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