innduct - a replacement for innfeed/nntpsend, 0.1 alpha

Ian Jackson ijackson at
Sun Sep 1 20:29:30 UTC 2013

Julien ÉLIE writes ("Re: innduct - a replacement for innfeed/nntpsend, 0.1 alpha"):
> Hi Ian,
> > I'm not sure I follow.  In order to have both reliability and
> > timeliness, the lines need to be read out of the funnel file (or, as
> > innduct has it, the feed file) immediately via inotify, and then
> > whatever is transmitting the articles needs to use some appropriate
> > protocol to record where it got up to.  innfeed doesn't do this.
> It is true that innfeed does not do that.  However, please note that 
> when innfeed has sent all the messages it was expected to send (that is 
> to say when innfeed reaches the end of the feed file), it only waits for 
> a second before having a look at whether there are more messages to 
> send.  So timeliness is basically achieved within a second or so.

Ah, but if you use innfeed in that kind of mode, what do you do if
it dies for any reason ?  I think you have to restart it and it has to
then offer all of the articles in the feed file back to the same peer.

Also I think it doesn't deal well with 431/436 responses - see the
commentary about resendid in incoming.conf(5).  innduct gets that

> Thanks for having set up the URL:
> It is pretty extensive and easy to read.
> I will add the link soon to our documentation.


> If I may suggest:  a few links could be de-activated for you not to see 
> 404 errors in your logs (links to inotify, inn.conf(5) or man2html for 
> instance).

Hmm, yes, or they could go to locally hosted manpages.  I may get
around to that eventually.

> > I'm expecting to have to do some work on innduct fairly soon because
> > I'll be upgrading to Debian wheezy which has a new version of INN.  I
> > want, obviously, to be able to rebuild my innduct...
> The patches you are currently using (for example lib/remopen.c) are 
> related to INN 2.4.x; source code has changed in INN 2.5 (especially 
> lib/network.c for what was previously in lib/remopen.c) so maybe there 
> are now no longer useful.

Yes.  I just went and looked this up, and I offered to do some
forward-porting of the necessary changes, which I haven't yet done...


More information about the inn-workers mailing list