Re: Re.Lots of cycles lots of lids

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 07:33:58 GMT, Ziggy <ziggy317@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 22:40:25 +0000 (UTC), MJ Ray <mjr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

ziggy317@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Ziggy) wrote:
On 26 Apr 2007 14:13:32 GMT, Andy Leighton <andyl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Doesn't matter whether you have or not. Your lines are often 80 chars
or longer. Which is too long. 76 chars is a decent length to shoot
for.

Care to cite an RFC with that information?

RFC 1855 page 4, applied to newsgroups by section 3.0.

Thanks. Not one I had particularly read, as I had 10 years of using
usenet and mail by then.


Your move.

As I've already stated, three people with many, many, years of USENET
experience are puzzled by this complaint. It was they who set me up with
this NR and gave me some lessons on usenet.

Well either they are equally clueless or you missed something. It has
been part of the Usenet culture since day 1. It has featured in the
Usenet primer since before the Great Renaming. Maybe you ought to
re-read the primer, re-read the RFC (which suggests a shorter line
length than I do), and get a clue.

They have never heard of such a complaint before (other than to someone whose
original text was set to 80 characters or over.

I've been scanning many groups for a couple of years and have never heard
seen any complaint.

Again if you search you will see many such complaints. That you and
they have not seen them on a cursory look is irrelevant.

The only thing we can think of is that he's complaining about what happens
when the NR prepends the 'quoted' characters,

That is the problem. If you have 80 and 81 character lines (as you
have) then the quote mark makes them even longer. It is polite to
keep the length down so I have to do extra work to reply to you.
Something I don't intend doing in future.

Apparantly it's more usual to politely suggest that people don't quote to
such a depth which is usually the root cause of the problem. This is what
I shall try to correct in my posting.

But even quoting you to a single level the lines are above 80 chars.
I politely asked a number of times and still you refuse to acknowledge
it as an issue and continued posting long lines. I can only assume
that you do not wish a meaningful discussion on anything (which I should
have guessed after the multitude of "I'm not going to post anymore to
this thread" messages) and are pig-headed in the extreme.

--
Andy Leighton => andyl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Friends Reunited Sold
    ... John Prentice wrote: ... Any application which posts to Usenet without inserting ... the nominal 80 characters, is erroneous as some people who have limited sight may well set up to use less columns per page in order to be able to view it at all, and a newsreader should allow for that. ... RFC 850 and RFC ...
    (soc.genealogy.britain)
  • Re: Friends Reunited Sold
    ... Any application which posts to Usenet without inserting ... the nominal 80 characters, is erroneous as some people who have limited ... The RFCs that do formally specify ... RFC 850 and RFC ...
    (soc.genealogy.britain)
  • Re: Frank Slootweg, can you see the Message-IDs ?
    ... Usenet Best Practice is based on the “ Internet Message Format ” ... it seems you aren't fully complying with the very RFC ... A field name MUST be composed of printable US-ASCII characters ...
    (news.software.readers)
  • Re: Questions About Moderators and Spam
    ... it violates usenet RfCs such as RfC1036. ... How does Google Groups violate RFC 1036? ... By mungling headers, i.e. castrating From: and Reply-To: and by not honoring ...
    (rec.music.classical.recordings)
  • Re: Trouble Loading into Major Cities
    ... I had the problem 2 weeks ago that I suddenly couldn't log into any chars ... Not because it's polite, the standard, and makes reading posts far ... You know - did it ever occur to you WHY there are formatting standards ... This is just Usenet, you know. ...
    (alt.games.warcraft)
Loading