On Sat, Aug 21, 2004 at 03:27:41PM +1000, Tim Connors wrote: > Brian Pack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said on Fri, 20 Aug 2004 09:53:16 -0400: > > On Fri, 2004-08-20 at 08:01, Roel Schroeven wrote: > > > Marco d'Itri wrote: > > > > On Aug 20, Tim Connors <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > du.au> wrote: > > > >>Unfortunately, linux.* is not a bidrectional gateway, so the posts > > > > Fortunatly, linux.* *IS* a bidirectional gateway, unless your news > > > > server is misconfigured. > > > > > Are you sure? This is the first time I've seen anyone saying it is=20 > > > bidirectional. I've seen many people say that it is unidirectional, and=20 > > > experimential evidence tends to confirm that. > > > > After all the shenanigans of the past week, I've convinced the usenet > > mirror (is that an accurate term here?) on Verizon is unidirectional. > > Nothing I've posted there has made the list proper, nor the web > > archives. > > I'm thinking there are two linux.* (linux.kernel, linux.debian.user > and linux.debian.laptop, etc) heirarchies. With my newserver, there is > the free unidirectional bofh.it gateway that is propogated everywhere > (which writes message-ids and references in the form > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"), but there is also the gmane gateway > some people use (and you seem to have to point your newsever at their > gateway, instead of your own newserver, meaning you can't use it > behind a university firewall, and you can't use it with software that > only can use one newserver) which *is* bidirectional. Maybe gmane put > the mailing lists in linux.* as well, which mislead Marco into > believing I was talking about gmane?
For what it's worth, Marco is the administrator of linux.*, and he runs bofh.it so I'd say that at the bare minimum, the gateway is supposed to be bidirectional. Whether it is for you or not probably depends on how servers are configured along the way. Pasc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
