On 14 Dec 2006 at 15:16, "Alphax (Wikipedia email)" alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Poll: Should top-posting be grounds for moderation?
Yes... and insufficient trimming too (very annoying for digest readers). These are among a number of e-mail formatting problems that are widespread.
I've created a tool to check e-mail messages for many of the common problems and issues:
http://mailformat.dan.info/tools/check.html
I've created a tool to check e-mail messages for many of the common problems and issues:
Bug report: I just submitted one of my emails to your checker. It said I didn't have a date header, from header or subject line - the message had all three.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
I've created a tool to check e-mail messages for many of the common problems and issues:
Bug report: I just submitted one of my emails to your checker. It said I didn't have a date header, from header or subject line - the message had all three.
Since you're on Gmail, the most likely problem is (as documented in the information about getting a full dump of a message, headers and all, at the bottom of the page) that you copied-and-pasted the message with a blank line above the headers, the way Gmail presents it when you view the message source. The MIME-parsing library I use follows the standards and regards the headers as ending with the first blank line, meaning that it treats the headers as part of the body instead. Delete the blank line from the top of the message in the input box and it should work.
Since you're on Gmail, the most likely problem is (as documented in the information about getting a full dump of a message, headers and all, at the bottom of the page) that you copied-and-pasted the message with a blank line above the headers, the way Gmail presents it when you view the message source. The MIME-parsing library I use follows the standards and regards the headers as ending with the first blank line, meaning that it treats the headers as part of the body instead. Delete the blank line from the top of the message in the input box and it should work.
That fixed it - thanks!
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
Bug report: I just submitted one of my emails to your checker. It said I didn't have a date header, from header or subject line - the message had all three.
Since you're on Gmail, the most likely problem is (as documented in the information about getting a full dump of a message, headers and all, at the bottom of the page) that you copied-and-pasted the message with a blank line above the headers, the way Gmail presents it when you view the message source. The MIME-parsing library I use follows the standards and regards the headers as ending with the first blank line, meaning that it treats the headers as part of the body instead. Delete the blank line from the top of the message in the input box and it should work.
I would say this is a bug in the checker. If presented with a message that _begins_ with a blank line, it should either:
a) assume the blank line is there by mistake and remove it, or
b) treat the message as not having any headers, in which case it should notify the user of this and not bother with further header checks.
On 12/14/06, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
I've created a tool to check e-mail messages for many of the common problems and issues:
Bug report: I just submitted one of my emails to your checker. It said I didn't have a date header, from header or subject line - the message had all three.
Since you're on Gmail, the most likely problem is (as documented in the information about getting a full dump of a message, headers and all, at the bottom of the page) that you copied-and-pasted the message with a blank line above the headers, the way Gmail presents it when you view the message source. The MIME-parsing library I use follows the standards and regards the headers as ending with the first blank line, meaning that it treats the headers as part of the body instead. Delete the blank line from the top of the message in the input box and it should work.
-- Dan
Oddly enough, the g-mail default is to top post. How 'bout that?
Oddly enough, the g-mail default is to top post. How 'bout that?
The only alternative is putting the cursor at the bottom of the email to start with, which would thoroughly confuse people. It would also encourage more overquoting - at least when you top post and overquote at the same time, it's easy enough to ignore. Having to scroll through an entire conversation to reach the message is very annoying (especially if someone is replying to a digest email...).
Not top-posting has to be a concious decision, you can't enforce it by default cursor positioning.
On 12/15/06, Jim Schuler jim62sch@gmail.com wrote:
Oddly enough, the g-mail default is to top post. How 'bout that?
Maybe top-posting isn't as evil as some people think. Regardless of what outdated RFC's say.
Steve
Maybe top-posting isn't as evil as some people think. Regardless of what outdated RFC's say.
The quoted text is pretty much useless if it's the entire conversation and it's at the bottom, so it's just a waste of bandwidth. Now everyone has so much bandwidth (even 56k is a lot compared to when to RFCs were written), that may not be a significant issue. So top-posting is probably just a bad as not quoting at all (as long as you aren't replying to a digest email...).
On 12/14/06, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
On 14 Dec 2006 at 15:16, "Alphax (Wikipedia email)" alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Poll: Should top-posting be grounds for moderation?
Yes... and insufficient trimming too (very annoying for digest readers). These are among a number of e-mail formatting problems that are widespread.
I've created a tool to check e-mail messages for many of the common problems and issues:
http://mailformat.dan.info/tools/check.html
-- == Dan == Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
Should being an insufferable nitpicker with too much time on one's hands be grounds for modertation? Definitely. Alas, I haven't the time to create a nitpicker's tool.
Now, do we have more serious issues to discuss?
On 12/14/06, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
On 14 Dec 2006 at 15:16, "Alphax (Wikipedia email)" alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Poll: Should top-posting be grounds for moderation?
Mid-posting is the only way to go. :-)
On 12/14/06, Mark Wagner carnildo@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/14/06, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
On 14 Dec 2006 at 15:16, "Alphax (Wikipedia email)" alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Poll: Should top-posting be grounds for moderation?
M I i N d T- E p R o W s E t A i V n E g - i P s O t S h T e I o N n G l F y O w R a M y E to go. :-)
On 12/14/06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
M I i N d T- E p R o W s E t A i V n E g - i P s O t S h T e I o N n G l F y O w R a M y E to go. :-)
You just stole at least a minute, probably two, of my life trying to decipher your email, and I want them back.
Me too.... And what the hell does INTERWAVE mean?
--Oskar
On 12/14/06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
M I i N d T- E p R o W s E t A i V n E g - i P s O t S h T e I o N n G l F y O w R a M y E to go. :-)
You just stole at least a minute, probably two, of my life trying to decipher your email, and I want them back.
!gnitsop evaewretni daer ot drah *taht* lla ton s'tI
On 12/15/06, Mark Wagner carnildo@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/14/06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
M I i N d T- E p R o W s E t A i V n E g - i P s O t S h T e I o N n
G l F
y O w R a M y E to go. :-)
You just stole at least a minute, probably two, of my life trying to decipher your email, and I want them back.
!gnitsop evaewretni daer ot drah *taht* lla ton s'tI
-- Mark [[User:Carnildo]]
!ton s'ti oN
Jim Schuler wrote:
On 12/15/06, Mark Wagner carnildo@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/14/06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
M I i N d T- E p R o W s E t A i V n E g - i P s O t S h T e I o N n
G l F
y O w R a M y E to go. :-)
You just stole at least a minute, probably two, of my life trying to decipher your email, and I want them back.
!gnitsop evaewretni daer ot drah *taht* lla ton s'tI
!ton s'ti oN
Qm90dG9tLXBvc3RpbmcgeW91ciBtZXNzYWdlcyBhZnRlciBCYXNlNjQ= ZW5jb2RpbmcgdGhlbSBiZWF0cyBldmVyeXRoaW5nLg==
On 12/15/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Jim Schuler wrote:
On 12/15/06, Mark Wagner carnildo@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/14/06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
M I i N d T- E p R o W s E t A i V n E g - i P s O t S h T e I o N n
G l F
y O w R a M y E to go. :-)
You just stole at least a minute, probably two, of my life trying to decipher your email, and I want them back.
!gnitsop evaewretni daer ot drah *taht* lla ton s'tI
!ton s'ti oN
Qm90dG9tLXBvc3RpbmcgeW91ciBtZXNzYWdlcyBhZnRlciBCYXNlNjQ= ZW5jb2RpbmcgdGhlbSBiZWF0cyBldmVyeXRoaW5nLg==
begin 644 - M5&AA="=S(&YO="!V86QI9"!B87-E-C0Z('EO=2=R92!O;FQY(&%L;&]W960@ C=&@<'5T("<])R!A="!T:&4@96YD(&]F('1H92!F:6QE+@H end
On 12/18/06, Mark Wagner carnildo@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/15/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Jim Schuler wrote:
On 12/15/06, Mark Wagner carnildo@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/14/06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
> M I i N d T- E p R o W s E t A i V n E g - i P s O t S h T e I o N n
G l F
> y O w R a M y E to go. :-)
You just stole at least a minute, probably two, of my life trying to decipher your email, and I want them back.
!gnitsop evaewretni daer ot drah *taht* lla ton s'tI
!ton s'ti oN
Qm90dG9tLXBvc3RpbmcgeW91ciBtZXNzYWdlcyBhZnRlciBCYXNlNjQ= ZW5jb2RpbmcgdGhlbSBiZWF0cyBldmVyeXRoaW5nLg==
begin 644 - M5&AA="=S(&YO="!V86QI9"!B87-E-C0Z('EO=2=R92!O;FQY(&%L;&]W960@ C=&@<'5T("<])R!A="!T:&4@96YD(&]F('1H92!F:6QE+@H end
OK, now you're just showing off.
-david
Mark Wagner wrote:
On 12/15/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Jim Schuler wrote:
On 12/15/06, Mark Wagner carnildo@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/14/06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
> M I i N d T- E p R o W s E t A i V n E g - i P s O t S h T e I o N n
G l F
> y O w R a M y E to go. :-)
You just stole at least a minute, probably two, of my life trying to decipher your email, and I want them back.
!gnitsop evaewretni daer ot drah *taht* lla ton s'tI
!ton s'ti oN
Qm90dG9tLXBvc3RpbmcgeW91ciBtZXNzYWdlcyBhZnRlciBCYXNlNjQ= ZW5jb2RpbmcgdGhlbSBiZWF0cyBldmVyeXRoaW5nLg==
begin 644 - M5&AA="=S(&YO="!V86QI9"!B87-E-C0Z('EO=2=R92!O;FQY(&%L;&]W960@ C=&@<'5T("<])R!A="!T:&4@96YD(&]F('1H92!F:6QE+@H end
%49%74%27%73%20%61%20%70%61%64%64%69%6e%67%20%63%68%61%72%61%63%74%65%72%2e
On 19/12/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Mark Wagner wrote:
On 12/15/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Jim Schuler wrote:
On 12/15/06, Mark Wagner carnildo@gmail.com wrote:
!gnitsop evaewretni daer ot drah *taht* lla ton s'tI
!ton s'ti oN
Qm90dG9tLXBvc3RpbmcgeW91ciBtZXNzYWdlcyBhZnRlciBCYXNlNjQ= ZW5jb2RpbmcgdGhlbSBiZWF0cyBldmVyeXRoaW5nLg==
begin 644 - M5&AA="=S(&YO="!V86QI9"!B87-E-C0Z('EO=2=R92!O;FQY(&%L;&]W960@ C=&@<'5T("<])R!A="!T:&4@96YD(&]F('1H92!F:6QE+@H end
%49%74%27%73%20%61%20%70%61%64%64%69%6e%67%20%63%68%61%72%61%63%74%65%72%2e
Lbh xvqf whfg gel gbb uneq fbzrgvzrf.
- q.
On 19/12/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Qm90dG9tLXBvc3RpbmcgeW91ciBtZXNzYWdlcyBhZnRlciBCYXNlNjQ= ZW5jb2RpbmcgdGhlbSBiZWF0cyBldmVyeXRoaW5nLg==
begin 644 - M5&AA="=S(&YO="!V86QI9"!B87-E-C0Z('EO=2=R92!O;FQY(&%L;&]W960@ C=&@<'5T("<])R!A="!T:&4@96YD(&]F('1H92!F:6QE+@H end
%49%74%27%73%20%61%20%70%61%64%64%69%6e%67%20%63%68%61%72%61%63%74%65%72%2e
Lbh xvqf whfg gel gbb uneq fbzrgvzrf.
01001001 00100000 01101011 01101110 01101111 01110111 00100000 01110111 01101000 01100001 01110100 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101 00100000 01101101 01100101 01100001 01101110 00101110
Earle Martin schreef:
On 19/12/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Qm90dG9tLXBvc3RpbmcgeW91ciBtZXNzYWdlcyBhZnRlciBCYXNlNjQ= ZW5jb2RpbmcgdGhlbSBiZWF0cyBldmVyeXRoaW5nLg==
begin 644 - M5&AA="=S(&YO="!V86QI9"!B87-E-C0Z('EO=2=R92!O;FQY(&%L;&]W960@ C=&@<'5T("<])R!A="!T:&4@96YD(&]F('1H92!F:6QE+@H end
%49%74%27%73%20%61%20%70%61%64%64%69%6e%67%20%63%68%61%72%61%63%74%65%72%2e
Lbh xvqf whfg gel gbb uneq fbzrgvzrf.
01001001 00100000 01101011 01101110 01101111 01110111 00100000 01110111 01101000 01100001 01110100 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101 00100000 01101101 01100101 01100001 01101110 00101110
Zo kan 'ie wel weer hoor. Hebben jullie niets zinnigers te doen?
Eugene
Ubi'm hubavubing truboububle ubunduberstubandubing thubis thrubead!!!
--Ryan