enhance checkgroups handling

Russ Allbery rra at stanford.edu
Sun Aug 5 17:06:51 UTC 2007


Julien ÉLIE <julien at trigofacile.com> writes:

>> Date: Sunday, August 5, 2007 @ 06:39:50
>> Author: iulius
>> Revision: 7632
>>
>> Modified: modules/checkgroups.pl
>> ===================================================================
>> @@ -75,7 +76,12 @@
>> -    logger($log || 'mail', "checkgroups by $sender", \@output);
>> +    # There is no need to send an empty mail.
>> +    if ($#output > 0) {
>> +        logger($log || 'mail', "checkgroups by $sender", \@output);
>> +    } else {
>> +        logmsg("checkgroups by $sender processed (no change)");
>> +    }

> Perhaps the else {} is useless.  It is just to say that the checkgroups
> was processed but we can also see that with the controlchan initial log.

Yeah, I think we can drop that.

> I believe newgroup/rmgroup handling is now optimal.  However,
> checkgroups can be improved.

> I suggest that the actions be really taken when there are changes
> (newgroup and rmgroup) for PGP-signed control articles (with verify-*).
> And to also change the descriptions in the newsgroups file.

Yup.

> I do not know whether it should also be done for a mere doit (without
> PGP).  Normally, it should not harm since people ask a "doit".  Any
> thought about that?

If they say doit, we should honor their request, I think.  It's not safe
to do that with public hierarchies on the regular Usenet, but they may be
using INN in a closed network with private groups and be restricting who
can send control messages.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra at stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

    Please send questions to the list rather than mailing me directly.
     <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/faqs/questions.html> explains why.


More information about the inn-workers mailing list