Re: Does gmane.emacs.gnus.general have problems?

TRS-80 wrote:

>>> I am assuming you realized this by now, but just confirming
>>> for you in case you are still wondering.
>>
>> Assumption: We speak to Gmane, the ML speaks to Gmane, Gmane
>>             speak to us; we, the ML and Gmane are
>>             all operational.
>>
>> Question: How can a certain Gmane group then have a problem?
>
> [...] Something broke?

As the assumption says, if we, the ML, and Gmane are all
operational, what more must work for the service as a whole to
function? The monitor and keyboard, maybe?

> And I'm still unclear as to whether or not you are yet able
> to see your own posts.

To quote the great expert on computer networks Yogi Berra,
"You can see a lot just by looking".

>> Answer: TBA/RSN (?)
>
> Even after wasting some time searching the Internet, I still
> have no idea what you mean by these acronyms.

Next time, Google not the acronyms, but what they mean, i.e.,
what the letters stand for - it's much faster. For example,
I found these pretty much instantly, using that exact method.

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_be_announced
  https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/real_soon_now

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal