CadSoft forums now available on element14

Thinking of all the flaming going on here I think Ive come to a conclusion

that would work for all parties.

If Cadsoft sketch out some guidelines on how to interface the nntp interface

for external interfaces it may work.

Here are some suggestion (open for changes of course):

Outgoing posts (from nntp to external interface):

-User interfaces that is created at the nntp server and imported into a

external interface (like web) should import and present the article in plain

text.

-The external interface's article should add a footer containing "This

message is imported from Cadsoft's NNTP groups".

Incoming posts (from external interface to the nntp server)

-Articles posted through a external interface should:

• Add a footer to the end of the posting when posted to the nntp server.

• The footer should contain a link to the original interface posting.

• The link to the original posting should not require any login to be

viewed

• non NNTP compatible characters should be removed before posted to the

NNTP server

• Spam should not be forwarded to the nntp server.

"Morten Leikvoll" wrote:

(correction and supplement merged)

>Here are some suggestion (open for changes of course):

>

>Outgoing posts (from nntp to external interface):

>-An article that is created at the nntp server and imported into a

>external interface (like web) should import and present the article in plain

>text.

>-The external interface's article should add a footer containing "This

>message is imported from Cadsoft's NNTP groups".

>

>Incoming posts (from external interface to the nntp server)

>-Articles posted through a external interface should:

  

• * Add a footer to the end of the posting when posted to the nntp server.

  

• The footer should contain a link to the original interface posting.

  

• The link to the original posting should not require any login to be

 

>viewed

  

• * non NNTP compatible characters should be removed before posted to the

 

>NNTP server

  

• * Spam should not be forwarded to the nntp server.

 

there is no safe way to detect spam, and spam should always be

rejected at the first interface, not dropped by the gateway.

>-Files posted on nntp server can be imported into external forum as they

>like

>-Files posted on other forums should not be attached, but added as links (no

>user/pass) at the footer in the NNTP posting. The external forum needs to

>host these files.

As far as I see, you consider multiple gateways to multiple external

web based interfaces o.k., right? I'm afraid that multiple gateways

to external message storage is a source of problems.

Could you point out the benefit of your solution over web access to

the NNTP groups?

Oliver

"Oliver Betz" <obetz@despammed.com> wrote in message

news:2ume361r3l3dl3k6eialeftjtv2an9cqvn@news.cadsoft.de...

Could you point out the benefit of your solution over web access to

the NNTP groups?

That would leave Cadsoft alone with their NNTP interface, and give clear

guidance (and point responsibility) to whoever wants to relay it.

And we will get rid of all this noise

Cadsoft should not have to worry about these external relays. They need to

focus on Eagle better and keep all maintenance costs low.

HI, i just got my new raspberry pi I've plugged everything in (apart from a keyboard, does that make a difference ?) and everything on the screen (apart from the time so the screen is on ) is blank why and how do you fix it because I am really excited !!   HELP PLEASE

                                                                                                                                                                                U

Oliver Betz schrieb:

>>Most of this discusion should not be here. Both Element14 and EagleCentral

>>should be hosting their own contact/discussion/support  forums about 'their'

>>tool.

 

if you mean that they should stopp message exchange with the Cadsoft

groups: Splitting communities is a bad thing.

I think he was only referring to the discussion about the bugs and

behaviour of the gateways themselves, not the technical content related

to EAGLE.

Tilmann

"Warren Brayshaw" wrote:

>Most of this discusion should not be here. Both Element14 and EagleCentral

>should be hosting their own contact/discussion/support  forums about 'their'

>tool.

if you mean that they should stopp message exchange with the Cadsoft

groups: Splitting communities is a bad thing.

Oliver

Warren Brayshaw schrieb:

Most of this discusion should not be here. Both Element14 and EagleCentral

should be hosting their own contact/discussion/support  forums about 'their'

tool.

 

What is required is for everyone to communicate their issues directly to

Element14 and EagleCentral. This includes Cadsoft who should also be

sending them a strong message when they feed posting that are not clean NNTP

styled or have errors like those that attribute postings to others.

Very good points, I fully agree.

Tilmann

"Oliver Betz"  wrote

>That would leave Cadsoft alone with their NNTP interface, and give clear

>guidance (and point responsibility) to whoever wants to relay it.

Surely that is the point!

It's irrelevant which system is the best or the most preferred.

Both Element14 and EagleCentral built their web interface for their own

reasons, dare I say commercial reasons.

It is encumbent upon them to provide both a functional tool and support for

any issues it has.

All the real issues are to do with them breaking the NNTP presentation or

failing to present an NNTP posting correctly on their site. In both cases

it's their problem.

Both Element14 and EagleCentral can 'bling' their interface as much as they

like but they must process every post they take via their site and only feed

the NNTP with stripped data that simulates a direct post to the NNTP.

Because of this any item posted in Element14 should appear as an NNTP post

on EagleCentral and visa versa.

Most of this discusion should not be here. Both Element14 and EagleCentral

should be hosting their own contact/discussion/support  forums about 'their'

tool.

What is required is for everyone to communicate their issues directly to

Element14 and EagleCentral . This includes Cadsoft who should also be

sending them a strong message when they feed posting that are not clean NNTP

styled or have errors like those that attribute postings to others .

Warren

Oliver Betz wrote on Tue, 13 July 2010 11:08

I'm afraid that gateways will always be a source of trouble -

especially if they don't use the least common denominator but want to

add formatting options.

No, this makes no sense.  Seriously, think about it.  You want to store it

with the most information preserved so that it can be converted best to

whatever a specific request wants.  If stored in the least common

demominator, information is irreversibly lost.  That prevents good

conversion back to other forms that can express this information.  Or put

another way, this dumbs down everthing else to the level of NNTP (since

that's the least common denominator), thereby decreasing the usefulness of

everything else.

Since such a system can produce a copy of a message nicely compatible with

NNTP usage whenever needed, I really don't see the objection.  Several

folks have objected to this, but none have provided any real reason that

can be discussed on technical merits.

To make a analogy, suppose you were part of a group working with raw PC

boards, and use gerber files to manipulate these boards and describe them.

Others design the circuits these boards implement, and they communicate

with Eagle schematic and board files.  It wouldn't make sense to only allow

these others to communicate with gerber files because information would be

lost.  You may only care about the gerber files, but as long as they can be

created on demand from the Eagle files, it shouldn't matter to you and the

others can communicate at a higher level.

This appears to be a emotional issue with the NNTP users somehow feeling

threatened by the existance of the forums, even though there would be no

loss of NNTP features.  In fact, some things get better for the NNTP users

as I described in a earlier post.  So far the only objections have been

that is "should be this way".  If someone has a real technical argument

against this, please let's hear it.

--

Web access to CadSoft support forums at www.eaglecentral.ca.  Where the CadSoft EAGLE community meets.

Oliver Betz wrote on Tue, 13 July 2010 11:08

I'm afraid that gateways will always be a source of trouble -

especially if they don't use the least common denominator but want to

add formatting options.

No, this makes no sense.  Seriously, think about it.  You want to store it

with the most information preserved so that it can be converted best to

whatever a specific request wants.  If stored in the least common

demominator, information is irreversibly lost.  That prevents good

conversion back to other forms that can express this information.  Or put

another way, this dumbs down everthing else to the level of NNTP (since

that's the least common denominator), thereby decreasing the usefulness of

everything else.

Since such a system can produce a copy of a message nicely compatible with

NNTP usage whenever needed, I really don't see the objection.  Several

folks have objected to this, but none have provided any real reason that

can be discussed on technical merits.

To make a analogy, suppose you were part of a group working with raw PC

boards, and use gerber files to manipulate these boards and describe them.

Others design the circuits these boards implement, and they communicate

with Eagle schematic and board files.  It wouldn't make sense to only allow

these others to communicate with gerber files because information would be

lost.  You may only care about the gerber files, but as long as they can be

created on demand from the Eagle files, it shouldn't matter to you and the

others can communicate at a higher level.

This appears to be a emotional issue with the NNTP users somehow feeling

threatened by the existance of the forums, even though there would be no

loss of NNTP features.  In fact, some things get better for the NNTP users

as I described in a earlier post.  So far the only objections have been

that is "should be this way".  If someone has a real technical argument

against this, please let's hear it.

--

Web access to CadSoft support forums at www.eaglecentral.ca.  Where the CadSoft EAGLE community meets.