Subject:
|
Re: Broken mailers which mess up threading
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.nntp
|
Date:
|
Tue, 10 Oct 2000 22:20:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
361 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.nntp, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.admin.nntp, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > which I was hoping would be a unique identifier to it, but I found a • message
> > > that Larry posted which contained:
> > >
> > > X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
> >
> > This Larry? Can you post the URL, I will take a look at it and tell you what
> > the circs were. I make it a practice not to reply via email EVER but always
> > use the web (or very rarely, NNTP via NS comm 4.7 from my home PC) to reply.
>
> Ya, that Larry! :-) Lemme see if I can conjur it up again. OK, here it is:
>
> http://news.lugnet.com/loc/au/?n=2319
> http://news.lugnet.com/news/raw.cgi?lugnet.loc.au:2319
OK. A few points.
1. Examine the message itself. Notice the headers even in the non raw view...
This was a "courtesy copy" mailed to me as well as posted. Ironically enough,
by guess who.
I disclaim responsibility for this. Now and forevermore. I just can not and
will not check for this obnoxiously pestulent courtesy copying, I don't have
time. I get too many emails a day to guarantee to catch it when other people
are being thoughtless and rude, although I do catch it a lot (90% plus) of the
time.
Flame the originator, not me. :-)
To reiterate, if your (generic you) message is properly threaded, I will see
it. I will respond to it if it warrants. Send me no courtesy copies.
2. I just went and did a test. I sent two messages to off-topic.test. One via
Outlook and one via the web exchange server. Both bounced by your new filter.
You've been sent both for your examination. I would agree. Outlook (or at
least the Mercator implementation) is broken in this regard, and it's
presumably not the client, but the server since it happens from both clients.
But then, *I* don't use it for posting. I don't use shovels for driving nails
either. I suppose I am responsible, though, just like I would be if someone
fell into a hole in my yard despite the hole warning and no trespass signs and
broke their leg. And to the same level of responsibility (that is, not very
much at all)
3. Maybe raw.cgi is not a good approach. I liked your old clickable URL for
viewing raw messages that didn't go through the cgi. Now, since all DAT files
are cgi's as posted here, what I get when I click on this is the "do you want
to save or display" dialog and then a perfectly useless launch of MLCad on the
mail message. :-)
Either that or I am misremembering and you used raw.cgi all along and I don't
have my mime types or corresponding actions quite right here...
++Lar
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Broken mailers which mess up threading
|
| (...) BTW, leave the bouncer turned on if you would! I think it is a great idea. That way when I get a bounce I can well and truly roast the originator via email reply for wasting my time instead of missing any opportunity because I didn't realise (...) (24 years ago, 10-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
| | | Re: Broken mailers which mess up threading
|
| (...) Actually, there never was any other way to view raw messages via HTTP than by clicking the "View Raw Message" link, which goes to the raw.cgi script. (...) raw.cgi sends a MIME content-type of 'text/plain', so you should never see anything (...) (24 years ago, 10-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
Message is in Reply To:
14 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
