 | | Re: Posting problem with the web-interface!
|
|
(...) Whoa, I *thought* that sounded familiar... (URL) Dig, dig, dig... --Todd (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Posting problem with the web-interface!
|
|
(...) Yeah.. I asked a few times about the related problem where the end of References: and the other headers after it show up after a \n. I suspect that CNews always inserts a \n after truncating a References: line to 511 (why not 512 beats me), (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Posting problem with the web-interface!
|
|
On Sat, 8 Jan 2000 04:45:50 GMT, jasper@janssen.dynip.com (Jasper Janssen) wrote: References: <Fnv9B7.H2D@lugnet.com> <387356CD.F163AA7@voyager.net> <3882db17.91566531@lugnet.com> <38741821.9B62453@uswest.net> <38741B3F.F8D3F7F6@voyager.net> (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Posting problem with the web-interface!
|
|
(...) Eeek, but it shouldn't *chop* at 512 characters, should it?! :-p What you said before -- keeping the first reference and eliminating some of the middle ones -- seems much more sane. That way they're all still <.*> . (...) slrn? (...) Dunno. (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Posting problem with the web-interface!
|
|
(...) No. See <URL:(URL) and <URL:(URL) The magic number seems to actually be 998. (...) Yes. From the GNKSA, above: <<Followup agents SHOULD not shorten References headers. If it is absolutely necessary to shorten the header, as a des- perate last (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Posting problem with the web-interface!
|
|
(...) Note that the GNKSA is here itself quoting another document, the in-progress update for RFC 1036. (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Posting problem with the web-interface!
|
|
(...) This is clear at least - Todd, CNews is in violation of this. I think implementing it could be a good idea, but not high-priority at this time, as I haven't noticed anything breaking from them. (...) Ah, the infamous Son-of. The problem there (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Posting problem with the web-interface!
|
|
(...) I just noticed a post in the web interface yesterday to which the "Message is in Reply To:" was obviously and completely wrong. May be related. I'll go search for it again..... (...) Yes, but since this is an issue to which the existing RFCs (...) (25 years ago, 9-Jan-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
