[2.3] lowmark

[Bettina Fink]

Hi,

INN 2.3's lowmark behavior causes me some headache ...

$ grep de.newusers.infos db/active
de.newusers.infos 0000000313 0000000309 m

| 200 nautilus.visp-europe.psi.com InterNetNews NNRP server
| INN 2.3.1 (20000830 prerelease) ready (posting ok).
| group de.newusers.infos
| 211 5 309 313 de.newusers.infos

So the server claims to have 5 article in that group (309-313). But
that's not true. 309-312 were daily FAQ pointers which get superseded
each day at midnight. There is only 1 article in the group: 313.

Newsreaders show "5" in group overview index, but "1" when entering
the group, tested with Netscape and tin.

| xover 309-313
| 224 309-313 fields follow
| 313     <1999-10-18> Einleitung zu de.newusers.infos    amk at krell.snafu.de (Andreas M. Kirchwitz)       30 Aug 2000 22:00:03 -0000      <de-newusers-infos/einleitung/20000831-1 at krell.zikzak.de>               5803    105     Xref: nautilus.visp-europe.psi.com de.newusers.infos:313 news.answers:4665 de.answers:302

So why is the lowmark not adjusted? As I said, 309-313 where not
too old and expired, they were superseded.

I've tried news.daily with and without "lowmark" option, I've tried
"ctlinnd renumber" manually. lowmark is still 309. Why?

System: Linux, timecaf, BerkeleyDB 2.7.7, snapshots as well as the
official release version of 2.3.

ovmethod:               ovdb
enableoverview:         true
ovgrouppat:
useoverchan:            false
groupbaseexpiry:        false
immediatecancel:        false (played around with true, no change)



| The third field (*) is the lowest article number in the group;
| this number is not guaranteed to be accurate, and should only
| be taken to be a hint.

(*) lowmark

That's from active(5). But on all INN systems I've seen before,
a "ctlinnd renumber" or news.daily at the latest adjusts and
corrects also the lowmark. As an example, this is another of my
machines, an INN 2.2.3 using "lowmark" expire:

news at wuff:~/db > grep newusers.infos active
de.newusers.infos 0000001777 0000001567 m

news at wuff:~/spool/articles/de/newusers/infos > ll
-rw-rw-r--   3 news     news        51246 Aug 24 23:58 1758
-rw-rw-r--   3 news     news       190180 Aug 25 00:03 1759
-rw-rw-r--   1 news     news         4910 Aug 25 00:03 1760
-rw-rw-r--   2 news     news        13299 Aug 25 00:03 1761
-rw-rw-r--   2 news     news        18129 Aug 25 00:03 1762
-rw-rw-r--   2 news     news         7160 Aug 25 00:03 1763
-rw-rw-r--   2 news     news        27718 Aug 25 00:03 1764
-rw-rw-r--   2 news     news         5221 Aug 25 00:03 1765
-rw-rw-r--   2 news     news        12885 Aug 25 00:03 1766
-rw-rw-r--   2 news     news        15808 Aug 25 00:03 1767
-rw-rw-r--   2 news     news        10375 Aug 25 00:03 1768
-rw-rw-r--   3 news     news        22067 Aug 25 00:03 1769
-rw-rw-r--   2 news     news         4944 Aug 25 00:03 1770
-rw-rw-r--   2 news     news        16135 Aug 25 00:03 1771
-rw-rw-r--   2 news     news         5608 Aug 30 23:58 1777

So the lowmark in active is wrong, must be 1758, not 1567.

news at wuff:~ > ctlinnd renumber de.newusers.infos
Ok

news at wuff:~ > grep newusers.infos db/active
de.newusers.infos 0000001777 0000001758 m

Bingo.

Any ideas why 2.3 is not adjusting the lowmark the same way the
other INNs did? What am I missing?

TIA,
Bettina