants to 
post to, when a group exists on many servers.  And what if it exists on 
only one at first, but then he gets a new server with the group?  Does 
pan need to detect that and ask for each such group which server he wants 
to use to post?  What about when he sets up a new posting profile (I'm 
assuming identity-only now)?  Does pan now need to track which groups it 
has asked about, asking about each one the first time a post is attempted 
from that group?

>> But the point is, if a group shows up on more than one server/network,
>> as must be assumed for "real" USENET, then no matter how you handled
>> it,
> 
> No, a group could be only on one network (in your case, the "Real
> USENET"), handling of different servers is separate from my point.

But at that level, the entire Internet is the network (to my way of 
thinking, another reason I didn't like the analogy, but there again, I'm 
imagining a St. Bernard while you're imagining a whole batch of poodle 
pups! =:^)  So yes, it's one network, but that doesn't help matters any.

Alternatively, you're throwing a whole new level of complexity into 
things, by now requiring that people configure each server they setup 
into some level of subnetwork, creating at least one more level in the 
hierarchy, if not a whole multi-level tree.  Certainly, I see no way for 
pan to automatically deduce that any particular server is intended to be 
in a different "network" from the others, or in the same one, so it'd 
have to be setup manually.  I don't see how that makes things simpler at 
all!

But maybe it's simply because I don't quite see your vision just yet.

>> you'd still have the problem, that being that the posting server would
>> need selected per group as Murphy's law is plain enough that the
>> default one would NOT be the preferred one. =:^(
> 
> My suggestions makes life better for people with a surreal USENET
> (grc.com, gmane.org, and many others) and doesn't make life more
> difficult for people with The Only True And Real USENET. What's not to
> like?

Surreal USENET?  I hadn't heard those terms used together like that 
before.  FWIW, surreal, "phantasmagoric", "characterized by fantastic 
imagery and incongroups juxtapositions", or "resembling a dream", to 
quote KDict/Wordnet... isn't quite the adjective I would have chosen in 
this context.  

(FWIW2 when I see "surreal" I think of the surrealistic painter Salvador 
Dali, and his "floppy clocks" painting.  Now, thanks to you, I've an 
image of the pan GUI draped over tree branches and sliding off tables...  
Somehow I can't quite imagine that's what you had in mind, as at least 
here, it's not conducive at all to solving the problem at hand. <shrug>  
But you obviously think different than I, so maybe it helps /you/ solve 
it! =:^)

If I'm correct in guessing what you mean, "artificial", maybe?  Good 
thing you put the examples there or I'd have been /totally/ lost!  This 
exchange is proving challenging indeed, but that's not a bad thing! =:^)

Please continue.  That you are thinking different, and forcing me to as 
well, is a good thing!  That different approach is likely what's needed 
to come up with something better here, and you may well have it.  I'm 
just having difficulty adjusting the image in my mind to the image in 
yours, so it may take a bit.  But that's fine, and if it helps me to 
widen my viewpoint as it helps pan, so much the better! =:^)

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman