E-mail Address in posts

[hugh]

Just posted for the first time using eternal September and am horrified
to see my e-mail address at the top of the post.
How do I prevent this?
--
hugh

[hugh]

In message <tZynKqHS...@raefell.demon.co.uk>, hugh
<hugh@[127.0.0.1]> writes

>Just posted for the first time using eternal September and am horrified
>to see my e-mail address at the top of the post.
>How do I prevent this?

Sorry, actually it shows up in replies to the post in the message ID as
in
news:jeQUrqBa...@raefell.demon.co.uk.
--
hugh

[Barry Margolin]

In article <JqyeGSIR...@raefell.demon.co.uk>,

It gets that from the Message-ID header of the original message that was
being replied to. But that's not your email address -- the part before
the @ is different for every message. I guess what you mean is that
raefell is your account name and demon.co.uk is the domain.

Anyway, there may be an option in your Turnpike configuration to not
create its own Message ID. Then E-S will generate the ID, and it won't
contain anything from your address. You can also go to
www.eternal-september.org and request a custom subdomain that it will
use for your posts.

--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA

[VanguardLH]

hugh wrote:

> Message-ID: <tZynKqHS...@raefell.demon.co.uk>

Has to do with the Message-ID (MID) header that *YOU* decided to insert
into your outbound messages. Eternal-September did NOT insert that MID
header, you did. How do I know? Because ES uses <id>@don't.email.me as
their MID value (where <id> is unique on every post submitted through
them).

You configured your newsreader, Turnpike, to add its own MID header.
NNTP servers will add their own MID header *if* there isn't already one
in the message. The NNTP client will not override the MID header added
by the client. If the article already has a MID header when submitted
to the NNTP server, the server will keep the one already present. If
there isn't one then and only then does the server add its own MID
header. So yours has the components of your e-mail (although it is NOT
an e-mail address) in your MID header because you chose to have your
newsreader add its own MID header.

In every reply to your posts, the References header shows the string of
posts in a subthread. Well, that means a reply to your post is going to
show the MID header that *YOUR* newsreader added in the References
header of replies to that post.

I've never used Turnpike. Go into its configuration and either decide
to NOT have it insert its own MID header (use the one the server adds)
or have it use a different domain portion in its own generated MID
header (but be damn sure that you have permission to use that domain in
your MID header).

[VanguardLH]

VanguardLH wrote:

> hugh wrote:
>
>> Message-ID: <tZynKqHS...@raefell.demon.co.uk>
>
> Has to do with the Message-ID (MID) header that *YOU* decided to insert
> into your outbound messages. Eternal-September did NOT insert that MID
> header, you did. How do I know? Because ES uses <id>@don't.email.me as
> their MID value (where <id> is unique on every post submitted through
> them).

Oops, ES uses @dont-email.me in the domain portion of the MID header
that they insert (if not already present in the submitted article).

[hugh]

In message <jl04a1$ra3$1...@dont-email.me>, VanguardLH <V...@nguard.LH> writes

The domain name I give it is 127.0.0.1 This has worked OK on the demon
news server but not apparently with ES so I'm a bit puzzled as I never
use my demon sub-domain name these days. Will have to look further and
maybe ask in the demon TP support news group.
--
hugh

[hugh]

In message <barmar-3A31DF....@news.eternal-september.org>,
Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> writes

Thanks I'll try that.
--
hugh

[VanguardLH]

hugh wrote:

> VanguardLH writes:
>
>>hugh wrote:
>>
>>> Message-ID: <tZynKqHS...@raefell.demon.co.uk>
>>
>> Has to do with the Message-ID (MID) header that *YOU* decided to
>> insert into your outbound messages. Eternal-September did NOT
>> insert that MID header, you did. How do I know? Because ES uses
>> <id>@don't.email.me as their MID value (where <id> is unique on
>> every post submitted through them).
>>
>> You configured your newsreader, Turnpike, to add its own MID header

>> ...

>>
>> I've never used Turnpike. Go into its configuration and either
>> decide to NOT have it insert its own MID header (use the one the
>> server adds) or have it use a different domain portion in its own
>> generated MID header (but be damn sure that you have permission to
>> use that domain in your MID header).
>
> The domain name I give it is 127.0.0.1 This has worked OK on the demon
> news server but not apparently with ES so I'm a bit puzzled as I never
> use my demon sub-domain name these days. Will have to look further and
> maybe ask in the demon TP support news group.

So why try to hide where you are injecting your posts (the NNTP server
to which you submit)? Anyone can tell your injection point by looking
at the Path header. That gets created by the server, not by your
client.

You use 127.0.0.1. Someone else decides to use the same domain in their
MID header. Your client and their client aren't synchronized to each
other. So how do you ensure that your client produces a unique MID
header when it is using the same domain as someone else's client? You
don't. You can't make sure they are unique. That means the server has
to handle the conflict to resolve the articles with the same MID header
to change them to be unique.

So what's the point of using 127.0.0.1 as your MID header's domain? Why
even bother specifying your own MID header? Just let the server assign
its unique MID header to your post.

You say that you configured Turnpike to use 127.0.0.1 in the domain
portion of its generated MID header. It doesn't seem to work. Could be
a bug in Turnpike, could be you need to configure the MID in more than
one place (like once for e-mail submission and separately again for
newsgroups), could be you have some proxy between your NNTP client
(Turnpike) and what actually connects to the NNTP server that is
inserting its own MID header (and replacing any existing one inserted by
your client). Also, I noticed that 127.0.0.1 is specified in the domain
portion of your *e-mail* address (what is specified in the From header).
That is NOT the same as the Message-ID header. I suspect where you
think you specified 127.0.0.1 as the domain for your MID is really just
for the From header produced by your client.

As far as the NNTP server is concerned, you are submitting an article
that already has its own MID header. That means the server will not
insert its own guaranteed unique MID header and will the client-
specified MID value. ES can't do anything about changing your MID
header that you already specified in your submitted article. They can
do something if you don't include a MID header (they can then add their
own MID header).

Turnpike is long dead but maybe you know of a forum where you can ask on
how to properly configure it, especially with regards to the MID header
that it generates (if you still want it creating its own client-produced
MID header). If you cannot find a Turnpike newsgroup, there may be
someone in the news.software.readers group that uses Turnpike and can
help you configure it.

[Bit Twister]

On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 00:33:11 +0100, hugh wrote:
> In message <barmar-3A31DF....@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> writes

>> <snip, snip> You can also go to

>>www.eternal-september.org and request a custom subdomain that it will
>>use for your posts.
>>
> Thanks I'll try that.

If Turnpike allows you to set the from address, feel free to use
what...@mouse-potato.com

Go ahead and "ping -c1 mouse-potato.com" to check ip address. :)

[First. Post]

Don;t know how active it still is but there is a newsgroup:
demon.ip.support.turnpike
It is on the ES server.

[VanguardLH]

First. Post wrote:

> Don;t know how active it still is but there is a newsgroup:
> demon.ip.support.turnpike
> It is on the ES server.

It's also on the Albasani server (3 times as many posts probably due to
a longer retention time by Albasani). Hugh posted over there about half
a day earlier than your post and 6 hours before he posted here; however,
he did NOT specifically ask about this issue.

[hugh]

In message <jl094l$ood$1...@dont-email.me>, VanguardLH <V...@nguard.LH> writes

The object of the exercise is to reduce the risk of domain name being
picked up by spammers. Maybe there's an alternative way of doing it
Maybe it's not such a threat these days but for the first time in 7
years I've had spam to my Reply to address, which I simply change

>You say that you configured Turnpike to use 127.0.0.1 in the domain
>portion of its generated MID header. It doesn't seem to work. Could be
>a bug in Turnpike, could be you need to configure the MID in more than
>one place (like once for e-mail submission and separately again for
>newsgroups), could be you have some proxy between your NNTP client
>(Turnpike) and what actually connects to the NNTP server that is
>inserting its own MID header (and replacing any existing one inserted by
>your client). Also, I noticed that 127.0.0.1 is specified in the domain
>portion of your *e-mail* address (what is specified in the From header).
>That is NOT the same as the Message-ID header. I suspect where you
>think you specified 127.0.0.1 as the domain for your MID is really just
>for the From header produced by your client.
>

Probably, but it seems to work OK with demon news server. I don't really
know much about all this stuff.

>As far as the NNTP server is concerned, you are submitting an article
>that already has its own MID header. That means the server will not
>insert its own guaranteed unique MID header and will the client-
>specified MID value. ES can't do anything about changing your MID
>header that you already specified in your submitted article. They can
>do something if you don't include a MID header (they can then add their
>own MID header).
>
>Turnpike is long dead but maybe you know of a forum where you can ask on
>how to properly configure it, especially with regards to the MID header
>that it generates (if you still want it creating its own client-produced
>MID header). If you cannot find a Turnpike newsgroup, there may be
>someone in the news.software.readers group that uses Turnpike and can
>help you configure it.

TP still lives on. There is no functional replacement (other than
exchange) - please don't say TB

I will ask in demon.ip.support.turnpke, but my set up works perfectly
well through the demon news server. I don't think you can turn off this
header in TP

Thanks for your comments.
--
hugh

[hugh]

In message <hbe7n75pumu17op6h...@4ax.com>, First. Post
<OccupiersDu...@invalid.net> writes

My next port of call. Because my set up has worked OK through the demon
news server I started in here. I've switched because I am preparing to
jump ship from demon and E-S was recommended.
--
hugh

[VanguardLH]

hugh wrote:

> I will ask in demon.ip.support.turnpke, but my set up works perfectly
> well through the demon news server. I don't think you can turn off
> this header in TP

http://knowledgebase.demon.net/article/withdrawal-of-support-turnpike-email-client.html

which had a link to its manual at:

http://knowledgebase.demon-web-1.dvs.demon.net/assets/turnpike_6_user_manual.txt

Yikes, whoever did the conversion into .txt file didn't bother to
actually review the output. Way down under the "Personality Properties"
(probably what the rest of us call Identities), it says:

Message-ID domain. This is the domain to use when generating a
Message-ID for a message when posted. By default this will be the
domain of the local machine. If you want to use a different domain,
set the Custom option and enter the domain to use.

So it is configurable. Somewhere in Turnpike's configuration you can
define "personalities". That's where you specify whether to have
Turnpike generate its own MID header and, if so, what to use in it.

[hugh]

In message <jl1gqg$6t9$1...@dont-email.me>, VanguardLH <V...@nguard.LH> writes

>hugh wrote:
>
>> I will ask in demon.ip.support.turnpke, but my set up works perfectly
>> well through the demon news server. I don't think you can turn off
>> this header in TP
>
>http://knowledgebase.demon.net/article/withdrawal-of-support-turnpike-em
>ail-client.html
>
>which had a link to its manual at:
>
>http://knowledgebase.demon-web-1.dvs.demon.net/assets/turnpike_6_user_ma
>nual.txt
>
>Yikes, whoever did the conversion into .txt file didn't bother to
>actually review the output. Way down under the "Personality Properties"
>(probably what the rest of us call Identities), it says:
>

I'm surprised there's anything left on demon about TP. Must have been an
oversight during the great purge.

> Message-ID domain. This is the domain to use when generating a
> Message-ID for a message when posted. By default this will be the
> domain of the local machine. If you want to use a different domain,
> set the Custom option and enter the domain to use.
>
>So it is configurable. Somewhere in Turnpike's configuration you can
>define "personalities". That's where you specify whether to have
>Turnpike generate its own MID header and, if so, what to use in it.

Yup - already done that. I use Personalities a lot and the one I use for
news posts has domain [127.0.0.1] and that's what comes up in the MID
when I use the demon news server. - must double double double check that
- again.

--
hugh

[VanguardLH]

hugh wrote:

> VanguardLH writes:
>
>> Somewhere in Turnpike's configuration you can define "personalities".
>> That's where you specify whether to have Turnpike generate its own
>> MID header and, if so, what to use in it.
>
> Yup - already done that. I use Personalities a lot and the one I use
> for news posts has domain [127.0.0.1] and that's what comes up in the
> MID when I use the demon news server. - must double double double
> check that - again.

Do you have more than one Personality defined in Turnpike? Beside the
possibility of having one Personality for e-mail and a different one for
newsgroups (with perhaps a different MID setting in each), you could end
up posting under different nyms in newsgroups. Nymshifters are often
seen as untrustworthy posters.

Also, you might be screwed trying to stick with Turnpike as your
newsreader connecting elsewhere than demon.co.uk. According to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turnpike_(software), demon acquired the
program and it became their property so they very well could have
modified it for targeted use with just their service. Once demon
bought the program (to offer to their own customers), it ceased to be a
general-purpose NNTP client.

You might want to consider trialing other newsreaders.

[Dr J R Stockton]

In eternal-september.support message <jl04a1$ra3$1...@dont-email.me>, Wed,
28 Mar 2012 17:45:29, VanguardLH <V...@nguard.LH> posted:

>hugh wrote:
>
>> Message-ID: <tZynKqHS...@raefell.demon.co.uk>
>
>Has to do with the Message-ID (MID) header that *YOU* decided to insert
>into your outbound messages.

A false presumption.

>You configured your newsreader, Turnpike, to add its own MID header.

Another one.

>I've never used Turnpike.

It shows. Do not write about what you are ignorant of.

--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike 6.05 WinXP.
Web <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQ-type topics, acronyms, and links.
Command-prompt MiniTrue is useful for viewing/searching/altering files. Free,
DOS/Win/UNIX now 2.0.6; see <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/pc-links.htm>.

[Bob Henson]

On 29/03/2012 8:36 PM, Dr J R Stockton wrote:
> In eternal-september.support message <jl04a1$ra3$1...@dont-email.me>, Wed,
> 28 Mar 2012 17:45:29, VanguardLH <V...@nguard.LH> posted:
>
>> hugh wrote:
>>
>>> Message-ID: <tZynKqHS...@raefell.demon.co.uk>
>>
>> Has to do with the Message-ID (MID) header that *YOU* decided to insert
>> into your outbound messages.
>
> A false presumption.
>
>> You configured your newsreader, Turnpike, to add its own MID header.
>
> Another one.
>
>> I've never used Turnpike.
>
> It shows. Do not write about what you are ignorant of.
>

Never end a sentence with a preposition - it weakens your argument :-)

--
Bob
Tetbury, Gloucestershire, UK


It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

[Timothy Murphy]

Bob Henson wrote:

>> It shows. Do not write about what you are ignorant of.
>>
>
> Never end a sentence with a preposition - it weakens your argument :-)

This is nonsense up with which I will not put. W Churchill

--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail: gayleard /at/ eircom.net
tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College Dublin

[Nick Spalding]

Timothy Murphy wrote, in <jl3r7t$d5p$1...@dont-email.me>
on Fri, 30 Mar 2012 10:35:08 +0200:

>Bob Henson wrote:
>
>>> It shows. Do not write about what you are ignorant of.
>>>
>>
>> Never end a sentence with a preposition - it weakens your argument :-)
>
>This is nonsense up with which I will not put. W Churchill

Beat me to it!
--
Nick Spalding

[VanguardLH]

Dr J R Stockton wrote:

> VanguardLH posted:

>
>> hugh wrote:
>>
>>> Message-ID: <tZynKqHS...@raefell.demon.co.uk>
>>
>> Has to do with the Message-ID (MID) header that *YOU* decided to
>> insert into your outbound messages.
>
> A false presumption.

You willfully exhibit your ignorance almost like you're proud of it.
There are only places where the MID header gets inserted: by the client
or by the server. I've already mentioned what E-S inserts at their
server for their MID value. It is NOT the poster's e-mail address. So,
gee, if it isn't E-S server inserting a MID header with the poster's
e-mail address, um, where else might it get added? What other source is
left? Oh yeah, the client. Duh!

>> You configured your newsreader, Turnpike, to add its own MID header.
>
> Another one.

Guess you really want to show everyone that you're trying out for the
troll-of-the-month award (a potted cactus).

>> I've never used Turnpike.
>
> It shows. Do not write about what you are ignorant of.

Ooh, I've been lambasted by a noob with all of 18 posts under his nym
used here stretching into the distant past of 10 days ago.

Heed your own advice.

Oh yes, we've seen here how helpful you have been to the OP. Hmm, guess
AIOE won't let you post about links to the manual for Turnpike, uh huh.

[Barry Margolin]

In article <jl5u3h$9g5$1...@dont-email.me>, VanguardLH <V...@nguard.LH>
wrote:

> Dr J R Stockton wrote:
>
> > VanguardLH posted:
> >
> >> hugh wrote:
> >>
> >>> Message-ID: <tZynKqHS...@raefell.demon.co.uk>
> >>
> >> Has to do with the Message-ID (MID) header that *YOU* decided to
> >> insert into your outbound messages.
> >
> > A false presumption.
>
> You willfully exhibit your ignorance almost like you're proud of it.
> There are only places where the MID header gets inserted: by the client
> or by the server. I've already mentioned what E-S inserts at their
> server for their MID value. It is NOT the poster's e-mail address. So,
> gee, if it isn't E-S server inserting a MID header with the poster's
> e-mail address, um, where else might it get added? What other source is
> left? Oh yeah, the client. Duh!

Maybe the client doesn't allow configuring the Message-ID scheme. So
while it is true that the client is adding it, it's not necessarily true
that *HE* decided to put it there.

I don't know Turnpike, so I don't know whether this is true.

[Dr J R Stockton]

In eternal-september.support message <jl3r7t$d5p$1...@dont-email.me>, Fri,
30 Mar 2012 10:35:08, Timothy Murphy <gayl...@alice.it> posted:

>Bob Henson wrote:
>
>>> It shows. Do not write about what you are ignorant of.
>>>
>>
>> Never end a sentence with a preposition - it weakens your argument :-)
>
>This is nonsense up with which I will not put. W Churchill

Wrong Churchill. Read the amusing first part of the Oldham chapter of
"My Early Life".

--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05.
Website <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - w. FAQish topics, links, acronyms
PAS EXE etc. : <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/> - see in 00index.htm
Dates - miscdate.htm estrdate.htm js-dates.htm pas-time.htm critdate.htm etc.

[VanguardLH]

See my reply to hugh timestamped 03/29/2012 06:25:08 AM. The manual
says the user can set what domain gets used in the MID header. If the
program is fucked up that the user cannot decide what domain to use or,
better yet, not to generate a MID at all (and let the server do that)
then the OP (and Stocky) need to get a newsreader that works. Since
demon.co.uk dumped the thing, and since it doesn't support user-defined
scripts to alter its behavior, it's not going to change from whatever
behavior it exhibits.

Stocky, a Turnpike user, didn't offer any help to hugh. I showed where
the manual for the program says to configure what domain gets put into
the MID header. Stocky has yet to reply that the manual is wrong in
that such a feature regarding Personalities is not available in the
program or that the program is defective in not complying with the
settings configured by the user. Stocky doesn't know but thinks his
choice of newsreader is so special an unique that, of course, no one
that doesn't use it could figure out how to configure it.

[hugh]

In message <jl8oc2$thg$1...@dont-email.me>, VanguardLH <V...@nguard.LH> writes

The option does indeed exist in TP personalities' Properties. So far I
haven't managed to get it to work. However I have come to the conclusion
I am getting unnecessarily excited about something which doesn't seem to
bother anyone else so I haven't spent any more time on it.
Thank you all for your help -I've learnt a couple of more things about
TP in the process - and I've been using it for about 20 years
I'm finding ES is working fine so that's one part of my transfer from
Demon to BT sorted.

Roll on 39.3mbs.
--
hugh

[VanguardLH]

hugh wrote:

> The option does indeed exist in TP personalities' Properties. So far I
> haven't managed to get it to work. However I have come to the
> conclusion I am getting unnecessarily excited about something which
> doesn't seem to bother anyone else so I haven't spent any more time
> on it. Thank you all for your help -I've learnt a couple of more
> things about TP in the process - and I've been using it for about 20
> years I'm finding ES is working fine so that's one part of my
> transfer from Demon to BT sorted.

Ah, so the program is defective. Since demon no longer supports it, no
fixes will show up (from them). If it supports scripting to alter
behavior (rather than have to deal with the source code for the entire
program), you might be able to tell it to generate a MID value based on
your script that overrides what the defective code in the program wants
to use. I see from the manual there is a "You are using the wrong
script file" error message so maybe you can use scripts with Turnpike
but whether they can alter the MID header when you submit a message is
something I wouldn't know about. The definition of "script" may be
nothing more than a set of configuration settings or walking through
some configuration wizard and not some code you can write to alter the
program's behavior. Someone in the Turnpike newsgroup might know if
Turnpike supports scripts or not that alters its behavior.

Otherwise, I'd suggest disabling the MID option in a Personality setup
if that option is available and let the NNTP server assign its own MID
header.

[Dr J R Stockton]

In eternal-september.support message <jl5u3h$9g5$1...@dont-email.me>, Fri,
30 Mar 2012 22:36:30, VanguardLH <V...@nguard.LH> posted:

>Dr J R Stockton wrote:
>
>> VanguardLH posted:
>>
>>> hugh wrote:
>>>
>>>> Message-ID: <tZynKqHS...@raefell.demon.co.uk>
>>>
>>> Has to do with the Message-ID (MID) header that *YOU* decided to
>>> insert into your outbound messages.
>>
>> A false presumption.
>
>You willfully exhibit your ignorance almost like you're proud of it.
>There are only places where the MID header gets inserted: by the client
>or by the server. I've already mentioned what E-S inserts at their
>server for their MID value. It is NOT the poster's e-mail address. So,
>gee, if it isn't E-S server inserting a MID header with the poster's
>e-mail address, um, where else might it get added? What other source is
>left? Oh yeah, the client. Duh!

You wrote "that *YOU* decided". The person installing Turnpike will
have inserted his host-name or domain name on being asked to do so.
Turnpike will, unless instructed otherwise by a sufficiently
knowledgeable user, assign the message-ID right-hand-side from that.
The user probably does not even know, initially, that message-IDs exist,
or that they can be reconfigured.

>>> You configured your newsreader, Turnpike, to add its own MID header.
>>
>> Another one.
>
>Guess you really want to show everyone that you're trying out for the
>troll-of-the-month award (a potted cactus).

No; merely one who can point out limitations in what you consider to be
your thinking. It's not difficult.

>>> I've never used Turnpike.
>>
>> It shows. Do not write about what you are ignorant of.
>
>Ooh, I've been lambasted by a noob with all of 18 posts under his nym
>used here stretching into the distant past of 10 days ago.

This will be my third post in this thread.

>Heed your own advice.
>
>Oh yes, we've seen here how helpful you have been to the OP. Hmm, guess
>AIOE won't let you post about links to the manual for Turnpike, uh huh.

I do not need to help the OP here; I use another news group for that.

Like most Moroccans, Barry Margolin is more intelligent than you; but
that is a feeble and presumed-inadequate compliment to him.

--
(c) John Stockton, nr London UK. ???@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Check boilerplate spelling -- error is a public sign of incompetence.
Never fully trust an article from a poster who gives no full real name.

[hugh]

In message <jlakss$vms$1...@dont-email.me>, VanguardLH <V...@nguard.LH> writes

>hugh wrote:
>
>> The option does indeed exist in TP personalities' Properties. So far I
>> haven't managed to get it to work. However I have come to the
>> conclusion I am getting unnecessarily excited about something which
>> doesn't seem to bother anyone else so I haven't spent any more time
>> on it. Thank you all for your help -I've learnt a couple of more
>> things about TP in the process - and I've been using it for about 20
>> years I'm finding ES is working fine so that's one part of my
>> transfer from Demon to BT sorted.
>
>Ah, so the program is defective.

Or I have cocked up somewhere.
<Snip>
--
hugh

[VanguardLH]

In the turnpike newsgroup, I noticed some advice from Stocky about what
to use for a MID header. He states it is "courteous to make your the
right part of your M-ID recognisably yours" giving as a basis the
ability for others to recognize your posts. You'll find the MID header
rarely identifies a particular sender unless they have gone to the
trouble to register their own domain and use that in their MID header.
Everyone posting through Eternal-September is getting the same right-id
token (to the right of the ampersand character) with a random left-id
token, and that doesn't uniquely identify the poster at all.

RFC 5322: Internet Message Format
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5322.txt
Section 3.6.4: Identification Fields

You'll see what the RFC says to use, and that's a domain as the right-id
token (domain) portion of the MID header. Well, if you use a domain
then it better be one that you own since uniqueness of the left-id token
for the domain specified by the right-id token. When you were using
demon.co.uk to submit your messages, you were submitting to their server
and obviously they have permission to use their own domain. Some
newsreaders have established their own domains for their users that want
to generate MIDs in their clients rather than let the server generate
the MID header. For example, Forte registered the ax.com domain for
themselves for their Agent users to use in the right-id token of their
generated MID headers.

You should not be using someone else's domain because you cannot
guarantee that the left-id tokens your client generates will not
conflict with those the owner of that domain might use. When you used
demon.co.uk then their client's use of that domain was valid. Now that
you're not using them anymore means your posts should be using their
domain (or a subdomain of their domain). Now that you're using Eternal-
September as your newsgroups provider, you can let them use their domain
in their server-generated MID headers or you can have your client
specify its own MID headers but they shouldn't have Eternal's domain in
them (since you aren't coordinating your generated MID values with those
created by Eternal's server).

For users that want to generate their own MID headers, they need to use
a domain that they own in their right-id token in their MID headers. Do
you have any domains registered by you (i.e., some registrar leased you
a domain name)? As per the RFC, "The generator of the message
identifier MUST guarantee that the msg-id is unique." Using someone
else's domain means you can NOT guarantee you never generate MIDs that
won't conflict with those the domain owner might generate. When you use
someone else's domain (which is also without their permission) then the
servers have to resolve the conflicts.

[Adam H. Kerman]

VanguardLH <V...@nguard.LH> wrote:

>In the turnpike newsgroup, I noticed some advice from Stocky about what
>to use for a MID header. He states it is "courteous to make your the
>right part of your M-ID recognisably yours" giving as a basis the
>ability for others to recognize your posts. You'll find the MID header
>rarely identifies a particular sender unless they have gone to the
>trouble to register their own domain and use that in their MID header.
>Everyone posting through Eternal-September is getting the same right-id
>token (to the right of the ampersand character) with a random left-id
>token, and that doesn't uniquely identify the poster at all.

>RFC 5322: Internet Message Format
>http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5322.txt
>Section 3.6.4: Identification Fields

Bloody hell. I never noticed before. Inclusion of Message-IDs are a SHOULD,
not a MUST. Why would that be?

>You'll see what the RFC says to use, and that's a domain as the right-id
>token (domain) portion of the MID header.

Why do I recall that it used to recommend fully-qualified domain, that
is, host+domain, to ensure uniqueness?

>You should not be using someone else's domain because you cannot
>guarantee that the left-id tokens your client generates will not
>conflict with those the owner of that domain might use.

That ought to be a MUST NOT, but I guess it's not.

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2012-04-02, Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

> VanguardLH <V...@nguard.LH> wrote:
>>RFC 5322: Internet Message Format
>>http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5322.txt
>>Section 3.6.4: Identification Fields
>
> Bloody hell. I never noticed before. Inclusion of Message-IDs are a SHOULD,
> not a MUST. Why would that be?

Bear in mind that that RFC is describing email messages, not news
articles. Message-IDs have never been required for emails, and there
is no particular technical reason that they need to be.

>>You'll see what the RFC says to use, and that's a domain as the right-id
>>token (domain) portion of the MID header.
>
> Why do I recall that it used to recommend fully-qualified domain, that
> is, host+domain, to ensure uniqueness?

Perhaps because RFC 1036 section 2.1.5 says so.

>>You should not be using someone else's domain because you cannot
>>guarantee that the left-id tokens your client generates will not
>>conflict with those the owner of that domain might use.
>
> That ought to be a MUST NOT, but I guess it's not.

It is a requirement that the Message-ID be unique, but there are
many ways this could be achieved and the RFCs don't mandate any
particular one.

[Barry Margolin]

In article <jlci6n$k7j$1...@news.albasani.net>,

"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

> VanguardLH <V...@nguard.LH> wrote:
>
> >In the turnpike newsgroup, I noticed some advice from Stocky about what
> >to use for a MID header. He states it is "courteous to make your the
> >right part of your M-ID recognisably yours" giving as a basis the
> >ability for others to recognize your posts. You'll find the MID header
> >rarely identifies a particular sender unless they have gone to the
> >trouble to register their own domain and use that in their MID header.
> >Everyone posting through Eternal-September is getting the same right-id
> >token (to the right of the ampersand character) with a random left-id
> >token, and that doesn't uniquely identify the poster at all.
>
> >RFC 5322: Internet Message Format
> >http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5322.txt
> >Section 3.6.4: Identification Fields
>
> Bloody hell. I never noticed before. Inclusion of Message-IDs are a SHOULD,
> not a MUST. Why would that be?
>
> >You'll see what the RFC says to use, and that's a domain as the right-id
> >token (domain) portion of the MID header.
>
> Why do I recall that it used to recommend fully-qualified domain, that
> is, host+domain, to ensure uniqueness?

I think you're misunderstanding the terminology. host.domain is also a
domain.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Jon Ribbens <jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:
>On 2012-04-02, Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>VanguardLH <V...@nguard.LH> wrote:

>>>RFC 5322: Internet Message Format
>>>http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5322.txt
>>>Section 3.6.4: Identification Fields

>>Bloody hell. I never noticed before. Inclusion of Message-IDs are a SHOULD,
>>not a MUST. Why would that be?

>Bear in mind that that RFC is describing email messages, not news
>articles. Message-IDs have never been required for emails, and there
>is no particular technical reason that they need to be.

You have a point. Given that, I wonder why they were included to begin with.

>>>You should not be using someone else's domain because you cannot
>>>guarantee that the left-id tokens your client generates will not
>>>conflict with those the owner of that domain might use.

>>That ought to be a MUST NOT, but I guess it's not.

>It is a requirement that the Message-ID be unique, but there are
>many ways this could be achieved and the RFCs don't mandate any
>particular one.

I wasn't commenting on uniqueness, just falsely claiming an association
with a particular domain.

[Adam H. Kerman]

No, Barry, that's why I asked a SPECIFIC question with UNAMBIGUOUS
terminology, given that "domain" can be ambiguous.

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2012-04-02, Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

> Jon Ribbens <jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:
>>Bear in mind that that RFC is describing email messages, not news
>>articles. Message-IDs have never been required for emails, and there
>>is no particular technical reason that they need to be.
>
> You have a point. Given that, I wonder why they were included to begin with.

My guess would be interoperability with other non-RFC724 mail systems.

That's reminded me of something amusing I had forgotten, that email
addresses (and Message-IDs) could originally optionally be literally
"local-part at domain" rather than "local-part@domain".

>>>>You should not be using someone else's domain because you cannot
>>>>guarantee that the left-id tokens your client generates will not
>>>>conflict with those the owner of that domain might use.
>
>>>That ought to be a MUST NOT, but I guess it's not.
>
>>It is a requirement that the Message-ID be unique, but there are
>>many ways this could be achieved and the RFCs don't mandate any
>>particular one.
>
> I wasn't commenting on uniqueness, just falsely claiming an association
> with a particular domain.

I know, but pretty much the only reason anyone cares about that is
that it makes guarantees of uniqueness impossible.

Part of the problem with mandating "an association with" a domain is
that it's extremely vague, and can't be enforced in any technological
manner anyway.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Jon Ribbens <jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:
>On 2012-04-02, Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Jon Ribbens <jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:

>>>Bear in mind that that RFC is describing email messages, not news
>>>articles. Message-IDs have never been required for emails, and there
>>>is no particular technical reason that they need to be.

>>You have a point. Given that, I wonder why they were included to begin with.

>My guess would be interoperability with other non-RFC724 mail systems.

But they wouldn't have used that style Message ID, and some of them had
different terms for the same concept.

>That's reminded me of something amusing I had forgotten, that email
>addresses (and Message-IDs) could originally optionally be literally
>"local-part at domain" rather than "local-part@domain".

Interesting.

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2012-04-02, Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> Jon Ribbens <jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:
>>My guess would be interoperability with other non-RFC724 mail systems.
>
> But they wouldn't have used that style Message ID, and some of them had
> different terms for the same concept.

That wouldn't matter provided that you could define a two-way mapping
between Message-ID and whatever the other system used. Bear in mind
that RFC 822 et al deliberately placed very few restrictions on things
like addresses - in a "quoted string", almost any ASCII character is
allowable (including unprintable control characters).

[Dr J R Stockton]

In eternal-september.support message <jl8oc2$thg$1...@dont-email.me>, Sun,
1 Apr 2012 00:16:59, VanguardLH <V...@nguard.LH> posted:

> The manual
>says the user can set what domain gets used in the MID header.

Were you considerably smarter, you would have been aware that "can set"
and "did set" are significantly non-equivalent. And you might well have
thought that the manual that Hugh used (probably a nice printed one)
when installing Turnpike from new did not necessarily include all that
the electronic manual that you have seen has. See sig.

--

[Barry Margolin]

In article <jld17o$n4p$2...@news.albasani.net>,

When RFCs refer to domains, they mean any FQDN. Using the term to mean
a container is an informal convention that should be avoided in formal
documents.

[Barry Margolin]

In article <jld0tg$n4p$1...@news.albasani.net>,

"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

> Jon Ribbens <jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:
> >On 2012-04-02, Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> >>VanguardLH <V...@nguard.LH> wrote:
>
> >>>RFC 5322: Internet Message Format
> >>>http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5322.txt
> >>>Section 3.6.4: Identification Fields
>
> >>Bloody hell. I never noticed before. Inclusion of Message-IDs are a SHOULD,
> >>not a MUST. Why would that be?
>
> >Bear in mind that that RFC is describing email messages, not news
> >articles. Message-IDs have never been required for emails, and there
> >is no particular technical reason that they need to be.
>
> You have a point. Given that, I wonder why they were included to begin with.

Because they're useful.

One of the reasons why it's optional is so that a mail submission client
can leave it out, and then the server can add it before forwarding.
Since it's often hard for clients to generate unique MIDs (because many
client machines don't have a unique domain name for the RHS), it's
likely to be better to leave it up to the server.

[VanguardLH]

Jon Ribbens wrote:

> Adam H. Kerman wrote:

>
>> VanguardLH wrote:
>>
>>> RFC 5322: Internet Message Format
>>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5322.txt
>>> Section 3.6.4: Identification Fields
>>
>> Bloody hell. I never noticed before. Inclusion of Message-IDs are a SHOULD,
>> not a MUST. Why would that be?
>
> Bear in mind that that RFC is describing email messages, not news
> articles. Message-IDs have never been required for emails, and there
> is no particular technical reason that they need to be.

The title of the RFC is "Internet Messsage Format". It is NOT just
about e-mail messaging. It's about Internet messaging and that includes
newsgroups. You will find references in RFCs for NNTP that will defer
to the Internet Message Format RFC. You'll find co-dependencies in many
RFCs since economy in RFC ratification is achieved through reuse rather
than rewrite.

For example, RFC 3977 for "Network News Transfer Protocol"
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3977) has its Appendix A section for
"Interaction with other Specifications" where it refers to Message-IDs
and which defers back to RFC 2822 (to older "Internet Message Format"
RFC).

>>>You'll see what the RFC says to use, and that's a domain as the right-id
>>>token (domain) portion of the MID header.
>>
>> Why do I recall that it used to recommend fully-qualified domain, that
>> is, host+domain, to ensure uniqueness?
>
> Perhaps because RFC 1036 section 2.1.5 says so.

In RFC 5322 (and prior iterations of the RFC), section 3.6 denotes what
are the minimum and maximum counts for a header. For Message-ID, it may
appear a minimum of zero times or a maximum of 1 time but a comment that
remarks that the MID "should" be present. Despite whether the RFCs say
SHOULD, RECOMMENDED, MUST, or REQUIRED, they're still just specs which
client and server often don't heed or choose to disobey (deliberately or
due to ignorance).

The use of Message-ID is SHOULD or RECOMMENDED, not MUST or REQUIRED,
for what the RFC was written for (which is a general RFC on Internet
messaging, not solely for e-mail or newsgroups). However, without it
you don't have an indentifier with which to string the messages into a
threaded hierarchy. All hell would break loose in Usenet if you didn't
(or your server) include the MID header because Usenet would turn into
that worthless flat-file scheme used by web-based forums.

RFC 3977 for NNTP *does* demand the presence of the MID header. It says
"Every article handled by an NNTP server MUST have a unique message-id."
If the client doesn't insert one then the server MUST. If the client
inserts a MID header,

[VanguardLH]

Dr J R Stockton wrote:

> VanguardLH posted:

>
>> The manual says the user can set what domain gets used in the MID
>> header.
>
> Were you considerably smarter, you would have been aware that "can
> set" and "did set" are significantly non-equivalent.

"did set" was not in the quoted content you included in your reply;
i.e., you didn't provide the context. It wasn't anywhere in my posts.
It wasn't in the posts to which I replied. It wasn't in your reply to
hugh over in the Turnpike newsgroup. So you're making up the citation.

> And you might well have thought that the manual that Hugh used
> (probably a nice printed one) when installing Turnpike from new did
> not necessarily include all that the electronic manual that you have
> seen has.

I went and found a manual. hugh never said he had one. You never
divulged to hugh where was the manual (the abridged version to which you
allude or an expanded version).

> See sig.

Presumably I'm supposed to infer that you've now added the Turnpike
manual to your web site. Was hugh supposed to infer the same meaning
and similarly expected to dig around trying to find info (that isn't
there) on Turnpike? Just where (under which topic) on your web site at
http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/#LWTP might you have now added a copy of
the manual?

The only content that I found there was a short blurb on your "personal
views" regarding Usenet. There was some netiquette and terse tech info
there but hardly a reference for using Turnpike. I found
http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/misclinx.htm#DT which merely has a URL
link back to demon.co.uk (and not even to their Turnpike manual page).
Yes, I'm sure someone looking there for a copy of the Turnpike manual is
going to look under a miscellanous list of links to elsewhere. I only
found that web page by using Google's site search on "turnpike"
(http://www.google.com/search?q=site:www.merlyn.demon.co.uk+turnpike) to
see if it knew where you might've mentioned Turnpike since it's not one
of your Topics. http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/pc-links.htm also has
another external URL link to Turnpike.com but that's a dead site (it
redirects to demon.net).

Nope, didn't find a manual on Turnpike at your site. It might be there
but well buried; however, I really don't have a need to find out if you
have a copy of the manual since I already found it at demon.co.uk and
provided a link to it to hugh.

[VanguardLH]

Oh, you're practicing multiple personalities: unhelpful here, helpful
elsewhere.

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2012-04-03, VanguardLH <V...@nguard.LH> wrote:

> Jon Ribbens wrote:
>> Bear in mind that that RFC is describing email messages, not news
>> articles. Message-IDs have never been required for emails, and there
>> is no particular technical reason that they need to be.
>
> The title of the RFC is "Internet Messsage Format". It is NOT just
> about e-mail messaging. It's about Internet messaging and that includes
> newsgroups. You will find references in RFCs for NNTP that will defer
> to the Internet Message Format RFC.

Yes, thanks for that egg-sucking lesson.

> The use of Message-ID is SHOULD or RECOMMENDED, not MUST or REQUIRED,
> for what the RFC was written for (which is a general RFC on Internet
> messaging, not solely for e-mail or newsgroups).

Yes, you are repeating my point back to me.

> However, without it you don't have an indentifier with which to
> string the messages into a threaded hierarchy. All hell would break
> loose in Usenet if you didn't (or your server) include the MID
> header because Usenet would turn into that worthless flat-file
> scheme used by web-based forums.

Um, no, your message just would not appear or propagate since Usenet
relies fundamentally on Message-IDs.

[VanguardLH]

Wow, you certainly are super-sensitive on anyone that steps on your
coattails to expound on your statements.

[Dr J R Stockton]

In eternal-september.support message <jlci6n$k7j$1...@news.albasani.net>,
Mon, 2 Apr 2012 15:56:07, Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> posted:

>VanguardLH <V...@nguard.LH> wrote:
>
>>In the turnpike newsgroup, I noticed some advice from Stocky about what
>>to use for a MID header. He states it is "courteous to make your the
>>right part of your M-ID recognisably yours" giving as a basis the
>>ability for others to recognize your posts. You'll find the MID header
>>rarely identifies a particular sender unless they have gone to the
>>trouble to register their own domain and use that in their MID header.
>>Everyone posting through Eternal-September is getting the same right-id
>>token (to the right of the ampersand character) with a random left-id
>>token, and that doesn't uniquely identify the poster at all.
>
>>RFC 5322: Internet Message Format
>>http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5322.txt
>>Section 3.6.4: Identification Fields
>
>Bloody hell. I never noticed before. Inclusion of Message-IDs are a SHOULD,
>not a MUST. Why would that be?

It is only necessary to have an M-ID on the open Internet, where one has
no idea what other messages it might meet. While a message is on a
"private link" between its generator and the system which releases it
onto the open Net, that form of identification is not required.

Consider a postal message. You might write its initial form, and give
it to your secretary saying "Send this to Fat Fred at Smiths, please".
The secretary will prepare an envelope with a proper postal address,
"Attn: Mr F Brown, / Smith and Jones, Inc., / ... <Zipcode>" and get it
posted.

Turnpike can send mail in two distinct ways. For one, it needs to
generate an M-ID. For the other, it starts off in a different manner,
Demon assigning a unique M-ID. IIRC, the second way is no longer
supported at Demon, for being nowadays insufficiently secure.

Please remember that, at least in respect of Turnpike & Demon users, VLH
retains an inadequate understanding of the systems (as the /cognoscenti/
will see from what you quote above); considerably less, I suspect, than
yours. He should remember the words of the (well, a) great Huxley.

--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike 6.05 WinXP.
Web <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQ-type topics, acronyms, and links.
Command-prompt MiniTrue is useful for viewing/searching/altering files. Free,
DOS/Win/UNIX now 2.0.6; see <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/pc-links.htm>.

[Dr J R Stockton]

In eternal-september.support message <jlcg17$7cd$1...@dont-email.me>, Mon,
2 Apr 2012 10:19:09, VanguardLH <V...@nguard.LH> posted:

Once more, you are emitting from the wrong end of your alimentary canal.

>In the turnpike newsgroup, I noticed some advice from Stocky about what
>to use for a MID header. He states it is "courteous to make your the
>right part of your M-ID recognisably yours" giving as a basis the
>ability for others to recognize your posts. You'll find the MID header
>rarely identifies a particular sender unless they have gone to the
>trouble to register their own domain and use that in their MID header.

That sentence is sloppy and untrue. I wrote "recognisably yours",
nothing about owning domains. I'm discussing courtesy, not technical
requirements such as uniqueness, here (the word may be in Webster).
And, in context, that does not need to be "recognisable by all and
sundry", just recognisable by someone who has already seen some of his
M-IDs. At least one PITA uses fully-recognisable M-IDs - that enables me
to kill, unseen, not only all messages from him but also most messages
in threads descending from a message from him. That's useful. You, as
a reader, may lack that capability; it depends on the software you have
chosen.

By always using its own M-ID, E-S would defend all of its posters from
that treatment.

Then there is no need for the domain to be one that one owns. Mine is
owned by Demon, but leased by me. They have granted me full rights over
the use of that domain name, for so long as that pleases them. For
uniqueness, it is control, not ownership, that matters. Hugh has a
similar account. But we have not registered our domains; they are sub-
domains of one registered (presumbly) by Demon.

>Everyone posting through Eternal-September is getting the same right-id
>token (to the right of the ampersand character) with a random left-id
>token, and that doesn't uniquely identify the poster at all.

If that is true, it is only very recently true. The first article in
this thread has a Demon M-ID in Turnpike style, and its Path has E-S at
both ends.

But I hope ES-generated left parts are not random; that does not
guarantee uniqueness. They seem to be 12-character base-64 strings
Inspection shows that the probability of them being fully-random is
negligible. If they are mostly random, duplicates will be rare.

>RFC 5322: Internet Message Format
>http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5322.txt
>Section 3.6.4: Identification Fields
>
>You'll see what the RFC says to use, and that's a domain as the right-id
>token (domain) portion of the MID header. Well, if you use a domain
>then it better be one that you own since uniqueness of the left-id token
>for the domain specified by the right-id token. When you were using
>demon.co.uk to submit your messages, you were submitting to their server
>and obviously they have permission to use their own domain.

But Demon do not have the right to use subdomains that they have leased
out, unless that lease id terminated.

>You should not be using someone else's domain because you cannot
>guarantee that the left-id tokens your client generates will not
>conflict with those the owner of that domain might use.

You are not invariably wrong.

> When you used
>demon.co.uk then their client's use of that domain was valid. Now that
>you're not using them anymore means your posts should be using their
>domain (or a subdomain of their domain).

One can post (as I do) through Mozilla, E-S, AIOE without losing ones
rights over one's Demon sub-domain; and that includes the right to base
M-IDs on it.

[Nick Spalding]

Dr J R Stockton wrote, in
<4iyBRiUJ...@invalid.uk.co.demon.merlyn.invalid>
on Tue, 3 Apr 2012 21:00:09 +0100:

>But I hope ES-generated left parts are not random; that does not
>guarantee uniqueness. They seem to be 12-character base-64 strings
>Inspection shows that the probability of them being fully-random is
>negligible. If they are mostly random, duplicates will be rare.

"The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to
chance." Robert R. Coveyou

"Any one who considers arithmetical methods of producing random digits
is, of course, in a state of sin." John von Neumann
--
Nick Spalding

[hugh]

In message <81tnn7llq81vsuddl...@4ax.com>, Nick Spalding
<spal...@iol.ie> writes

Just noticed on another group that the change I had previously attempted
without apparent success in TP now seems to be working.
So the RHS of this M-ID should be [127.0.0.1]
Here goes
--
hugh

[Barry Margolin]

In article <a$zyo1PkI...@raefell.demon.co.uk>,

Nope.

Message-ID: <a$zyo1PkI...@raefell.demon.co.uk>

[Dr J R Stockton]

In eternal-september.support message <jldq81$l9n$1...@dont-email.me>, Mon,
2 Apr 2012 22:19:40, VanguardLH <V...@nguard.LH> posted:

>Dr J R Stockton wrote:
>
>> VanguardLH posted:
>>
>>> The manual says the user can set what domain gets used in the MID
>>> header.
>>
>> Were you considerably smarter, you would have been aware that "can
>> set" and "did set" are significantly non-equivalent.
>
>"did set" was not in the quoted content you included in your reply;
>i.e., you didn't provide the context. It wasn't anywhere in my posts.
>It wasn't in the posts to which I replied. It wasn't in your reply to
>hugh over in the Turnpike newsgroup. So you're making up the citation.

It is not a citation; what you wrote earlier corresponded to "did set".

>> And you might well have thought that the manual that Hugh used
>> (probably a nice printed one) when installing Turnpike from new did
>> not necessarily include all that the electronic manual that you have
>> seen has.
>
>I went and found a manual. hugh never said he had one. You never
>divulged to hugh where was the manual (the abridged version to which you
>allude or an expanded version).

Help on Turnpike, for those who need it, is given in the appropriate
place. I did not refer to abridgement or expansion. The early manuals
were provided tangibly, the later ones electronically. Manuals for
later versions almost always contain more material.

>> See sig.
>
>Presumably I'm supposed to infer that you've now added the Turnpike
>manual to your web site.

No. You should have read all of the sig.

> Was hugh supposed to infer the same meaning
>and similarly expected to dig around trying to find info (that isn't
>there) on Turnpike?

No; he seems intelligent.

> Just where (under which topic) on your web site at
>http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/#LWTP might you have now added a copy of
>the manual?

Why should I do that? A waste of good megabytes; Hugh should have his
own copy.

>The only content that I found there was a short blurb on your "personal
>views" regarding Usenet. There was some netiquette and terse tech info
>there but hardly a reference for using Turnpike. I found
>http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/misclinx.htm#DT which merely has a URL
>link back to demon.co.uk (and not even to their Turnpike manual page).
>Yes, I'm sure someone looking there for a copy of the Turnpike manual is
>going to look under a miscellanous list of links to elsewhere. I only
>found that web page by using Google's site search on "turnpike"
>(http://www.google.com/search?q=site:www.merlyn.demon.co.uk+turnpike) to
>see if it knew where you might've mentioned Turnpike since it's not one
>of your Topics. http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/pc-links.htm also has
>another external URL link to Turnpike.com but that's a dead site (it
>redirects to demon.net).

Frankly. I never expected that anyone would be daft enough to seek the
Turnpike manual on, or through, my site. They might try Wikipedia,
though.

>Nope, didn't find a manual on Turnpike at your site. It might be there
>but well buried; however, I really don't have a need to find out if you
>have a copy of the manual since I already found it at demon.co.uk and
>provided a link to it to hugh.

Not good; you could have given better advice.

[hugh]

In message <barmar-CD70D3....@news.eternal-september.org>,
Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> writes

Weird.
I wonder if my posts to the other newsgroups are still going through
demon news server even though I have configured them to use E-S and that
may be the difference.
TP Personalities for news posts will not let me set From address to
[127.0.01} but it will accept it in MID Domain name.
I have switched off access to demon news server completely and will see
what happens next time I post to one of the other newsgroups.
--
hugh

[Barry Margolin]

In article <O49HJiRc5MfPFAty@[127.0.0.1]>, hugh <hugh@[127.0.0.1]>

This last message has @[127.0.0.1] in the MID.

[hugh]

In message <GcRuu+WB...@invalid.uk.co.demon.merlyn.invalid>, Dr J R
Stockton <repl...@merlyn.demon.co.uk.not.invalid> writes

You're too kind.

>> Just where (under which topic) on your web site at
>>http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/#LWTP might you have now added a copy of
>>the manual?
>
>Why should I do that? A waste of good megabytes; Hugh should have his
>own copy.
>

Actually now you've reminded me, I do have one - it was part of the TP6
download package. Bit of light bedtime reading coming up.
Now, how do I get it onto a Kindle.

<Snip>
--
hugh

[hugh]

In message <barmar-149F12....@news.eternal-september.org>,

Aaaaaagh. It just gets worse and worse!!!!
Wonder it Tp has to be re-booted before some changes take effect. Never
found that before though.
--
hugh

[First. Post]

What's the problem? Isn't it doing exactly what you want it to do currently?

Path: eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: hugh <hugh@[127.0.0.1]>
Newsgroups: eternal-september.support
Subject: Re: E-mail Address in posts
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2012 00:16:17 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 51
Message-ID: <2o6J9DUBZNfPFA7R@[127.0.0.1]>
References: <tZynKqHS...@raefell.demon.co.uk>
<jl04a1$ra3$1...@dont-email.me>
<2aYC$sPtmL...@invalid.uk.co.demon.merlyn.invalid>
<jl5u3h$9g5$1...@dont-email.me>
<barmar-3D9F8A....@news.eternal-september.org>
<jl8oc2$thg$1...@dont-email.me> <sou3GtEq9GePFAAK@[127.0.0.1]>
<jlakss$vms$1...@dont-email.me> <S2HYRzBOUZePFAXn@[127.0.0.1]>
<jlcg17$7cd$1...@dont-email.me>
<4iyBRiUJ...@invalid.uk.co.demon.merlyn.invalid>
<81tnn7llq81vsuddl...@4ax.com>
<a$zyo1PkI...@raefell.demon.co.uk>
<barmar-CD70D3....@news.eternal-september.org>
<O49HJiRc5MfPFAty@[127.0.0.1]>
<barmar-149F12....@news.eternal-september.org>
Reply-To: news...@raefell.co.uk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii;format=flowed
Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org;
posting-host="l0UYWdNsLg3HdGKbaFiJSA";
logging-data="16795"; mail-complaints-to="ab...@eternal-september.org";
posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+7dGMZe11lFeczHdSfVBPULd/p9GTUJ9M="
User-Agent: Turnpike/6.07-M (<aIdmGAUSKU3JDwwfc2iTw24TH4>)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:gwqmtvIaDtUf/gZTZGsoTRUMAbA=
Xref: mx04.eternal-september.org eternal-september.support:3965

[Barry Margolin]

In article <n7qpn7dlq99mv2lea...@4ax.com>,

I think he's just wondering why it DIDN'T do it when he posted earlier
today, claiming that he'd fixed it.

[hugh]

In message <n7qpn7dlq99mv2lea...@4ax.com>, First. Post
<OccupiersDu...@invalid.net> writes

>>>This last message has @[127.0.0.1] in the MID.
>>>
>>Aaaaaagh. It just gets worse and worse!!!!
>>Wonder it Tp has to be re-booted before some changes take effect. Never
>>found that before though.
>
>What's the problem? Isn't it doing exactly what you want it to do currently?

Yes, but I haven't changed anything from last time when it didn't work.
I've also got similar problems with handling dead letter mail, that
didn't work, then did, then doesn't again this morning.
SWMBO says it's due to solar flares and later this year all electronic
devices will suddenly fail.
--
hugh

[hugh]

In message <barmar-6F38EF....@news.eternal-september.org>,

Yup. As a former computer commissioning engineer I like things to be
consistent. Cause - effect, every time.
--
hugh

[Dr J R Stockton]

In eternal-september.support message <81tnn7llq81vsuddlt17vda7ightupirnh
@4ax.com>, Wed, 4 Apr 2012 08:14:35, Nick Spalding <spal...@iol.ie>
posted:

Those are irrelevant; and, IMHO, Knuth put it (AIUI) better :
"Random numbers should not be generated with a method chosen at random".

[Dr J R Stockton]

In eternal-september.support message <a$zyo1PkI...@raefell.demon.co.
uk>, Wed, 4 Apr 2012 22:50:28, hugh <hugh@[127.0.0.1]> posted:

>So the RHS of this M-ID should be [127.0.0.1]

Perhaps a common, but not a good, choice. Under certain circumstances,
the meaning of '[127.0.0.1]' is 'sort-of-private'. But it is widely
used.

So, to avoid clashes, you are relying on the apparent random-like
uniqueness of Turnpike M-IDs.

But they are not random. There is internal structure. No other
Turnpike, I believe, can ever generate an M-ID matching one of yours
(except possibly if one improbable thing and one unreasonable thing are
done). Yours can only generate a duplicate if you do the unreasonable
thing, and there may be internal protection against that causing a
repeat.

But there is nothing to stop any non-Turnpike system generating random
M-ID left part strings and one of those matching a Turnpike M-ID.

However, a knowledgeable non-Turnpike system could randomly choose from
a subset of strings that would guarantee no match against any Turnpike
string generated in our probable lifetimes - or of course, ever.

--
(c) John Stockton, nr London UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk DOS 3.3 6.20 ; WinXP.
Web <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links.
PAS EXE TXT ZIP via <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/00index.htm>
My DOS <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/batfiles.htm> - also batprogs.htm.

[Nick Spalding]

Dr J R Stockton wrote, in

<ffIY+EJk...@invalid.uk.co.demon.merlyn.invalid>
on Thu, 5 Apr 2012 20:58:28 +0100:

>In eternal-september.support message <81tnn7llq81vsuddlt17vda7ightupirnh
>@4ax.com>, Wed, 4 Apr 2012 08:14:35, Nick Spalding <spal...@iol.ie>
>posted:
>
>>Dr J R Stockton wrote, in
>><4iyBRiUJ...@invalid.uk.co.demon.merlyn.invalid>
>> on Tue, 3 Apr 2012 21:00:09 +0100:
>>
>>>But I hope ES-generated left parts are not random; that does not
>>>guarantee uniqueness. They seem to be 12-character base-64 strings
>>>Inspection shows that the probability of them being fully-random is
>>>negligible. If they are mostly random, duplicates will be rare.
>>
>>"The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to
>>chance." Robert R. Coveyou
>>
>>"Any one who considers arithmetical methods of producing random digits
>>is, of course, in a state of sin." John von Neumann
>
>Those are irrelevant; and, IMHO, Knuth put it (AIUI) better :
>"Random numbers should not be generated with a method chosen at random".

Nice.
--
Nick Spalding

[hugh]

In message <uPfUKJL5...@invalid.uk.co.demon.merlyn.invalid>, Dr J R
Stockton <repl...@merlyn.demon.co.uk.not.invalid> writes

>Perhaps a common, but not a good, choice. Under certain circumstances,
>the meaning of '[127.0.0.1]' is 'sort-of-private'. But it is widely
>used.

I only changed it in this position as an experiment. This thread has
been very educational for me - I had no idea what I was getting in to. I
will be changing it again once I am off demon and on to BT Infinity in a
couple of weeks. Roll on 39.3mbs - well nearly - well hopefully close -
well it must be better than I'm currently getting - well I can change
again in 18 months!!
--
hugh

[Dr J R Stockton]

In eternal-september.support message <oj5tn7hh1fpf0npvdnml0k77e3p0i33j7b
@4ax.com>, Fri, 6 Apr 2012 08:08:54, Nick Spalding <spal...@iol.ie>

posted:

>Dr J R Stockton wrote, in
><ffIY+EJk...@invalid.uk.co.demon.merlyn.invalid>
> on Thu, 5 Apr 2012 20:58:28 +0100:
>
>>In eternal-september.support message <81tnn7llq81vsuddlt17vda7ightupirnh
>>@4ax.com>, Wed, 4 Apr 2012 08:14:35, Nick Spalding <spal...@iol.ie>
>>posted:

>>>"Any one who considers arithmetical methods of producing random digits
>>>is, of course, in a state of sin." John von Neumann
>>
>>Those are irrelevant; and, IMHO, Knuth put it (AIUI) better :
>>"Random numbers should not be generated with a method chosen at random".

JvN has not written for a long time now.

I have a page, <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/js-randm.htm>, which shows
some of the faults of browsers' Math.random, and links to what I have
been assured are very good arithmetic Random generators. They are much
better than any non-arithmetic generator, because analogue equipment can
never be perfect.

But I doubt whether browser suppliers use those methods.

--

[Robert Miles]

On 3/28/2012 3:34 PM, hugh wrote:
> In message <tZynKqHS...@raefell.demon.co.uk>, hugh
> <hugh@[127.0.0.1]> writes
>> Just posted for the first time using eternal September and am
>> horrified to see my e-mail address at the top of the post.
>> How do I prevent this?
> Sorry, actually it shows up in replies to the post in the message ID as in
> news:jeQUrqBa...@raefell.demon.co.uk.

That's the news post message ID, not an email address, although
the two look somewhat alike. Required in order to use newsgroups,
and must not match from one newsgroups post to the next.

This line in your header contains something more like an email
address, so check if your newsreader program offers any way to
change it:

Reply-To: news...@raefell.co.uk

Generally, just adding ".invalid" to the end of such an email
address is enough to keep spammers from using it, without
making it impossible for people who want to send email just
to you from correcting it.

Robert Miles

[Robert Miles]

On 3/28/2012 6:31 PM, hugh wrote:
> In message <jl04a1$ra3$1...@dont-email.me>, VanguardLH <V...@nguard.LH> writes

>> hugh wrote:
>>
>>> Message-ID: <tZynKqHS...@raefell.demon.co.uk>
>>
>> Has to do with the Message-ID (MID) header that *YOU* decided to insert

>> into your outbound messages. Eternal-September did NOT insert that MID
>> header, you did. How do I know? Because ES uses <id>@don't.email.me as
>> their MID value (where <id> is unique on every post submitted through
>> them).

>>
>> You configured your newsreader, Turnpike, to add its own MID header.

>> NNTP servers will add their own MID header *if* there isn't already one
>> in the message. The NNTP client will not override the MID header added
>> by the client. If the article already has a MID header when submitted
>> to the NNTP server, the server will keep the one already present. If
>> there isn't one then and only then does the server add its own MID
>> header. So yours has the components of your e-mail (although it is NOT
>> an e-mail address) in your MID header because you chose to have your
>> newsreader add its own MID header.
>>
>> In every reply to your posts, the References header shows the string of
>> posts in a subthread. Well, that means a reply to your post is going to
>> show the MID header that *YOUR* newsreader added in the References
>> header of replies to that post.
>>
>> I've never used Turnpike. Go into its configuration and either decide
>> to NOT have it insert its own MID header (use the one the server adds)
>> or have it use a different domain portion in its own generated MID
>> header (but be damn sure that you have permission to use that domain in
>> your MID header).
> The domain name I give it is 127.0.0.1 This has worked OK on the demon
> news server but not apparently with ES so I'm a bit puzzled as I never
> use my demon sub-domain name these days. Will have to look further and
> maybe ask in the demon TP support news group.

127.0.0.1 is not a domain name. Instead, it an IP address, and one with
a special meaning - roughly, don't fully connect to the internet;
instead, go part of the way, then turn around and come back to the same
computer it started from. Most newsgroups servers allow using IP
addresses instead of domain names, though; perhaps ES does not. Any
spammer who tries to send spam to an email address using that IP
address will only end up sending the spam to that spammer's computer.

If you want a domain name that will never allow spammers to send you
spam, just end it with ".invalid"; this immediately marks it as an
invalid domain, so properly written email servers will immediately
know not to send email to that domain anywhere.

Robert Miles

[Robert Miles]

On 3/29/2012 6:43 AM, hugh wrote:
> In message <jl1gqg$6t9$1...@dont-email.me>, VanguardLH <V...@nguard.LH> writes
>> hugh wrote:
>>
>>> I will ask in demon.ip.support.turnpke, but my set up works perfectly
>>> well through the demon news server. I don't think you can turn off
>>> this header in TP
>>
>> http://knowledgebase.demon.net/article/withdrawal-of-support-turnpike-em
>> ail-client.html
>>
>> which had a link to its manual at:
>>
>> http://knowledgebase.demon-web-1.dvs.demon.net/assets/turnpike_6_user_ma
>> nual.txt
>>
>> Yikes, whoever did the conversion into .txt file didn't bother to
>> actually review the output. Way down under the "Personality Properties"
>> (probably what the rest of us call Identities), it says:
>>
> I'm surprised there's anything left on demon about TP. Must have been an
> oversight during the great purge.
>> Message-ID domain. This is the domain to use when generating a
>> Message-ID for a message when posted. By default this will be the
>> domain of the local machine. If you want to use a different domain,
>> set the Custom option and enter the domain to use.
>>
>> So it is configurable. Somewhere in Turnpike's configuration you can
>> define "personalities". That's where you specify whether to have
>> Turnpike generate its own MID header and, if so, what to use in it.
> Yup - already done that. I use Personalities a lot and the one I use for
> news posts has domain [127.0.0.1] and that's what comes up in the MID
> when I use the demon news server. - must double double double check that
> - again.

Expect that choice to create problems with whether your newsgroups posts
go very far on Usenet, if anyone else also uses that domain in their
MID. If two users create newsgroups posts with the same MID assigned,
no newsgroups server will accept both of them, since they use the MID
to avoid getting more than one copy of the same post.

Robert Miles

Robert Miles

[Robert Miles]

On 4/2/2012 7:01 AM, hugh wrote:
> In message <jlakss$vms$1...@dont-email.me>, VanguardLH <V...@nguard.LH> writes
>> hugh wrote:
>>
>>> The option does indeed exist in TP personalities' Properties. So far I
>>> haven't managed to get it to work. However I have come to the
>>> conclusion I am getting unnecessarily excited about something which
>>> doesn't seem to bother anyone else so I haven't spent any more time
>>> on it. Thank you all for your help -I've learnt a couple of more
>>> things about TP in the process - and I've been using it for about 20
>>> years I'm finding ES is working fine so that's one part of my
>>> transfer from Demon to BT sorted.
>>
>> Ah, so the program is defective.
> Or I have cocked up somewhere.
> <Snip>

One thing you could try: Where [127.0.0.1] is now inserted as the
domain name, try putting nothing at all in order to see if that's
the right way to tell Turnpike not to generate a MID at all.

I've never used Turnpike, so that's just a guess.

Robert Miles

[Barry Margolin]

In article <jp1l82$nms$1...@dont-email.me>,

Robert Miles <rober...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> On 3/28/2012 3:34 PM, hugh wrote:
> > In message <tZynKqHS...@raefell.demon.co.uk>, hugh
> > <hugh@[127.0.0.1]> writes
> >> Just posted for the first time using eternal September and am
> >> horrified to see my e-mail address at the top of the post.
> >> How do I prevent this?
> > Sorry, actually it shows up in replies to the post in the message ID as in
> > news:jeQUrqBa...@raefell.demon.co.uk.
>
> That's the news post message ID, not an email address, although
> the two look somewhat alike. Required in order to use newsgroups,
> and must not match from one newsgroups post to the next.

He clearly understood this, since he wrote "in the message ID". His
concern was that the message ID includes his account name (raefell).

Anyway, if you're going to resurrect a 2-month-old thread, maybe you
should read through it. I'm pretty sure he resolved his problem.