Re: Follow-Ups and multiple groups?

[Merciadri Luca <Luca.Merciadri@student.ulg.ac.be>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Sorry Adam for being not precise.

asjo@koldfront.dk (Adam Sjøgren) writes:

> On Sat, 08 May 2010 15:20:48 +0200, Merciadri wrote:
>
>> I am still unable to say why it does not work for the two groups given
>> in the OP.
>
> What groups was that?
>
> In the original article you wrote:
>
>   "Let's say that I need to post some message on two groups on usenet,
>    say hierarchy.group1 & hierarchy.group2."
>
> ...
Sorry, I was sure of having written some real groups. I tested with
linux.debian.user and comp.sys.hp48, together. These are groups which
my Gnus did not post the article to.

>> It might be because they both exist, but would it be that?
>
> That question does not parse for me.
I understand why you did not understand it. I had forgotten the
expression `to my news-gate', i.e. you should have read

==
It might be because they both exist to the news-gate, but would it be that?
==

The combination linux.debian.user + comp.sys.hp48 never works. That
is, each time I try to send an article to both groups, it is sent
nowhere. But I have only observed this behaviour with these two
groups.

>> I do not want to try with known groups (such as linux.debian.user,
>> etc.), because it would pollute the group!
>
> But polluting gnu.emacs.gnus is just fine? Hrmpf.
Not at all. The fact is that adding some `test' message to a
discussion is not really polluting, it even takes place in the
discussion. However, copying an answer of an already-launched
dicussion on another usenet group makes it appear as a new article,
which is clearly polluting. Don't you agree?

> linux.debian.user sounds more like a mailinglist than a usenet group to
> me, but since you used made-up group names in the first article, it is
> hard to say.
Yes, but posting to the ML or posting to the usenet group sends the
message to the other, so that both are synchronized.

> I think it is a fair guess that your problem isn't with Gnus.
You might be thinking this because I was so unprecise that I was
looking incompetent, and that, to my level, Gnus should not be
bugging, and the error would only come from the user, i.e. me. If it
is that, no problem, I understand that I should have been more
precise. If it is not that, what would it be coming from? I have
currently only one set of two groups which do not like to receive the same
article in same time.

- -- 
Merciadri Luca
See http://www.student.montefiore.ulg.ac.be/~merciadri/
- -- 

Many receive advice; only the wise profit from it.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>

iEYEARECAAYFAkvlxXAACgkQM0LLzLt8Mhwy+gCfYFsCCYiWYnSE3OmKEA7REajT
FOMAn35t5SiGqFZkXcpxF78Y37yn0edu
=Hn2t
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----