From: gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net
On 11/30/23 15:06, Paul Edwards wrote:
> I just found out that the References line isn't one huge
> long line.
Not necessarily.
> There are two per line, but presumably that is
> flexible. So the References going out in this message is
> going to be:
>
> References:
>
>
From memory -- I'm not finding and reading an RFC for this -- there are
basically three lengths that come into play.
- what will fit in a ""standard window, generally considered to be
72-78 characters.
- a physical line length
- a logical line length
I believe that the physical line length (for email, which news articles
have significant overlap with) is 1000 characters, including trailing
so effectively 998 characters on the line.
I believe that theoretically the logical, unfolded / unwrapped line is
unlimited. However going beyond the physical line length of ~1k tends
to tickle bugs in things like there is no tomorrow.
Many things use a physical line length of < 80 characters and a logical
line length of < 1000 characters.
I say this to say that you could put all references and the header on
one line as long as it's less than the physical line length, even if
it's longer than the ~80 characters people consider to be good netiquette.
> 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.
Four entries and a References header should have hardly scratched the
physical line length unless they were obscenely long Message-IDs. That
being said, they may have crossed the netiquette suggested 80 characters.
N.B. the 80 characters goes back to fixed with terminals and is IMHO
outdated. I now use terminals at least 132 characters wide and
frequently widen them. But the idea of the netiquette is to avoid
inconveniencing others and be considerate of their terminals by making
small changes in what you do.
> 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.
There is another form of threading contrary to the References: /
In-Reply-To: header and that's based on clients trying to be smart and
guess based on the Subject: header and date and maybe the opening quote
in the body. This is pseudo threading that works part of the time and
fails miserably other parts of the time.
> I'm not "playing". I have always posted what I believed
> were technically accurate messages.
I trust that you are sending messages in good faith. However there is
one small nitpick that may be considered playing by some. (More below.)
> I don't see how I can be reported to google when I'm
> not posting anything via google (because I can't anymore).
The only thing that I see that might be not 100% pure / innocent is
testing things about message threading in the alt.os.development
newsgroup. Usenet message threading may not be on topic in /this/
newsgroup.
That being said, so what.
Your /off/ /topic/ content became off topic as part of a reply / comment
/ complaint to an on topic post. You carried the conversation forward
in situ.
I'm continuing to carry your conversation forward in situ as well.
We are having polite, civil, productive conversation. Even if it's not
100% on topic for /this/ /newsgroup/.
Other than that, I don't see anything to complain about.
> 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.
I'd be flabbergasted if you got anything more than a "please stay on
topic in $NEWSGROUP" type comment. Maybe if you repeatedly did it and
had multiple complaints and multiple such comments. But then, it would
not be a surprise to you.
> 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.
I also suspect that the E-S newsmaster has their hands full dealing with
actual spam from Google Groups.
I suspect that they would take one look at this and either ask "why am I
being bothered with this" or send you a message saying "please try to
stay on topic".
If anything, the comment about reporting you is more likely meant to
intimidate you.
> 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.
I believe that Google Groups supports subject based threading.
> And you're already ready to report me to the authorities
> as your initial "go to" solution? My goodness.
Chuckle.
--
Grant. . . .
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
