@movq@www.uninformativ.de What do you think about this?

diff –git a/jenny b/jenny
index b47c78e..20cf659 100755
— a/jenny
+++ b/jenny
@@ -278,7 +278,8 @@ def prefill_for(email, reply_to_this, self_mentions):
def process_feed(config, nick, url, content, lasttwt):

 nick_address, nick_desc = decide_nick(content, nick)
 url_for_hash = decide_url_for_hash(content, url)

• new_lasttwt = parse(‘1800-01-01T12:00:00+00:00’).timestamp()
  

• # new_lasttwt = parse(‘1800-01-01T12:00:00+00:00’).timestamp()
  

• new_lasttwt = None

  for line in twt_lines_from_content(content):

   res = twt_line_to_mail(
  

  @@ -296,7 +297,7 @@ def process_feed(config, nick, url, content, lasttwt):

   twt_stamp = twt_date.timestamp()
   if lasttwt is not None and lasttwt >= twt_stamp:
       continue
  

• if twt_stamp > new_lasttwt:

• if not new_lasttwt or twt_stamp > new_lasttwt:

       new_lasttwt = twt_stamp
  
  
   mailname_new = join(config['maildir_target'], 'new', twt_hash)
  

@movq@www.uninformativ.de I just observed unexpected old twts coming back.

It looks like lasttwts is reset to -5364619200.0 every time no new content wasfetched for example if if-modified-since did not produce new twts?

@lyse@lyse.isobeef.org I’m seeing your response as reply to #p522joq, where it doesn’t seem to belong to. Did this happen by accident or is there a bug hiding somewhere?

@prologic@twtxt.net I’m seeing your response as reply to #p522joq, where it doesn’t seem to belong to. Did this happen by accident or is there a bug hiding somewhere?

@movq@www.uninformativ.de Ha, but when you control lastmods, lastseen and lasttwts it’s easy to test.

Works like a charm!

@movq@www.uninformativ.de Not that easy to test when pods honor if-modified-since ;-)
I’ve almost only timestamps -5364619200.0…
Diff looks good to me!

@movq@www.uninformativ.de
I’ll test it tomorrow. Thank’s for starting this feature!