On Oct 27, 2007, at 5:59 PM, Bill Kelly wrote:

>
> From: "James Edward Gray II" <james / grayproductions.net>
>>
>>>>> Me neither. Possibly an HTML post eaten by the gateway?
>>>>
>>>> Yes:
>>>>
>>>> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=3DApple- =20
>>>> Mail-18-445454026
>>>
>>> I received it; it's ruby-talk: 276132.
>> That's because it originated on the mailing list side.  The =20
>> gateway  then submitted it to our Usenet host and they declined =20
>> it, so it  never hit comp.lang.ruby.
>
> I'm sure this has been asked before, so apologies for what is
> almost surely a repeat question, but ... :)

It's been asked, yes.  We went over it again recently.  See the =20
thread "Is there a standard pattern for threaded access to a file?" =20
which we sort-of hijacked for a gateway discussion.

> Would it be reasonable to just convert all messages to text-only
> before submitting them to the Usenet host?

Mostly, yes.

> Essentially, I'm wondering if the situation is,
>
>   - yes we could convert messages if someone volunteers code to do so

This is pretty much it.  I made the gateway code public some time ago =20=

to support people hacking on it:

http://blog.grayproductions.net/categories/the_gateway

No one has stepped up yet.  ;)

To be fair, I think some are waiting on the TMail-based rewrite I've =20
promised in the past.  I've worked on it a bit, but just haven't =20
finished it yet.  I'll spend some time on it today and see how close =20
I can get it=85

James Edward Gray II