[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Can't post to a foreign server
From: |
Burkhard Perkens-Golomb |
Subject: |
Re: Can't post to a foreign server |
Date: |
Sun, 04 Jul 2004 20:13:39 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.110002 (No Gnus v0.2) Emacs/21.3 (windows-nt) |
Meanwhile I changed to NoGnus 0.2 but the results are still the same:
On 2 Jul 2004, Kai Grossjohann wrote:
> Burkhard Perkens-Golomb <burkhard.perkens-golomb.NOSP@M.web.de>
> writes:
>
>> C-u C-c C-c still tries to post via the primary server.
>
> Weird.
Same with NoGnus 0.2: C-u C-c C-c posts via the primary server without
asking, C-0 C-c C-c asks for the posting method.
>> But C-0 C-c C-c asks for a posting method: I can say (with
>> completion) "foreign.server (nntp)" but then I get
... and still get with NoGnus 0.2 :-( ...
>> ,----
>> | Sending news via foreign.server using nntp...
>> | 441 posting failed
>> | Couldn't send message via news: 441 posting failed
>> `----
>
> This seems to be that Gnus sent the posting to foreign.server but
> that server didn't like your posting. I guess Gnus can't do
> anything about that :-(
Could be but I don't think it's so simple: I can enter the summary
buffer of the "foreign" group I want to post to, press "a" to make a
new posting and send it with C-c C-c: It works!
> Can you find the " *server foo*" buffer corresponding to this server
> to see what is sent to the server? Note that the buffer name starts
> with a space, and thus the buffer is not listed in most buffer
> menus. Use C-x b to switch to this buffer.
Found this buffer: " *server foreign.server *nttpd**". But this
buffer is empty!?
>> The old thread I found at google suggests that Gnus understands
>> "nntp+foreign.server:foreign.group" in the field "Newsgroup:". But
>> I don't know enough lisp to see where the function
>> "gnus-post-method" is called to look *how* it is called (there's a
>> variable "gnus-post-method" too; that doesn't make live easier for
>> a lisp novice).
>
> Whee. Understands. Hm. I think that perhaps Gnus should
> understand that notation. But currently, completion pretends that
> the notation works, whereas in reality it doesn't. This is my
> fault.
Would it be difficult to implement?
Thanks!
Burkhard