Re: Only a matter of time?

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by MSeries, Sep 17, 2004.

  1. MSeries

    MSeries Guest

    Google groups is fine,I can see James response underneath MartinMs OP.
    I can't open the link though and therefore have no idea what MartinM
    intended this thread to be about.
     
    Tags:


  2. Simon Brooke

    Simon Brooke Guest

    in message <[email protected]>, MSeries
    ('[email protected]') wrote:

    > Google groups is fine,I can see James response underneath MartinMs OP.
    > I can't open the link though and therefore have no idea what MartinM
    > intended this thread to be about.


    It may be fine for the two or three of you who use google groups. Your
    post, too, has no quoted material and no references, so there is no way
    for people to tell what you are responding to.

    I repeat, for the hard of remembering, RFC 1036 says the following:

    2.2.5. References

    This field lists the Message-ID's of any messages prompting the
    submission of this message. It is required for all follow-up
    messages, and forbidden when a new subject is raised.
    Implementations should provide a follow-up command, which allows a
    user to post a follow-up message. This command should generate a
    "Subject" line which is the same as the original message, except
    that if the original subject does not begin with "Re:" or "re:", the
    four characters "Re:" are inserted before the subject. If there is
    no "References" line on the original header, the "References" line
    should contain the Message-ID of the original message (including the
    angle brackets). If the original message does have a "References"
    line, the follow-up message should have a "References" line
    containing the text of the original "References" line, a blank, and
    the Message-ID of the original message.

    That isn't optional. It isn't maybe. It isn't you can if you like but it
    doesn't matter. IT IS REQUIRED.

    If you can't play by the rules, don't play.

    --
    [email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

    ;; lovely alternative to rice.
     
  3. Simon Brooke <[email protected]> writes:

    > in message <[email protected]>, MSeries
    > ('[email protected]') wrote:
    >
    > > Google groups is fine,I can see James response underneath MartinMs OP.
    > > I can't open the link though and therefore have no idea what MartinM
    > > intended this thread to be about.

    >
    > It may be fine for the two or three of you who use google groups. Your
    > post, too, has no quoted material and no references, so there is no way
    > for people to tell what you are responding to.


    Threads fine on gnus. Don't know how it does it, though, looking at
    the headers. I agree it should have references in it.

    A
     
  4. Phil Cook

    Phil Cook Guest

    On 17 Sep 2004 16:40:23 +0100, Ambrose Nankivell wrote:

    >Simon Brooke <[email protected]> writes:
    >
    >> in message <[email protected]>, MSeries
    >> ('[email protected]') wrote:
    >>
    >> > Google groups is fine,I can see James response underneath MartinMs OP.
    >> > I can't open the link though and therefore have no idea what MartinM
    >> > intended this thread to be about.

    >>
    >> It may be fine for the two or three of you who use google groups. Your
    >> post, too, has no quoted material and no references, so there is no way
    >> for people to tell what you are responding to.

    >
    >Threads fine on gnus. Don't know how it does it, though, looking at
    >the headers. I agree it should have references in it.


    The only way I can get this and other threads involving goole groups
    postings to group is to use "thread by subject" in Agent. Though even
    then the indentation is broken so I don't have any idea to who the
    poster is replying.
    --
    Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"
     
  5. Phil Cook <[email protected]> writes:

    > On 17 Sep 2004 16:40:23 +0100, Ambrose Nankivell wrote:
    >
    > >Simon Brooke <[email protected]> writes:
    > >
    > >> in message <[email protected]>, MSeries
    > >> ('[email protected]') wrote:
    > >>
    > >> > Google groups is fine,I can see James response underneath MartinMs OP.
    > >> > I can't open the link though and therefore have no idea what MartinM
    > >> > intended this thread to be about.
    > >>
    > >> It may be fine for the two or three of you who use google groups. Your
    > >> post, too, has no quoted material and no references, so there is no way
    > >> for people to tell what you are responding to.

    > >
    > >Threads fine on gnus. Don't know how it does it, though, looking at
    > >the headers. I agree it should have references in it.

    >
    > The only way I can get this and other threads involving goole groups
    > postings to group is to use "thread by subject" in Agent. Though even
    > then the indentation is broken so I don't have any idea to who the
    > poster is replying.


    Fair enough. Looks faulty indeed. Does the groups-beta do any better?

    I'd guess so, as looking for threads entitled "helmets" gives several
    threads, not one gargantuathread.

    A
     
  6. In article <[email protected]>, Ambrose Nankivell wrote:
    >Simon Brooke <[email protected]> writes:
    >
    >> in message <[email protected]>, MSeries
    >> ('[email protected]') wrote:
    >>
    >> > Google groups is fine,I can see James response underneath MartinMs OP.
    >> > I can't open the link though and therefore have no idea what MartinM
    >> > intended this thread to be about.

    >>
    >> It may be fine for the two or three of you who use google groups. Your
    >> post, too, has no quoted material and no references, so there is no way
    >> for people to tell what you are responding to.

    >
    >Threads fine on gnus. Don't know how it does it, though, looking at
    >the headers. I agree it should have references in it.


    And in slrn. There appears to be a "In-Reply-To" header instead of
    References, I guess it uses that.
     
  7. Simon Brooke

    Simon Brooke Guest

    in message <[email protected]>, Alan Braggins
    ('[email protected]') wrote:

    > In article <[email protected]>, Ambrose Nankivell wrote:
    >>Simon Brooke <[email protected]> writes:
    >>
    >>> in message <[email protected]>, MSeries
    >>> ('[email protected]') wrote:
    >>>
    >>> > Google groups is fine,I can see James response underneath MartinMs
    >>> > OP. I can't open the link though and therefore have no idea what
    >>> > MartinM intended this thread to be about.
    >>>
    >>> It may be fine for the two or three of you who use google groups.
    >>> Your post, too, has no quoted material and no references, so there
    >>> is no way for people to tell what you are responding to.

    >>
    >>Threads fine on gnus. Don't know how it does it, though, looking at
    >>the headers. I agree it should have references in it.

    >
    > And in slrn. There appears to be a "In-Reply-To" header instead of
    > References, I guess it uses that.


    I guess it does, too. Just another piece of Embrace and Extend... It
    makes me so fucking angry.

    --
    [email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

    ;; IE 3 is dead, but Netscape 4 still shambles about the earth,
    ;; wreaking a horrific vengeance upon the living
    ;; anonymous
     
  8. davek

    davek Guest

    Simon Brooke wrote:
    > I repeat, for the hard of remembering, RFC 1036 says the following:


    What's RFC 1036? And why should I give a fuck about it?

    It's all very well someone somewhere saying users are "required" to
    observe these protocols, but there's bugger all you can do to enforce
    it. You don't have to pass a test or gain a license to post on usenet,
    you know.

    d.
     
  9. Simon Brooke

    Simon Brooke Guest

    in message <[email protected]>, davek
    ('[email protected]') wrote:

    > Simon Brooke wrote:
    >> I repeat, for the hard of remembering, RFC 1036 says the following:

    >
    > What's RFC 1036? And why should I give a fuck about it?


    The standard which defines how messages on Usenet propagate. If messages
    don't conform to the standard, the system doesn't work.

    --
    [email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

    ;; how did we conclude that a fucking cartoon mouse is deserving
    ;; of 90+ years of protection, but a cure for cancer, only 14?
    -- user 'Tackhead', in /. discussion of copyright law, 22/05/02
     
  10. davek wrote:

    > Simon Brooke wrote:
    >> I repeat, for the hard of remembering, RFC 1036 says the following:

    >
    > What's RFC 1036? And why should I give a fuck about it?


    That question is the Usenet equivalent of "What's the Highway Code? And
    why should I give a fuck about it?". The RFCs are what make the internet
    work. Without 1036, Usenet wouldn't work.

    > It's all very well someone somewhere saying users are "required" to
    > observe these protocols, but there's bugger all you can do to enforce
    > it.


    I have a low tolerance for people who don't. They end up scored down in
    my newsreader. If enough people do the same, people who defy norms end
    up wondering why their questions are never answered. Even better than
    punitive 'enforcement', I think.

    > You don't have to pass a test or gain a license to post on usenet, you
    > know.


    In a very real sense, you do. It's the same kind of 'test' you have to
    pass before people will talk to you in real life.

    --
    Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/
    The sky is falling
     
  11. davek

    davek Guest

    Keith Willoughby wrote:
    > The RFCs are what make the internet
    > work. Without 1036, Usenet wouldn't work.


    I'll let the software designers worry about that, then. I'm just an end
    user - I'll make the effort to use a news client that works but mainly
    for my own benefit.

    > people who defy norms end
    > up wondering why their questions are never answered.


    Yes, indeed - but it's their loss and no-one else's. Posting uppity
    responses with reference to protocols that mean nothing to the offending
    party is just pissing in the wind. Hence my rhetorical question.

    > In a very real sense, you do. It's the same kind of 'test' you have to
    > pass before people will talk to you in real life.


    When you put it like that, I agree entirely. But that's not to
    contradict the point I was making.

    d.
     
Loading...
Loading...