Re: [Pan-users] Re: Weird binary splitting

[Victor Ducedre]

On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 06:11 +0000, Duncan wrote:

> This would appear to be due to a problem in your connection.  yenc
> attachments include per-individual-segment crc32 checksums.  I've not seen
> pan do this and didn't know it did, but the logical explanation here would
[...]
> missing blocks from par2.  At least it should be recoverable using par2,
> as long as enough recovery blocks are available.

I've been getting by with PARs, but it's only happened five or six times
so far. 

> People have previously complained about some saves never
> completing -- they get almost done and just stick there.  I attributed

I've been getting this behaviour as well, but I'd already seen it
brought up here on the list, whereas I had stumbled onto something that
was just creepy, and wondered if anyone else had seen it.

> >From the resulting discussions here, Charles seems to think that the way
> rules were implemented wasn't intuitive enough, and many used the feature
> little if at all as a result.  I'd tend to agree -- it wasn't that
> intuitive -- tho it was certainly a nice feature for us power users.

The only thing I felt wasn't intuitive (once I figured it out :-) was
that filters and rules were maintained separately.  I always found that
I created rules and filters in a 1:1 ratio, a specific rule for each
specific filter.  If everything from the Filters window was put directly
in the "Filters" tab of the Rules window, rather than using the
drop-down box and "Edit filter" button, the relationship between the two
would be more obvious.  Create and define the rule in one go.

The real plus was that I could add or remove relevant groups to each
rule, depending on where the spammers/idiots turn up :)  With a
score-based system, I would have to add new scoring criteria for each
group these posters show up in, or have the foresight to wildcard the
group name the first time.  And we still can't score based on Message-Id
(for the nym-shifters) without editing the score file by hand.

> Anyway, the discussed replacement will take a bit different form, and
[...]
> I'm definitely looking forward to having it all automated again.

Me, too.  Meanwhile, I'm gonna play with it some more and see what else
it's got.  The improved speed and memory usage is hard to beat.  But I'm
already finding a few other things that have disappeared that really
need to return... :)

-- 
Victor Ducedre