ml>  NB> Why does most everyone's do the same? 
ml> 
ml> do what? multiple quotes like this
ml> 
ml> OR like this?
ml> 
ml>   mn> ij> ef> ab> ab wrote this 4 quotes back
ml>   mn> ij> ef> ef wrote this 3 quotes back
ml>   mn> ij> ij wrote this 2 quotes back
ml>   mn> mn wrote this 1 quote back
ml> 

Looks like Mystic does it this way. With all the different ways editors do
it, which way is the correct way? And is that correct way fact or opinion?

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

What things did my quoter do? I'm pretty sure it keeps what's there, and
adds it's own quote prefix.

Whereas with synchronet, mine was stripping quote prefixes. Now you're
saying both of them are wrong? I just can't win, can I? :)

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

I've been requesting this be changed with Mystic. I prefer word wrapping,
rather than chopping off the end of a line. It's not that bad on one quote,
because I think it only chops 4 chars off the end, but if you have 4 quote
prefixes, I'm willing to bet you're getting 16 chars chopped, which isn't
cool at all.

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

You can fix them by switching softwares. But you wouldn't do that, would
you? It's not THAT important.. right? I have a feeling that devs that see
crappy wording in proposals, follow them how they want to follow them. At
least that's what I got out of your previous discussion with Rob.

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

I don't think that was the situation. I think Rob had to switch his link
to a new person completely. I thought I remember him saying he was all
setup for it, but Kurt was setting himself up to take over the position and
add all the new links. It wasn't but a couple days before everything was
good, but it was during that couple days when he was trying to reply to you
via his system... or something.

--
Nick aka axisd
(http) www(dot)pharcyde(dot)org
(telnet) bbs(dot)pharcyde(dot)org

--- Mystic BBS v1.10 A18 (Linux)
 * Origin: tHE pHARCYDE http://www.pharcyde.org (Wisconsin) (1:154/10.1)