 | | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Broken mailers which mess up threading
|
|
(...) how about, instead of rejecting such messages, make a "soft" threading feature... and activate it only for mailers you know are broken (lke that Internet Mail Service, Eudora, etc)... Just write a little proggie that will attempt to guess what (...) (24 years ago, 10-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Incorrect group posting [was RE: cartoonnetwork.com is having an online contest]
|
|
(...) Yea, that's better. Frank (24 years ago, 10-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Incorrect group posting [was RE: cartoonnetwork.com is having an online contest]
|
|
(...) I still think this is a great idea. I would put them under .year.#### though. --Todd (24 years ago, 10-Oct-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Broken mailers which mess up threading
|
|
This broken thread garbage has got to stop. Example: (2 URLs) countless other examples in the .loc.au group.) The question is, how do I detect this broken mailer that Ben's using? It reports itself as: X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) (...) (24 years ago, 10-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Incorrect group posting [was RE: cartoonnetwork.com is having an online contest]
|
|
(...) Yes, down here we get a limited range [It took some effort even to get the entire football range this year...we were only initially to get the ground itself.] To all those .us people complaining about .eu only sets, and .eu people complaining (...) (24 years ago, 10-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Incorrect group posting [was RE: cartoonnetwork.com is having an online contest]
|
|
(...) And also what I was hoping would happen/what I was referring to. (...) Everyone is free to have their own ideas...After all, how boring would the world be otherwise? (...) My thought was that .general was for the initial announcement/info with (...) (24 years ago, 10-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Incorrect group posting [was RE: cartoonnetwork.com is having an online contest]
|
|
(...) You are correct Todd. I didn't realize it was a US only thing until the question was asked. Sorry. Julie (24 years ago, 9-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Incorrect group posting [was RE: cartoonnetwork.com is having an online contest]
|
|
[reposted with corrections] (...) Well, try not to take it out on others, especially people in AU -- who get stuffed pretty badly by LEGO on a lot of things. Do you think AU residents feel any better about EU offerings that US residents do? And (...) (24 years ago, 9-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | Re: Incorrect group posting [was RE: cartoonnetwork.com is having an online contest]
|
|
(...) True. (...) Now that is reasonable. (...) He might be right - I was more venting cause I've read enough of this. It bothers the living snot out of US residents who can't get Euro only sets easily...(and that one's old too). Guess its just me - (...) (24 years ago, 9-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Incorrect group posting [was RE: cartoonnetwork.com is having an online contest]
|
|
(...) Heh heh. He wansn't saying or implying anything that absurd. He's talking about a local contest that's just noise (like a local sale) to anyone outside of the U.S. The U.S. may be a big place, but something local to the U.S. is still local, (...) (24 years ago, 9-Oct-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.loc.us, lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Why does lugnet force my to re-register periodically?
|
|
Periodically (every month or so) Lugnet wants me to re-register and be re-verified, even though there is a cookie for Lugnet in the cookies.txt file in my Netscape directory. The cookie looks like this: .lugnet.com TRUE / FALSE 2147483602 (...) (24 years ago, 28-Sep-00, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: lugnet.anime?
|
|
(...) What are some examples? (via URL) Might be a nice "sister-group" to the .build.mecha group...but then hey, why stop there, also add .build.manga ;-) --Todd [followups to .admin.nntp] (24 years ago, 24-Sep-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Posting from newsreader
|
|
ah! that was my problem too! Ross Crawford <rcrawford@csi.com> wrote in message news:G13su2.Mzr@lugnet.com... (...) from (...) you (...) recent (...) address, (...) and (...) so (...) (24 years ago, 19-Sep-00, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
