 | | Re: Noncompliant software (was: Re: Incorrect group posting)
|
|
(...) I beg to differ on this...I have NO control over whether messages appear threaded...The software I use is MS Outlook. From this, the message goes to a MS Exchange server. It is this that causes the problem. Unfortunately, this piece of (...) (24 years ago, 11-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Noncompliant software (was: Re: Incorrect group posting)
|
|
(...) It's (at least) MS Outlook, or some variant, or the MS Exchange server that processes the mail, or something in the way some sysops configure it, or something in the way users use it, based on the quick tests I conducted. That's not to say (...) (24 years ago, 11-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Noncompliant software (was: Re: Incorrect group posting)
|
|
(...) Berating? I saw no berating. I merely suggested that he ought to stop complaining about how things are done here at LUGNET until his own house is in order. Further, you see, he actually DOES have control. He can change jobs, he is working for (...) (24 years ago, 11-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Noncompliant software (was: Re: Incorrect group posting)
|
|
(...) It identifies itself as: X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.####.#) in the SMTP headers, and that's about all I know. LarryP posted some more info though that might help. --Todd (24 years ago, 11-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Noncompliant software (was: Re: Incorrect group posting)
|
|
Todd Lehman wrote in message ... <snipped a few lines> (...) from (...) this (...) software -- (...) disasterous. (...) Do you know what software that is causing the problem? Would be a nice thing to know, so I can avoid it. /Joakim (24 years ago, 11-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Noncompliant software (was: Re: Incorrect group posting)
|
|
(...) Totally agree. It's not that it works weirdly, it's that it acts brokenly. If enough places rejected broken postings/messages, the offending software would get fixed. (24 years ago, 11-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Broken mailers which mess up threading
|
|
(...) Indeed. NT or IE or the combination thereof is broken in this regard, surprise surprise. IE doesn't directly deal with mime types, it foists the job off on NT (per: (URL) you will need to unwrap this to read it) Instead it is left to the OS (...) (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)
|
| |
| | 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
|
|
(...) message (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 10-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Broken mailers which mess up threading
|
|
(...) Ya, that Larry! :-) Lemme see if I can conjur it up again. OK, here it is: (2 URLs) [...] (...) According to the NNTP headers, ya, it was posted via email. --Todd (24 years ago, 10-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Broken mailers which mess up threading
|
|
(...) 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. (...) I don't (...) (24 years ago, 10-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Broken mailers which mess up threading
|
|
(...) I really don't think it's worth the time to work around it -- only to weed out non-compliant mailers in a consistent and reliable way. If someone is using a broken newsreader or mailer that doesn't put in the right headers, tough cookies for (...) (24 years ago, 10-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Posting cancel request
|
|
Hello Todd, Could you please cancel my message Marketplace/Buy/Sell/Trade/8315 ? In this post I gave an example of using the partsref and using the direct links to the part images, but due to a relocation of partsef, the example links became (...) (24 years ago, 10-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Incorrect group posting [was RE: cartoonnetwork.com is having an online contest]
|
|
(...) So what're you waiting for? Steve (24 years ago, 10-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Broken mailers which mess up threading
|
|
(...) that's one place where we have a choice to make... does re-subjecting make a new thread, or is it still a child of the current thread? most of the time, by the time someone re-subjected a post, it's 3-4 posts AFTER the subject has been (...) (24 years ago, 10-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Broken mailers which mess up threading
|
|
(...) the problem is, we're dealing with mailers that are just not RFC compliant. Which is why they don't have the references: header in the first place... and we're trying to cludge something around their shortcomings, just so the pretty threading (...) (24 years ago, 10-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Broken mailers which mess up threading
|
|
(...) It sounds like if the References: header is used to trace threads, then the Subject: header should begin with "Re: ". I suppose the original intent was that new threads would be started if the Subject: was changed (but that's pure conjecture (...) (24 years ago, 10-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Broken mailers which mess up threading
|
|
(...) Except cases where you do the "(was: ...)" thing, right? --Todd (24 years ago, 10-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Broken mailers which mess up threading
|
|
(...) I'd say that's perfectly in line with with RFC 850, Section 2.2.6. It clearly says that a References: headers is "required for all follow-up articles" and that the first four characters of the Subject: header should be changed to "Re: " if (...) (24 years ago, 10-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
