Re: Message priority -- possible problem!
At 10:17 [GMT-0800] on Saturday March 26 (actual time - 2:17am on Sunday in Perth, Western Australia), you wrote: MM>> "The state of Kansas once passed legislation rounding the value of Pi MM>> from 3.14159265... to an even 3." Mark> Actually, I believe Kansas rounded pi *up* to 4. Don't believe everything you hear... http://www.snopes.com/religion/pi.htm -- cheers, mic "Aristotle maintained that women have fewer teeth than men; although he was twice married, it never occurred to him to verify this statement by examining his wives' mouths." Bertrand Russell, Impact of Science on Society (1952) ch. 1 Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Message priority -- possible problem!
Mica- Friday, March 25, 2005, 5:33:16 AM, you wrote: MM> "The state of Kansas once passed legislation rounding the value of Pi MM> from 3.14159265... to an even 3." Actually, I believe Kansas rounded pi *up* to 4. -- -Mark Wieder Using The Bat! v1.63 Beta/7 on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Message priority -- possible problem!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 ***^\ ."_)~~ ~( __ _"o Was another beautiful day, Fri, 25 Mar 2005, @ @ at 05:04:37 +0800, when Mic Cullen wrote: > I wonder if it has to do with localisation? ie, down here in OZ, > 3,141592653589793 is a vastly bigger number than 3.141592653589793 > No real idea, I'm just guessing. I have this info... "The state of Kansas once passed legislation rounding the value of Pi from 3.14159265... to an even 3." ...but am not sure what to think about. Any ideas? Although two little 2s will give only one little 4, never one BIG 4. - -- Mica PGP keys nestled at: http://bardo.port5.com/pgpkeys/ [Earth LOG: 205 day(s) since v3.0 unleashing] OSs: Windows 98 SE Micro Lite Professional IVa Enterprise Millennium with nestled ZipSlack(tm) 9.1, and, for TB sometimes, Gentoo and Vector via Wine... ~~~ For PM please use my full address as it is *exactly* given in my "From|Reply To" field(s). ~~~ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iD8DBQFCQ0vw9q62QPd3XuIRAnrWAJ9zCi3ZBrJBu7/yLp9OZOXQUNkTJQCghX+s bdANJwat9ySIWH/4FVPhzsE= =DI2t -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Message priority -- possible problem!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 ***^\ ."_)~~ ~( __ _"o Was another beautiful day, Thu, 24 Mar 2005, @ @ at 20:50:38 +0100, when Roelof Otten wrote: > Well, apparently you're playing with your headers. A priority of pi is > not what TB uses. TB uses, seems to me, lots of that. At least v3.0.2.10 has some very specific response to the pi, absolutely fitting "irrational" mode. To this irrational number it reacts "inconsistently", or it's a consistence we still have no discovered. It sometimes my header "X-Priority: 3,141592653589793 (Laid Back)" interprets as "normal" and sometimes as "high" priority. There, now cope with this! I find it *very* interesting. And might be once I'll try to experiment more, but now I retire this header, since it makes confusion around, as I have learned today, and annoys/upsets people (I didn't know that! Sorry!). > It is higher than three, so some clients might legitimately think it > has a higher priority. Well, it's not very legitimately, though. Since order of priorities is like follows: X-Priority: 2 (High) X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-Priority: 4 (Low) So it should have to tend to the *lower* priority than "normal", which was actually my intention. > I'm seeing it as normal priority though. Thanks, Roelof! > As your mailer you're claiming: MM>> User-Agent: Bianfu! (v2.12.00) It's "The Bat!" in Chinese. (-: > So I guess you're manipulating something with X-Ray or the like. I tend to manipulate with everything which is manipulatable, in most complicated and magic (confusing?) ways, since my hands and my nervous system are construed this way and I can't help me. (-: They need activity. In this very moment though they are all in glue and grease since I am chasing a hole in my tire. User-Agent is done by TB, and X-Priority by X-ray (the later one disabled, until I estimate the damage). Let's be careful btw, Mercury is retrograde few days now. And if someone is prone to tell me it's a bs, think again. (-: Good time for finish unfinished and for correcting mistakes/omissions. -- There, a free advice. (-: - -- Mica PGP keys nestled at: http://bardo.port5.com/pgpkeys/ [Earth LOG: 204 day(s) since v3.0 unleashing] OSs: Windows 98 SE Micro Lite Professional IVa Enterprise Millennium with nestled ZipSlack(tm) 9.1, and, for TB sometimes, Gentoo and Vector via Wine... ~~~ For PM please use my full address as it is *exactly* given in my "From|Reply To" field(s). ~~~ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iD8DBQFCQ0dy9q62QPd3XuIRAtg9AJwKNMS/S3vIlnsxZkSwy8ED7Nr/3gCghT0u ISbW3Tt7ikUUcjUMGzkLpG0= =h/VD -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Message priority -- possible problem!
At 20:50 [GMT+0100] on Thursday March 24 (actual time - 3:50am on Friday in Perth, Western Australia), you wrote: MM>> X-Priority: 3,141592653589793 (Laid Back) MM>> Please tell me if anyone on this list ever gets my messages marked as of MM>> "high priority"? Roelof> Well, apparently you're playing with your headers. A priority of pi is Roelof> not what TB uses. It is higher than three, so some clients might Roelof> legitimately think it has a higher priority. Roelof> I'm seeing it as normal priority though. I wonder if it has to do with localisation? ie, down here in OZ, 3,141592653589793 is a vastly bigger number than 3.141592653589793 No real idea, I'm just guessing. -- cheers, mic "Nobody who ever gave his best regretted it." George Halas (1895 - 1983) Pro football coach Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Message priority -- possible problem!
At 20:30 [GMT+0100] on Thursday March 24 (actual time - 3:30am on Friday in Perth, Western Australia), you wrote: Mica> Please tell me if anyone on this list ever gets my messages marked as of Mica> "high priority"? I all of them get, and send, marked as of "normal Mica> priority", but some members see them in their mailers otherwise. I would This is strange - your emails to the list I always see as 'High Priority" (ie triggers my "High Priority" filter, which is predicated by the condition "Priority is 'high'"), but your email direct to me earlier this evening showed as normal priority. Both had the header: "X-Priority: 3,141592653589793 (Laid Back)" Mica> perhaps have some ideas of why it could be so, but anyway would like to Mica> know if someone else have ever had such experiences with my messages. Mica> Please tell also what mailer you use. Thanks. (-: The Bat! :-) v3.0.2.10 -- cheers, mic "Laughing at our mistakes can lengthen our own life. Laughing at someone else's can shorten it." Cullen Hightower Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Message priority -- possible problem!
Hello Mica, > From: Mica Mijatovic > Organization: The Flying Mammal > X-Priority: 3,141592653589793 (Laid Back) Nice! :-) -- Best regards, Miguel A. Urech (El Escorial - Spain) Using The Bat! v3.0.9.9 Return (pre-beta) Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Message priority -- possible problem!
Hallo Mica, On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 20:30:25 +0100GMT (24-3-2005, 20:30 +0100, where I live), you wrote: MM> X-Priority: 3,141592653589793 (Laid Back) MM> Please tell me if anyone on this list ever gets my messages marked as of MM> "high priority"? Well, apparently you're playing with your headers. A priority of pi is not what TB uses. It is higher than three, so some clients might legitimately think it has a higher priority. I'm seeing it as normal priority though. As your mailer you're claiming: MM> User-Agent: Bianfu! (v2.12.00) So I guess you're manipulating something with X-Ray or the like. -- Groetjes, Roelof Nobody notices when things go right, I'm always noticed. The Bat! 3.0.9.9 Return (pre-beta) Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2 1 pop3 account, server on LAN pgpGz6fdRrGTb.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Message priority -- possible problem!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello TBUDL, Please tell me if anyone on this list ever gets my messages marked as of "high priority"? I all of them get, and send, marked as of "normal priority", but some members see them in their mailers otherwise. I would perhaps have some ideas of why it could be so, but anyway would like to know if someone else have ever had such experiences with my messages. Please tell also what mailer you use. Thanks. (-: - -- Mica PGP keys nestled at: http://bardo.port5.com/pgpkeys/ [Earth LOG: 204 day(s) since v3.0 unleashing] OSs: Windows 98 SE Micro Lite Professional IVa Enterprise Millennium with nestled ZipSlack(tm) 9.1, and, for TB sometimes, Gentoo and Vector via Wine... ~~~ For PM please use my full address as it is *exactly* given in my "From|Reply To" field(s). ~~~ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iD8DBQFCQxVQ9q62QPd3XuIRAmHuAJ44i0ybVL1NGq8uhth5Pnm2vQvlwwCfUyz0 ovJECPSDXbheVdcG41I+Sog= =7+33 -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
