ml> if it is properly quoted, why does it keep adding new quote
ml> initials and >
ml> signs instead of just adding another '>' to the existing already
ml> quoted qu
ml> but this is something for the mystic echo...

 NB> Why does most everyone's do the same? 

do what? multiple quotes like this

  ab>>>> ab wrote this 4 quotes back
  ef>>> ef wrote this 3 quotes back
  ij>> ij wrote this 2 quotes back
  mn> mn wrote this 1 quote back 

OR like this?

  mn> ij> ef> ab> ab wrote this 4 quotes back
  mn> ij> ef> ef wrote this 3 quotes back
  mn> ij> ij wrote this 2 quotes back
  mn> mn wrote this 1 quote back

OR like this?

  mn>ij>ef>ab> ab wrote this 4 quotes back
  mn>ij>ef> ef wrote this 3 quotes back
  mn>ij> ij wrote this 2 quotes back
  mn> mn wrote this 1 quote back

i'm not even going to try to manyally depict what mixing the quote methods
causes nor am i going to go into the (lack of) reflowing problem...

each of the above three use the same formatting rules... but if one doesn't
allow for the space between the quote prefixes, it may not recognize it as a
previous quoted quote and would then stuff its own quote prefix onto the
line... then you get things like what your quoter has been seen to do...

but the simple answer to your question is that they do the simple quoting and
quote chopping at the end of the line because their coder couldn't or didn't
or won't figure out how to do it properly... in other words, some might use
the term "lazy"... others, codes possibly, might say, "hey, at least they can
quote. if they want better, they can write it themselves or pay for better."

 NB> And is this another "proposition?" Or is it an actual standard?

is what another proposition or standard?

ml> so you changed from synchronet? why? that is what you were
ml> recently runnin
ml> wasn't it?

 NB> I'm still running Synchronet, but I'm posting messages from my
 NB> Mystic point system, 

ahhh...
 
 NB> which is under a major 'overhaul from default' right now. :) 

mmmkay :)

[trim]

ml> FWIW: i'm still waiting on rob swindell to explain why synchronet
ml> is gener
ml> MSGID lines for posts that do not contain such... he quite
ml> conviently left
ml> quit or just STFU when i posted the proof to him using one of his
ml> own mess
ml> with one of your's being the first i spotted doing such ;)

 NB> I don't know. You'll have to take it up with him. Maybe he's just
 NB> ignoring your anal retentivity? Everyone's software has flaws. Some
 NB> more than others. Your software is broken too, Mark. He did point
 NB> that out before he stopped posting.

yes, mine does have some problems... but i can't fix mine like he can in the
software that he maintains... the source code to all the various packages i
use has not been released and likely never will be... i know that in one case,
there was $10000US spent for the sources but i doubt that it has brought in
1/3rd of that since it was bought and updated...

 NB> I do remember him saying there was an RC change in his region, so
 NB> his uplink might have lost some messages, and by the time he got
 NB> back, a few of his replies never made it to you, so he just gave up
 NB> on the unwinnable battle.

he specifically posted some of the messages that didn't make it out
originally... but an RC change shouldn't frak things like that up... RC
addresses are just additional addresses and should not be used in the
processing of regular echomail and netmail... if a system is moving mail, they
can continue to do it without and breakage if they use their normal node
address... sadly, though, this conversation has come up more than once over
the years, too... sadly^2 some folk still don't listen to history and so they
end up with problems like you described when an RC was apparently hubbing mail
and had to switch things out when another person took over the RC slot...

)\/(ark

 * Origin:  (1:3634/12)