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> 

 NB> Looks like Mystic does it this way. 

true but if the space is missing, then it prefixes the quotes with its quote
instead of simply adding the '>' to the existing quotes... in others words,
the space or not farkles it up...

 NB> With all the different ways editors do it, which way is the 
 NB> correct way? 

the "correct" and "defacto" way is to recognize all of the two or three
existing ways and then to provide the one "standard" way instead of not
recognizing the "normal" format and simply prefixing the current quote stuff
to all lines...

FWIW: the above is NOT the preferred way...

 NB> And is that correct way fact or opinion? 

i would call it fact and defacto standard... even though may not be written
out in a proposal or a standard... welcome to the world of cooperatio between
software coders ;)

ml> each of the above three use the same formatting rules... but if
ml> one doesn'
ml> allow for the space between the quote prefixes, it may not
ml> 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...

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

it prefixed every previous quote with the quote string based on the From field
in the message that you were replying to... 

 NB> Whereas with synchronet, mine was stripping quote prefixes. 

i recall that being noted but i don't recall the exact specifics :(

 NB> Now you're saying both of them are wrong? I just can't win, can I? 
 NB> :)

it seems that this is true for many of us who are being complained to/about...
but the major difference between you and myself is that you are using your bbs
software for you messaging stuffs whereas i am not... i'm using my "sysop
editor" which is outside my bbs software and the only thing they have in
common is the list of message areas and the message base format being used...

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

 NB> I've been requesting this be changed with Mystic. I prefer word
 NB> wrapping, rather than chopping off the end of a line. 

that's called "reflowing"...

 NB> It's not that bad on one quote, 

it is bad enough...

 NB> because I think it only chops 4 chars off the end, 

look at my quote above that i left chainsawed and you can see where some
words, 3 letter ones, are left out and that completely changes what was
written :(

 NB> but if you have 4 quote prefixes, I'm willing to bet you're
 NB> getting 16 chars chopped, which isn't cool at all.

that's why the first quote method i showed is the preferred one... that is
where the quoting mechanism recognizes the previous quotes and simply suffixes
another '>' to them before reflowing the rest of the quote and prefixing the
'>' to the new lines as they come around during the reflowing process...

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

 NB> You can fix them by switching softwares. But you wouldn't do that,
 NB> would you? 

i would if the results were worth the trouble... but what many miss is that
i'm still running the last available private beta version of my software...
software that was, at one time, one of the leading bbs packages in fidonet..
software that (helped to) set these (defacto) standards

 NB> It's not THAT important.. right? I have a feeling that
 NB> devs that see crappy wording in proposals, follow them how they
 NB> want to follow them. At least that's what I got out of your
 NB> previous discussion with Rob. 

you can't put my messages on par with those who write the standards... i'm a
developer and coder... i'm not a standards writer ;)

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
ml> 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
ml> once ove
ml> years, too... sadly^2 some folk still don't listen to history and
ml> so they 
ml> up with problems like you described when an RC was apparently
ml> hubbing mail
ml> had to switch things out when another person took over the RC slot...

 NB> I don't think that was the situation. I think Rob had to switch his
 NB> link to a new person completely. 

which wouldn't have to have been done if the *C address was simply another
address and not one being used for processing mail ;)

)\/(ark

 * Origin:  (1:3634/12)