Can ext2 kernel run ext3 binaries.
f...@informatik.uni-bremen.de
the box with ext3 [FC1] seems to have a hardware problem,
so I've removed the IDE to run its apps & data on a box which
has a ext2 kernel.
Any scripts of the ext3/FC1 which are mounted run ok;
but: chroot /<ext3/FC1 mount-point> <ext3/FC1 binary>
give a core-dump.
Probably ext3 binaries are incompattible with ext2 ?
Is there any way around this ?
Thanks for any info,
== Chris Glur.
Floyd L. Davidson
>A bit of a novel situation here:
>
>the box with ext3 [FC1] seems to have a hardware problem,
>so I've removed the IDE to run its apps & data on a box which
>has a ext2 kernel.
>
>Any scripts of the ext3/FC1 which are mounted run ok;
>but: chroot /<ext3/FC1 mount-point> <ext3/FC1 binary>
> give a core-dump.
>
>Probably ext3 binaries are incompattible with ext2 ?
No.
>Is there any way around this ?
Hard to say, but it has nothing to do with whether the
files are or are not on a partition mounted as either
ext2 or ext3.
>Thanks for any info,
The "ext2" and "ext3" terms apply to the *filesystem*, not
to executable binaries. The ext3 filesystem is an ext2
filesystem with journaling. The significance is that a
partition which has been formated with an ext3 filesystem
can be mounted as an ext2 filesystem. It will corrupt
the journaling though, and will require repair with fsck
before it can again be mounted as an ext3 filesystem.
Once mounted, *any* file that is on the filesystem is
accessable in *extactly* the same way, no matter how the
filesystem is mounted. ext2/ext3 does not affect how
files are formated.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl...@apaflo.com
Sam
> A bit of a novel situation here:
>
> the box with ext3 [FC1] seems to have a hardware problem,
> so I've removed the IDE to run its apps & data on a box which
> has a ext2 kernel.
Your terminology is slightly off. You probably mean a kernel without the
ext3 FS module.
> Any scripts of the ext3/FC1 which are mounted run ok;
> but: chroot /<ext3/FC1 mount-point> <ext3/FC1 binary>
> give a core-dump.
>
> Probably ext3 binaries are incompattible with ext2 ?
No. Provided that the ext3 filesystem was unmounted cleanly, the filesystem
will look just like an ext2 filesystem, to a kernel that does not support
ext3.
Joost Kremers
> A bit of a novel situation here:
>
> the box with ext3 [FC1] seems to have a hardware problem,
> so I've removed the IDE to run its apps & data on a box which
> has a ext2 kernel.
>
> Any scripts of the ext3/FC1 which are mounted run ok;
> but: chroot /<ext3/FC1 mount-point> <ext3/FC1 binary>
> give a core-dump.
>
> Probably ext3 binaries are incompattible with ext2 ?
there is no such thing as an ext2 or an ext3 binary. binaries differ
according to OS and architecture (i.e. CPU-type), not according to
filesystem type.
any reason why binaries core-dump? have you tried running them with strace?
do all binaries give problems, or just a few?
what is the cpu-type of the machine you're trying to run the binaries on?
are the binaries perhaps compiled for a higher cpu?
--
Joost Kremers joostk...@yahoo.com
Selbst in die Unterwelt dringt durch Spalten Licht
EN:SiS(9)
CBFalconer
> f...@informatik.uni-bremen.de wrote:
>
... snip ...
>
>> Any scripts of the ext3/FC1 which are mounted run ok;
>> but: chroot /<ext3/FC1 mount-point> <ext3/FC1 binary>
>> give a core-dump.
>>
>> Probably ext3 binaries are incompattible with ext2 ?
>
> there is no such thing as an ext2 or an ext3 binary. binaries
> differ according to OS and architecture (i.e. CPU-type), not
> according to filesystem type.
>
> any reason why binaries core-dump? have you tried running them
> with strace? do all binaries give problems, or just a few?
>
> what is the cpu-type of the machine you're trying to run the
> binaries on? are the binaries perhaps compiled for a higher cpu?
Smells like the result of a memory problem. Get ECC memory.
--
<http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt>
<http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/423>
<http://www.aaxnet.com/editor/edit043.html>
<http://kadaitcha.cx/vista/dogsbreakfast/index.html>
cbfalconer at maineline dot net
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Keith Keller
On 2007-05-31, f...@informatik.uni-bremen.de <f...@informatik.uni-bremen.de> wrote:
>
> the box with ext3 [FC1] seems to have a hardware problem,
> so I've removed the IDE to run its apps & data on a box which
> has a ext2 kernel.
>
> Any scripts of the ext3/FC1 which are mounted run ok;
> but: chroot /<ext3/FC1 mount-point> <ext3/FC1 binary>
> give a core-dump.
>
> Probably ext3 binaries are incompattible with ext2 ?
Extremely unlikely. ext2/3 are just filesystems, and have nothing at
all to do with the format of the binaries.
Your question doesn't appear to be on-topic for the Slackware newsgroup.
If it is, feel free to explain the Slackware connection and add the
newsgroup back to the Newsgroups: line.
--keith
--
kkeller...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
see X- headers for PGP signature information
Ewald Pfau
> Any scripts of the ext3/FC1 which are mounted run ok;
> but: chroot /<ext3/FC1 mount-point> <ext3/FC1 binary>
> give a core-dump.
>
> Probably ext3 binaries are incompattible with ext2 ?
> Is there any way around this ?
Whatever you're playing around with here, the choice between ext2 and ext3
should not introduce such incompatibilities, seen from an application level.
In normal use, the lay-out of stored data should not differ, between use of
ext2 and ext3. With ext3, journalling is added. But data may still be
accessed by an ext2 run-time environment - after that, journalling is out of
sync and needs being refreshed, when once more entering with an ext3 system.
Maybe, there is a different source of the problems, you want to solve.
<not reading comp.os.linux.misc>
Unruh
>In alt.os.linux.slackware, f...@informatik.uni-bremen.de wrote:
>> Any scripts of the ext3/FC1 which are mounted run ok;
>> but: chroot /<ext3/FC1 mount-point> <ext3/FC1 binary>
>> give a core-dump.
>>
>> Probably ext3 binaries are incompattible with ext2 ?
>> Is there any way around this ?
No idea what you are talking about-- ext{2,3} are filesystems. They have
absolutely nothing to do with binaries or whatever. If the system can read
the filesystems, then it can load any binary on the filesystem, and that
binary will be identical to one from the othe filesystem.
+Alan Hicks+
Hash: SHA1
["Followup-To:" header set to alt.os.linux.slackware.]
> This is a MIME GnuPG-signed message. If you see this text, it means that
> your E-mail or Usenet software does not support MIME signed messages.
Please don't use MIME on USENET. The vast majority of clients do not
support MIME, and in fact, probably never will. USENET is a
plain-text, non-MIME medium. In fact, take a look at the number of
MIME USENET groups and see how many dedicated MIME users don't use MIME
on USENET.
If you want to use RSA signatures, just embed them in the message as
myself and many others here and elsewhere do. MIME is for e-mail.
- --
It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise,
Than for a man to hear the song of fools.
Ecclesiastes 7:5
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFGZKPFFRvIvfSNceoRAoEKAKDE/bqVGc5YafZ6BwZS7uKDW+p9KQCfRA/d
wlw2mpMRJI7Acf/qOpCstOs=
=32Lp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
r...@biteme.org
pgp trash troll delete
> ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.os.linux.slackware.]
>> This is a MIME GnuPG-signed message. If you see this text, it
>> means that your E-mail or Usenet software does not support MIME
>> signed messages.
> Please don't use MIME on USENET.
Please don't use pgp trash trolling on USENET.
> The vast majority of clients do not support MIME, and in fact,
> probably never will.
The vast majority of clients do not hide pgp trash trolling in the
sig, and in fact, probably never will.
> USENET is a plain-text, non-MIME medium.
USENET is a plain-text, non-pgp trash trolling medium.
> In fact, take a look at the number of MIME USENET groups and see
> how many dedicated MIME users don't use MIME on USENET.
In fact, take a look at the number of email USENET groups and see
how many dedicated email pgp trash trollers don't use pgp trash
trolling on USENET.
> If you want to use RSA signatures, just embed them in the message as
> myself and many others here and elsewhere do. MIME is for e-mail.
If you want to use pgp trash trolling, just embed it in the headers
as Keith Keller and many others elsewhere do. pgp trash trolling is
for e-mail.
cordially, as always,
rm
Sam
> ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.os.linux.slackware.]
Why?
>> This is a MIME GnuPG-signed message. If you see this text, it means that
>> your E-mail or Usenet software does not support MIME signed messages.
>
> Please don't use MIME on USENET.
For some reason, some people curiously prefer to unwind the clock back to
the '70s. Those were the days, huh? Everyone spoke and wrote English on
Usenet, and there weren't any furriners, posting messages that contained
funny-looking characters.
> The vast majority of clients do not
> support MIME, and in fact, probably never will.
For every ancient non-MIME client you can name, I'll probably be able to
name three modern clients that fully support MIME. Besides, taking the
current contents of comp.os.linux.misc:
> USENET is a
> plain-text, non-MIME medium.
I'm truly sorry for what I'm about to do, to confuse you with facts:
[root@commodore ~]# cd /var/spool/news/articles
[root@commodore articles]# cd comp/os/linux/misc
[root@commodore misc]# grep -i Mime-Version•| wc -l
651
[root@commodore misc]# ls | wc -l
883
[root@commodore misc]# bc
bc 1.06
Copyright 1991-1994, 1997, 1998, 2000 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY.
For details type `warranty'.
scale=6
651/883
.737259
73.7% of messages in this newsfroup are MIME messages.
Tell me again how Usenet is a "non-MIME" medium.
> In fact, take a look at the number of
> MIME USENET groups and see how many dedicated MIME users don't use MIME
> on USENET.
Take a look at the rest of the world, and look at the number of all users,
worldwide, who use MIME to correctly post messages in non-English character
sets.
> If you want to use RSA signatures,
It's not an RSA signature.
> just embed them in the message as
> myself and many others here and elsewhere do.
In other words: pollute everyone's screens, instead of correctly using MIME
for its intended purpose: to allow non-supporting clients to gracefully show
the signed content, unmolested, and shuffle off the unparsable MIME content
aside.
Brilliant strategy, Sherlock. You'd rather have newsreaders, like
Thunderbird, who properly implement MIME to recognize MIME content, and even
if the PGP plugin is not installed they completely hide the signature from
the client's view, so that the user isn't even aware of the presence of
signed content; you'd rather have them fling all the "embedded" binary crap
in the user's face, instead of suppressing unused MIME content, and hide it
from the user's view?
> MIME is for e-mail.
No, it's not. Not for at least a couple of decades. Welcome to the 21st
century.
But don't feel bad. You're not the first person who embarassed himself by
being completely unaware of this ancient slrn MIME-parsing bug, that still
has not been fixed after many years. And you won't be the last.
Robert M. Riches Jr.
> This is a MIME GnuPG-signed message. If you see this text, it means that
> your E-mail or Usenet software does not support MIME signed messages.
> To open this message correctly you will need to install E-mail or Usenet
> software that supports modern Internet standards.
>
> --=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-6417-1181005531-0001
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="UTF-8"
> Content-Disposition: inline
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> X-Mime-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by mimegpg
>
> +Alan Hicks+ writes:
>
>> ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.os.linux.slackware.]
>
> Why?
>
> hat
>>> your E-mail or Usenet software does not support MIME signed messages.
>> Please don't use MIME on USENET.
>
> the '70s. Those were the days, huh? Everyone spoke and wrote English on=20
> Usenet, and there weren't any furriners, posting messages that contained=20
> funny-looking characters.
>
>> The vast majority of clients do not
>> support MIME, and in fact, probably never will.
>
> name three modern clients that fully support MIME. Besides, taking the=20
> current contents of comp.os.linux.misc:
>
>> ...
Sam, FWIW, in case you are listening, I'll second Alan's
request. I use slrn, and it is apparently not in sync with
your idea of how to use MIME and your signatures. Whenever
you post, I see the full text of all your MIME wrapper
stuff, and it makes it difficult to see what you're actually
saying. There are very few postings in comp.os.linux.misc
that have the problem, so I would venture to say it looks to
me like your use of MIME stuff is in the minority.
--
Robert Riches
spamt...@verizon.net
(Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)
Res
Hash: SHA1
*yaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn*
- --
Cheers
Res
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFGZNnbsWhAmSIQh7MRAmOiAJ4/LlPro8dpRLJ+FaAsnVnbnsJu1wCgoIlk
I88Hgn1Hq5ICFtzKI0zfbkw=
=Tyag
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Sylvain Robitaille
> I use slrn, and it is apparently not in sync with your idea of how to
> use MIME and your signatures.
Another SLRN user here, and I'm afraid I may not be seeing the same
thing as others: I see the "MIME" disclaimer at the top of Sam's
messages, but they're just a minor annoyance. What strikes me most
about his messages is the "=20" at the end of each line (sometimes with
lines wrapping in the middle of words). That's slightly more of an
annoyance and were it not for this thread, the worst that would have
come from me about it is less chance that I might followup to one of his
posts. Whether that's "good" or "bad" would really be up to him to
decide. I'm sure he reserves the right to be completely ambivalent ...
> Whenever you post, I see the full text of all your MIME wrapper stuff,
> and it makes it difficult to see what you're actually saying.
With the installation of Slrn I use, tapping the space bar makes it easy
to get past that stuff to the real message contents. Perhaps the
version you're using is different? ;-)
> There are very few postings in comp.os.linux.misc that have the
> problem, so I would venture to say it looks to me like your use of
> MIME stuff is in the minority.
That's of course another point altogether that should be taken into
consideration. Perhaps Sam's newsreader produces the MIME wrapping
differently than others.
In an effort to provide Sam with a slightly different data set than that
which he collected, though:
: newsflash[syl] ~; grep -rl "^Mime-Version: " \
/news/spool/alt/os/linux/slackware |wc -l
32
: newsflash[syl] ~; ls -1 /news/spool/alt/os/linux/slackware |wc -l
290
: newsflash[syl] ~; bc
bc 1.06
Copyright 1991-1994, 1997, 1998, 2000 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY.
For details type `warranty'.
scale=4
32/290
.1103
: newsflash[syl] ~; grep -rl "^Mime-Version: " \
/news/spool/comp/os/linux/misc | wc -l
499
: newsflash[syl] ~; ls -1 /news/spool/comp/os/linux/misc | wc -l
1167
: newsflash[syl] ~; bc
bc 1.06
Copyright 1991-1994, 1997, 1998, 2000 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY.
For details type `warranty'.
scale=4
499/1167
.4275
: newsflash[syl] ~;
Only 11% of messages in alt.os.linux.slackware with a Mime-Version
header, which is certainly less than the 73% he found on the misc group.
The same search in the misc group produces a slightly different ratio on
the news server here. Perhaps the signal-to-noise ratio on the news
server Sam's using differs from the one I'm using? (we're using
Cleanfeed here and have a very good signal-to-noise ratio)
Each group has a slightly different culture, and I think it can be
argued to be bad form to impose a new form on a newsgroup just because
you insist on using it. Consider that contrary to the argument you
posted in followup to Alan Hicks' request, your posts (at least those
that have made it to AOLS on the news server I use) don't, in fact,
include any characters not available in the standard ACSII character set.
If your only intention for using MIME is to make it possible to use
other character sets, that appears to be lost on the rest of us who are
reading your posts in plain English ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sylvain Robitaille s...@alcor.concordia.ca
Systems and Network analyst Concordia University
Instructional & Information Technology Montreal, Quebec, Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------------
r...@biteme.org
> Sam, FWIW, in case you are listening, I'll second Alan's request.
> I use slrn, and it is apparently not in sync with your idea of how
> to use MIME and your signatures. Whenever
And what do you have to say about our request that The Coward Hicks
bury his pgp trash trolling in his headers?
> you post, I see the full text of all your MIME wrapper stuff, and
> it makes it difficult to see what you're actually saying. There
> are very few postings in comp.os.linux.misc that have the problem,
> so I would venture to say it looks to me like your use of MIME
> stuff is in the minority.
And The Coward Hicks' use of pgp trash trolling is also in the
minority. Could you please advise The Coward Hicks to bury his pgp
trash trolling in his headers?
cordially, as always,
rm
r...@biteme.org
> With the installation of Slrn I use, tapping the space bar makes
> it easy to get past that stuff to the real message contents.
> Perhaps the version you're using is different? ;-)
Why are you still using slrn? slrn is junk. Always has been.
cordially, as always,
rm
r...@biteme.org
> header, which is certainly less than the 73% he found on the misc group.
How many messages use pgp trash trolling?
> The same search in the misc group produces a slightly different
> ratio on the news server here. Perhaps the signal-to-noise ratio
> on the news server Sam's using differs from the one I'm using?
> (we're using Cleanfeed here and have a very good signal-to-noise
> ratio)
> Each group has a slightly different culture, and I think it can be
> argued to be bad form to impose a new form on a newsgroup just
> because you insist on using it.
Like pgp trash trolling? Pgp trash trolling violates clear usenet
netiquette signature rules. The continued use of pgp trash trolling
by The Coward Hicks and his imitators is not a "cultural" thing. It
is simply a choice made to bother everyone else.
> Consider that contrary to the argument you posted in followup to
> Alan Hicks' request, your posts (at least those that have made it
> to AOLS on the news server I use) don't, in fact, include any
> characters not available in the standard ACSII character set. If
> your only intention for using MIME is to make it possible to use
> other character sets, that appears to be lost on the rest of us
> who are reading your posts in plain English ...
And those of us reading in plain English do not need pgp trash
trolling to verify that posts coming from somebody using a pseudonym
are actually coming from somebody using a pseudonym.
The "culture" of pgp trash trolling is one of gadgetry and
affectation. It is the skin piercing, tattooing, and all of the
other adolescent crap of those who like to copy others in the name
of individuality. If you are going to copy somebody else, why on
earth would you copy hillbilly trash like The Coward Hicks?
cordially, as always,
rm
Res
Hash: SHA1
- --
Cheers
Res
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFGZTA8sWhAmSIQh7MRAkAUAJ9peHbJLi3mdyECtf9S/w5vlyAUXACcC7hl
q6eG280rMnd7+INzSwd8vOg=
=DdFn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Sam
> Sam, FWIW, in case you are listening, I'll second Alan's
> request. I use slrn, and it is apparently not in sync with
> your idea of how to use MIME and your signatures.
It's not "my idea", it's a ten-year old Internet standard.
> Whenever
> you post, I see the full text of all your MIME wrapper
So, go get slrn fixed. Why is it that everyone else, who's not using slrn,
are required to work around ancient slrn bugs?
> stuff, and it makes it difficult to see what you're actually
> saying. There are very few postings in comp.os.linux.misc
> that have the problem, so I would venture to say it looks to
> me like your use of MIME stuff is in the minority.
You don't know what you're talking about. Go read RFC 2015, then we can
have an intelligent discussion here, but not before then.
As I've shown, around here 70% of messages are MIME messages, which is very
much a majority. Now, different messages may use different aspects of MIME
formatting, but it is still MIME, and all properly-written MIME parsers will
handle it correctly.
Thomas Overgaard
s...@email-scan.com wrote :
> You don't know what you're talking about. Go read RFC 2015, then we
> can have an intelligent discussion here, but not before then.
Wrong RFC, check out RFC 3977 instead. Here you'll see that at Usenet
MIME is restricted to be used to specify the character set of the body.
> As I've shown, around here 70% of messages are MIME messages
Wrong, 70% of the messages is posted using a newsreader that can use
another character set than ASCII, like UTF-8 or ISO-8859-1.
--
Thomas O.
This area is designed to become quite warm during normal operation.
Sylvain Robitaille
>> Only 11% of messages in alt.os.linux.slackware with a Mime-Version
>> header, which is certainly less than the 73% he found on the misc
>> group.
>
> How many messages use pgp ...?
Slightly under 10%:
: newsflash[syl] ~; grep -rl "^-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----" \
/news/spool/alt/os/linux/slackware |wc -l
26
: newsflash[syl] ~; ls -1 /news/spool/alt/os/linux/slackware | wc -l
270
: newsflash[syl] ~; bc
bc 1.06
Copyright 1991-1994, 1997, 1998, 2000 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY.
For details type `warranty'.
scale=4
26/270
.0962
: newsflash[syl] ~;
It could be reasonably argued, then that PGP use on
alt.os.linux.slackware is approximately as common as MIME ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sylvain Robitaille s...@alcor.concordia.ca
Systems and Network analyst / Newsmaster Concordia University
Floyd L. Davidson
>
>You don't know what you're talking about. Go read RFC
>2015, then we can have an intelligent discussion here,
>but not before then.
Your arguments would carry more weight if they cited the
correct RFC's and other documents. RFC-2015 does not
pertain to Usenet, and indeed does not even mention it.
Please read RFC-3977 "Network News Transfer Protocol
(NNTP)". See RFC-1036 too, however...
RFC-1036 predates MIME and does not mention it. It is
therefore clearly obsolete, and for roughly a decade now
there have been efforts to replace it. Obviously there
is no consensus though, on what should replace it!
Here is one draft:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-usepro-07.txt
"NOTE: This corresponds to the range of octets
permitted in MIME 8bit data [RFC2045]. Transports
for Netnews are not required to support transmission
of MIME binary data."
...
"While a charset parameter is defined for this media
type, most existing software does not understand MIME
header fields or correctly handle descriptions in a
variety of charsets. Using a charset of US- ASCII
where possible is therefore RECOMMENDED; if not
possible, UTF-8 [RFC3629] SHOULD be used. Regardless
of the charset used, the constraints of the above
grammar MUST be met ..."
Here is another draft:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-usefor-12.txt
"MIME is recognized as an integral part of Netnews."
Clearly there are multiple views on what is "correct".
Currently the only acceptable MIME format is ASCII text
or UTF-8 or "and ecnoding based on it, such as RFC 2047"
which must be used for all parts of the article
generated by the client.
You can indeed encode externally sourced documents into
the message body using MIME multipart content if you
like, but of course no client is required to produce
that content and no server is required to even forward
the article!
And indeed some of the major Usenet providers do filter
out messages containing shuc binaries posted to
newsgroups that are not specified for binary articles.
>As I've shown, around here 70% of messages are MIME
>messages, which is very much a majority.
Your figures are meaningless. My messages for example
show up as MIME in your analysis.
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
You've only looked for a MIME version header, but have
ignored the all telling Content-Type header.
>Now, different
>messages may use different aspects of MIME formatting,
>but it is still MIME, and all properly-written MIME
>parsers will handle it correctly.
A "properly-written MIME parser" for Usenet messages
distributed via NNTP protocols can, and will, quite
correctly toss any message that contains a message body
with other than UTF-8 or US-ASCII. Or it can mangle it.
Or it can substitute a picture of the sender's middle
finger extended.
Keith Keller
On 2007-06-05, Sylvain Robitaille <s...@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote:
>>
>> How many messages use pgp ...?
>
> Slightly under 10%:
>
> : newsflash[syl] ~; grep -rl "^-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----" \
> /news/spool/alt/os/linux/slackware |wc -l
> 26
You may also wish to include posts with the PGP signature in the
headers. I don't recall the exact headers used by my signer, tinews.pl,
but it should be relatively obvious from the headers on this post.
(These numbers don't have a bearing on the current PGPinline/MIME flame
war, though, so maybe your numbers are more appropriate.)
Robert M. Riches Jr.
>
>> I use slrn, and it is apparently not in sync with your idea of how to
>> use MIME and your signatures.
>
> Another SLRN user here, and I'm afraid I may not be seeing the same
> thing as others: I see the "MIME" disclaimer at the top of Sam's
>
> Each group has a slightly different culture, and I think it can be
> argued to be bad form to impose a new form on a newsgroup just because
> you insist on using it. Consider that contrary to the argument you
> posted in followup to Alan Hicks' request, your posts (at least those
> that have made it to AOLS on the news server I use) don't, in fact,
> include any characters not available in the standard ACSII character set.
> If your only intention for using MIME is to make it possible to use
> other character sets, that appears to be lost on the rest of us who are
> reading your posts in plain English ...
Just for the record, I believe it was Sam who responded to
Alan's request and who posts with the MIME signature stuff.
Robert M. Riches Jr.
> This is a MIME GnuPG-signed message. If you see this text, it means that
> your E-mail or Usenet software does not support MIME signed messages.
> The Internet standard for MIME PGP messages, RFC 2015, was published in 1996.
> To open this message correctly you will need to install E-mail or Usenet
> software that supports modern Internet standards.
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="US-ASCII"
> Content-Disposition: inline
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I will admit my lack of familiarity with the many RFCs out
there. However, elsewhere in this thread, multiple other
posters have quite convincingly argued against your position
and your statistics. Based on their arguments, if I find
your MIME signature stuff too annoying, I can solve that by
adding a few lines to my ~/News/Score file.
Robert M. Riches Jr.
> In alt.os.linux.slackware Robert M. Riches Jr. <spamt...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Sam, FWIW, in case you are listening, I'll second Alan's request.
>> I use slrn, and it is apparently not in sync with your idea of how
>> to use MIME and your signatures. Whenever
>
> And what do you have to say about our request that The Coward Hicks
> bury his pgp trash trolling in his headers?
I'm not acquainted with anyone who calls himself "The Coward
Hicks" or with the definition of "pgp trash trolling". I
believe it was someone who calls himself "Sam" who decorates
his postings with a bunch of MIME signature stuff, and
someone who calls himself "Alan Hicks" asked Sam to get rid
of the MIME signature stuff.
>> you post, I see the full text of all your MIME wrapper stuff, and
>> it makes it difficult to see what you're actually saying. There
>> are very few postings in comp.os.linux.misc that have the problem,
>> so I would venture to say it looks to me like your use of MIME
>> stuff is in the minority.
>
> And The Coward Hicks' use of pgp trash trolling is also in the
> minority. Could you please advise The Coward Hicks to bury his pgp
> trash trolling in his headers?
Ditto from above.
> cordially, as always,
My sarcasm detector just started beeping. Hmmm... I wonder
why it's doing that.
Sylvain Robitaille
> You may also wish to include posts with the PGP signature in the
> headers.
A little over 1% (4/288 on the news server I manage)
> I don't recall the exact headers used by my signer, tinews.pl,
"^X-PGP-Sig: " should be a sufficient indicator.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sylvain Robitaille s...@alcor.concordia.ca
Systems and Network analyst Concordia University
r...@biteme.org
> On 2007-06-05, r...@biteme.org <r...@biteme.org> wrote:
>> And what do you have to say about our request that The Coward
>> Hicks bury his pgp trash trolling in his headers?
> I'm not acquainted with anyone who calls himself "The Coward
> Hicks" or with the definition of "pgp trash trolling". I
> believe it was someone who calls himself "Sam" who decorates
> his postings with a bunch of MIME signature stuff, and
> someone who calls himself "Alan Hicks" asked Sam to get rid
> of the MIME signature stuff.
And which of "Alan Hicks" and "Sam" do you think is referred to by
the name, The Coward Hicks?
>> And The Coward Hicks' use of pgp trash trolling is also in the
>> minority. Could you please advise The Coward Hicks to bury his
>> pgp trash trolling in his headers?
> Ditto from above.
And why does it matter whether you know who we mean by The Coward
Hicks? He is a pgp trash troll, by whatever name you wish to call
him. That's a fact. And the issue is not his name - the issue is
the fact that he uses pgp trash trolling. Pgp trash should be
buried in headers. Why don't you ask The Coward to bury his trash
in headers?
cordially, as always,
rm
Res
Hash: SHA1
aww poor widdle roggy is wonly wupset because we make it harder for him
to impersonate us.
the wittle wanka will have to get used to the fact those using pgp
are not going to change just become some little immaterial cocksnap
like him doesn't like it.
On Tue, 5 Jun 2007, r...@biteme.org wrote:
- --
Cheers
Res
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFGZdxzsWhAmSIQh7MRAvlAAKCQIzXLQzfAPnNQABrZ6qKFu9JIjACeOAaL
ujsv7Ucmo+9JIqd/X3gbrs4=
=hsje
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
r...@biteme.org
pgp trash troll delete
> aww poor widdle roggy is wonly wupset because we make it harder
> for him to impersonate us.
If we wanted to impersonate you, and we can't see why we would want
to do that, we would simply impersonate you. Nothing you say or do
could make it easier or harder.
If you think that pgp trash trolling makes it "harder" for somebody
to impersonate you, then you are logically challenged.
> the wittle wanka will have to get used to the fact those using pgp
> are not going to change just become some little immaterial cocksnap
> like him doesn't like it.
We would expect you to change your pgp trash trolling ways out of
consideration for the newsgroup as a whole. Only a tiny percentage
of posters include pgp trash in their messages and signature files.
Why do you think that is?
We'll give you 28 days to think it over and then we'll see if you've
come to your senses in the meantime.
plonk
cordially, as always,
rm
Sam
>
> s...@email-scan.com wrote :
>
>> You don't know what you're talking about. Go read RFC 2015, then we
>> can have an intelligent discussion here, but not before then.
>
> Wrong RFC, check out RFC 3977 instead. Here you'll see that at Usenet
> MIME is restricted to be used to specify the character set of the body.
Section 10.2, from the above document, quote:
Firstly, the use of MIME for article headers and bodies is strongly
recommended.
Get that? "Strongly recommended".
Looks like that if you're using slrn, then, as the saying goes: "sucks to be
you."
Have a nice day.
Sam
> Sam <s...@email-scan.com> wrote:
>>
>>You don't know what you're talking about. Go read RFC
>>2015, then we can have an intelligent discussion here,
>>but not before then.
>
> Your arguments would carry more weight if they cited the
> correct RFC's and other documents. RFC-2015 does not
> pertain to Usenet, and indeed does not even mention it.
>
> Please read RFC-3977 "Network News Transfer Protocol
> (NNTP)".
Okee-dokee. How about this part:
Firstly, the use of MIME for article headers and bodies is strongly
recommended.
?
> "NOTE: This corresponds to the range of octets
> permitted in MIME 8bit data [RFC2045]. Transports
HELLO?????? McFLY!!!!! ANYBODY HOME???
Do you know what "MIME 8 bit data" means?
> ...
>
> "While a charset parameter is defined for this media
> type, most existing software does not understand MIME
> header fields or correctly handle descriptions in a
> variety of charsets. Using a charset of US- ASCII
> where possible is therefore RECOMMENDED; if not
> possible, UTF-8 [RFC3629] SHOULD be used. Regardless
> of the charset used, the constraints of the above
> grammar MUST be met ..."
Uh-huh. Guess what character set I use? Can you say "UTF-8"? I know you
could!
> Currently the only acceptable MIME format is ASCII text
> or UTF-8 or "and ecnoding based on it, such as RFC 2047"
> which must be used for all parts of the article
> generated by the client.
I agree 100%. Now, where's your beef?
>
>>As I've shown, around here 70% of messages are MIME
>>messages, which is very much a majority.
>
> Your figures are meaningless. My messages for example
> show up as MIME in your analysis.
>
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
And they are.
> You've only looked for a MIME version header, but have
> ignored the all telling Content-Type header.
Look! Up there! Up in the sky! Way above your head, it's the contents of
this thread!
The original complaint is that that MIME does not belong on Usenet,
according to the first genius who whined about his buggy newsreader choking
on certain MIME messages. His claim was that "MIME" does not belong
on Usenet, period.
He clearly had no clear understanding of what MIME (without any further
qualifiers) is. Your message meets the 100% definition of a MIME messages,
notwithstanding what actual bits of MIME it carries, so does a crushing
majority of Usenet traffic; and the proportion keeps increasing every year.
>>Now, different
>>messages may use different aspects of MIME formatting,
>>but it is still MIME, and all properly-written MIME
>>parsers will handle it correctly.
>
> A "properly-written MIME parser" for Usenet messages
> distributed via NNTP protocols can, and will, quite
> correctly toss any message that contains a message body
> with other than UTF-8 or US-ASCII.
Ummm, yeah. Now, go find some message of mine with content anything else
encoded NOT in UTF-8, or US-ASCII, and then maybe you'll have a point.
Sam
> I will admit my lack of familiarity with the many RFCs out
> there. However, elsewhere in this thread, multiple other
> posters have quite convincingly argued against your position
> and your statistics. Based on their arguments, if I find
> your MIME signature stuff too annoying, I can solve that by
> adding a few lines to my ~/News/Score file.
Right, spanky. Please don't let your delusions of self-grandeur hit your
ass, on the way out.
Dan C
> Right, spanky. Please don't let your delusions of self-grandeur hit your
> ass, on the way out.
I would recommend that all A.O.L.S. regulars killfile this n00b punk
immediately. Nothing worse than a whiny little chump who thinks he knows
something, when in fact he's a complete moron and a fool, and wrong.
Bugger off, dimwit.
--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
Res
Hash: SHA1
pwoor woger, da try-hard that he be
On Tue, 5 Jun 2007, r...@biteme.org wrote:
- --
Cheers
Res
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFGZfA4sWhAmSIQh7MRAjYmAKClwMqkTH/Y2zXC6tud9OIZkZyixwCeMrhD
OW1Bh0EFs2UZE39rioHEPuM=
=PAcG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Sam
> On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 17:38:28 -0500, Sam wrote:
>
>> Right, spanky. Please don't let your delusions of self-grandeur hit your
>> ass, on the way out.
>
> I would recommend that all A.O.L.S. regulars killfile this n00b punk
> immediately. Nothing worse than a whiny little chump who thinks he knows
> something, when in fact he's a complete moron and a fool, and wrong.
>
> Bugger off, dimwit.
My deepest apologies, sir. I wasn't aware that someone died, and made you
king.
Honest mistake.
CBFalconer
> +Alan Hicks+ writes:
>
... snip useless gubris ...
>
>> MIME is for e-mail.
>
> No, it's not. Not for at least a couple of decades. Welcome to
> the 21st century.
Not so. Take a look at the "Content-Type" header. You can specify
a char-set here. Usenet is a text medium.
--
<http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt>
<http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/423>
<http://www.aaxnet.com/editor/edit043.html>
<http://kadaitcha.cx/vista/dogsbreakfast/index.html>
cbfalconer at maineline dot net
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Sam
> Sam wrote:
>> +Alan Hicks+ writes:
>>
> ... snip useless gubris ...
>>
>>> MIME is for e-mail.
>>
>> No, it's not. Not for at least a couple of decades. Welcome to
>> the 21st century.
>
> Not so. Take a look at the "Content-Type" header. You can specify
> a char-set here. Usenet is a text medium.
Well, we've certainly got another Usenet expert here. Hey, did'ya know I've
got a Content-Type header also, slick? And it also specifies a "char-set"!
Amazing, huh?
CBFalconer
Well, there you are. You can use virtually any language. The
receiving system may or may not be able to display it. Problem
solved.
Dan C
>> Bugger off, dimwit.
> My deepest apologies, sir. I wasn't aware that someone died, and made you
> king.
That's because you're an ignorant n00b, and stupid to boot.
> Honest mistake.
Chris Sorenson
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
Please don't top post. If you must top post please embed your top post
inside your top post headers... ;)
Sylvain Robitaille
> Just for the record, I believe it was Sam who responded to
> Alan's request and who posts with the MIME signature stuff.
Yes; I didn't mean to mis-attribute the text I quoted ...
Guy Macon
Sam <s...@email-scan.com> wrote:
>This is a MIME GnuPG-signed message. If you see this text, it means that
>your E-mail or Usenet software does not support MIME signed messages.
>The Internet standard for MIME PGP messages, RFC 2015, was published in 1996.
>To open this message correctly you will need to install E-mail or Usenet
>software that supports modern Internet standards.
The above claim is demonstrably false. My newsreader displays every
character in the header and body exactly as it is sent from the news
server, and has no trouble "opening this message correctly."
>Well, we've certainly got another Usenet expert here. Hey, did'ya
>know I've got a Content-Type header also, slick? And it also
>specifies a "char-set"! Amazing, huh?
Also untrue. RFC-850 (published in 1987) says:
"A standard USENET message consists of several header lines,
followed by a blank line, followed by the body of the message."
What you think are Content-Type, Content-Disposition and
Content-Transfer-Encoding headers appear after three blank
lines and five lines of illegal-in-headers text, which means
that they aren't headers at all, but are instead part of the body.
Here is how your post looks to a standards-compliant newsreader:
("**REMOVE_THIS**" strings inserted so that all newseaders display
the quoted material without trying to reformat it)
Path: ...!nntp.speakeasy.net!news.speakeasy.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 21:32:10 -0500
References: <11806070...@vasbyt.isdsl.net>
<cone.1180609574....@commodore.email-scan.com>
<COKdnXHHfpZ9Lfnb...@trueband.net>
<cone.1181005531...@commodore.email-scan.com>
<4664CAF9...@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <cone.1181097129....@commodore.email-scan.com>
X-Mailer: http://www.courier-mta.org/cone/
From: Sam <s...@email-scan.com>
X-PGP-KEY: http://www.courier-mta.org/KEYS.bin
Newsgroups: alt.os.linux.slackware,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Can ext2 kernel run ext3 binaries.
Mime-"**REMOVE_THIS**Version: 1.0
Content-"**REMOVE_THIS**Type: multipart/signed;
boundary="=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-26610-1181097129-0009";
micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 21:32:10 -0500
Lines: 45
NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.254.115.190
X-Trace:
sv3-fJUM7e3SpHwuIXwDYpzf/naEsyNeRwxdoCEko5AMZt/It5dFcL+KN5dS2i3Nq2djbL8EcV3Sqb
v3HA3!DxUNlA0NoO0OeoH4kB/ajZFhKVc0jrf+yPbYdeW1ghrYbfoTwwItayarNbbF1FGaCmDDwwaM
m4Qh!+Ve5anqt8bF8lNU7I96Un+76maJv+Jxu/YkHpC9b8J3Q3KY=
X-Complaints-To: ab...@speakeasy.net
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: ab...@speakeasy.net
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint
properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.34
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.os.linux.slackware:235277
comp.os.linux.misc:670836
This is a MIME GnuPG-signed message. If you see this text, it means that
your E-mail or Usenet software does not support MIME signed messages.
The Internet standard for MIME PGP messages, RFC 2015, was published in 1996.
To open this message correctly you will need to install E-mail or Usenet
software that supports modern Internet standards.
-"**REMOVE_THIS**-=_mimegpg-"**REMOVE_THIS**commodore.email-scan.com-26610-118
1097129-0009
Content-"**REMOVE_THIS**Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-"**REMOVE_THIS**Disposition: inline
Content-"**REMOVE_THIS**Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
CBFalconer writes:
-"**REMOVE_THIS**-=_mimegpg-"**REMOVE_THIS**commodore.email-scan.com-26610-118
1097129-0009
Content-"**REMOVE_THIS**Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-"**REMOVE_THIS**Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
-"**REMOVE_THIS**----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQBGZhypx9p3GYHlUOIRAh4lAJ9o/4eZHp9CjjVcRAre38Z6v+LE1ACeKihT
5BFNkuKdAheRwWDgZQrzw6A=
=kfuh
-"**REMOVE_THIS**----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-"**REMOVE_THIS**-=_mimegpg-"**REMOVE_THIS**commodore.email-scan.com-26610-118
1097129-0009--
r...@biteme.org
Guy Macon is only allowed to wear his engineer ring through his
nose? Why is that, you ask? Again, look at http://www.guymacon.com
> The above claim is demonstrably false. My newsreader displays every
> character in the header and body exactly as it is sent from the news
> server, and has no trouble "opening this message correctly."
And yet you won't tell us what your newsreader is, will you, chump?
> Also untrue. RFC-850 (published in 1987) says:
1987?
> "A standard USENET message consists of several header lines,
> followed by a blank line, followed by the body of the message."
Is that when your newsreader was written? Did you and the guys down
at the gym get together to work on it? Did you write it in
assembler? Maybe you used peeks and pokes from applesoft basic?
When are you and the guys down at the gym going to come together?
On a name for your newsreader, that is.
> What you think are Content-Type, Content-Disposition and
> Content-Transfer-Encoding headers appear after three blank lines
> and five lines of illegal-in-headers text, which means that they
> aren't headers at all, but are instead part of the body.
Tell us again about all of your mind-reading "filters" that can
magically drop postings without reading any of the headers or any of
the content.
cordially, as always,
rm
Res
Hash: SHA1
Sorry constable netcop, can I please see your warant card?
and then please show me the section of the netact i break in doing so :)
- --
Cheers
Res
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFGZo3hsWhAmSIQh7MRAiW/AKCydJ4+6Ytc2kjBrAtqNhmzT4wxrgCfU0ze
LgHyG3fptngL8fc63BqpeJY=
=EAIm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Sam
> On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 18:49:49 -0500, Sam wrote:
>
>>> Bugger off, dimwit.
>
>> My deepest apologies, sir. I wasn't aware that someone died, and made you
>> king.
>
> That's because you're an ignorant n00b, and stupid to boot.
How old are you? Sounds like you're still in diapers.
>> Honest mistake.
>
> Bugger off, dimwit.
Make me.
Sam
> Sam <s...@email-scan.com> wrote:
>
>>This is a MIME GnuPG-signed message. If you see this text, it means that
>>your E-mail or Usenet software does not support MIME signed messages.
>>The Internet standard for MIME PGP messages, RFC 2015, was published in 1996.
>>To open this message correctly you will need to install E-mail or Usenet
>>software that supports modern Internet standards.
>
> The above claim is demonstrably false.
Which specific sentence are you referring to? There are several up there,
and if you can narrow down your complaint, a little bit, I think we'll be
able to make some progress here.
> My newsreader displays every
> character in the header and body exactly as it is sent from the news
> server, and has no trouble "opening this message correctly."
It has plenty of trouble. Free clue: modern Internet standards specify that
certain parts of a message should not be displayed, in some situations, or
translated to an alternative character set.
>>Well, we've certainly got another Usenet expert here. Hey, did'ya
>>know I've got a Content-Type header also, slick? And it also
>>specifies a "char-set"! Amazing, huh?
>
> Also untrue. RFC-850 (published in 1987) says:
1987? Is that your definition of "modern"? Hello? Welcome to the 21st
century? Besides, what do you see in big bold letter in the first paragraph
of RFC 820, slick?
It does not specify an Internet standard.
HELLO? McFLY!!!! ANYBODY HOME???
RFC 850 is not an Internet standard, Einstein. I just love arguing Internet
standards with people who just don't understand what they are.
> "A standard USENET message consists of several header lines,
> followed by a blank line, followed by the body of the message."
>
> What you think are Content-Type, Content-Disposition and
> Content-Transfer-Encoding headers appear after three blank
> lines and five lines of illegal-in-headers text, which means
> that they aren't headers at all, but are instead part of the body.
Here's another clue: read RFC 2045, and get back to me, ok?
> Here is how your post looks to a standards-compliant newsreader:
Sorry to confuse you with facts, but your "standards-compliant" newsreader
does not comply with RFC 2045-2048.
Back when Internet's reach was limited to the US, and there weren't all
these pesky furriners posting funny-looking messages with strange characters
in them, rendering raw Usenet message content was passable. But -- and I'll
try to break the news to you gently -- the world has change since 1987. The
Internet is global. People on the Internet communicate in different
languages and character sets, and in other formats. The Internet standards
have changed and adopted to accomodate the modern worlds. That's why the
set of RFCs isn't fixed, and new ones are written every day, and many
But, I guess there are still some fossils who, for reasons only to
themselves, refuse to acknowledge the march of progress, and insist that
they are still living in the world of yesterday, and throw a major temper
tantrum any time they face something they do not understand.
They're not bad people, of course, just pecular in their own little way.
They serve as a useful lesson for others to remember to stay in school, and
keep an open mind, else you'll wind up being one of them.
the_bmac
> Dan C writes:
well that was your first mistake. Dan C is an anencephalic. Killfile him and move on. There's
nothing to see.
Kees Theunissen
> In an effort to provide Sam with a slightly different data set than that
> which he collected, though:
>
> : newsflash[syl] ~; grep -rl "^Mime-Version: " \
> /news/spool/alt/os/linux/slackware |wc -l
> 32
I think you should use grep's -i option if you want to play this fair.
Regards,
Kees.
--
Kees Theunissen.
~kurt
>
> Sorry constable netcop, can I please see your warant card?
> and then please show me the section of the netact i break in doing so :)
It is actually out there somewhere.
Ages ago, I would do the occasional top-post, until I realized why it was a
bad thing. When you go back to the archives, it can be tough to follow a
thread when there is a mix of top and bottom posting. It works out best when
everyone stiks to just one method. Since bottom posting is more flexible, it
wins out.
- Kurt
Floyd L. Davidson
>>> Go read RFC 2015, then we can have an intelligent
>>>discussion here, but not before then.
>>
>> Your arguments would carry more weight if they cited
>>the correct RFC's and other documents.
I guess I should have mentioned that you need to lose
the attitude too, son. The problem is that even the
parts of this discussion you get right (and yes there
are some) are presented in such a way that *nobody*
would take what you say as valid. Citing RFC's that
have nothing to do with Usenet is just one problem. But
your entire method of argumentation is flawed.
>>RFC-2015 does
>>not pertain to Usenet, and indeed does not even
>>mention it. Please read RFC-3977 "Network News
>>Transfer Protocol (NNTP)".
>
>Okee-dokee. How about this part:
>
> Firstly, the use of MIME for article headers and bodies is strongly
> recommended.
>
>?
Do you always take things out of context and expect that
others will not verify your cite? You are insinuating
that RFC-3977 suggests the wide spread use of MIME for
any and every purpose. In fact the text immediately
following your quote begins with the word "However", and
goes on to say that MIME should only be used in *very*
*limited* *ways*. It provides a bulleted list of only 4
items where MIME is appropriately used.
One of those bullets says this:
o The character set of article bodies SHOULD
be indicated in the article headers, and this
SHOULD be done in accordance with MIME.
Your articles to not do that. Instead you use multipart
encoding, which should only be used for included items
from an external source and "MAY" result in a client
ignoring it or a server not even forwarding the article.
>> "NOTE: This corresponds to the range of octets
>> permitted in MIME 8bit data [RFC2045]. Transports
>
>HELLO?????? McFLY!!!!! ANYBODY HOME???
>
>Do you know what "MIME 8 bit data" means?
Hey, two can play your out of context game:
"At present, 8-bit encodings (including UTF-8)
SHOULD NOT be used because they are likely to cause
interoperability problems."
RFC-3977
>> ...
>> "While a charset parameter is defined for this media
>> type, most existing software does not understand MIME
>> header fields or correctly handle descriptions in a
>> variety of charsets. Using a charset of US- ASCII
>> where possible is therefore RECOMMENDED; if not
>> possible, UTF-8 [RFC3629] SHOULD be used. Regardless
>> of the charset used, the constraints of the above
>> grammar MUST be met ..."
>
>Uh-huh. Guess what character set I use? Can you say
>"UTF-8"? I know you could!
o The character set of article bodies SHOULD be
indicated in the article headers, and this SHOULD be
done in accordance with MIME.
RFC-3977
You have no *article* header which indicates the use of
UTF-8. Instead your article header indicates a
multipart MIME encoded message that need not even be
forwarded by a server or presented by a client.
>> Currently the only acceptable MIME format is ASCII text
>> or UTF-8 or "and ecnoding based on it, such as RFC 2047"
>> which must be used for all parts of the article
>> generated by the client.
>
>I agree 100%. Now, where's your beef?
You are not using that format.
>>>As I've shown, around here 70% of messages are MIME
>>>messages, which is very much a majority.
>> Your figures are meaningless. My messages for example
>> show up as MIME in your analysis.
>> MIME-Version: 1.0
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
>And they are.
They are *correctly* formatted. Yours are not.
>> You've only looked for a MIME version header, but have
>> ignored the all telling Content-Type header.
>
>Look! Up there! Up in the sky! Way above your head,
>it's the contents of this thread!
Did you hear the whoosh as that one went over your head?
If you pull it out of that dark place and wipe it off,
you might be able to see the point instead of hear the
whoosh.
>The original complaint is that that MIME does not belong
>on Usenet, according to the first genius who whined
>about his buggy newsreader choking on certain MIME
>messages. His claim was that "MIME" does not belong on
>Usenet, period.
I am not concerned with what the original complaint was,
nor in your distortion of it. Your use of MIME is not
valid and your arguments are logically flawed.
>He clearly had no clear understanding of what MIME
>(without any further qualifiers) is. Your message meets
>the 100% definition of a MIME messages, notwithstanding
>what actual bits of MIME it carries, so does a crushing
>majority of Usenet traffic; and the proportion keeps
>increasing every year.
Exactly. Now, the problem is that *your* articles do
*not* also meet appropriate use standards.
>>>Now, different
>>>messages may use different aspects of MIME formatting,
>>>but it is still MIME, and all properly-written MIME
>>>parsers will handle it correctly.
>> A "properly-written MIME parser" for Usenet messages
>> distributed via NNTP protocols can, and will, quite
>> correctly toss any message that contains a message body
>> with other than UTF-8 or US-ASCII.
>
>Ummm, yeah. Now, go find some message of mine with
>content anything else encoded NOT in UTF-8, or US-ASCII,
>and then maybe you'll have a point.
Here is what your article headers say:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
boundary="=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-6417-1181005531-0001";
micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Here is what they should say:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Or some variation of that acceptable for utf-8.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl...@apaflo.com
Floyd L. Davidson
>Sorry constable netcop, can I please see your warant card?
>and then please show me the section of the netact i break in doing so :)
You are correct that there is no law broken. However,
the *fact* is that top posting is disruptive in a
thread, causes significant irritation to those who you
probably would *most* want to influence with what you
write, and as a result is simply less effective as a
communications tool.
You might as well follow the path to the outhouse, and
talk to yourself along the way.
>On Tue, 5 Jun 2007, Chris Sorenson wrote:
>
>> Res wrote:
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> *yaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn*
>>>
>>
>> Please don't top post. If you must top post please embed your top post
>> inside your top post headers... ;)
>>
>
>--
>Cheers
>Res
Martin Gagnon
And it is more natural to read from top to bottom ... So even if a
thread use *only* top-posing.. you always have to read each section
normally from top to bottom, but you have to move from different people
post from bottom to top, that's a bit clumsy.
!!! siht ekil eb dlouw sgniht
etirw ot yaw lamron eht fi gnitsop pot esu ot retteb eb dluow ti eb yaM
--
Martin
Thomas Overgaard
s...@email-scan.com wrote :
> Section 10.2, from the above document, quote:
>
> Firstly, the use of MIME for article headers and bodies is strongly
> recommended.
>
> Get that? "Strongly recommended".
Quotefucker, you've snipped that part out of context:
"Firstly, the use of MIME for article headers and bodies is strongly
recommended. However, given widely divergent existing practices, an
attempt to require a particular encoding and tagging standard would
be premature at this time. Accordingly, this specification allows
the use of arbitrary 8-bit data in articles subject to the following
requirements and recommendations."
--
Thomas O.
This area is designed to become quite warm during normal operation.
Sylvain Robitaille
> I think you should use grep's -i option if you want to play this fair.
Hrmmm ... good point. I missed that in the original:
: newsflash[syl] ~; grep -rli "^Mime-Version: " \
/news/spool/alt/os/linux/slackware |wc -l
175
: newsflash[syl] ~; ls -1 /news/spool/alt/os/linux/slackware |wc -l
296
: newsflash[syl] ~; bc
bc 1.06
Copyright 1991-1994, 1997, 1998, 2000 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY.
For details type `warranty'.
scale=4
175/296
.5912
: newsflash[syl] ~;
Significantly higher tham my original data point, but also still notably
lower than the OP's >73%.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sylvain Robitaille s...@alcor.concordia.ca
Systems and Network analyst / Newsmaster Concordia University
Sylvain Robitaille
> ...
> RFC 850 is not an Internet standard, Einstein. ...
Sam, I suspect the software you're using to post netnews articles may
truly be misbehaving: it appears to be taking what may otherwise be
strong (perhaps even well thought out and researched) arguments, and
is translating them into arrogant, obnoxious, apparently deliberately
confrontational diatribe, making it look as though you're purposely going
against standards to provoke others into confrontation, thus causing them
to search for evidence that you are indeed going against the standards.
Perhaps if you used different software that didn't filter your thoughts
in such a way as to translate them so, others might be more inclined to
give serious thought to the points you seem to be trying to make.
As I stated in an earlier message Slrn does indeed display your messages
just fine. A simple tap of the space bar gets past the cruft at the top.
I would call it a minor nuisance at worst; certainly not something that
would cause me to seek out different newsreading software, but if you're
finding yourself so consistently needing to defend the way your messages
appear, perhaps the "problem" isn't necessarily with everyone else's
newsreading software? Yours are the only messages I've seen that appear
the way they do, in apprximately 12 years that I've been a regular
reader of netnews. I think that argues towards what is or isn't
"standard".
If you choose to respond to _this_ message in your usual confrontational
manner, don't expect much of a fight from me. I couldn't care less how
you post your messages. I have no emotional (or other) attachment to
this discussion, but I thought it might be worth trying to provide a
little insight.
Guy Macon
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>Here is what [Sam's] article headers say:
>
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: multipart/signed;
> boundary="=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-6417-1181005531-0001";
> micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
>
>Here is what they should say:
>
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
>Or some variation of that acceptable for utf-8.
I believe that I have identified a further problem in addition to
the one Floyd L. Davidson correctly points out above. The
MIME-Version and Content-Type should be *in the headers*. That's
where they are in Floyd's posts. In Sam's posts, they occur after
the first blank line that defines the transition from header to
body. They also occur after several lines of body text that would
be illegal if inserted into a Usenet header.
My newsreader (a highly modified version of WinVN) follows Usenet
standards, and thus correctly flags Floyd's posts as being US-ASCII.
Nothing in the standards says it has to look for Content-Type in
the body, so it is behaving correctly when it flags Sam's posts as
not specifying any Content-Type.
Floyd is seldom wrong, other than his preference for Arctic Tundra
and Native Americans over Los Angeles Palm Trees and Gang Bangers
-- and that's a matter of personal taste... <grin>
(72 degrees F, 30% humidity, light ocean breeze today.
Good weather for inching along the freeway at 3 mph...)
--
Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/>
Guy Macon
Martin Gagnon wrote:
>~kurt wrote:
Spelling error: that should be "eb yaM", not "ebyaM"... :)
"Good idea. See you there!"
"How about during DEFCON?"
"I have to run -- want to do lunch some time?"
"Congratulations! I always knew that girl was going places."
"Great! Debbie just got accepted to MIT."
"Some people are just ineducable. Anyway, how are the kids?
"Uh... hasn't he noticed all the people telling him it's not?"
"I hear you. No, this idiot really thinks it's easier to read."
"Yup. Inconvenience twenty people to save yourself 30 seconds.
"You mean the ones who inconvenience everyone?
"You must be joking. Maybe he is just one of those lazy SOBs?
"He is so dim he thinks that top posting is easier to read!"
"Do tell! What kind of idiot is he?"
"Pretty good, other than working with an idiot."
"Same old same old, yours?"
"How's the job?"
"Yup. Closed it down and makes twice as much selling on the web."
"Can't complain. Did you hear about Jim's store om main street?
"Good, and you?"
"John! How have you been, buddy?"
Guy Macon
Sam wrote:
>RFC 850 is not an Internet standard, Einstein. I just love
>arguing Internet standards with people who just don't
>understand what they are.
We are discussing *USENET* standards. Internet standards don't
apply because Usenet is older than the Internet. The "Inter" in
"Internet" refers to the TCP/IP internetwork protocol that was used
to internetwork UUCP, ARPANET, NSFNet, X.25 and later Fidonet.
>the world has change since 1987. The Internet is global.
>People on the Internet communicate in different languages
>and character sets, and in other formats.
People on *USENET* communicate in plain text. *USENET*
standards apply. The Internet is simply one of many possible
ways to distribute Usenet articles, and was designed so as to
be able to propagate Usenet articles as defined in the Usenet
standards.
Those Usenet standards define the transition between the
header and the body of sent messages. If you don't like
the Usenet standards, get off of Usenet. There are plenty
of World Wide Web based "forums" that will accommodate your
non-standard posts.
r...@biteme.org
>
> I believe that I have identified a further problem in addition to
> the one Floyd L. Davidson correctly points out above. The
> MIME-Version and Content-Type should be *in the headers*. That's
> where they are in Floyd's posts. In Sam's posts, they occur after
> the first blank line that defines the transition from header to
> body. They also occur after several lines of body text that would
> be illegal if inserted into a Usenet header.
Illegal? How do you feel about pgp trash trolling in the signature?
Eh, phat boy?
> My newsreader (a highly modified version of WinVN) follows Usenet
Highly modified. Does this mean that you used debug to change the
title of WinVN to Macon? And that you were high when you did it?
And since we were the only one who asked you what newsreader you
used, why are you telling us? We are filtered out, with yourly
highly complex filtering system, aren't we?
> standards, and thus correctly flags Floyd's posts as being
> US-ASCII. Nothing in the standards says it has to look for
> Content-Type in the body, so it is behaving correctly when it
> flags Sam's posts as not specifying any Content-Type.
Nobody cares whether you think something is running correctly. This
is because nobody has any respect for anything you have to say.
> Floyd is seldom wrong, other than his preference for Arctic Tundra
> and Native Americans over Los Angeles Palm Trees and Gang Bangers
> -- and that's a matter of personal taste... <grin>
In fact, the only time Floyd is wrong is when he disagrees with you!
Right, phat boy?
> (72 degrees F, 30% humidity, light ocean breeze today.
> Good weather for inching along the freeway at 3 mph...)
Too bad you don't have a car. Even worse, you don't have a reason
to go outside, now that you can order, delivered, all the pizza and
Chinese food that you want.
cordially, as always,
rm
r...@biteme.org
>
>>RFC 850 is not an Internet standard, Einstein. I just love
>>arguing Internet standards with people who just don't
>>understand what they are.
>
> We are discussing *USENET* standards. Internet standards don't
> apply because Usenet is older than the Internet.
That's like saying that California law doesn't apply because Federal
law is older.
Duh.
> The "Inter" in "Internet" refers to the TCP/IP internetwork
> protocol that was used to internetwork UUCP, ARPANET, NSFNet, X.25
> and later Fidonet.
And that would be about the only "inter" you have ever experienced,
right phat boy?
>>the world has change since 1987. The Internet is global. People
>>on the Internet communicate in different languages and character
>>sets, and in other formats.
>
> People on *USENET* communicate in plain text. *USENET* standards
> apply. The Internet is simply one of many possible ways to
> distribute Usenet articles, and was designed so as to be able to
> propagate Usenet articles as defined in the Usenet standards.
And when the internet is the one of "many possible ways" (the only
way of any consequence) that USENET is delivered then most certainly
internet standards apply.
> Those Usenet standards define the transition between the header
> and the body of sent messages. If you don't like the Usenet
> standards, get off of Usenet. There are plenty of World Wide Web
> based "forums" that will accommodate your non-standard posts.
Sorry, phat boy, but internet standards trump usenet standards. And
it has been that way for a long time. Or at least as long as usenet
has been delivered over the internet. And if there is a conflict,
why don't you go back to setting up a bbs on your freedos computer.
We'll sure that usenet will be a huge hit with you censoring
everybody's postings.
On those less than frequent occasions, during your five year old job
search, when your hilarious resume actually attracts an interview,
how many personnel types are able to suppress their laughter when
you show up with your "engineer's" ring hanging down from your
nostrils?
cordially, as always,
rm
Res
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 6 Jun 2007, ~kurt wrote:
>> Sorry constable netcop, can I please see your warant card?
>> and then please show me the section of the netact i break in doing so :)
>
> It is actually out there somewhere.
Yes, a lot of people tell me this but in over 15 years NO ONE has
been able to show me where, so I think its all about peoples choices,
don't get me wrong, nrmally I do quote within, and 99% of my posts will
reflect this, however there are times when it's just more appropriate to
top post.
People who comment on several points within emails should definately
never top post, ore so they should elarn to trim their posts to whats
relevant for quotes, but lets fact it, how many really do? SFA thats how
many :)
> thread when there is a mix of top and bottom posting. It works out best when
Bottom posting is just as bad as top posting, actually, no, its worse,
many people will bottom post replies to each other on lists and usenet
and you have to scroll down through several pages just to see their reply
which typically is one or two words, this is far more annoying than top
posters. But most have been doing this even since when fidonet was the
'in-thing', so it doesnt suprise me the same occurs on the internet.
- --
Cheers
Res
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFGZySZsWhAmSIQh7MRAlujAJ9piXI9s2lkpsUGiq0PWRnej9stMQCgjQGF
12y31vtnYqkz6nKs4sY6amc=
=sDkO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Res
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 6 Jun 2007, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> Res <r...@ausics.net> wrote:
>> Sorry constable netcop, can I please see your warant card?
>> and then please show me the section of the netact i break in doing so :)
>
> You are correct that there is no law broken. However,
> the *fact* is that top posting is disruptive in a
> thread, causes significant irritation to those who you
> probably would *most* want to influence with what you
> write, and as a result is simply less effective as a
> communications tool.
See my previous post
- --
Cheers
Res
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFGZyS1sWhAmSIQh7MRAnRyAKCbfA5klQjnBSHQP9lUHoPiyllJXgCdGPD8
hKxTgdYlGuH4JlDzopHl+KI=
=nG1H
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Sam
>
>
>
> Sam wrote:
>
>>RFC 850 is not an Internet standard, Einstein. I just love
>>arguing Internet standards with people who just don't
>>understand what they are.
>
> We are discussing *USENET* standards.
Last time I checked, Usenet was a part of the Internet. You mean it's not,
any more?
> Internet standards don't
> apply because Usenet is older than the Internet.
May I axe you a question: how are you now posting to Usenet? Using the
Internet, specifically NNTP, or via the Carrier Pidgeon Protocol, perhaps?
>>the world has change since 1987. The Internet is global.
>>People on the Internet communicate in different languages
>>and character sets, and in other formats.
>
> People on *USENET* communicate in plain text. *USENET*
> standards apply.
And where can you find these notorious *USENET* standards? Don't point to
RFCs, because those are Internet standards, according to you, and, after
all, Usenet has nothing to do with the Internet.
> Those Usenet standards define the transition between the
> header and the body of sent messages.
No, they don't.
> If you don't like
> the Usenet standards, get off of Usenet.
Sorry, but I did not ask your permission.
> There are plenty
> of World Wide Web based "forums" that will accommodate your
> non-standard posts.
I can say the same thing: if you don't like MIME, get off the Internet, and
find a bunch of dialup BBSes where you can spend as much time as you want,
typing in ASCII, and reminiscing about the good ol' days.
Sam
>>Okee-dokee. How about this part:
>>
>> Firstly, the use of MIME for article headers and bodies is strongly
>> recommended.
>>
>>?
>
> Do you always take things out of context and expect that
> others will not verify your cite?
That's not my cite, slim. Try to keep up. The other dude cited this RFC as
a word of God, and I just pointed out that it doesn't say exactly what he
thinks it says.
> You are insinuating
> that RFC-3977 suggests the wide spread use of MIME for
> any and every purpose. In fact the text immediately
> following your quote begins with the word "However", and
> goes on to say that MIME should only be used in *very*
> *limited* *ways*.
I have this RFC, and that portion, in front of me. Where does it say that,
Einstein? Did you actually bother to try to parse the rest of the text, or
did you just see that this paragraph is followed by an itemized list, then
you turned your brain off right there and assumed that this list enumerates
the only acceptable uses of MIME?
> It provides a bulleted list of only 4
> items where MIME is appropriately used.
Free clue: "following requirements" does not mean "limited to the following
situations only". It's "following requirements" as is "minimum
requirements".
> Your articles to not do that. Instead you use multipart
> encoding, which should only be used for included items
> from an external source
I bet you a 1,000 quatloos you have absolutely no idea what "included items
from an external source" means.
> and "MAY" result in a client
> ignoring it or a server not even forwarding the article.
Unfortunately, it seems that my articles are being forwarded just fine. But
thanks for your concern. I'm so deeply touched.
>>> "NOTE: This corresponds to the range of octets
>>> permitted in MIME 8bit data [RFC2045]. Transports
>>
>>HELLO?????? McFLY!!!!! ANYBODY HOME???
>>
>>Do you know what "MIME 8 bit data" means?
>
> Hey, two can play your out of context game:
What part of that was out of context?
>>Uh-huh. Guess what character set I use? Can you say
>>"UTF-8"? I know you could!
>
> o The character set of article bodies SHOULD be
> indicated in the article headers, and this SHOULD be
> done in accordance with MIME.
> RFC-3977
>
> You have no *article* header which indicates the use of
> UTF-8.
That's because the current article is limited to the US-ASCII subset,
Einstein.
> Instead your article header indicates a
> multipart MIME encoded message that need not even be
> forwarded by a server or presented by a client.
Einstein: please point to any software that I can download, that will
actually do what you say it will do.
Fortunately, people who do write reliable, modern Usenet and E-mail
software, know a little bit more about this topic than you do, and they
actually understand Internet standards, and how to properly parse MIME
content.
>>> Currently the only acceptable MIME format is ASCII text
>>> or UTF-8 or "and ecnoding based on it, such as RFC 2047"
>>> which must be used for all parts of the article
>>> generated by the client.
>>
>>I agree 100%. Now, where's your beef?
>
> You are not using that format.
Yes, I am. Go away and don't come back until you've read RFC 2046.
>>>>As I've shown, around here 70% of messages are MIME
>>>>messages, which is very much a majority.
>>> Your figures are meaningless. My messages for example
>>> show up as MIME in your analysis.
>>> MIME-Version: 1.0
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>>
>>And they are.
>
> They are *correctly* formatted. Yours are not.
Yes, they are. You don't know what you're talking about. Can you point me
to some widely-popular E-mail or Usenet software that you've written, so
that I know that you actually know what you're talking about, from
experience?
>>The original complaint is that that MIME does not belong
>>on Usenet, according to the first genius who whined
>>about his buggy newsreader choking on certain MIME
>>messages. His claim was that "MIME" does not belong on
>>Usenet, period.
>
> I am not concerned with what the original complaint was,
Yes, facts can be quite inconvenient, sometimes.
> nor in your distortion of it. Your use of MIME is not
> valid
I must've missed the memo where you were appointed the King of MIME.
>>what actual bits of MIME it carries, so does a crushing
>>majority of Usenet traffic; and the proportion keeps
>>increasing every year.
>
> Exactly. Now, the problem is that *your* articles do
> *not* also meet appropriate use standards.
Of course they meet every published Internet standard.
>>> A "properly-written MIME parser" for Usenet messages
>>> distributed via NNTP protocols can, and will, quite
>>> correctly toss any message that contains a message body
>>> with other than UTF-8 or US-ASCII.
>>
>>Ummm, yeah. Now, go find some message of mine with
>>content anything else encoded NOT in UTF-8, or US-ASCII,
>>and then maybe you'll have a point.
>
> Here is what your article headers say:
>
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: multipart/signed;
> boundary="=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-6417-1181005531-0001";
> micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
You stopped too soon. Read RFC 2046, then wrap your brain around its
contents, then keep reading until you get to this part:
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Or did you stop at that point, and didn't see this, because you ran out of
memory?
Sam
> I believe that I have identified a further problem in addition to
> the one Floyd L. Davidson correctly points out above. The
> MIME-Version and Content-Type should be *in the headers*. That's
> where they are in Floyd's posts. In Sam's posts, they occur after
> the first blank line that defines the transition from header to
> body.
Stop smoking crack. You've got a bad batch there, and it's making you see
things.
Here's the direct link to my last message, as archived by Google. Hey,
putz, where do you see a MIME-Version and Content-Type after the first blank
line?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.os.linux.slackware/msg/e3b9ef7d263578bc?dmode=source
> My newsreader (a highly modified version of WinVN) follows Usenet
> standards,
If that's what your newsreader shows you, it's got a bug that should be
fixed.
> Nothing in the standards says it has to look for Content-Type in
> the body, so it is behaving correctly when it flags Sam's posts as
> not specifying any Content-Type.
STOP SMOCKING CRACK! Didn't you ever see one of those commercials, where
they fry an egg, and say that it's your brain getting cooked on dope?
Too late for you, it seems.
Sam
>
> s...@email-scan.com wrote :
>
>> Section 10.2, from the above document, quote:
>>
>> Firstly, the use of MIME for article headers and bodies is strongly
>> recommended.
>>
>> Get that? "Strongly recommended".
>
> Quotefucker, you've snipped that part out of context:
>
> "Firstly, the use of MIME for article headers and bodies is strongly
> recommended. However, given widely divergent existing practices, an
> attempt to require a particular encoding and tagging standard would
> be premature at this time. Accordingly, this specification allows
> the use of arbitrary 8-bit data in articles subject to the following
> requirements and recommendations."
Right. Now, as soon as you figure out what it means, you'll be able to get
your high school diploma.
Sam
> As I stated in an earlier message Slrn does indeed display your messages
> just fine.
If by fine, you mean "vomiting junk that should not be seen by a human",
then I guess that it works just fine.
> A simple tap of the space bar gets past the cruft at the top.
That's just slrn. For all other newsreaders, no "tap" is necessary, since
they parse the message correctly, and show it properly.
Robert M. Riches Jr.
> In alt.os.linux.slackware Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote:
>> Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>>
>> I believe that I have identified a further problem in addition to
>> the one Floyd L. Davidson correctly points out above. The
>> MIME-Version and Content-Type should be *in the headers*. That's
>> where they are in Floyd's posts. In Sam's posts, they occur after
>> the first blank line that defines the transition from header to
>> body. They also occur after several lines of body text that would
>> be illegal if inserted into a Usenet header.
>
> Illegal? How do you feel about pgp trash trolling in the signature?
> Eh, phat boy?
>
>> My newsreader (a highly modified version of WinVN) follows Usenet
>
> Highly modified. Does this mean that you used debug to change the
> title of WinVN to Macon? And that you were high when you did it?
It's obvious Mr. Davidson is your intellectual superior by a
very large margin. Please join Dan C in my killfile.
--
Robert Riches
spamt...@verizon.net
(Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)
notbob
> Yes, a lot of people tell me this but in over 15 years.......
Wow, a gen-u-whine RFC piss-off! Don't waste it all on the other
guy's boot. You won't have enough left to wet yourself when you think
you've won one.
nb
r...@biteme.org
> r...@biteme.org <r...@biteme.org> wrote:
>> Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote:
>>> Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>>> I believe that I have identified a further problem in addition to
>>> the one Floyd L. Davidson correctly points out above. The
>>> MIME-Version and Content-Type should be *in the headers*. That's
>>> where they are in Floyd's posts. In Sam's posts, they occur after
>>> the first blank line that defines the transition from header to
>>> body. They also occur after several lines of body text that would
>>> be illegal if inserted into a Usenet header.
>> Illegal? How do you feel about pgp trash trolling in the
>> signature? Eh, phat boy?
>>> My newsreader (a highly modified version of WinVN) follows Usenet
>> Highly modified. Does this mean that you used debug to change the
>> title of WinVN to Macon? And that you were high when you did it?
> It's obvious Mr. Davidson is your intellectual superior by a
> very large margin. Please join Dan C in my killfile.
We were talking to Phat Phuck Macon Bacon. We have trounced poor
Floyd so decisively, so often, that he's just not that much fun any
more.
Try to get your attributions straight. It may in fact be that you
wished to kf Phat Boy Macon Bacon and not us. You just never can
tell...
cordially, as always,
rm
Dave Uhring
> Robert M. Riches Jr. <spamt...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> It's obvious Mr. Davidson is your intellectual superior by a
>> very large margin. Please join Dan C in my killfile.
>
> We were talking to Phat Phuck Macon Bacon. We have trounced poor
> Floyd so decisively, so often, that he's just not that much fun any
> more.
You really are a dumb phuck, aren't you? Responding to someone who has
killfiled you is more than merely stupid.
A Guy Called Tyketto
Hash: SHA1
In alt.os.linux.slackware Dave Uhring <daveu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> You really are a dumb phuck, aren't you? Responding to someone who has
> killfiled you is more than merely stupid.
>
And that is the short definition of rm.
BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email: tyk...@sbcglobal.net
Unix Systems Administrator, | tyk...@ozemail.com.au
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFGZ1cWyBkZmuMZ8L8RAq+zAKDkriCHo6Pdt3fHo+7UbAowocAZeACfZq7r
qkQ9bTxujxPK/+owlbw2lTo=
=vw/p
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Chick Tower
> For every ancient non-MIME client you can name, I'll probably be able to
> name three modern clients that fully support MIME.
Just out of curiosity, Sam, what newsreader do you use? The headers of
your messages don't identify one as far as I can tell.
--
Chick Tower
For e-mail: aols . sent . towerboy AT xoxy . net
r...@biteme.org
Most of the time, when somebody killfiles you, they don't talk about
it. And when they do talk about it, it's seldom the case that you
have been killfiled. Furthermore, in junior's case, we doubt that
he has the technical ability to even construct a killfile,
especially since he is using slrn. Maybe you and he can get
together and find an adult to teach you how to do it?
cordially, as always,
rm
Melissa
> Robert M. Riches Jr. wrote:
>
>> Whenever you post, I see the full text of all your MIME wrapper stuff,
>> and it makes it difficult to see what you're actually saying.
>
> With the installation of Slrn I use, tapping the space bar makes it easy
> to get past that stuff to the real message contents. Perhaps the
> version you're using is different? ;-)
>
Well, at least slrn is handling better than tin. For me, it says "Press
enter to continue" and continues with the next thread whenever I try to
view one of his posts. When I exit tin, it looks from the messages left
as if tin is trying to launch a viewer for his messages, but fails to do
so. At least it would seem I am not missing much by being unable to read
his posts.
Sylvain Robitaille
> Just out of curiosity, Sam, what newsreader do you use? The headers
> of your messages don't identify one as far as I can tell.
It appears to be "cone" (which I admit to never having heard of before
Sam's messages appeared on AOLS ...)
X-Mailer: http://www.courier-mta.org/cone/
Sylvain Robitaille
> If by fine, you mean "vomiting junk that should not be seen by a human",
> then I guess that it works just fine.
I take it that by "junk that should not be seen by a human", you're
referring to the "preamble" to your message, added between the message
headers and the first MIME part boundary delimiter. I take it also that
your "objection" to that part being displayed is based on the following
(quoted from RFC2046):
There appears to be room for additional information prior to the
first boundary delimiter line and following the final boundary
delimiter line. These areas should generally be left blank, and
implementations must ignore anything that appears before the first
boundary delimiter line or after the last one.
NOTE: These "preamble" and "epilogue" areas are generally not used
because of the lack of proper typing of these parts and the lack of
clear semantics for handling these areas at gateways, particularly
X.400 gateways. However, rather than leaving the preamble area
blank, many MIME implementations have found this to be a convenient
place to insert an explanatory note for recipients who read the
message with pre-MIME software, since such notes will be ignored by
MIME-compliant software.
>> A simple tap of the space bar gets past the cruft at the top.
>
> That's just slrn. For all other newsreaders, no "tap" is necessary,
> since they parse the message correctly, and show it properly.
Well I suppose that if multipart messages were to actually catch on
in Netnews, I might decide I care enough about it to look into Slrn's
article displaying code, and seeing if I could reasonably easily whip
together a patch for it. As things are now, it appears to be just your
messages that do this.
An interesting tidbit, just for the point of examining the data:
: newsflash[syl] ~; grep -rli "Content-Type: multipart" \
/news/spool/alt/os/linux/slackware |\
wc -l
17
: newsflash[syl] ~; grep -rli "Content-Type: multipart" \
/news/spool/alt/os/linux |\
wc -l
17
: newsflash[syl] ~; grep -rli "Content-Type: multipart" \
/news/spool/alt/os |\
wc -l
17
Sylvain Robitaille
I wrote:
> An interesting tidbit, just for the point of examining the data:
>
> : newsflash[syl] ~; grep -rli "Content-Type: multipart" \
> /news/spool/alt/os/linux/slackware |\
> wc -l
> 17
> : newsflash[syl] ~; grep -rli "Content-Type: multipart" \
> /news/spool/alt/os/linux |\
> wc -l
> 17
> : newsflash[syl] ~; grep -rli "Content-Type: multipart" \
> /news/spool/alt/os |\
> wc -l
> 17
One more:
: newsflash[syl] ~; grep -rli "Content-Type: multipart" \
/news/spool/alt |\
wc -l
403
It should be noted that our news server doesn not carry any of the
alt.binaries.* (including derivative spellings) groups, so the data I'm
looking at are for only text-beased alt.* newsgroups, and even at that
"only" 1274 of them (that's counted from our active file).
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sylvain Robitaille s...@alcor.concordia.ca
Systems and Network analyst Concordia University
Sylvain Robitaille
> Well, at least slrn is handling better than tin. For me, it says
> "Press enter to continue" and continues with the next thread whenever
> I try to view one of his posts. ...
Hrmmm ... I never did like tin (I admit to having given it no more than
a basic test to assure sane functionality after installing it years ago
on a multi-user system), though it sounds as though in this case tin is
at least _trying_ to process the message (though apparently not trying
to process the parts correctly, since they are simply plain text).
Slrn appears to simply be avoiding the whole mess by not bothering
to try to process it at all, and instead simply displays it as is.
That's the approach I prefer. ;-)
Is Tin using a mailcap file (such as ~/.mailcap) to determine how to
process the parts? If so, perhaps there's something you can adjust
there to make it display these parts correctly?
Keith Keller
On 2007-06-06, Sam <s...@email-scan.com> wrote:
> That's just slrn. For all other newsreaders, no "tap" is necessary, since
> they parse the message correctly, and show it properly.
The problem as I see it is that your posts run counter to the
unofficial guideline, "Be strict in what you emit, and tolerant
in what you accept." That's certainly your prerogative, but
don't expect people to switch newsreaders to accomodate reading
your posts; it's much more likely that you'll simply be killfiled
instead. Only you can decide whether you care about alienating
people who use ''ancient'' news clients; if you are comfortable
with possibly losing these readers, that's your choice.
--keith
--
kkeller...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
see X- headers for PGP signature information
r...@biteme.org
> Well, at least slrn is handling better than tin. For me, it says
> "Press enter to continue" and continues with the next thread
> whenever I try to
Go into your tin setup (shift-M inside of tin) and scroll down to
option "MIME binary content viewer" and erase the default line which
says "/usr/bin/metamail -e -p -m "tin"". Then go down one more
option to where it says "Ask before using MIME viewer" and set at
OFF. Then MIME messages will look essentially the same as all other
messages.
One special feature of this tin setup is that if the pgp trash is
placed in a separate MIME attachment, you won't see it on your
screen. You'll simply see a one-line notification that pgp trash is
present.
Tin is a much, much, better written CLI newsreader than slrn. The
thicker users like slrn because it has a lot of keystroke options.
They think this makes it more powerful. But if you look at the
identities of most of those who use slrn you'll quickly realize that
the moron factor is at work here.
And since the pgp trash trollers almost always use slrn, they are
generally inept and they can't figure out how to place pgp trash in
either the headers or mime attachments where it won't annoy others
and where it is consistent with usenet netiquette. A few of them,
who are competent, can do it, but they would rather annoy others.
And almost all of the competent slrn users are trolls who have been
driven away from this ng.
cordially, as always,
rm
r...@biteme.org
>
>> If by fine, you mean "vomiting junk that should not be seen by a
>> human", then I guess that it works just fine.
>
> I take it that by "junk that should not be seen by a human",
> you're referring to the "preamble" to your message, added between
> the message headers and the first MIME part boundary delimiter. I
> take it also that
If you used a decent newsreader you wouldn't have any problem
displaying his messages. They would appear virtually identical to
all other messages, except that the pgp trash would be hidden as it
is supposed to be and only one line announcing its presence would be
shown.
But you won't. You've got it in your head that the primitive slrn
(which obviously _is_ broken, as Sam points out) is somehow superior
to other CLI newsreaders. Perhaps it beats trn or nn, but that
means nothing.
Sam's use of mime hides the pgp trash, as it is supposed to be hidden,
and keeps the signature at 4 lines or less, as it is supposed to.
The fact that either slrn can't do this, or it is so complex that
none of you can figure out how to get slrn to do this, should tell
you something about your choice of newsreaders. Or at least it
would tell someone who is generally searching for excellence as
opposed to merely extolling the virtues of your subjective and
personal preference.
When was the last version of slrn was released, anyway? Tin is
ongoing.
cordially, as always,
rm
r...@biteme.org
> On 2007-06-06, Sam <s...@email-scan.com> wrote:
>> That's just slrn. For all other newsreaders, no "tap" is
>> necessary, since they parse the message correctly, and show it
>> properly.
> The problem as I see it is that your posts run counter to the
> unofficial guideline, "Be strict in what you emit, and tolerant
> in what you accept." That's certainly your prerogative, but
> don't expect people to switch newsreaders to accomodate reading
> your posts;
Nonsense. We think it reasonable that people try to keep up with
modern technology. The onus is on them to change. We wouldn't be
surprised if the slrn crowd eschews CDs for vinyl LPs.
Why don't you do something useful and give the slrn trash trolls a
lesson on how to hide the pgp trash in their headers?
cordially, as always,
rm
r...@biteme.org
>
>> Well, at least slrn is handling better than tin. For me, it says
>> "Press enter to continue" and continues with the next thread whenever
>> I try to view one of his posts. ...
> Hrmmm ... I never did like tin (I admit to having given it no
> more than a basic test to assure sane functionality after
> installing it years ago on a multi-user system), though it sounds
> as though in this case tin is at least _trying_ to process the
> message (though apparently not trying to process the parts
> correctly, since they are simply plain text). Slrn appears to
> simply be avoiding the whole mess by not bothering to try to
> process it at all, and instead simply displays it as is. That's
> the approach I prefer. ;-)
And this means that your screen gets cluttered with all the pgp
trash?
> Is Tin using a mailcap file (such as ~/.mailcap) to determine how
> to process the parts? If so, perhaps there's something you can
> adjust there to make it display these parts correctly?
With a couple of simple settings from within tin, as we detailed
elsewhere, it will handle the mime text files, flawlessly on its
own. For other mime files, tin does indeed use the mailcap file.
cordially, as always,
rm
Floyd L. Davidson
>Floyd L. Davidson writes:
>
>>>Okee-dokee. How about this part:
>>>
>>> Firstly, the use of MIME for article headers and bodies is strongly
>>> recommended.
>>>
>>>?
>> Do you always take things out of context and expect
>> that
>> others will not verify your cite?
>
>That's not my cite, slim. Try to keep up. The other
Are you awake? It *is* your quote. It *is* out of
context.
You are the one who isn't able "to keep up".
>dude cited this RFC as a word of God, and I just pointed
>out that it doesn't say exactly what he thinks it says.
*I* cited that RFC, and unlike you I didn't try to fake
what it says by grossly dishonest gimmicks like clipping
the context.
>> You are insinuating
>> that RFC-3977 suggests the wide spread use of MIME for
>> any and every purpose. In fact the text immediately
>> following your quote begins with the word "However", and
>> goes on to say that MIME should only be used in *very*
>> *limited* *ways*.
>
>I have this RFC, and that portion, in front of me.
Then what made you assume that nobody else would also
read it, and that we would not *all* know how dishonest
you are?
>Where does it say that, Einstein? Did you actually
>bother to try to parse the rest of the text, or did you
>just see that this paragraph is followed by an itemized
>list, then you turned your brain off right there and
>assumed that this list enumerates the only acceptable
>uses of MIME?
I *read* the list. You should have.
>> It provides a bulleted list of only 4
>> items where MIME is appropriately used.
>
>Free clue: "following requirements" does not mean
>"limited to the following situations only". It's
>"following requirements" as is "minimum requirements".
Oh. I see. You can't read...
In fact, what it is says exactly what you say it does
not.
>> Your articles to not do that. Instead you use multipart
>> encoding, which should only be used for included items
>> from an external source
>
>I bet you a 1,000 quatloos you have absolutely no idea
>what "included items from an external source" means.
Just exactly what it says. Anything you don't type in,
using the client to produce. Instead it is included as
a whole from an external source. For example, from
another file.
A typical example would be spread sheet printouts, jpeg
images, encryption keys...
>> and "MAY" result in a client
>> ignoring it or a server not even forwarding the article.
>
>Unfortunately, it seems that my articles are being
>forwarded just fine. But thanks for your concern. I'm
>so deeply touched.
Are you sure? In fact you have no idea if they are or
not. And as others have described, we are absolutely
certain that there are clients which do not properly
display them.
>>>> "NOTE: This corresponds to the range of octets
>>>> permitted in MIME 8bit data [RFC2045]. Transports
>>>
>>>HELLO?????? McFLY!!!!! ANYBODY HOME???
>>>
>>>Do you know what "MIME 8 bit data" means?
>> Hey, two can play your out of context game:
>
>What part of that was out of context?
All of it.
>>>Uh-huh. Guess what character set I use? Can you say
>>>"UTF-8"? I know you could!
>> o The character set of article bodies SHOULD be
>> indicated in the article headers, and this SHOULD be
>> done in accordance with MIME.
>> RFC-3977
>> You have no *article* header which indicates the use of
>> UTF-8.
>
>That's because the current article is limited to the
>US-ASCII subset, Einstein.
Make up your mind then! Is it UTF-8 or is it US-ASCII?
Regardless, see the quote for what *SHOULD* be, and is not,
in your article headers.
>> Instead your article header indicates a
>> multipart MIME encoded message that need not even be
>> forwarded by a server or presented by a client.
>
>Einstein: please point to any software that I can
>download, that will actually do what you say it will do.
Haven't you noticed that 90% of those MIME messages are
just like mine? And in fact my articles do use MIME to
indicate the character set in the article's headers.
How could you have missed the significance of that being
pointed out to you by how many people now?
>Fortunately, people who do write reliable, modern Usenet
>and E-mail software, know a little bit more about this
>topic than you do, and they actually understand Internet
>standards, and how to properly parse MIME content.
You clearly do not.
>>>> Currently the only acceptable MIME format is ASCII text
>>>> or UTF-8 or "and ecnoding based on it, such as RFC 2047"
>>>> which must be used for all parts of the article
>>>> generated by the client.
>>>
>>>I agree 100%. Now, where's your beef?
>> You are not using that format.
>
>Yes, I am. Go away and don't come back until you've read RFC 2046.
Just as with RFC-2045, there is not one mention of
Usenet in RFC-2046. You really should read these RFC's
before admonishing others about what they say.
(Perhaps I should also point out to you that my Usenet
reader happens to have a little facility built in for
reading RFC's. I type in the RFC number and it either
displays that RFC from my own archive, or informs me
that it is being fetched from the IETF ftp archive, and
of course displays it in a few seconds. Interestingly
enough, I've downloaded 2302 different RFC's to read
at one time or another...)
>>>>>As I've shown, around here 70% of messages are MIME
>>>>>messages, which is very much a majority.
>>>> Your figures are meaningless. My messages for example
>>>> show up as MIME in your analysis.
>>>> MIME-Version: 1.0
>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>>>
>>>And they are.
>> They are *correctly* formatted. Yours are not.
>
>Yes, they are. You don't know what you're talking
>about. Can you point me to some widely-popular E-mail
>or Usenet software that you've written, so that I know
>that you actually know what you're talking about, from
>experience?
Illogical...
>>>The original complaint is that that MIME does not belong
>>>on Usenet, according to the first genius who whined
>>>about his buggy newsreader choking on certain MIME
>>>messages. His claim was that "MIME" does not belong on
>>>Usenet, period.
>> I am not concerned with what the original complaint
>> was,
>
>Yes, facts can be quite inconvenient, sometimes.
Illogical...
>> nor in your distortion of it. Your use of MIME is not
>> valid
>
>I must've missed the memo where you were appointed the King of MIME.
Illogical...
>>>what actual bits of MIME it carries, so does a crushing
>>>majority of Usenet traffic; and the proportion keeps
>>>increasing every year.
>> Exactly. Now, the problem is that *your* articles do
>> *not* also meet appropriate use standards.
>
>Of course they meet every published Internet standard.
It has been demonstrated, by several people in various
ways, that they don't.
>>>> A "properly-written MIME parser" for Usenet messages
>>>> distributed via NNTP protocols can, and will, quite
>>>> correctly toss any message that contains a message body
>>>> with other than UTF-8 or US-ASCII.
>>>
>>>Ummm, yeah. Now, go find some message of mine with
>>>content anything else encoded NOT in UTF-8, or US-ASCII,
>>>and then maybe you'll have a point.
>> Here is what your article headers say:
>> Mime-Version: 1.0
>> Content-Type: multipart/signed;
>> boundary="=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-6417-1181005531-0001";
>> micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
>
>You stopped too soon. Read RFC 2046, then wrap your
>brain around its contents, then keep reading until you
>get to this part:
>
>Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="US-ASCII"
>Content-Disposition: inline
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>Or did you stop at that point, and didn't see this,
>because you ran out of memory?
I actually learned how to read. RFC-2046 does not
mention Usenet at all. As has been shown, RFC-3977 has
the specifics for use of MIME in Usenet articles.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl...@apaflo.com
Floyd L. Davidson
>Guy Macon writes:
>
>> Sam wrote:
>>
>>> RFC 850 is not an Internet standard, Einstein. I
>>> just love arguing Internet standards with people who
>>> just don't understand what they are.
>> We are discussing *USENET* standards.
>
>Last time I checked, Usenet was a part of the Internet.
>You mean it's not, any more?
It *never* was. Are you really that illiterate?
>> Internet standards don't
>> apply because Usenet is older than the Internet.
>
>May I axe you a question: how are you now posting to
>Usenet? Using the Internet, specifically NNTP, or via
>the Carrier Pidgeon Protocol, perhaps?
What has that got to dow which which came first?
You aren't being logical.
>>> the world has change since 1987. The Internet is
>>> global. People on the Internet communicate in
>>> different languages and character sets, and in other
>>> formats.
>> People on *USENET* communicate in plain text. *USENET*
>> standards apply.
>
>And where can you find these notorious *USENET*
>standards? Don't point to RFCs, because those are
>Internet standards, according to you, and, after all,
>Usenet has nothing to do with the Internet.
Are you really *that* illiterate?
See RFC-1036, titled "Standard for Interchange of USENET Messages",
as an example of an RFC defining a Usenet standard. Here's
what the first paragraph says:
This document defines the standard format for the
interchange of network News messages among USENET
hosts. It updates and replaces RFC-850, reflecting
version B2.11 of the News program. This memo is
disributed as an RFC to make this information easily
accessible to the Internet community. It does not
specify an Internet standard. Distribution of this
memo is unlimited.
>> Those Usenet standards define the transition between
>> the header and the body of sent messages.
>
>No, they don't.
You really are that *illiterate*.
Sam
> Sam <s...@email-scan.com> wrote:
>>Floyd L. Davidson writes:
>>
>>>>Okee-dokee. How about this part:
>>>>
>>>> Firstly, the use of MIME for article headers and bodies is strongly
>>>> recommended.
>>>>
>>>>?
>>> Do you always take things out of context and expect
>>> that
>>> others will not verify your cite?
>>
>>That's not my cite, slim. Try to keep up. The other
>
> Are you awake? It *is* your quote. It *is* out of
> context.
>
> You are the one who isn't able "to keep up".
I'll say it slowly for you: the other dude cited that RFC, claiming it said
one thing. Then I pointed to another part of that RFC, which actually said
something else.
See? Wasn't that complicated at all.
>>dude cited this RFC as a word of God, and I just pointed
>>out that it doesn't say exactly what he thinks it says.
>
> *I* cited that RFC, and unlike you I didn't try to fake
> what it says by grossly dishonest gimmicks like clipping
> the context.
Oh, so you were the dufus in question. I really just don't keep track of
all the Internet experts around here. To me they all look alike.
>>> You are insinuating
>>> that RFC-3977 suggests the wide spread use of MIME for
>>> any and every purpose. In fact the text immediately
>>> following your quote begins with the word "However", and
>>> goes on to say that MIME should only be used in *very*
>>> *limited* *ways*.
>>
>>I have this RFC, and that portion, in front of me.
>
> Then what made you assume that nobody else would also
> read it, and that we would not *all* know how dishonest
> you are?
Because that's what happens when you keep beating your wife, and screwing
the family dog.
>>Where does it say that, Einstein? Did you actually
>>bother to try to parse the rest of the text, or did you
>>just see that this paragraph is followed by an itemized
>>list, then you turned your brain off right there and
>>assumed that this list enumerates the only acceptable
>>uses of MIME?
>
> I *read* the list. You should have.
I read it too. And I understood it. You should have at least tried to
understand it, too.
>>> It provides a bulleted list of only 4
>>> items where MIME is appropriately used.
>>
>>Free clue: "following requirements" does not mean
>>"limited to the following situations only". It's
>>"following requirements" as is "minimum requirements".
>
> Oh. I see. You can't read...
The only thing you see is the sharp point on the top of your head.
> In fact, what it is says exactly what you say it does
> not.
There's no such fact whatsoever. You are way over your head, here. Wake me
up when you've actually found Usenet software that does what your fevered
imagination tells you all Usenet software does.
>>> Your articles to not do that. Instead you use multipart
>>> encoding, which should only be used for included items
>>> from an external source
>>
>>I bet you a 1,000 quatloos you have absolutely no idea
>>what "included items from an external source" means.
>
> Just exactly what it says.
I win!
> Anything you don't type in,
> using the client to produce.
What a concise technical description, Einstein.
> Instead it is included as
> a whole from an external source. For example, from
> another file.
Nope, try again.
> A typical example would be spread sheet printouts, jpeg
> images, encryption keys...
Gee, I didn't know all that printed material was flying around the series of
tubes.
>>> and "MAY" result in a client
>>> ignoring it or a server not even forwarding the article.
>>
>>Unfortunately, it seems that my articles are being
>>forwarded just fine. But thanks for your concern. I'm
>>so deeply touched.
>
> Are you sure?
Yup.
> In fact you have no idea if they are or
> not.
I have more ideas today then you will have total, for the rest of your life.
> And as others have described, we are absolutely
> certain that there are clients which do not properly
> display them.
Yeah, and there are also plenty of people around here that are absolutely
certain that the world is flat, and that the moon landing was faked by the
CIA.
>>>>> "NOTE: This corresponds to the range of octets
>>>>> permitted in MIME 8bit data [RFC2045]. Transports
>>>>
>>>>HELLO?????? McFLY!!!!! ANYBODY HOME???
>>>>
>>>>Do you know what "MIME 8 bit data" means?
>>> Hey, two can play your out of context game:
>>
>>What part of that was out of context?
>
> All of it.
Much like everything you post is absolutely horseshit?
>>>>Uh-huh. Guess what character set I use? Can you say
>>>>"UTF-8"? I know you could!
>>> o The character set of article bodies SHOULD be
>>> indicated in the article headers, and this SHOULD be
>>> done in accordance with MIME.
>>> RFC-3977
>>> You have no *article* header which indicates the use of
>>> UTF-8.
>>
>>That's because the current article is limited to the
>>US-ASCII subset, Einstein.
>
> Make up your mind then! Is it UTF-8 or is it US-ASCII?
That doesn't have to be such a big mystery. All you have to do is read the
headers, Einstein. Oh, I forgot. You are completely clueless in that area,
and have no idea what headers are.
>>> Instead your article header indicates a
>>> multipart MIME encoded message that need not even be
>>> forwarded by a server or presented by a client.
>>
>>Einstein: please point to any software that I can
>>download, that will actually do what you say it will do.
>
> Haven't you noticed that 90% of those MIME messages are
> just like mine? And in fact my articles do use MIME to
> indicate the character set in the article's headers.
You can stop your tap-dancing routine, and point me to an example of such
software, that I can download, that actually works according to your twisted
notions of how Usenet software operates.
> How could you have missed the significance of that being
> pointed out to you by how many people now?
Point out to me just one example of Usenet software that behaves like that,
Einstein.
>>Fortunately, people who do write reliable, modern Usenet
>>and E-mail software, know a little bit more about this
>>topic than you do, and they actually understand Internet
>>standards, and how to properly parse MIME content.
>
> You clearly do not.
You're like Paris Hilton accusing someone of having loose morals.
>>>>> Currently the only acceptable MIME format is ASCII text
>>>>> or UTF-8 or "and ecnoding based on it, such as RFC 2047"
>>>>> which must be used for all parts of the article
>>>>> generated by the client.
>>>>
>>>>I agree 100%. Now, where's your beef?
>>> You are not using that format.
>>
>>Yes, I am. Go away and don't come back until you've read RFC 2046.
>
> Just as with RFC-2045, there is not one mention of
> Usenet in RFC-2046.
You see that pile of sand, over there? Feel free to stick your head inside,
I'm sure it will be very comfortable.
> You really should read these RFC's
> before admonishing others about what they say.
You should really implement these RFCs, before spouting off on subjects that
you have no clue of.
> (Perhaps I should also point out to you that my Usenet
> reader happens to have a little facility built in for
> reading RFC's. I type in the RFC number and it either
> displays that RFC from my own archive, or informs me
> that it is being fetched from the IETF ftp archive, and
> of course displays it in a few seconds. Interestingly
> enough, I've downloaded 2302 different RFC's to read
> at one time or another...)
Wow. I'm sure you expect everyone to be impressed by that.
Not.
>>>>>>As I've shown, around here 70% of messages are MIME
>>>>>>messages, which is very much a majority.
>>>>> Your figures are meaningless. My messages for example
>>>>> show up as MIME in your analysis.
>>>>> MIME-Version: 1.0
>>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>>>>
>>>>And they are.
>>> They are *correctly* formatted. Yours are not.
>>
>>Yes, they are. You don't know what you're talking
>>about. Can you point me to some widely-popular E-mail
>>or Usenet software that you've written, so that I know
>>that you actually know what you're talking about, from
>>experience?
>
> Illogical...
If that's your way of saying "Yes, I'm full of crap", then so be it.
>>Yes, facts can be quite inconvenient, sometimes.
>
> Illogical...
Don't be too hard on yourself.
>>> nor in your distortion of it. Your use of MIME is not
>>> valid
>>
>>I must've missed the memo where you were appointed the King of MIME.
>
> Illogical...
You poor dear. Must be so difficult, wondering around, totally without a
clue, and being the Internet's laughing stock.
>>> Exactly. Now, the problem is that *your* articles do
>>> *not* also meet appropriate use standards.
>>
>>Of course they meet every published Internet standard.
>
> It has been demonstrated, by several people in various
> ways, that they don't.
Nobody demonstrated any such thing, except that a bunch of pre-pubescent
children think that they're hot shit just because they managed to install
Slackware, which they think makes them Internet expert.
>>You stopped too soon. Read RFC 2046, then wrap your
>>brain around its contents, then keep reading until you
>>get to this part:
>>
>>Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="US-ASCII"
>>Content-Disposition: inline
>>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>>
>>Or did you stop at that point, and didn't see this,
>>because you ran out of memory?
>
> I actually learned how to read.
Could've fooled me.
> RFC-2046 does not
> mention Usenet at all.
Last time I checked, it mentions "Internet" a lot. Now, that pile of sand
is waiting for you, and it won't be there forever.
> As has been shown, RFC-3977 has
> the specifics for use of MIME in Usenet articles.
And it blesses everything in RFC 2045-2049, but you're just too dumb to
understand that, that's all.
That's ok. Don't feel too bad. Someday, perhaps, you will earn that clue
that you've been desperately seeking. Someday, your offspring will read all
these posts of yours, forever enshrined in Google archives, and immediately
seek a paternity test.
Guy Macon
Sam wrote:
>Last time I checked, Usenet was a part of the Internet.
>You mean it's not, any more?
It never was. Usenet ran just fine before the Internet
was invented, and still runs just fine on a wide variety
of other networks.
Something tells me that you did not, in fact, "check."
--
Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/>
Guy Macon
Sam wrote:
>Sylvain Robitaille writes:
>
>> As I stated in an earlier message Slrn does indeed display
>> your messages just fine.
>
>If by fine, you mean "vomiting junk that should not be seen
>by a human", then I guess that it works just fine.
If you wish your "junk" to not be seen by humans and you are on
Usenet, the correct and standard-compliant way to do that is to
place the "junk" in the headers. You have chosen to put it in
the body and then to demand that every newsreader accomodate your
bad decision to attempt to apply non-Usenet standards to Usenet.
>>A simple tap of the space bar gets past the cruft at the top.
>
>That's just slrn. For all other newsreaders,
Really? *All* other newsreaders? Is the rest of the information
you post as accurate as that bit was?
>no "tap" is necessary, since they parse the message
>correctly, and show it properly.
slrn already parses Usenet articles correctly. slrn already
shows Usenet articles properly.
BTW, I also have no problem scrolling past the extra cruft
that your posts contain, and have no problem with you putting
it in. Like the (far smaller and less annoying) PGP signing,
it doesn't interfere with reading the post on standard
newsreaders. If it bothered me I could easily switch to a
newsreader that has the <blink>*OPTIONAL*</blink> feature of
hiding the added cruft, or I could killfile you.
Guy Macon
Free clue for Sam:
When someone offers a calm, reasoned argument and you respond
by engaging in personal attacks, it does *not* strengthen your
argument or increase the chances of you convincing anyone that
you are right. Rather the opposite, actually.
"Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's
game because they almost always turn out to be -- or to be
indistinguishable from -- self-righteous sixteen-year-olds
possessing infinite amounts of free time."
-Neil Stephenson, _Cryptonomicon_
Floyd L. Davidson
>Floyd L. Davidson writes:
>> Sam <s...@email-scan.com> wrote:
>>>Floyd L. Davidson writes:
>
>I'll say it slowly for you: the other dude cited that
>RFC, claiming it said one thing. Then I pointed to
>another part of that RFC, which actually said something
>else.
>
>See? Wasn't that complicated at all.
Let me spell it for you slowly, lassy.
*I* am the one who cited it. You then quoted a part which
appears to contradict the part that I cited.
The problem of course is that you took one sentence out
of context, where the next sentence makes it abundantly
clear that the restrictions *I* originally verified with
a quote are in fact accurate.
YOU are dishonest.
>Oh, so you were the dufus in question. I really just
>don't keep track of all the Internet experts around
>here. To me they all look alike.
You can't even read the attributes on your own messages,
much less keep track of your dishonest statements. And
you simplied *lied* about what the RFC means.
>>>I have this RFC, and that portion, in front of me.
>>
>> Then what made you assume that nobody else would also
>> read it, and that we would not *all* know how dishonest
>> you are?
>
>Because that's what happens when you keep beating your
>wife, and screwing the family dog.
You should probably cease doing both, and pay more attention
to the details in what you post to Usenet.
...
>> RFC-2046 does not
>> mention Usenet at all.
>
>Last time I checked, it mentions "Internet" a lot. Now,
>that pile of sand is waiting for you, and it won't be
>there forever.
The Internet is not Usenet, nor is Usenet the Internet.
Moreover, RFC-1036 specifically says you are wrong!
Since the Internet format is extensible, extensions
to meet the additional needs of USENET are easily
made within the Internet standard. Therefore, the
rule is adopted that all USENET news messages must
be formatted as valid Internet mail messages,
according to the Internet standard RFC-822. The
USENET News standard is more restrictive than the
Internet standard, placing additional requirements
on each message and forbidding use of certain
Internet features.
RFC-1036, "Standard for USENET Messages"
>> As has been shown, RFC-3977 has
>> the specifics for use of MIME in Usenet articles.
>
>And it blesses everything in RFC 2045-2049, but you're
>just too dumb to understand that, that's all.
That has been shown several times to be incorrect.
RFC-3977, just like RFC-1036, places many restrictions
on Usenet messages that do not exist for other uses
defined by the RFC's that you specify.
Guy Macon
Sam wrote:
>Stop smoking crack. You've got a bad batch there, and it's
>making you see things.
>
>Here's the direct link to my last message, as archived by
>Google. Hey, putz, where do you see a MIME-Version and
>Content-Type after the first blank line?
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.os.linux.slackware/msg/e3b9ef7d263578bc?dmode=source
The first blank line is on line 23, right after line 22
(X-Postfilter: 1.3.34) and line 24 (This is a MIME...).
There is another blank line on line 29. On line 31 there
is a Content-Type line with (Content-Type: text/plain;
format=flowed; charset="US-ASCII"). 31 is a larger number
than 23 or 29, and thus line 31 comes after lines 23 or 29
and thus the Content-Type comes after the first blank line.
I was wrong about the Mime-Version line. I apologize for my
error. It was not intentional. Sorry about that.
--
Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/>
>
>> My newsreader (a highly modified version of WinVN) follows Usenet
>> standards,
>
>If that's what your newsreader shows you, it's got a bug that should be
>fixed.
>
>> Nothing in the standards says it has to look for Content-Type in
>> the body, so it is behaving correctly when it flags Sam's posts as
>> not specifying any Content-Type.
>
>STOP SMOCKING CRACK! Didn't you ever see one of those commercials, where
>they fry an egg, and say that it's your brain getting cooked on dope?
>
>Too late for you, it seems.
>
>
>--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-3463-1181171021-0003
>Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
>
>iD8DBQBGZz1Nx9p3GYHlUOIRAi4nAJ4gC9M+ZqNOQ3Qn+kbJ8sefPf3CXgCfUiqb
>AU442fZQ3Hz9yRjoJdsj/7Y=
>=I0L5
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-3463-1181171021-0003--
Dan C
> But you won't. You've got it in your head that the primitive slrn
> (which obviously _is_ broken, as Sam points out) is somehow superior
> to other CLI newsreaders. Perhaps it beats trn or nn, but that
> means nothing.
It figures that you would agree with this dipshit new n00b in the NG.
Very predictable. Peas in a pod. Clueless, meet Stupid.
> Sam's use of mime hides the pgp trash, as it is supposed to be hidden,
> and keeps the signature at 4 lines or less, as it is supposed to.
You two should get a room and bugger each other off.
--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
r...@biteme.org
> Sam <s...@email-scan.com> wrote:
>>Guy Macon writes:
Floyd and the Phat Phuck in the same thread?
>>> Sam wrote:
>>Last time I checked, Usenet was a part of the Internet. You mean
>>it's not, any more?
> It *never* was. Are you really that illiterate?
Usenet most certainly is a part of the internet, unless you want to
deliberatly redefine internet to exclude it.
>>May I axe you a question: how are you now posting to Usenet?
>>Using the Internet, specifically NNTP, or via the Carrier Pidgeon
>>Protocol, perhaps?
> What has that got to dow which which came first? You aren't being
> logical.
?!? Perhaps you didn't cook that polar bear enough?
>>> People on *USENET* communicate in plain text. *USENET*
>>> standards apply.
>
>>And where can you find these notorious *USENET* standards? Don't
>>point to RFCs, because those are Internet standards, according to
>>you, and, after all, Usenet has nothing to do with the Internet.
> Are you really *that* illiterate?
Bugger off, Floyd. You have nothing to add.
cordially, as always,
rm
r...@biteme.org
>>Last time I checked, Usenet was a part of the Internet. You mean
>>it's not, any more?
> It never was. Usenet ran just fine before the Internet was
> invented, and still runs just fine on a wide variety of other
> networks.
So usenet is potentially part of more than one network. How does
that preclude usenet being a part of the internet?
cordially, as always,
rm
r...@biteme.org
>>Sylvain Robitaille writes:
>>> As I stated in an earlier message Slrn does indeed display
>>> your messages just fine.
>>If by fine, you mean "vomiting junk that should not be seen
>>by a human", then I guess that it works just fine.
> If you wish your "junk" to not be seen by humans and you are on
> Usenet, the correct and standard-compliant way to do that is to
> place the "junk" in the headers. You have chosen to put it in
> the body and then to demand that every newsreader accomodate your
> bad decision to attempt to apply non-Usenet standards to Usenet.
No, a proper newsreader keeps things nicely sorted out. The only
people who include things in the body are the pgp trash trolls.
They could put their pgp in a mime attachment. Or they could put it
in the headers. But they don't. They put it in the body like
childish punks wear rings in their noses. Like you.
>
>>>A simple tap of the space bar gets past the cruft at the top.
>>That's just slrn. For all other newsreaders,
> Really? *All* other newsreaders? Is the rest of the information
> you post as accurate as that bit was?
Your "highly customized WinVN" probably fails on about half the
messages it receives.
>>no "tap" is necessary, since they parse the message
>>correctly, and show it properly.
>
> slrn already parses Usenet articles correctly. slrn already
> shows Usenet articles properly.
Apparently not, or there wouldn't be any squealing. Tin handles
mime flawlessly. slrn does not. That's a fact that any
dispassionate reader of this thread will conclude and your whining
and petty squealing is not going to do anything to change this.
So why don't you bugger off? Or at least lurk until you know enough
about linux and related apps to be able to add something
constructive to any debate?
Remember this, it is _your_ reputation that is being destroyed
everytime you shoot your mouth off. You may be too stupid to
realize this but you can't say that you weren't warned.
cordially, as always,
rm
Floyd L. Davidson
>In alt.os.linux.slackware Floyd L. Davidson <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote:
>> Sam <s...@email-scan.com> wrote:
>>>Last time I checked, Usenet was a part of the Internet. You mean
>>>it's not, any more?
>
>> It *never* was. Are you really that illiterate?
>
>Usenet most certainly is a part of the internet, unless you want to
>deliberatly redefine internet to exclude it.
Try to find *any* definition of either Internet or
Usenet that is all inclusive of the other, idiot.
Usenet was *totally* separate from Usenet for several
years, primarily because to start with the Internet
didn't really exist yet, and for quite some time simply
was not useful as the widespread transport mechanism
that it is today.