From: mutazilah@gmail.com   
      
   >> What's wrong with the reference (850) I already gave?   
      
   > w/o the complete reference path   
      
   1. You quoted a reference to an RFC. There is nothing   
   wrong with the RFC 850 I gave.   
      
   2. As you have already conceded, the complete reference   
   is not required (apparently - although I didn't see that   
   in the old RFC). Just the most recent message-id. BTW,   
   I just found out that the References line isn't one huge   
   long line. There are two per line, but presumably that is   
   flexible. So the References going out in this message is   
   going to be:   
      
   References:     
        
        
      
   I think I previously sent one with 4 in one line,   
   which may have exceeded some limit, but I was   
   replying to one with 3 in one line that exceeded   
   80 characters itself.   
      
   3. All my messages (including the one you replied to)   
   have the complete References already. I haven't once   
   sent out a partial References. I previously   
   wasn't sending out ANY References, but I fixed that as soon   
   as someone told me what the technical issue was.   
      
   > you mess up our threads by showing   
   > several topics with the same RE:wording.   
      
   That may happen on your news reader, but it doesn't   
   happen on Google Groups, so I wasn't aware there was   
   a problem until someone alerted me, and then I fixed   
   it as soon as someone told me what I was doing wrong.   
      
   > stop playing   
      
   I'm not "playing". I have always posted what I believed   
   were technically accurate messages.   
      
   > if you don't want to become reported to ES and google.   
      
   I don't see how I can be reported to google when I'm   
   not posting anything via google (because I can't anymore).   
      
   And although there is nothing preventing someone from   
   reporting me to ES, I think that is a very lousy thing   
   to do - trying to get me (potentially) banned because of   
   a threading issue. Also it would be a pretty harsh   
   judgement - this is an "alt" group. There are no rules   
   and no moderator. That's why Rick was able to post all   
   that religious stuff. Your only choice was to block him   
   at an individual level. In this case, you're assuming   
   that there is a rule that I can't start a new thread   
   with the same subject, and that ES will agree. See above   
   about "no rules". But I agree they may decide it's a   
   rule/non-rule violation regardless.   
      
   > use any test-group with your use-net attempts until ready.   
      
   I already did exactly that. I posted to an eternal september   
   test group. I was able to retrieve that message. It looked   
   fine to me (ES added a stack of header lines to my original).   
   Then I made a new post in alt.os.development.   
   That then appeared in google groups (which I can still read),   
   and also looked fine.   
      
   It was only later when I was replying to messages that an   
   issue (not visible to me via google groups) was discovered   
   in my software/procedure, and it was fixed in hours.   
      
   And you're already ready to report me to the authorities   
   as your initial "go to" solution? My goodness.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)