On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 01:05:06 +0200 Arjan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Scott Bennett wrote: >> On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 17:43:30 +0200 Fabian Keil >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >[...] >>> http://bugs.noreply.org/flyspray/index.php?do=3Ddetails&id=3D463 >>> >> That yielded a page containing only the following message: >> >> - Do request is invalid. >> >> However, I took a guess that the two "3D" character sequences were >> word-processor control sequences and removed them, which appears to get >> the page you intended that I see. (This is a typical example of why text >> editors, rather than word processors, should be used for email.) > >Fabians link works on my e-mail client. His message appears to be >properly MIME-formatted, so it should work fine on any decent e-mail >client.
I do not use an email "client". I use a standard SMTP mail application that has been around almost forever: UCBmail. MIME is fine for those who like it for private email, but it is totally inappropriate for mailing lists unless its use is specified in a mailing list's "charter" or policy statement, in which case subscribers know at the outset that they will need a MIME-capable mail interface to participate fully. Plain, ASCII text is the only format normally appropriate for mailing lists and always has been, with the exception of mailing lists on long-departed EBCDIC-based networks (e.g., BITNET). It is also far safer for many subscribers, especially those victimized by Microsloth's excuses for operating systems. (Fortunately, I do not have that particular problem.:-) > >Complaining about things like top-posting, line wrapping, html messages >and using word processors instead of text editors, may not encourage >people to respond to your questions. Well, if you're saying that the community of people subscribed to this list is, on the whole, so discourteous as to ignore and generally consider unimportant basic list etiquette for clear communication, then perhaps it's time for those of us who disagree to unsubscribe and let the majority continue to act as rudely as it likes with as many communication troubles as it can create for itself. It is my hope, and has been my impression thus far, however, that most OR-TALK participants are not discourteous in the manner that you seem to suggest, although there are almost certainly some who have erred without realizing it for one reason or another. It is because I tend to assume initially that people who break basic list etiquette do so unintentially that I point it out in hopes that they will not repeat whatever they did. When pointing out a problem results in no change in their behavior, though, it does get discouraging. > >Your may want to try changing e-mail clients, because you currently >don't put In-Reply-To or References headers in your messages. That >appears to be messing up the thread view in my e-mail client. > As noted above, I don't use an email client. If I have to use MIME to deal with special file formats, I use pine(1), which I really dislike, but will use out of necessity. I *never* post MIME to a mailing list. Also, a client-server arrangement is unnecessary for me to deal with a local mail box and would simply add another potential point of failure. AFAIK, UCBmail inserts *no* comment headers at all, only the standard SMTP headers. I doubt that is likely to change at this point. Nor do I feel obligated in any way to use a USENET news reader-style mail interface to deal with a mailing list. If OR-TALK is someday bridged to a USENET news group, then the threaded news readers like tin(1) and trn(1) will handle those matters, but I see no reason to deal with special threading in a mailing list, particularly one so low-volume as OR-TALK. In fact, most of the mailing lists I'm on arrive in digest form, which would probably defeat any special threading software anyway. (OR-TALK doesn't seem to be available in a digest.) I have no difficulty following topics, provided people format their messages correctly (e.g., citing time, author, and appropriate text of message to which one is responding, not top-posting, etc.) This has remained true throughout the more than two decades I've been reading articles from mailing lists. Best regards, Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG ********************************************************************** * Internet: bennett at cs.niu.edu * *--------------------------------------------------------------------* * "A well regulated and disciplined militia, is at all times a good * * objection to the introduction of that bane of all free governments * * -- a standing army." * * -- Gov. John Hancock, New York Journal, 28 January 1790 * **********************************************************************