reply to:
Paula Murphy
Hi,
I would like my "reply to:" address to be different than my "from:"
address.
I would like to be able to choose the "reply to:" address manually each
time I compose. That way I can reauest information on behalf of someone
and have the information mailed to them without having to forward.
Is this possible?
Thanks,
Neil
Norbert Koch
Paula Murphy writes:
> Is this possible?
Yes ... People, why don't you have a look at the help pages?
s c ^w customized <enter> c Reply-To: my-other-address <enter> e y
Setup Config Search ... Change_Value ... Exit Commit
L8er, norbert.
--
Norbert Koch, DELTA Industrie Informatik GmbH, Fellbach, Germany.
.. I wonder if I ought to tell them about my PREVIOUS LIFE
as a COMPLETE STRANGER?
Peter J King
On 23 Jun 1998, Norbert Koch wrote (to Paula Murphy):
> People, why don't you have a look at the help pages?
>
> s c ^w customized <enter> c Reply-To: my-other-address <enter> e y
>
> Setup Config Search ... Change_Value ... Exit Commit
I've noticed in the short time that I've been reading this newsgroup that
this sort of reply is very common. Do none of the "experts" who reply
like this realise that a) not every Pine user is using the same version?
Many of us are at the mercy of, for example, University Computing
Services, who decide which version we can use; b) not every user has
access to the full Help files (for the same reason). I might add that,
c), it's not always obvious which is the cause of the problem - or if
there's some other cause.
For example, in the version of Pine 3.96 which I'm using, this
setup/config procedure won't work - it appears to be impossible to set a
"Reply-To:" value. If it is possible, it's not in the normal Config
pages, nor in any of the available help pages. The same goes for other
changes raised by other people who've been met with the same, lazy, "why
don't use use the help files" response.
I've been intending to ask about a problem that I've been struggling with
(whose nature will probably be evident from the "From:" line in this
message's header), but I'm not thrilled at the thought of receiving
patronising commands to do what I've already done without success.
Peter J. King
| http://users.ox.ac.uk/~worc0337 |
| Philosophy resources, plus a good |
| deal more - both serious and recreational |
Paul O Bartlett
On Sat, 27 Jun 1998, Peter J King wrote (small excerpt):
> For example, in the version of Pine 3.96 which I'm using, this
> setup/config procedure won't work - it appears to be impossible to set a
> "Reply-To:" value. If it is possible, it's not in the normal Config
> pages, nor in any of the available help pages.
At least on a unix system running Pine, it is possible for a system
administrator to set a system-wide "fixed" Pine configuration file
which in effect prohibits users from doing certain things. I would
have to check to see whether the "fixed" file can prohibit users from
changing individual fields under 'customized-hdrs', but it wouldn't
surprise me if this is possible. In which case you are probably out of
luck. It is policy for some installations to lock users into a box.
Check with your system administrator, help desk, or computing center.
--
Paul <pob...@access.digex.net>
..........................................................
Paul O. Bartlett, P.O. Box 857, Vienna, VA 22183-0857, USA
Finger, keyserver, or WWW for PGP public key
Home Page: http://www.access.digex.net/~pobart
Ken Woods
Install linux/bsd/*nix on your desktop.
Compile and run pine yourself.
Quit whining.
On Sat, 27 Jun 1998, Peter J King wrote:
> On 23 Jun 1998, Norbert Koch wrote (to Paula Murphy):
>
> > People, why don't you have a look at the help pages?
> >
> > s c ^w customized <enter> c Reply-To: my-other-address <enter> e y
> >
> > Setup Config Search ... Change_Value ... Exit Commit
>
> I've noticed in the short time that I've been reading this newsgroup that
> this sort of reply is very common. Do none of the "experts" who reply
> like this realise that a) not every Pine user is using the same version?
> Many of us are at the mercy of, for example, University Computing
> Services, who decide which version we can use; b) not every user has
> access to the full Help files (for the same reason). I might add that,
> c), it's not always obvious which is the cause of the problem - or if
> there's some other cause.
>
> For example, in the version of Pine 3.96 which I'm using, this
> setup/config procedure won't work - it appears to be impossible to set a
> "Reply-To:" value. If it is possible, it's not in the normal Config
> pages, nor in any of the available help pages. The same goes for other
> changes raised by other people who've been met with the same, lazy, "why
> don't use use the help files" response.
>
> I've been intending to ask about a problem that I've been struggling with
> (whose nature will probably be evident from the "From:" line in this
> message's header), but I'm not thrilled at the thought of receiving
> patronising commands to do what I've already done without success.
>
> Peter J. King
>
> | http://users.ox.ac.uk/~worc0337 |
> | Philosophy resources, plus a good |
> | deal more - both serious and recreational |
>
>
>
>
--
Ken Woods
kwoods<at>kens.com
Peter J King
Ken Woods:
I recognise your style; no interest in helping people, you just like to
show how clever you are (and fail miserably in the attempt). Can't you
find some way of compensating for your inadequacy other than making an
unpleasant fool of yourself in public?
PJK
Ken Woods
On Sun, 28 Jun 1998, Peter J King wrote:
> Ken Woods:
>
> I recognise your style; no interest in helping people, you just like to
> show how clever you are (and fail miserably in the attempt). Can't you
> find some way of compensating for your inadequacy other than making an
> unpleasant fool of yourself in public?
No. Now take your lame attempt at a troll and go play in traffic.
Joe Mason
In article <Pine.BSF.3.96.980627...@kens.com>,
Ken Woods <kwo...@kens.com> wrote:
>
>Install linux/bsd/*nix on your desktop.
>Compile and run pine yourself.
>Quit whining.
<snip>
>> For example, in the version of Pine 3.96 which I'm using, this
>> setup/config procedure won't work - it appears to be impossible to set a
>> "Reply-To:" value. If it is possible, it's not in the normal Config
>> pages, nor in any of the available help pages. The same goes for other
>> changes raised by other people who've been met with the same, lazy, "why
>> don't use use the help files" response.
I suspect I'm running the same version of Pine, since mine is 3.96 and it also
doesn't seem possible to set "Reply-To:". The catch is that I AM running it
under Linux, so (being my own sysadmin) I should have access to all of its
features. This is the version that came with Red Hat 5.0, by the way.
Moral of this story: yes, whoever was bitching about reading the man pages was,
in this instance, dead wrong. It's time for you to just admit it, drop the
topic, and quit whining.
Joe
Joe Mason
Joe Mason wrote:
>
> I suspect I'm running the same version of Pine, since mine is 3.96 and it also
> doesn't seem possible to set "Reply-To:". The catch is that I AM running it
> under Linux, so (being my own sysadmin) I should have access to all of its
> features. This is the version that came with Red Hat 5.0, by the way.
Addendum: I just checked the technical reference (which unfortunately is
on my Linux partition, so I can't access it at the moment. I swore
never to boot this OS again, but here I am...)
Anyway, turns out the "custom-headers" list is still there and can be
set in your .pinerc (of course), but its not available from the Setup
menu any more. The ability to alter the From: field (and Repy-To: as
well IIRC) is controlled by a compile-time flag, however, which is off
by default. So in order to change the Reply-To: address, you have to
change the flag and recompile.
I'm not sure whether this will put custom-headers in the Setup menu or
not.
Joe
Norbert Koch
Joe Mason writes:
> Anyway, turns out the "custom-headers" list is still there and can
> be set in your .pinerc (of course), but its not available from the
> Setup menu any more. The ability to alter the From: field (and
> Repy-To: as well IIRC) is controlled by a compile-time flag,
> however, which is off by default. So in order to change the
> Reply-To: address, you have to change the flag and recompile.
Hi!
Afaik, Reply-To: can be set without setting ALLOW_CHANGING_FROM during
compilation. But then, I also run pine on a Linux system, thus the
force is always with me and I'm not sure whether I've set this option,
although I strongly doubt it.
Cheers, norbert.
-
Norbert Koch, DELTA Industrie Informatik GmbH, Fellbach, Germany.
YOW: LOU GRANT froze my ASSETS!!
Sven Guckes
shil...@ermine.ox.ac.uk (Peter J King):
> Do none of the "experts" who reply like this realise that
> a) not every Pine user is using the same version?
> Many of us are at the mercy of, for example, University
> Computing Services, who decide which version we can use;
> b) not every user has access to the full Help files (for the same reason).
> or if there's some other cause.
Well,
a) everyone knows that there are several versions of Pine -
but somehow hardly anyone asks questions here given the info
of his pine version at all. how should we help these people?
should we provide answer for every old and outdated version?
And shouldn't computing services make the latest and greatest software
available to their users instead of exposing them to already fixed bugs?
b) if a user does not have access to the manual or faq
then he shall complain to his admin or get them from the web.
there's no point in posting them here. period.
c) the cause of problems indeed isn't obvious -
especially when the users do not give info.
The FAQ should probably state how to post on the newsgroup, too.
I always suggest to make people post with a Subject line, eg
containing the name of the program - this allows easy scoring.
Subject: [pine] reply-to config
I also suggest to add these words to the post so you'll
know whether the person has actually read them:
check: faq has read the FAQ
check: man read the manual
check: news has searched the usenet database
check: web has searched the web pages
check: faq man news web all of the above
Anyway, if it is not clear from the post that the person
did not *try* to check every source of information available
then why should we try to guess what the problem *could* be?
Sven
--
Sven Guckes guc...@math.fu-berlin.de [960301] | Latest version: Pine-3.96
PINE Info Pages: http://www.math.fu-berlin.de/~guckes/pine/
PINE Home Page : http://www.washington.edu/pine/
PINE check: faq man news robin web
Adam H. Kerman
In article <slrn6pfa65...@rudin.math.fu-berlin.de>,
Sven Guckes <guc...@math.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
>The FAQ should probably state how to post on the newsgroup, too.
>I always suggest to make people post with a Subject line, eg
>containing the name of the program - this allows easy scoring.
> Subject: [pine] reply-to config
How about only listing the executable name if you aren't asking about pine?
Subject: [pico] some complaint about lack of features
>I also suggest to add these words to the post so you'll
>know whether the person has actually read them:
> check: faq has read the FAQ
> check: man read the manual
> check: news has searched the usenet database
> check: web has searched the web pages
> check: faq man news web all of the above
Don't forget a search of the archives of the pine-info mailing list, which has
a separate search engine from the Web pages.
Joachim Achtzehnter
You are the one who is whining. Why don't you just cut it out
and let others have a decent conversation? Nobody forces you
to take part!
Joachim
---
joa...@kraut.bc.ca (http://www.kraut.bc.ca)
joa...@mercury.bc.ca (http://www.mercury.bc.ca)
Ken Woods
The dude was complaining.
I gave him a viable option that would fix his problem.
I don't care if you, or anybody else, doesn't like it.
--
Peter J King
On 29 Jun 1998, Sven Guckes wrote:
> [...]
> Anyway, if it is not clear from the post that the person
> did not *try* to check every source of information available
> then why should we try to guess what the problem *could* be?
Why should you try to answer *anyone*? Presumably because you want to be
helpful (though it's clear that many responders have very different
agendas). If you're only prepared to answer questions expressed in
certain ways, fine - keep quiet. It's not the failure to answer that
concerned me, by the patronising and sometimes insulting tone of those who
*do* answer - and their sometimes false assumptions.
Peter J. King
Robin S. Socha
>> [...] Anyway, if it is not clear from the post that the person did
>> not *try* to check every source of information available then why
>> should we try to guess what the problem *could* be?
> Why should you try to answer *anyone*? Presumably because you want
> to be helpful (though it's clear that many responders have very
> different agendas). If you're only prepared to answer questions
> expressed in certain ways, fine - keep quiet. It's not the failure
> to answer that concerned me, by the patronising and sometimes
> insulting tone of those who *do* answer - and their sometimes false
> assumptions.
A couple of weeks ago, I posted "regulars unite". The gist: the
idiot/regular ratio is shifting towards the former. At the same time,
the number of people to educate themselves before posting is rising
proportionally to the number of brain-dead lusers who want to be
spoon-fed or expect free support. This sucks. If you check the
archives, you will find that there is an unbearable amount of FAQs
being asked. Especially in comparison to, say, comp.mail.mutt or
comp.emacs.gnus.
Granted, pine is a program that is particularly easy to use and
therefore probably better suited for the occasional user than the
aforementioned programs. However, it strikes *me* as odd that so many
"admins" or self-appointed "power users" come here asking sendmail/
procmail/ ... questions. I don't get it. Really.
Problem is: the less they know, the more irritable they get. "Hey, I
*know* what I'm doing - I've done computers for years..." - you know
the story. That sucks, too.
So - there you are: if *nice* and *wise* people like you took over
comp.mail.pine - fine. Start answering questions here. You'll be very
welcome. I regret to inform you that you will not be able to stand the
amount of idiocy you'll face for more than two months without going
into ken/adam/sven/tlj/rss mode. Betcha.
Robin
PS How about getting yourself some sigdashes?
--
Robin S. Socha M.A.
Control Risks Ltd. <http://www.crg.com/>
Adam H. Kerman
In article <Pine.OSF.3.96.980629...@ermine.ox.ac.uk>,
Peter J King <shil...@ermine.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>On 29 Jun 1998, Sven Guckes wrote:
>>Anyway, if it is not clear from the post that the person did not *try* to
>>check every source of information available then why should we try to guess
>>what the problem *could* be?
>Why should you try to answer *anyone*? Presumably because you want to be
>helpful (though it's clear that many responders have very different
>agendas). If you're only prepared to answer questions expressed in
>certain ways, fine - keep quiet.
As you are personally never prepared to answer questions, and are only prepared
to complain about someone who contributes to Usenet and has written several
FAQs, please take your own advice.
You contribute nothing yourself. Complaining about the behavior of others
is damn hypocritical. Shut your mouth till you've written your first FAQ.
Joachim Achtzehnter
In article <m3k960n...@sushi.uni-bonn.de>,
"Robin S. Socha" <r.s...@control-risks.de> wrote:
>
> Start answering questions here. You'll be very
> welcome. I regret to inform you that you will not be able to stand the
> amount of idiocy you'll face for more than two months without going
> into ken/adam/sven/tlj/rss mode. Betcha.
Agree with most of what you said about people who post FAQs without
making an effort to find the answers in the documentation first. But I
strongly disagree with your conclusion that the only possible response
is to emulate the behaviour of the kind of "regulars" who respond with
obnoxious personal attacks.
If a posting makes you angry you always have the option to ignore it. By
responding with foul language and personal attacks these so-called regulars
reveal a lot about themselves, but achieve NOTHING positive and do a lot of
potential damage to the group as a whole.
In more detail: People who made an honest mistake by posting a FAQ, either
because they are true newbies or because of some other reason, may actually
learn from their mistake IF it is politely pointed out to them (in a
posting or via private email). A personal attack and name calling almost
certainly has the opposite effect, people will only notice how obnoxious
the attacker is and overlook their own mistake.
Of course, we all know that no matter what we do, in a non-moderated group,
there will ALWAYS be silly questions about FAQs. Might as well accept it.
Given this, all that is achieved by personal attacks is to make this group
unpleasant for (at least some) reasonable readers. Even if you don't care
about so-called lusers, there is no reason to distroy the "pleasure" for
the whole audience. Not everybody is comfortable with language that
consists mostly of four-letter words. Those that are comfortable with such
language should have the decency of not imposing their culture on others.
Joachim
PS: Some of the postings in this thread seem to imply that only frequent
posters to this group have a right to voice opinions. Perhaps, it is time
for some self-appointed regulars to RTFM about Usenet. One can respond to
questions, especially FAQs, by private email. This, in fact helps to
improve the S/N ratio and is much more productive than all the obnoxious
follow-up postings one sees so often in this group. And even people who
don't participate actively at all, have a right to an opinion (they are
readers after all!), perhaps they are helping people in other groups where
they are experts, while hoping that Pine experts will do the same here.
Joe Mason
In article <vowwa0t...@lamia.delta-ii.de>,
Norbert Koch <n.k...@delta-ii.de> wrote:
>Joe Mason writes:
>
>Afaik, Reply-To: can be set without setting ALLOW_CHANGING_FROM during
>compilation. But then, I also run pine on a Linux system, thus the
>force is always with me and I'm not sure whether I've set this option,
>although I strongly doubt it.
You're right. Bad assumptio on my part. Sorry.
Joe
Al Goldman
Sure. You can either sign as you wan query answered. Or you could
establish on your terminal n number of accounts and post your query
from the account to which you want the answer to go. You might even
make request part of the message.
Alex
Alex Goldman
Lancaster Drive
Sun City Center FL 813/634-5636
sfn...@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us or alex...@juno.com
On Sun, 21 Jun 1998, Paula Murphy wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I would like my "reply to:" address to be different than my "from:"
> address.
> I would like to be able to choose the "reply to:" address manually each
> time I compose. That way I can reauest information on behalf of someone
> and have the information mailed to them without having to forward.
>
> Is this possible?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Neil
>
>
>
Bonvesin de la Riva [bonvicin@humiliati.ripa]
On Sun, 28 Jun 1998, Joe Mason wrote:
> Anyway, turns out the "custom-headers" list is still there and can be
> menu any more. The ability to alter the From: field (and Repy-To: as
> well IIRC) is controlled by a compile-time flag, however, which is off
Uh ?
That does not make much sense, and does not correspond to what happens
in my DU out-of-the-box pine 3.95.
The "ability to alter the From: field" is indeed controlled by a
compile flag, and disabled by default (that makes sense, since changing
From is sort of a forgery ... in fact, even for antispam protection,
I'm using a separate account)
But the "ability to ADD Reply-To: to customized-headers" is totally
another story. First of all you just add this header KEYWORD to your
header, not its content. The content you fill in when you need it.
(I have the keyword, and it comes out blank, and I do not use it
*generally* but only when I want the reply to go to somebody else, or
to me and somebody else, like yesterday I was here with a colleague,
he is PI and me co-I of a collaboration, and we wanted to mail the other
co-Is on his behalf and make sure replies go to the PI).
It won't make sense to forbid people to add that keyword, it's just in
your rights to tell "do not reply to me, but to him"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
nos...@ifctr.mi.cnr.it is a newsreading account used by more persons to
avoid unwanted spam. Any mail returning to this address will be rejected.
Users can disclose their e-mail address in the article if they wish so.
Sylvain Robitaille
> I've noticed in the short time that I've been reading this newsgroup that
> this sort of reply is very common.
Probably has something to do with the frequency that these questions are
asked, but I'm really only speculating. :-/
> Do none of the "experts" who reply like this realise that a) not every
> Pine user is using the same version?
In cases where this is an issue, shouldn't it be up to the poster of the
question to indicate which version of Pine they're using? Just because
people have indicated a willingness to help doesn't mean they should have
to work at it. If you have a question, provide as much pertinent
information as you can.
> Many of us are at the mercy of, for example, University Computing
> Services, who decide which version we can use;
I don't see what the connection is between having a choice of version, and
actually bothering to read available documentation.
> b) not every user has access to the full Help files (for the same
> reason).
Ask your local support staff. Chances are the documentation is on the
system and they can point you to it. In cases where it really *isn't*
available, perhaps you should indicate to the system administrator(s) that
such information could in fact be useful. If all else fails, Pine is
freely available and comes with full documentation.
> c), it's not always obvious which is the cause of the problem - or if
> there's some other cause.
Read the docs. Try things. Chances are you'll stumble across the answer
you seek.
> For example, in the version of Pine 3.96 which I'm using, this
> setup/config procedure won't work - it appears to be impossible to set a
> "Reply-To:" value.
Again, talk to your local support staff. The feature may be disabled on
the installation at your site, though in the case of Reply-To:, I'd be
surprised. I assure you that under "normal" circumstances, this can be
done.
> If it is possible, it's not in the normal Config pages, nor in any of
> the available help pages.
Got to the Setup|Config menu, and put the highlite bar on the
customized-hdrs item. Now press '?'. Surprise! Now do the same for any
other item you find might be interesting. Note that this is context
sensitive.
> The same goes for other changes raised by other people who've been met
> with the same, lazy, "why don't use use the help files" response.
If the answer can be considered lazy because we don't wish to read the
documentation to you, then the question should be considered even more
lazy if you didn't actually read the documentation in the first place.
This documentation was created for a reason.
Most of the people who have been (by your definition) lazy and suggested
that users use available documentation have also given a lot of their own
time to answer these same questions over and over again. Stick around the
group for a while. Answer the questions yourself for a while. You'll see.
> I've been intending to ask about a problem that I've been struggling with
> (whose nature will probably be evident from the "From:" line in this
> message's header), but I'm not thrilled at the thought of receiving
> patronising commands to do what I've already done without success.
I'm afraid you'll have to either check the docs again, or come out and ask
the question, (or live with what you have). There simply isn't anything
evident from:
From: Peter J King <shil...@ermine.ox.ac.uk>
[ obnoxious sig manually deleted ]
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sylvain Robitaille s...@alcor.concordia.ca
Systems Manager Concordia University
Instructional & Information Technology Montreal, Quebec, Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Adam H. Kerman
In article <slrn6prde...@elvira.rodents.montreal.qc.ca>,
Sylvain Robitaille <s...@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote:
>On Sat, 27 Jun 1998 14:08:40 +0100, Peter J King
><shil...@ermine.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>>I've noticed in the short time that I've been reading this newsgroup that
>>this sort of reply is very common.
>Probably has something to do with the frequency that these questions are
>asked, but I'm really only speculating. :-/
[much excellent material deleted]
Your followup was terrific. You made top-notch arguments why an ordinary pine
user should begin by making inquiries of his system administrator and in the
basic documentation that comes with pine.
In fact, slightly rewritten, it would be perfect for an FAQ that should be
posted here on an automated basis. Frequently, maybe weekly, so it never
expires.
Sylvain Robitaille
[ Strange, mut Mr. King's message seems to have vanished from our news
server, or possibly it hasn't gotten here yet, in any case ... ]
On 4 Jul 1998, I wrote:
Syl> Got to the Setup|Config menu, and put the highlite bar on the
Syl> customized-hdrs item. Now press '?'. Surprise! Now do the same for
Syl> any other item you find might be interesting. Note that this is
Syl> context sensitive.
Peter J King replied (both in email and on Usenet, which I find rather
obnoxious. You see, Mr. King, here's how it works: you post to Usenet, I
followup on Usenet, and I will see your further followup on Usenet. I
don't need to see two copies of your message! -- now back to our regularly
scheduled posting ...)
Pjk> Exactly the sort of unpleasant, patronising sarcasm combined with
Pjk> thorough falsity about which I was complaining. There is no
Pjk> customised-hdrs item in my Setup|Config menu. If you'd bothered to
Pjk> read what I said, you'd have known that.
Of course there isn't. I must have made it up just to spite you. In fact
that's what everybody does. We just make things up. Usually we get lucky
and make stuff up that people can use, but it seems this time there was a
glitch.
Now that we've cleared that up, I'll assume that the above is simply a
typo and that you really do know how to spell 'customized', since that
couldn't possibly be the real problem.
I *did* bother to read what you said, (did you?):
Pjk> For example, in the version of Pine 3.96 which I'm using, this
Pjk> setup/config procedure won't work - it appears to be impossible to
Pjk> set a "Reply-To:" value. If it is possible, it's not in the normal
Pjk> Config pages, nor in any of the available help pages. The same
Pjk> goes for other changes raised by other people who've been met with
Pjk> the same, lazy, "why don't use use the help files" response.
Exactly *where* does that indicate that you don't have a 'customized-hdrs'
menu item in the Setup|Config menu? You simply indicate that as far as you
can tell what we're saying isn't true.
If you really *don't* have that menu item, then perhaps you should
complain to your local support staff, instead of whining on this
newsgroup. (Advice I gave in my previous post.) The "normal Config pages"
*do* include this item. As I also mentioned in my previous post, you might
obtain a copy of the Pine distribution and look it over to see for
yourself.
By the way, with a little imagination (and half a clue), you might have
also tried 'default-composer-hdrs'. (If you don't have that one either,
DON'T COMPLAIN TO ME; Contact your local support staff.)
Pjk> You'd also have known that the problem in question wasn't mine - that
Pjk> I was responding to the unpleasant answers to someone else.
That much I knew. You pointed out however, that the help that was provided
would not have worked in your case, and I tried to present possible
suggestions as to how you could deal with that. You seem to have
completely ignored most of my post, and stuck to one small part which you
were unable to read without prejudice. That's too bad.
Pjk> I was merely pointing out that the sarcastiacally, patronisingly
Pjk> expressed answers would have been useless to me, because they made
Pjk> false and patronising assumptions - just as you've done here.
The only assumptions being made, (I'm speaking for myself of course, but
I'd be surprised if I was the only one making these assumptions), is that
the poster a) can read, b) is using a relatively recent version of Pine,
and c) has access to readily available information (such as the Pine web
pages at Washington University).
I make no assumptions regarding an installation being non-standard. In
cases like that, the poster should explain these things rather than simply
whine about the help available on the newsgroup.
Syl> [ obnoxious sig manually deleted ]
Pjk> A three-line, purely informative signature is "obnoxious"?
It's obnoxious not because of its content, but because you refuse to
comply to accepted standards. For what it's worth, my newsreader displays
it regardless, and I even have to manually remove it from followups,
regardless. However, consideration for others would dictate that you
follow established standards, so that people could make use of the
features available on the software of their choice, (features that depend
on these standards, that is.)
Pjk> On no other newsgroup, from no other poster to Usenet or e-mail
Pjk> groups, from *no-one* outside this group have I ever encountered
Pjk> this sort of comment. I wonder if there's not a rather small (and
Pjk> obsessed) sub-culture here?
Perhaps you don't frequent other newsgroups where the norm is to follow
standards. Just because others do (or accept) something, doesn't make it
right. The accepted standard is the use of a separator line before the
signature, and several people in this group have indicated that they would
prefer if you complied with that standard. It's not too much to ask.
Pjk> Why doesn't it surprise me that you're a Systems Manager?
Perhaps because I give of my *own* time to try and help those that truly
have tried to help themselves and ran into problems. Maybe because I'm
willing to share knowledge with those that have indicated a desire to
learn. I'm simply not willing to hold people's hands and read the
documentation to them, and I won't apologize for that.
Pjk> The double-dash, which I'd added to my signature before I really
Pjk> thought about it, has been removed. So you'll have the awful
Pjk> experience of seeing that obnoxious signature again. I hope that it
Pjk> doesn't keep you up at nights or make you wet the bed.
Speaking of "unpleasant, patronising sarcasm combined with thorough
falsity" as well as "false and patronising assumptions". Imagine that. Pot
calls kettle black.
My instinct here of course is to begin hurling insults at you, and point
out how much of a hypocritical asshole you obviously are, but I won't do
that. I won't even simplify it to calling you a jerk, which you clearly
are. No, instead I'll thank you. Thank you for making me appreciate that
we don't have complete fools like you using our systems.
Sylvain Robitaille
On Sat, 4 Jul 1998 22:46:38 +0100, Peter J King <shil...@ermine.ox.ac.uk>
wrote:
> On 4 Jul 1998, Adam H. Kerman poured out some fairly dim invective;
He was straightforward and blunt. I don't see anything wrong with that.
> he either can't read properly, or didn't bother to read what I wrote.
> The latter seems pretty common in this newsgroup.
That's right, Peter. So far it seems that everyone who has followed up to
your postings has done so without first reading them. You're so
misunderstood...
> I assume that he's another Systems Manager or the like.
You obviously have an attitude toward some people, yet these are the same
people you expect to receive help from. Guess what, it doesn't *work* that
way...
> When trying to get help from the University Computing Service, both in
> Oxford and for my account in London, I've frequently encountered
> uninterest, ignorance, and general unhelpfulness. A common response is
> the denial that there's really a problem - which generally means that they
> don't want to be bothered.
I do know one sys-admin at Oxford, and I fail to see how you could have
come about this attitude. He's actually quite a friendly helpful sort. Of
course if you approach them the same way you approached this newsgroup,
you're lucky to have gotten as much as you have. In fact, the same goes
for the help you *have* received on the newsgroup, (though it's been more
in the form of "how not to ask for help" lessons).
> Turning to this newsgroup, I hoped to find a more helpful set of people
> who wanted to help their fellow users.
You came to the right place. Your attitude sucks, that's all.
> Fair enough, my mistake, you win. I'll not bother any further. Any
> further outpourings of witless insult should be sent to me personally for
> appropriate disposal; I shan't be reading the newsgroup again.
Hmf! If you want to see the replies to your postings, you can read them
here. If you don't, that's fine too. See ya!
Sven Guckes
shil...@ermine.ox.ac.uk (Peter J King):
> > [ obnoxious sig manually deleted ]
> A three-line, purely informative signature is "obnoxious"?
No - actually that's one line below the limit. But...
> The double-dash, which I'd added to my signature before I really thought
> about it, has been removed. So you'll have the awful experience of seeing
> that obnoxious signature again. I hope that it doesn't keep you up at
> nights or make you wet the bed.
.. your signature does *not* have sigdashes to delimit it.
Therefore it is not a valid signature.
You might think that this delimiter is a double-dash,
but sorry, no, it's not a double-dash, but dash-dash-space.
Therefore it cannot be dealt with automatically - either
for a nice coloring, nor for an automatic removal. See?
> Peter J. King
>
> | http://users.ox.ac.uk/~worc0337 |
> | Philosophy resources, plus a good |
> | deal more - both serious and recreational |
It looks as if your name is added automatically to your posts, too.
But every automated addition should be part of the signature.
Besides, a signature should always show the name and address first.
But your address is not included in your signature.
Also, your signature has a fair amount of whitespace
which usually does not convey much information.
Neither do "border lines" as you have in your signature.
So how about this version for your signature:
| --
| Peter J. King shil...@ermine.ox.ac.uk
| http://users.ox.ac.uk/~worc0337
| Philosophy resources, plus a good
| deal more - both serious and recreational
Please note that the sigdashes do have a space here and
that I am using '|' to mark the lines as non-flow text,
so they do not get reformatted (for better viewing).
Anyway, for the above reasons,
your signature *is* obnoxious.
Sven
--
Sven Guckes guc...@math.fu-berlin.de | What's in a signature? Be McQ!
AFW Newsgroup: alt.fan.warlord | signatures, sigdashes, sigmockery
AFW Home Page: http://www.math.fu-berlin.de/~guckes/afw/ "If it's McQ then we
AFW Signatures: http://www.math.fu-berlin.de/~guckes/sig/ won't warlord it!"
Sven Guckes
shil...@ermine.ox.ac.uk (Peter J King):
> When trying to get help from the University Computing Service,
> both in Oxford and for my account in London, I've frequently
> encountered uninterest, ignorance, and general unhelpfulness.
> A common response is the denial that there's really a problem -
> which generally means that they don't want to be bothered.
> the same attitude, but with the addition of puerile abuse.
So you found some folks telling you to "man pine" and RTF FAQ. Did you?
I wonder why the people whom you had asked in London and Oxford have
shown "uninterest, ignorance, and general unhelpfulness" towards you..
> Fair enough, my mistake, you win. [...]
> I shan't be reading the newsgroup again.
ok
> I don't know how you can stand the heat,
> but I'm getting out of the kitchen.
Hint: Readers of the FAQ are "cool". ;-)
Sven
--
Sven Guckes guc...@math.fu-berlin.de [960301] | Latest version: Pine-3.96
PINE Info Pages: http://www.math.fu-berlin.de/~guckes/pine/
PINE Home Page : http://www.washington.edu/pine/
PINE Email List: Pine Information <pine...@cac.washington.edu>
Joachim Achtzehnter
In article <slrn6q0iv...@elvira.rodents.montreal.qc.ca>,
s...@alcor.concordia.ca (Sylvain Robitaille) wrote:
>
> Peter J King wrote:
>
> ... customised-hdrs ...
>
> I'll assume that the above is simply a typo and that you really do
> know how to spell 'customized', since that couldn't possibly be the
> real problem.
Yes, he *does* know how to spell. It is usually not a good idea to
start a spelling flame, and this is another good example why.
British English: customise
American English: customize
Judging by your email address you appear to be located in Canada.
It is rather interesting that you are not aware of these distinctions
given that both spellings are acceptable in Canadian English, with the
British version usually being the preferred one.
Joachim
PS: This thread is rather interesting as people on both sides
of the argument seem to have an attitude problem. One side
taking the usual (for this group) "give it to the luser"
approach, the other side claiming that all sys admins are
morons.
Norbert Koch
Joachim Achtzehnter writes:
> Yes, he *does* know how to spell. It is usually not a good idea to
> start a spelling flame, and this is another good example why.
> British English: customise American English: customize
Well Joachim,
in this case, Silvain is right, because Pine dictates American
English. If you start looking for 'customised-hdrs' in Setup/Config
you end up with search hits bottom of file. Thus, this is *not* a
spelling flame, but simply *good*advice*.
> PS: This thread is rather interesting as people on both sides
> of the argument seem to have an attitude problem. One side
> taking the usual (for this group) "give it to the luser"
> approach, the other side claiming that all sys admins are
> morons.
Hmm, I think we should close the group then. If all the regulars are
only telling the rest -> LuSeR, RTFM <- this could be stated at pine
startup. Then again, I don't think this holds true, do you?
Norbert.
--
Norbert Koch, DELTA Industrie Informatik GmbH, Fellbach, Germany.
YOW: I want another RE-WRITE on my CAESAR SALAD!!
Joachim Achtzehnter
Norbert Koch <n.k...@delta-ii.de> writes:
>
> in this case, Silvain is right, because Pine dictates American
> English.
I know how it is spelled in Pine, I am using the feature
myself. Silvain, however, was making a general statement about
spelling, here is the phrase he used: "that you really do know how to
spell 'customized'". Remember: Some people claim to have a Pine
installation where this option doesn't show up! So they can't use Pine
as a reference, and since one of these people is from Oxford in the
UK, you can't blame him for spelling it "correctly" according to his
native language. In any case, I forgot to add a smiley face, my little
digression about cultural differences was not meant to be taken too
seriously :-)
>> PS: This thread is rather interesting as people on both sides
>> of the argument seem to have an attitude problem. One side
>> taking the usual (for this group) "give it to the luser"
>> approach, the other side claiming that all sys admins are
>> morons.
>
> Hmm, I think we should close the group then. If all the regulars are
> only telling the rest -> LuSeR, RTFM <- this could be stated at pine
> startup. Then again, I don't think this holds true, do you?
There is some genuinely helpful advise here and there, and I must
admit I do sense an improvement in general, i.e. some regulars have
obviously toned down their language as of late. Nevertheless, there is
still a lot of room for improvement compared to several other groups I
follow. Perhaps I am just lucky with these other groups? As much as I
can understand people being upset about FAQs being asked again and
again, it is totally unnecessary and counterproductive to flame
back. And why must the whole group see such childish responses? If
somebody really can't control their anger, they can at least use
email, and not bother the whole group. Although, better would be to
just keep quiet.
A case in point was a recent question by some innocent poster who
asked about a forwarding file (which is not a Pine question as we all
know). Instead of just one stupid article we had to put up with a
thread of at least a dozen follow-ups, all containing utter
garbage. You can judge for yourself what motivated people to
participate in that thread the way they did!
Now, this thread here is unusual, in that the other side was behaving
in an equally obnoxious way, if this continues we should certainly
pack it in :-)
Joachim
---
private: joa...@kraut.bc.ca http://www.kraut.bc.ca
work: joa...@mercury.bc.ca http://www.mercury.bc.ca
Ken Woods
>
> admit I do sense an improvement in general, i.e. some regulars have
> obviously toned down their language as of late. Nevertheless, there is
We've been busy in other groups, taking on bigger topics and smarter
lusers.
Don't worry, though, we have not forgotten about good ol' c.m.p.
> still a lot of room for improvement compared to several other groups I
> follow.
According to you --> yes.
According to those of us who know how things really work --> No.
> Perhaps I am just lucky with these other groups? As much as I
Yes, you are.
The world needs more Traviglia, and MUCH less luser.
> can understand people being upset about FAQs being asked again and
> again, it is totally unnecessary and counterproductive to flame
> back.
If you still think it's "totally unnecessary and counterproductive", then
you truly don't understand.
>And why must the whole group see such childish responses? If
Just because.
MAYBE it'll be drilled into their thick skulls to RTF M/FAQ.
> somebody really can't control their anger, they can at least use
> email, and not bother the whole group.
Flaming you is better than me hunting you down, opening your guts and
letting them spill onto the street like a common dog, isn't it??
> Although, better would be to
> just keep quiet.
Yeah, good idea.
Why don't you do that???
--
Ken Woods
kwoods<at>kens.com
Du ma nhieu