Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The "From:" line should contain a website, not an email address.
7 views
Skip to first unread message
Jeff-Relf.Me
Feb 8, 2013, 7:12:32 PM2/8/13
to
The "From:" line should contain a website, not an email address.
If the email address is valid it will be spammed to death.
If it's invalid, then it is itself spam ( which is even worse ).
Google is VERY WRONG to force you ( Hugh⋅Huntzinger )
to have a working email address in your "From:" line.
Their idiocy is beyond belief, way beyond.
If the email address is valid it will be spammed to death.
If it's invalid, then it is itself spam ( which is even worse ).
Google is VERY WRONG to force you ( Hugh⋅Huntzinger )
to have a working email address in your "From:" line.
Their idiocy is beyond belief, way beyond.
-hh
Feb 8, 2013, 8:04:00 PM2/8/13
to
serving business plan of gathering data for the targeted selling of
eyeballs (eg, demographics based advertising).
In any event, regardless of what Google "wants", it is still quite
straightforward to circumvent. For example, when one has your own
domain ($25/year w/privacy), just create a new forwarding address
which redirects all incoming to a real mailbox, and then promptly
after registering with Google and answering their confirmation email,
go back into your domain and change that forwarding address's
forwarding rules. For this last part, there are some alternatives
other than simply sending all incoming straight to the trash bin.
-hh
cipher
Feb 8, 2013, 8:56:07 PM2/8/13
to
On Fri, 08 Feb 2013 17:04:00 -0800, -hh Inscribed upon the Golden Tablets
of Usenet thusly:
Agree.
Relf:
Do a duckduck on "temporary email addresses" You'll find tons of
solutions...
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
)\ ( ) /( Cipher/Proud Member, Netscum Alumni Association
)-(0^^0)-( Bungmunch U./AHM Memorial Institute of F@x0r1n6/Dean
)/ \\// \( Colonel/1st Virginia Volunteers/CeSium Brigade
(oo) Registered Linux User #556617
/ ~~ \ Empire of APDD/#6-5p07/VLNOC Cohort #1407
o@o o@o Keeper of the alt.CeSium FAQ
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
of Usenet thusly:
Relf:
Do a duckduck on "temporary email addresses" You'll find tons of
solutions...
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
)\ ( ) /( Cipher/Proud Member, Netscum Alumni Association
)-(0^^0)-( Bungmunch U./AHM Memorial Institute of F@x0r1n6/Dean
)/ \\// \( Colonel/1st Virginia Volunteers/CeSium Brigade
(oo) Registered Linux User #556617
/ ~~ \ Empire of APDD/#6-5p07/VLNOC Cohort #1407
o@o o@o Keeper of the alt.CeSium FAQ
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jeff-Relf.Me
Feb 8, 2013, 8:56:54 PM2/8/13
to
Again: The "From:" line should contain a website, not an email address. Google is NUTS to require a working email address in the "From:" line. [ They do it because inane RFC's require it, not for money ] I'm not anonymous at all. "Jeff-Relf.ME" is my website. I give everyone who emails me a separate alias, so I can "kill" those who spam me. I'm Jeff Relf in Seattle, 206/458-7644, Early 2013 <M...@Jeff-Relf.ME>. Photo of Me. My voice. Google "Jeff Relf".
Jeff-Relf.Me
Feb 8, 2013, 9:10:29 PM2/8/13
to
Correction ( I borked the HTML ): I'm Jeff Relf in Seattle, 206/458-7644, Early 2013 <M...@Jeff-Relf.ME>. Posting an email address here, in the body of the message, is unlikely to generate spam. When spammers Google for email addresses, "gΞmail" and "YaΞhoo" are the keywords. Besides, Google knows Usenet is nothing like Wikipedia, so they don't index it as if it was. In fact, it's barely indexed at all.
Steve Crook
Feb 9, 2013, 7:59:33 AM2/9/13
to
[Distribution trimmed for reasons of sanity]
On Fri, 08 Feb 2013 16:12:32 -0800 (Seattle), Jeff-Relf.Me wrote in
Message-Id: <Jeff-Relf.Me@Feb.8{4.12.PM.Seattle.2013}>:
> The "From:" line should contain a website, not an email address.
No, the From header should contain an email address. That's not to say
it should be compulsory or that there shouldn't be another header for
specifying a URL but, by definition, From == email.
> If the email address is valid it will be spammed to death.
I use a real email address and it's still alive and kicking.
> Google is VERY WRONG to force you ( Hugh⋅Huntzinger )
> to have a working email address in your "From:" line.
No, it's very right for Google to require a working email address. It
makes the captured data more valuable to their customers. In the world
of Google, customers != users.
> Their idiocy is beyond belief, way beyond.
Their genius is far more beyond belief. Do you suppose there is a
Google Executive on lower earnings than you or I? :)
--
What shall we use
To fill the empty spaces
Where we used to talk?
On Fri, 08 Feb 2013 16:12:32 -0800 (Seattle), Jeff-Relf.Me wrote in
Message-Id: <Jeff-Relf.Me@Feb.8{4.12.PM.Seattle.2013}>:
> The "From:" line should contain a website, not an email address.
it should be compulsory or that there shouldn't be another header for
specifying a URL but, by definition, From == email.
> If the email address is valid it will be spammed to death.
> Google is VERY WRONG to force you ( Hugh⋅Huntzinger )
> to have a working email address in your "From:" line.
makes the captured data more valuable to their customers. In the world
of Google, customers != users.
> Their idiocy is beyond belief, way beyond.
Google Executive on lower earnings than you or I? :)
--
What shall we use
To fill the empty spaces
Where we used to talk?
Ted S.
Feb 9, 2013, 9:13:49 AM2/9/13
to
On Sat, 9 Feb 2013 12:59:33 +0000 (UTC), Steve Crook wrote:
> [Distribution trimmed for reasons of sanity]
Distribution trimmed so you could foist the fucking used-only-by-Relf
> [Distribution trimmed for reasons of sanity]
unicode character on the rest of us.
(This post got through my kill-file thanks to your trimming the number
of NGs below my kill-file's filter, thank you very much.)
--
Ted S.
fedya at hughes dot net
Now blogging at http://justacineast.blogspot.com
Steve Crook
Feb 9, 2013, 1:15:19 PM2/9/13
to
On Sat, 9 Feb 2013 09:13:49 -0500, Ted S. wrote in
Message-Id: <vu2u2ee3cde4$.d...@justacineast.motzarella.org>:
> On Sat, 9 Feb 2013 12:59:33 +0000 (UTC), Steve Crook wrote:
>
>> [Distribution trimmed for reasons of sanity]
>
> Distribution trimmed so you could foist the fucking used-only-by-Relf
> unicode character on the rest of us.
>
> (This post got through my kill-file thanks to your trimming the number
> of NGs below my kill-file's filter, thank you very much.)
Counting the groups in the Newsgroups header is a less than optimal
solution for filtering out unwanted Unicode.
Message-Id: <vu2u2ee3cde4$.d...@justacineast.motzarella.org>:
> On Sat, 9 Feb 2013 12:59:33 +0000 (UTC), Steve Crook wrote:
>
>> [Distribution trimmed for reasons of sanity]
>
> Distribution trimmed so you could foist the fucking used-only-by-Relf
> unicode character on the rest of us.
>
> (This post got through my kill-file thanks to your trimming the number
> of NGs below my kill-file's filter, thank you very much.)
solution for filtering out unwanted Unicode.
Message has been deleted
Jeff-Relf.Me
Feb 9, 2013, 7:29:05 PM2/9/13
to
To Google, Usenet is just a hobby, not a profit center.
If it actually made money, Microsoft and Yahoo would join in.
Randomly, someone at Google liked Usenet.
Google's management doesn't care about Usenet's "From:" line.
Usenet is obscure, RFCs are outdated... no one is at helm.
Who do I complain to ? who cares ? no one.
Again, Posts are like emails, but different.
it WILL get spammed ( I know ) and non⋅working email addresses
are even worse because they are themselves spam, proper spam.
If it actually made money, Microsoft and Yahoo would join in.
Randomly, someone at Google liked Usenet.
Google's management doesn't care about Usenet's "From:" line.
Usenet is obscure, RFCs are outdated... no one is at helm.
Who do I complain to ? who cares ? no one.
Again, Posts are like emails, but different.
The "From:" line should contain a website, not an email address.
"From:" shouldn't contain a working email address because
it WILL get spammed ( I know ) and non⋅working email addresses
are even worse because they are themselves spam, proper spam.
andrew
Feb 9, 2013, 8:25:29 PM2/9/13
to
["Followup-To:" header set to news.software.readers.]
address, for the most part this will not be harvested.
Andrew
--
Do you think that's air you're breathing?
On 2013-02-10, Jeff-Relf.Me <> wrote:
> "From:" shouldn't contain a working email address because
> it WILL get spammed ( I know ) and non⋅working email addresses
> are even worse because they are themselves spam, proper spam.
There is always the option of using a Reply-To field with a real
> "From:" shouldn't contain a working email address because
> it WILL get spammed ( I know ) and non⋅working email addresses
> are even worse because they are themselves spam, proper spam.
address, for the most part this will not be harvested.
Andrew
--
Do you think that's air you're breathing?
Jeff-Relf.Me
Feb 9, 2013, 10:13:47 PM2/9/13
to
I don't want to publish a working email address in the header, Andrew.
Google Groups requires a working email address in the "From:" line.
That, and inane RFC's, blow my mind.
People complain about it, that's how this thread got started.
Here, Hugh⋅Huntzinger in "Comp.OS.Linux.Advocacy" complains:
0918b594-56c8-47bc...@j4g2000vby.googlegroups.com
Others agreed with him, over in "Comp.OS.Linux.Advocacy".
[ COLA regulars seldom cross⋅post ]
Obviously, no one is listening to them.
Google Groups requires a working email address in the "From:" line.
That, and inane RFC's, blow my mind.
People complain about it, that's how this thread got started.
Here, Hugh⋅Huntzinger in "Comp.OS.Linux.Advocacy" complains:
0918b594-56c8-47bc...@j4g2000vby.googlegroups.com
Others agreed with him, over in "Comp.OS.Linux.Advocacy".
[ COLA regulars seldom cross⋅post ]
Obviously, no one is listening to them.
Ted S.
Feb 9, 2013, 10:54:41 PM2/9/13
to
On Sat, 09 Feb 2013 10:58:08 -0800, There's Howard Hughes in China Blue
Suede Shoes wrote:
> Killfiling relf is highly effective to rid of unicode.
Oh, I've got Relf in the kill-file, and have direct responses to him in
the kill-file too. But he changed the format of his M-IDs *again* (they
are malformed, aren't they?), and the thread was being killed because it
was being cross-posted to several groups.
Unicode itself isn't necessarily a problem; it's the use of that one
particular character to replace a hyphen that screws things up. It only
seems to by present in a tiny number of fonts, and Relf's use of it
causes Dialog's header list pane to have to use a font that brings
Dialog to a screeching halt.
Suede Shoes wrote:
> Killfiling relf is highly effective to rid of unicode.
Oh, I've got Relf in the kill-file, and have direct responses to him in
the kill-file too. But he changed the format of his M-IDs *again* (they
are malformed, aren't they?), and the thread was being killed because it
was being cross-posted to several groups.
Unicode itself isn't necessarily a problem; it's the use of that one
particular character to replace a hyphen that screws things up. It only
seems to by present in a tiny number of fonts, and Relf's use of it
causes Dialog's header list pane to have to use a font that brings
Dialog to a screeching halt.
Nadegda
Feb 9, 2013, 11:22:38 PM2/9/13
to
On Sat, 09 Feb 2013 22:54:41 -0500, Ted S. wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Feb 2013 10:58:08 -0800, There's Howard Hughes in China Blue
> Suede Shoes wrote:
>
>> Killfiling relf is highly effective to rid of unicode.
>
> Oh, I've got Relf in the kill-file, and have direct responses to him in
> the kill-file too. But he changed the format of his M-IDs *again* (they
> are malformed, aren't they?), and the thread was being killed because it
> was being cross-posted to several groups.
>
> Unicode itself isn't necessarily a problem; it's the use of that one
> particular character to replace a hyphen that screws things up. It only
> seems to by present in a tiny number of fonts, and Relf's use of it
> causes Dialog's header list pane to have to use a font that brings
> Dialog to a screeching halt.
I'm fairly sure his M⋅IDs are not RFC⋅compliant. The part right of the @
> On Sat, 09 Feb 2013 10:58:08 -0800, There's Howard Hughes in China Blue
> Suede Shoes wrote:
>
>> Killfiling relf is highly effective to rid of unicode.
>
> Oh, I've got Relf in the kill-file, and have direct responses to him in
> the kill-file too. But he changed the format of his M-IDs *again* (they
> are malformed, aren't they?), and the thread was being killed because it
> was being cross-posted to several groups.
>
> Unicode itself isn't necessarily a problem; it's the use of that one
> particular character to replace a hyphen that screws things up. It only
> seems to by present in a tiny number of fonts, and Relf's use of it
> causes Dialog's header list pane to have to use a font that brings
> Dialog to a screeching halt.
sign is not a syntactically-valid domain name (whether existent or
unregistered).
As for the dot character, maybe you should switch to a newsreader that
works.
<snicker>
Shmuel Metz
Feb 10, 2013, 1:28:34 PM2/10/13
to
In <chine.bleu-171A9...@news.eternal-september.org>, on
02/09/2013
at 10:58 AM, There's Howard Hughes in China Blue Suede Shoes
There's nothing wrong with an article that uses properly encoded
Unicode. The poster in question, of cource, does note believe in MIME
and prefers to post articles that violate RFC 5536, but that's not the
fault of Unicode.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spam...@library.lspace.org
02/09/2013
at 10:58 AM, There's Howard Hughes in China Blue Suede Shoes
There's nothing wrong with an article that uses properly encoded
Unicode. The poster in question, of cource, does note believe in MIME
and prefers to post articles that violate RFC 5536, but that's not the
fault of Unicode.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spam...@library.lspace.org
Shmuel Metz
Feb 10, 2013, 1:33:40 PM2/10/13
to
In <201302101...@skamandros.andrews-corner.org>, on 02/10/2013
permissible in From.
>There is always the option of using a Reply-To field with a real
>address, for the most part this will not be harvested.
What's wrong with putting contact information in your sig?
at 12:25 PM, andrew <and...@skamandros.invalid> said:
>["Followup-To:" header set to news.software.readers.]
>On 2013-02-10, Jeff-Relf.Me <> wrote:
>> "From:" shouldn't contain a working email address because
>> it WILL get spammed ( I know ) and non working email addresses
>> are even worse because they are themselves spam, proper spam.
As ususal he has it wrong; any address with a TLD of invalid is
>["Followup-To:" header set to news.software.readers.]
>On 2013-02-10, Jeff-Relf.Me <> wrote:
>> "From:" shouldn't contain a working email address because
>> it WILL get spammed ( I know ) and non working email addresses
>> are even worse because they are themselves spam, proper spam.
permissible in From.
>There is always the option of using a Reply-To field with a real
>address, for the most part this will not be harvested.
Shmuel Metz
Feb 10, 2013, 1:36:29 PM2/10/13
to
In <fkewixcufv31$.d...@justacineast.motzarella.org>, on 02/09/2013
figured out what a BOM is and when it is appropriate?
at 10:54 PM, "Ted S." <fe...@hughes.spam> said:
>Unicode itself isn't necessarily a problem; it's the use of that one
>particular character to replace a hyphen that screws things up.
Has he stopped using unencoded Unicode? In particular, has he finally
>Unicode itself isn't necessarily a problem; it's the use of that one
>particular character to replace a hyphen that screws things up.
figured out what a BOM is and when it is appropriate?
Message has been deleted
Shmuel Metz
Feb 13, 2013, 6:20:26 AM2/13/13
to
In <1ky3ar4.1b5r0ic1dr2dseN%sn...@spambin.fsnet.co.uk>, on 02/10/2013
at 06:52 PM, sn...@spambin.fsnet.co.uk (Sn!pe) said:
>I've been posting with <sn...@spambin.fsnet.co.uk> as my From:
>address for many years now and it rarely gets more than three or
>four unfiltered spam emails per day that require manual review.
I get that much on an address that I haven't used for a decade,
although that was harvested from From rather than Reply-To. I'd rather
not use reply to because some people have a propensity to send
duplicate replies - one to e-mail and one to news, so I'd rather that
they had to actually do some typing to reply via e-mail.
at 06:52 PM, sn...@spambin.fsnet.co.uk (Sn!pe) said:
>I've been posting with <sn...@spambin.fsnet.co.uk> as my From:
>address for many years now and it rarely gets more than three or
>four unfiltered spam emails per day that require manual review.
I get that much on an address that I haven't used for a decade,
although that was harvested from From rather than Reply-To. I'd rather
not use reply to because some people have a propensity to send
duplicate replies - one to e-mail and one to news, so I'd rather that
they had to actually do some typing to reply via e-mail.
Message has been deleted
Shmuel Metz
Feb 14, 2013, 9:57:47 PM2/14/13
to
In <1ky8d0m.9zxqvn1rpk75N%sn...@spambin.fsnet.co.uk>, on 02/13/2013
at 12:25 PM, sn...@spambin.fsnet.co.uk (Sn!pe) said:
>Annoyingly, new style Google Groups [spit] interprets the presence
>of a Reply-To: address as a request for a copy by email.
Reply-To: ab...@google.com, webm...@google.com
at 12:25 PM, sn...@spambin.fsnet.co.uk (Sn!pe) said:
>Annoyingly, new style Google Groups [spit] interprets the presence
>of a Reply-To: address as a request for a copy by email.
Reply-To: ab...@google.com, webm...@google.com
Steve Bonine
Feb 15, 2013, 8:36:11 AM2/15/13
to
On 2/14/13 8:57 PM, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
> Reply-To: ab...@google.com, webm...@google.com
Gives a whole new meaning to the phrase, "Wasting time on Usenet."
> Reply-To: ab...@google.com, webm...@google.com
Gives a whole new meaning to the phrase, "Wasting time on Usenet."
Thufir Hawat
Feb 16, 2013, 4:50:00 AM2/16/13
to
On Sat, 09 Feb 2013 16:29:05 -0800, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> "From:" shouldn't contain a working email address because it WILL get
> spammed ( I know ) and non⋅working email addresses are even worse
> because they are themselves spam, proper spam.
From should use an FQDN:
> "From:" shouldn't contain a working email address because it WILL get
> spammed ( I know ) and non⋅working email addresses are even worse
> because they are themselves spam, proper spam.
"...each message sent, mail or news, must have a unique Message-ID. If
the Message-ID is not unique, because you use the same host name as
somebody else..."
http://www.leafnode.org/doc_en/README-FQDN.html
If everyone had message id's like:
Message-ID: <Jeff-Relf.Me@Feb.9{4.29.PM.Seattle.2013}>
then, conceivably, there could be collisions. Which is why you should
use a FQDN. You don't need a "website" or domain, FQDN's are free. It
should be something like:
Message-ID: <j204v9-...@dur.bounceme.net>
where the FQDN is yours, or registered to you, or something. I'm sure
there's a rfc on this, somewhere.
Your headers are odd, FWIW. What's your client? Don't know why you'd
obfuscate your client but that's your business. Or maybe X.HTM means
something...website of some sort? .xhtml? .xml? Dunno.
User-Agent: Jeff-Relf.Me/X.HTM
Weird.
-Thufir
Thufir Hawat
Feb 16, 2013, 5:00:57 AM2/16/13
to
On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 01:50:00 -0800, Thufir Hawat wrote:
> If everyone had message id's like:
>
> Message-ID: <Jeff-Relf.Me@Feb.9{4.29.PM.Seattle.2013}>
Somehow your message-id is backwards, presumably your client is
> If everyone had message id's like:
>
> Message-ID: <Jeff-Relf.Me@Feb.9{4.29.PM.Seattle.2013}>
misconfigured. I'm curious as to how you configured it to cause that.
I didn't realize that jeff-relf.me was your FQDN, pardon about that.
-Thufir
Jeff-Relf.Me
Feb 16, 2013, 5:52:05 AM2/16/13
to
You ( Thufir Hawat ) told me: ＜＜
Somehow your message-id is backwards,
presumably your client is misconfigured.
I'm curious as to how you configured it to cause that. ＞＞
My "Message-ID:" lines are MASSIVELY UNIQUE simply because
no one else makes them like I do, nor would they ever.
The Visual C++ source code for my newsreader: http://Jeff-Relf.Me/X.CPP
I wrote it myself, every line.
Somehow your message-id is backwards,
presumably your client is misconfigured.
My "Message-ID:" lines are MASSIVELY UNIQUE simply because
no one else makes them like I do, nor would they ever.
The Visual C++ source code for my newsreader: http://Jeff-Relf.Me/X.CPP
I wrote it myself, every line.
Sir Gregory Hall, Esq·
Feb 16, 2013, 11:58:41 AM2/16/13
to
"Jeff-Relf.Me" <@.> wrote in
message news:Jeff-R...@Feb.16{2.52.AM.Seattle.2013}...
occasions, Jeff.
Isn't Thufir a character in Frank Herbert's "Dune?"
message news:Jeff-R...@Feb.16{2.52.AM.Seattle.2013}...
> You ( Thufir Hawat ) told me: <<
>>
>> Somehow your message-id is backwards,
>> presumably your client is misconfigured.
>> I'm curious as to how you configured it to cause that. >>
>
> My "Message-ID:" lines are MASSIVELY UNIQUE simply because
> no one else makes them like I do, nor would they ever.
I've copied them (your MID) too a tee on a couple different
>>
>> Somehow your message-id is backwards,
>> presumably your client is misconfigured.
>> I'm curious as to how you configured it to cause that. >>
>
> My "Message-ID:" lines are MASSIVELY UNIQUE simply because
> no one else makes them like I do, nor would they ever.
occasions, Jeff.
Isn't Thufir a character in Frank Herbert's "Dune?"
Michael Moroney
Feb 16, 2013, 12:02:50 PM2/16/13
to
that's the way he likes it. To him, they're "features" and won't get
fixed.
Jeff-Relf.Me
Feb 16, 2013, 2:43:01 PM2/16/13
to
One can MANUALLY copy/alter my "Message-ID:" line, of course.
I meant: No newsreader generates them like I do.
Yes, "Thufir⋅Hawat" is a Dune character.
Is this really his email address ? ! :
Thufir Hawat <Hawat....@gMail.COM>
He's a FireFox/X11/Ubuntu/shawCable user in Vancouver BC.
I meant: No newsreader generates them like I do.
Yes, "Thufir⋅Hawat" is a Dune character.
Is this really his email address ? ! :
Thufir Hawat <Hawat....@gMail.COM>
He's a FireFox/X11/Ubuntu/shawCable user in Vancouver BC.
Thufir Hawat
Feb 16, 2013, 2:55:49 PM2/16/13
to
On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 17:02:50 +0000, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Jeff wrote his own news client, that's how. It's riddled with bugs, but
> that's the way he likes it. To him, they're "features" and won't get
> fixed.
Wow, this is just like a USENET exchange of old, some massively stupid
> Jeff wrote his own news client, that's how. It's riddled with bugs, but
> that's the way he likes it. To him, they're "features" and won't get
> fixed.
flame war.
-Thufir
Jeff-Relf.Me
Feb 16, 2013, 3:02:40 PM2/16/13
to
I don't know about you ( "Thufir" ) but I've been discussing
the format of the "From:" and "Message-ID:" lines, not flaming.
the format of the "From:" and "Message-ID:" lines, not flaming.
Sir Gregory Hall, Esq·
Feb 16, 2013, 3:13:01 PM2/16/13
to
"Jeff-Relf.Me" <@.> wrote in message
news:Jeff-R...@Feb.16{11.43.AM.Seattle.2013}...
> One can MANUALLY copy/alter my "Message-ID:" line, of course.
> I meant: No newsreader generates them like I do.
>
> Yes, "Thufir?Hawat" is a Dune character.
> I meant: No newsreader generates them like I do.
>
>
> Is this really his email address ? ! :
>
> Thufir Hawat <Hawat....@gMail.COM>
Looks legit to me.
> Is this really his email address ? ! :
>
> Thufir Hawat <Hawat....@gMail.COM>
> He's a FireFox/X11/Ubuntu/shawCable user in Vancouver BC.
Thufir Hawat
Feb 16, 2013, 3:22:46 PM2/16/13
to
On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 11:58:41 -0500, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq· wrote:
>> My "Message-ID:" lines are MASSIVELY UNIQUE simply because no one else
>> makes them like I do, nor would they ever.
"In order to conform to RFC-822, the Message-ID must have the format:
>> My "Message-ID:" lines are MASSIVELY UNIQUE simply because no one else
>> makes them like I do, nor would they ever.
<unique@full_domain_name>"
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1036
Your message-id's do not have correct format, they're inverted.
-Thufir
kensi
Feb 16, 2013, 3:45:11 PM2/16/13
to
On 16/02/2013 5:52 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> My "Message-ID:" lines are MASSIVELY UNIQUE simply because
> no one else makes them like I do, nor would they ever.
Admission that nobody sane would want to, noted, ko0ky.
> My "Message-ID:" lines are MASSIVELY UNIQUE simply because
> no one else makes them like I do, nor would they ever.
*snicker*
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"A clue, a clue. My kingdom for a clue!!!!" ~Gweggles,
in an uncommon moment of self-awareness.
Jeff-Relf.Me
Feb 16, 2013, 3:55:12 PM2/16/13
to
RFCs are often outdated and just plain wrong.
Again, the "From:" line should be a website, not an email address.
Putting a working email address there is stupid, it'll get spammed.
A non⋅working address is even WORSE, it's crazy spam.
The "Message-ID:" line should NOT look like an email address;
ad it should be human readable, like mine, not just unique.
The header should be raw UTF⋅8, not US⋅ASCII + encoded words.
World⋅Class newsreaders/email⋅clients sniff out the charset.
Again, the "From:" line should be a website, not an email address.
Putting a working email address there is stupid, it'll get spammed.
A non⋅working address is even WORSE, it's crazy spam.
The "Message-ID:" line should NOT look like an email address;
ad it should be human readable, like mine, not just unique.
The header should be raw UTF⋅8, not US⋅ASCII + encoded words.
World⋅Class newsreaders/email⋅clients sniff out the charset.
Message has been deleted
andrew
Feb 16, 2013, 5:47:01 PM2/16/13
to
["Followup-To:" header set to news.software.readers.]
On 2013-02-16, Jeff-Relf.Me <> wrote:
> The "Message-ID:" line should NOT look like an email address;
> ad it should be human readable, like mine, not just unique.
You might be interested in the macro I use for slrn which also inserts a
> The "Message-ID:" line should NOT look like an email address;
> ad it should be human readable, like mine, not just unique.
'random' number with the format:
YYYYMMDDh...@subdomain.hostname
where xyz is the random number. The create_msg_id.sl macro can be seen
on this page:
http://slrn.sourceforge.net/macros.html
Jeff-Relf.Me
Feb 16, 2013, 5:55:04 PM2/16/13
to
I neither need nor want randomness in my "Message-ID:" line,
Andrew.
I never post twice within the same minute, so this is enough:
Jeff-R...@Feb.16{2.52.AM.Seattle.2013}
[ i.e. 2:52 AM, Seattle time, February 16th ]
Andrew.
I never post twice within the same minute, so this is enough:
Jeff-R...@Feb.16{2.52.AM.Seattle.2013}
[ i.e. 2:52 AM, Seattle time, February 16th ]
andrew
Feb 16, 2013, 8:20:38 PM2/16/13
to
but after some discussion with others he agreed with the idea of a
guarantee of extra 'uniqueness' with a random 3 digit number. In part it
was also to see if it could be done :)
Jeff-Relf.Me
Feb 16, 2013, 10:38:56 PM2/16/13
to
You ( Andrew ) might appreciate my scoring system;
god knows no one else does, seriously.
Screenshot: http://Jeff-Relf.Me/X.Cola.PNG
"Score File": http://Jeff-Relf.Me/Nyms.HTM
Example results ( rankings ): http://Jeff-Relf.Me/Cola_Regs.HTM
god knows no one else does, seriously.
Screenshot: http://Jeff-Relf.Me/X.Cola.PNG
"Score File": http://Jeff-Relf.Me/Nyms.HTM
Example results ( rankings ): http://Jeff-Relf.Me/Cola_Regs.HTM
Joshua Cranmer 🐧
Feb 17, 2013, 12:01:41 AM2/17/13
to
On 2/16/2013 2:55 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> Again, the "From:" line should be a website, not an email address.
Not everyone who uses NNTP or email has a website. Very nearly everyone
> Again, the "From:" line should be a website, not an email address.
who does use it has an email address.
> Putting a working email address there is stupid, it'll get spammed.
spammed at the intolerable rate of about 1 message per day. When I had
exactly 0 working spam filters.
> A non⋅working address is even WORSE, it's crazy spam.
route on the internet.
> The "Message-ID:" line should NOT look like an email address;
> ad it should be human readable, like mine, not just unique.
they're trying to debug a problem with a mail/news client.
> The header should be raw UTF⋅8, not US⋅ASCII + encoded words.
actually welcome the day that everyone supports RFC 6532. The advantage
of seeing RFC 2047-encoded text is that it indicates that someone is
intelligent enough to give you proper charset data. Without it, you have
to guess what charset people are using, since it's not always UTF-8. As
other messages in this thread very clearly show.
[1] That is why I included the emoji in my From header. I'm curious to
know how reliable non-BMP characters are in the real world, having
discovered that the system I'm working with is too happy to split up a
UTF-16 into two surrogate characters in a nominally UTF-8 stream.
--
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not
tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth
Jeff-Relf.Me
Feb 17, 2013, 1:26:36 AM2/17/13
to
Why put a working email address into the "From:" line
and then filter out anyone foolish enough to use it ?
Everyone has a web page, it's called "FaceBook".
If I didn't have "Jeff-Relf.Me", I'd use "facebook.com/jeff.relf.75".
I don't want to see ".Invalid" a thousand times a day, it's spam.
⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅
Near as I can tell, you can't use "Message/Global" ( RFC 6532 )
with "Text/HTML"; you have to use one or the other, not both,
and "Content-Type: multipart/whatever" is crap, I won't use it.
World⋅Class clients ( e.g. ThunderBird and gMail ) sniff out the charset.
It works, so I use it. Outdatee/Parochial clients can't do it,
but I don't care about those guys.
⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅
I don't know about you, Joshua⋅Cranmer⋅🐧,
but I look at "Message-ID:" lines all the time.
At a glance, it tells me how advanced the user is.
⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅
Amazingly, my newsreader ( Jeff-Relf.Me/X.HTM ) and
editor ( Visual Studio ) let me see the Pinguin ( U+1F427, 🐧 )
in your "From:" line, Joshua⋅Cranmer.
Google⋅Groups/Firefix also shows it; see:
http://groups.google.com/group/news.software.nntp/msg/ebe950bed46933d6
and then filter out anyone foolish enough to use it ?
Everyone has a web page, it's called "FaceBook".
If I didn't have "Jeff-Relf.Me", I'd use "facebook.com/jeff.relf.75".
I don't want to see ".Invalid" a thousand times a day, it's spam.
⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅
Near as I can tell, you can't use "Message/Global" ( RFC 6532 )
with "Text/HTML"; you have to use one or the other, not both,
and "Content-Type: multipart/whatever" is crap, I won't use it.
World⋅Class clients ( e.g. ThunderBird and gMail ) sniff out the charset.
It works, so I use it. Outdatee/Parochial clients can't do it,
but I don't care about those guys.
⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅
I don't know about you, Joshua⋅Cranmer⋅🐧,
but I look at "Message-ID:" lines all the time.
At a glance, it tells me how advanced the user is.
⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅
Amazingly, my newsreader ( Jeff-Relf.Me/X.HTM ) and
editor ( Visual Studio ) let me see the Pinguin ( U+1F427, 🐧 )
in your "From:" line, Joshua⋅Cranmer.
Google⋅Groups/Firefix also shows it; see:
http://groups.google.com/group/news.software.nntp/msg/ebe950bed46933d6
Message has been deleted
Richard Kettlewell
Feb 17, 2013, 4:48:35 AM2/17/13
to
Joshua Cranmer 🐧 <Pidg...@verizon.invalid> writes:
> [1] That is why I included the emoji in my From header. I'm curious to
> know how reliable non-BMP characters are in the real world, having
> discovered that the system I'm working with is too happy to split up a
> UTF-16 into two surrogate characters in a nominally UTF-8 stream.
That particular form of idiocy seems to have acquired the name CESU-8,
> [1] That is why I included the emoji in my From header. I'm curious to
> know how reliable non-BMP characters are in the real world, having
> discovered that the system I'm working with is too happy to split up a
> UTF-16 into two surrogate characters in a nominally UTF-8 stream.
incidentally.
http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr26/
--
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
Steve Crook
Feb 17, 2013, 8:02:17 AM2/17/13
to
On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 12:55:12 -0800 (Seattle), Jeff-Relf.Me wrote in
Message-Id: <Jeff-R...@Feb.16{0.55.PM.Seattle.2013}>:
> RFCs are often outdated and just plain wrong.
RFCs are frequently outdated but that doesn't make them wrong. RFCs
enable software developers to write applications that can interact with
each other, regardless of the application internals or the language
they're written in. The Usenet you use today is totally compatible with
the Usenet of ten years ago. The people responsible for writing the
RFCs take great care to ensure they don't break that long-term
compatibility.
You like to push the boundaries of Usenet with things like UTF-8 headers
and HTML. There's really nothing wrong with that until it escapes into
the wild with no RFC to define how it's supposed to work. There are
nasty names for applications that behave badly in their interaction with
others.
In summary: Don't be constrained by the RFCs, they are there to aid
development, not hinder it. If you think beyond the RFCs then propose
revisions to make them better. The worst approach is to think that's
just too much like hard work and expecting everybody else to accept your
ways as the new, undocumented, standard.
--
What shall we use
To fill the empty spaces
Where we used to talk?
Message-Id: <Jeff-R...@Feb.16{0.55.PM.Seattle.2013}>:
> RFCs are often outdated and just plain wrong.
enable software developers to write applications that can interact with
each other, regardless of the application internals or the language
they're written in. The Usenet you use today is totally compatible with
the Usenet of ten years ago. The people responsible for writing the
RFCs take great care to ensure they don't break that long-term
compatibility.
You like to push the boundaries of Usenet with things like UTF-8 headers
and HTML. There's really nothing wrong with that until it escapes into
the wild with no RFC to define how it's supposed to work. There are
nasty names for applications that behave badly in their interaction with
others.
In summary: Don't be constrained by the RFCs, they are there to aid
development, not hinder it. If you think beyond the RFCs then propose
revisions to make them better. The worst approach is to think that's
just too much like hard work and expecting everybody else to accept your
ways as the new, undocumented, standard.
--
What shall we use
To fill the empty spaces
Where we used to talk?
Jeff-Relf.Me
Feb 17, 2013, 8:43:58 AM2/17/13
to
Steve⋅Crook, I'm know the RFCs will NEVER get "fixed";
I simply listed where they're fucked⋅up, that's all.
RFCs aren't the only, nor the best, standards.
I know where my stuff works, and where it doesn't,
and I act accordingly, depending on what I want.
I simply listed where they're fucked⋅up, that's all.
RFCs aren't the only, nor the best, standards.
I know where my stuff works, and where it doesn't,
and I act accordingly, depending on what I want.
Joshua Cranmer 🐧
Feb 17, 2013, 3:04:29 PM2/17/13
to
On 2/17/2013 12:26 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> Everyone has a web page, it's called "FaceBook".
I can think of four people who don't within a 50 foot radius of myself.
> Everyone has a web page, it's called "FaceBook".
Among my social circle, perhaps 50% or more either don't have one or
don't use the one they have.
> Near as I can tell, you can't use "Message/Global" ( RFC 6532 )
> with "Text/HTML"; you have to use one or the other, not both,
> and "Content-Type: multipart/whatever" is crap, I won't use it.
properly (Although it partly is my fault, since a full understanding
would require linking to RFC 6530. Of course, if you actually read RFC
6532 in clear detail, you would have been pointed to 6530). I'm not
going to correct the miscomprehension in your statement, but I will
point out that the RFCs make it perfectly clear that your concern is a
miscomprehension.
> World⋅Class clients ( e.g. ThunderBird and gMail ) sniff out the charset.
> It works, so I use it. Outdatee/Parochial clients can't do it,
> but I don't care about those guys.
rates of newsclients for the fr.* newsgroups. And it's also written in
French, but you should be able to decode the main table.
> I don't know about you, Joshua⋅Cranmer⋅🐧,
> but I look at "Message-ID:" lines all the time.
> At a glance, it tells me how advanced the user is.
tells you is the program used to generate it. And there are much better
headers for that information.
Sir Gregory Hall, Esq·
Feb 17, 2013, 3:41:51 PM2/17/13
to
"Joshua Cranmer ??" <Pidg...@verizon.invalid> wrote in message
news:kfrd34$2ju$1...@dont-email.me...
> Message-IDs are generated by either the MUA or the MTA, so all it really
> tells you is the program used to generate it. And there are much better
> headers for that information.
Some MIDs are generated by the NSP server as is the case with
Altopia. (see this MID)
Some are generated by the client. I can use NewsMaestro, for
example to emulate anybody's MID as if included in the headers
of a sent post it overrides Altopia's servers using their own.
The only thing I have to be careful about is not duplicating an
already used MID exactly as then the post won't propagate.
If one wants to rid Usenet of Jeff Relf, for example one could
use NewsMaestro to automatically generate a Relf-style MID
each and every minute. Then when poor Jeff tried to post
something his posts wouldn't propagate as the MID will
have already been used. But I like Jeff so I would never do
that.
--
Sir Gregory
news:kfrd34$2ju$1...@dont-email.me...
> Message-IDs are generated by either the MUA or the MTA, so all it really
> tells you is the program used to generate it. And there are much better
> headers for that information.
Altopia. (see this MID)
Some are generated by the client. I can use NewsMaestro, for
example to emulate anybody's MID as if included in the headers
of a sent post it overrides Altopia's servers using their own.
The only thing I have to be careful about is not duplicating an
already used MID exactly as then the post won't propagate.
If one wants to rid Usenet of Jeff Relf, for example one could
use NewsMaestro to automatically generate a Relf-style MID
each and every minute. Then when poor Jeff tried to post
something his posts wouldn't propagate as the MID will
have already been used. But I like Jeff so I would never do
that.
--
Sir Gregory
Jeff-Relf.Me
Feb 17, 2013, 4:43:25 PM2/17/13
to
I don't know anyone who doesn't have some kind of "web page";
e.g. LinkedIn, WikiPedia "User:", Google Groups or FaceBook.
Either your friends are super⋅anonymous or, more likely,
you ( Joshua⋅Cranmer ) simply don't know them that well.
No matter, the "From:" line should contain a website,
not an email address.
e.g. LinkedIn, WikiPedia "User:", Google Groups or FaceBook.
Either your friends are super⋅anonymous or, more likely,
you ( Joshua⋅Cranmer ) simply don't know them that well.
No matter, the "From:" line should contain a website,
not an email address.
Jeff-Relf.Me
Feb 17, 2013, 5:38:13 PM2/17/13
to
I've got a compiler, you know.
So you can't say, with 100% certainty, what my mIDs will be.
Quoting http://Jeff-Relf.Me/X.CPP
wchar_t mID[99];
// Jeff-R...@Feb.16{10.26.PM.Seattle.2013}
// OK: * ? . ^ $ { < ` ' } ! ~ % & = / _ | # + -
// NOT-OK: \ , ( " ) [ > ] : ;
msgID() { gDate();
Str( mID, L"%s@%s.%d{%d.%02d.%cM.%s.%d}",
Web⋅Site, Month, Day, Hour, Min, PM ? 'P' : 'A', City, Year ); }
So you can't say, with 100% certainty, what my mIDs will be.
Quoting http://Jeff-Relf.Me/X.CPP
wchar_t mID[99];
// Jeff-R...@Feb.16{10.26.PM.Seattle.2013}
// OK: * ? . ^ $ { < ` ' } ! ~ % & = / _ | # + -
// NOT-OK: \ , ( " ) [ > ] : ;
msgID() { gDate();
Str( mID, L"%s@%s.%d{%d.%02d.%cM.%s.%d}",
Web⋅Site, Month, Day, Hour, Min, PM ? 'P' : 'A', City, Year ); }
Sir Gregory Hall, Esq·
Feb 17, 2013, 5:57:22 PM2/17/13
to
"Jeff-Relf.Me" <@.> wrote in message
news:Jeff-R...@Feb.17{2.38.PM.Seattle.2013}...
> I've got a compiler, you know.
> So you can't say, with 100% certainty, what my mIDs will be.
True, but until you rotate the format you remain vulnerable.
> So you can't say, with 100% certainty, what my mIDs will be.
Retaining the current format but inserting seconds after the minute
would make it more difficult to block your access than your current
system on rounding off. But, automation could still accomplish it
though most NSPs would probably balk at the volume of posts.
--
Sir Gregory
Jeff-Relf.Me
Feb 17, 2013, 6:24:19 PM2/17/13
to
No, I wouldn't add seconds to my mIDs.
Instead of: Jeff-R...@Feb.17{2.38.PM.Seattle.2013}
I could do: Jeff-R...@Feb.17{2.38.PM.Seattle.2013}
or: Jeff-Relf.ME_@_Feb.17{2.38.PM.Seattle.2013}
That's ".ME", instead of ".Me" ( mIDs are case sensitive ).
Instead of: Jeff-R...@Feb.17{2.38.PM.Seattle.2013}
I could do: Jeff-R...@Feb.17{2.38.PM.Seattle.2013}
or: Jeff-Relf.ME_@_Feb.17{2.38.PM.Seattle.2013}
That's ".ME", instead of ".Me" ( mIDs are case sensitive ).
Message has been deleted
Fritz Wuehler
Feb 17, 2013, 10:25:37 PM2/17/13
to mail...@dizum.com
Rotate on this..
You should stop pretending that you're anything more than a shit-eater.
Your shit bucket of a boat also heats up when you shit in your bucket.
Capt...@gmail.com
Neal D. Warren/Wilbur Hubbard/Gregory Hall
PO Box 1015
Tavernier, FL 33070
305 304-7546
You should stop pretending that you're anything more than a shit-eater.
Your shit bucket of a boat also heats up when you shit in your bucket.
Capt...@gmail.com
Neal D. Warren/Wilbur Hubbard/Gregory Hall
PO Box 1015
Tavernier, FL 33070
305 304-7546
Fritz Wuehler
Feb 18, 2013, 3:09:09 AM2/18/13
to mail...@dizum.com
Here's what's on your web page.
cipher
Feb 18, 2013, 6:12:56 PM2/18/13
to
On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 12:02:40 -0800, Jeff-Relf.Me Inscribed upon the Golden
Tablets of Usenet thusly:
> I don't know about you ( "Thufir" ) but I've been discussing the format
> of the "From:" and "Message-ID:" lines, not flaming.
No, you've been making it painfully obvious that you no fucking clue what
Usenet is or how it works. rom: is an email address connected to a person
or entity. Web pages cannot be the From: header.
Stop with your dumb fucking crusade on this, it will not change to meet
your world view. Ever...
Here's a Free Clue®: Usenet is NOT facebook.
Go back to FB, you'll be happier...
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
)\ ( ) /( Cipher/Proud Member, Netscum Alumni Association
)-(0^^0)-( Bungmunch U./AHM Memorial Institute of F@x0r1n6/Dean
)/ \\// \( Colonel/1st Virginia Volunteers/CeSium Brigade
(oo) Registered Linux User #556617
/ ~~ \ Empire of APDD/#6-5p07/VLNOC Cohort #1407
o@o o@o Keeper of the alt.CeSium FAQ
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tablets of Usenet thusly:
> I don't know about you ( "Thufir" ) but I've been discussing the format
> of the "From:" and "Message-ID:" lines, not flaming.
Usenet is or how it works. rom: is an email address connected to a person
or entity. Web pages cannot be the From: header.
Stop with your dumb fucking crusade on this, it will not change to meet
your world view. Ever...
Here's a Free Clue®: Usenet is NOT facebook.
Go back to FB, you'll be happier...
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
)\ ( ) /( Cipher/Proud Member, Netscum Alumni Association
)-(0^^0)-( Bungmunch U./AHM Memorial Institute of F@x0r1n6/Dean
)/ \\// \( Colonel/1st Virginia Volunteers/CeSium Brigade
(oo) Registered Linux User #556617
/ ~~ \ Empire of APDD/#6-5p07/VLNOC Cohort #1407
o@o o@o Keeper of the alt.CeSium FAQ
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jesse
Feb 19, 2013, 3:01:21 PM2/19/13
to
On 2013-02-18 23:12:56 +0000, cipher said:
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 12:02:40 -0800, Jeff-Relf.Me Inscribed upon the Golden
> Tablets of Usenet thusly:
>
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 12:02:40 -0800, Jeff-Relf.Me Inscribed upon the Golden
> Tablets of Usenet thusly:
>
> Stop with your dumb fucking crusade on this, it will not change to meet
> your world view. Ever...
>
> Here's a Free Clue®: Usenet is NOT facebook.
>
> Go back to FB, you'll be happier...
Couldn't have said it better myself!
> your world view. Ever...
>
> Here's a Free Clue®: Usenet is NOT facebook.
>
> Go back to FB, you'll be happier...
cipher
Feb 19, 2013, 5:43:16 PM2/19/13
to
On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 13:43:25 -0800, Jeff-Relf.Me Inscribed upon the Golden
Tablets of Usenet thusly:
> I don't know anyone who doesn't have some kind of "web page";
> e.g. LinkedIn, WikiPedia "User:", Google Groups or FaceBook.
Me. I don't. Only fucking idiots have anything to do with Facebook...
> Either your friends are super⋅anonymous or, more likely, you (
> Joshua⋅Cranmer ) simply don't know them that well.
And how do you know this? You a fucking mind reader now?
Presumptious prick...
> No matter, the "From:" line should contain a website,
> not an email address.
You're wrong. You'll never see the day that the From line changes.
Tilt at windmills all day, noob, it is fun watching you...
Tablets of Usenet thusly:
> I don't know anyone who doesn't have some kind of "web page";
> e.g. LinkedIn, WikiPedia "User:", Google Groups or FaceBook.
> Either your friends are super⋅anonymous or, more likely, you (
> Joshua⋅Cranmer ) simply don't know them that well.
Presumptious prick...
> No matter, the "From:" line should contain a website,
> not an email address.
Tilt at windmills all day, noob, it is fun watching you...
Jeff-Relf.Me
Feb 19, 2013, 7:58:36 PM2/19/13
to
You ( Mr. "cipher" ) can't be too anonymous.
I'm glad you don't have a web page, and
I don't care what you put in your "From:" line.
I'm glad you don't have a web page, and
I don't care what you put in your "From:" line.
cipher
Feb 20, 2013, 7:17:00 PM2/20/13
to
On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 16:58:36 -0800, Jeff-Relf.Me Inscribed upon the Golden
Tablets of Usenet thusly:
> You ( Mr. "cipher" ) can't be too anonymous.
>
> I'm glad you don't have a web page, and I don't care what you put in
> your "From:" line.
Why do you continue a rant that you will never win?
Isn't this the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and
over again expecting a different result?
Tablets of Usenet thusly:
> You ( Mr. "cipher" ) can't be too anonymous.
>
> I'm glad you don't have a web page, and I don't care what you put in
> your "From:" line.
Isn't this the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and
over again expecting a different result?
Jeff-Relf.Me
Feb 20, 2013, 7:58:07 PM2/20/13
to
Thufir⋅Hawat ( md65v9-...@dur.bounceme.net ) made a comment
about RFC⋅1036 and my "Message-ID:" line.
I used it as an opportunity to list RFC failings.
As I've said countless times, including 3.5 days ago:
Jeff⋅Relf Jeff-R...@Feb.16{2.52.AM.Seattle.2013}
Gregory⋅Hall 6bl3d5....@news.alt.net
Thufir⋅Hawat md65v9-...@dur.bounceme.net
Jeff⋅Relf Jeff-R...@Feb.16{0.55.PM.Seattle.2013}
Steve⋅Crook slrnki1l6p...@snorky.mixmin.net
Jeff⋅Relf Jeff-R...@Feb.17{5.43.AM.Seattle.2013}
Alt.Free.Newsservers, News.Software.Readers, News.Software.Nntp
about RFC⋅1036 and my "Message-ID:" line.
I used it as an opportunity to list RFC failings.
As I've said countless times, including 3.5 days ago:
Jeff⋅Relf Jeff-R...@Feb.16{2.52.AM.Seattle.2013}
Gregory⋅Hall 6bl3d5....@news.alt.net
Thufir⋅Hawat md65v9-...@dur.bounceme.net
Jeff⋅Relf Jeff-R...@Feb.16{0.55.PM.Seattle.2013}
Steve⋅Crook slrnki1l6p...@snorky.mixmin.net
Jeff⋅Relf Jeff-R...@Feb.17{5.43.AM.Seattle.2013}
Alt.Free.Newsservers, News.Software.Readers, News.Software.Nntp
cipher
Feb 20, 2013, 9:56:20 PM2/20/13
to
On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 16:58:07 -0800, Jeff-Relf.Me Inscribed upon the Golden
Tablets of Usenet thusly:
So, you are insane then. At least you are cognizant of the fact...
Tablets of Usenet thusly:
Jeff-Relf.Me
Feb 20, 2013, 10:14:16 PM2/20/13
to
Mr. "cipher", let me know when Pan can quote UTF⋅8 and HTML. In the meantime, I'll be conversing with the rest of the planet... ...you know, the ones with the REAL lives and REAL user⋅agents ( e.g. Thunderbird, gMail, Google Groups and Windows Live Mail ).
Michael Moroney
Feb 20, 2013, 10:54:21 PM2/20/13
to
Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> writes:
>> So, you are insane then. At least you are cognizant of the fact...
> Mr. "cipher", let me know when Pan can quote UTF8 and HTML.
>> So, you are insane then. At least you are cognizant of the fact...
Typical Relf response. Don't answer the question but change the topic,
usually to "you're using the wrong newsreader/server" or "you don't
abuse Usenet the way I think everyone should".
Jeff-Relf.Me
Feb 21, 2013, 12:15:49 AM2/21/13
to
You're just jealous, Michael⋅Moroney. I'm not asking you to handle UTF⋅8 and HTML the way normal people do, with normal user⋅agents. YOU are complaining; I'm doing fine, better than fine. I get the console⋅like emails I want, accessible to normal folk, perfect for posting code, and you get what ? a reason to bitch ?
Shmuel Metz
Feb 21, 2013, 4:17:20 AM2/21/13
to
In <kfpo6f$c46$1...@dont-email.me>, on 02/16/2013
3.7. The message/global Media Type
Internationalized messages in this format MUST only be
transmitted as authorized by [RFC6531] or within a non-SMTP
environment that supports these messages.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spam...@library.lspace.org
at 11:01 PM, Joshua Cranmer ɺ <Pidg...@verizon.invalid> said:
>Actually, having futzed with RFC 2047 a lot over the last week [1],
>I actually welcome the day that everyone supports RFC 6532.
Especially this?
>Actually, having futzed with RFC 2047 a lot over the last week [1],
>I actually welcome the day that everyone supports RFC 6532.
3.7. The message/global Media Type
Internationalized messages in this format MUST only be
transmitted as authorized by [RFC6531] or within a non-SMTP
environment that supports these messages.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spam...@library.lspace.org
Shmuel Metz
Feb 21, 2013, 4:09:47 AM2/21/13
to
In <md65v9-...@dur.bounceme.net>, on 02/16/2013
at 12:22 PM, Thufir Hawat <hawat....@gmail.com> said:
> "In order to conform to RFC-822, the Message-ID must have the
>format:
> <unique@full_domain_name>"
>http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1036
Shirley you mean
3.1.3. Message-ID
The Message-ID header field contains a unique message
identifier. Netnews is more dependent on message identifier
uniqueness and fast comparison than Email is, and some news
software and standards [RFC3977] might have trouble with the
full range of possible <msg-id>s permitted by [RFC5322]. This
section therefore restricts the syntax of <msg-id> as compared
to Section 3.6.4 of [RFC5322]. The global uniqueness
requirement for <msg-id> in [RFC5322] is to be understood as
applying across all protocols using such message identifiers,
and across both Email and Netnews in particular.
RFC 5536.
at 12:22 PM, Thufir Hawat <hawat....@gmail.com> said:
> "In order to conform to RFC-822, the Message-ID must have the
>format:
> <unique@full_domain_name>"
>http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1036
Shirley you mean
3.1.3. Message-ID
The Message-ID header field contains a unique message
identifier. Netnews is more dependent on message identifier
uniqueness and fast comparison than Email is, and some news
software and standards [RFC3977] might have trouble with the
full range of possible <msg-id>s permitted by [RFC5322]. This
section therefore restricts the syntax of <msg-id> as compared
to Section 3.6.4 of [RFC5322]. The global uniqueness
requirement for <msg-id> in [RFC5322] is to be understood as
applying across all protocols using such message identifiers,
and across both Email and Netnews in particular.
RFC 5536.
Joshua Cranmer 🐧
Feb 21, 2013, 12:05:53 PM2/21/13
to
On 2/20/2013 6:58 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> Steve⋅Crook, I'm know the RFCs will NEVER get "fixed";
> I simply listed where they're fucked⋅up, that's all.
No. You listed where the RFCs failed to conform to your ideal of what
> Steve⋅Crook, I'm know the RFCs will NEVER get "fixed";
> I simply listed where they're fucked⋅up, that's all.
the semantics should be despite the fact that they predate half the
notions of your ideal (RFC 822 predates commercial access to the
internet and even internationalized character sets).
If you were to list where they were fucked up, you would have to include
things which do not generalize well to the modern world (like the fact
that the specifications gravitate towards maintaining human readability,
or that case insensitivity is heavily dependent on your locale), or
other decisions that make machine-readability very annoying (tokenizing
email headers is context-free), or even decisions that ignore well-known
common software "features" (e.g., simple DKIM canonicalization is
intolerant of case-folding header names or modifying insignificant
whitespace).
cipher
Feb 22, 2013, 5:54:11 AM2/22/13
to
On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 19:14:16 -0800, Jeff-Relf.Me Inscribed upon the Golden
Tablets of Usenet thusly:
> <style> :not(:link):not(:visited){color:rgb(255,111,111)}
> :link{color:rgb(155,155,155)} :visited{color:rgb(155,155,0)} </style>
> <body bgcolor=black style='margin: 0'><pre style='color:
> rgb(255,111,111); padding:0 1em 1em 1em; font-size: 15px; font-family:
> DejaVu Sans Mono, Lucida Console, monospace, MS Mincho; background:
> black;'>
HTML on Usenet? You really are a goofy fuck aren't you?
Google Groups? The most broken way to post to Usenet known to man, that
Google Groups?
Thunderbird is no longer developed, security patches only. Seems web
mail killed another newsreader.
Windows Live Mail? Really?
Tablets of Usenet thusly:
> <style> :not(:link):not(:visited){color:rgb(255,111,111)}
> :link{color:rgb(155,155,155)} :visited{color:rgb(155,155,0)} </style>
> <body bgcolor=black style='margin: 0'><pre style='color:
> rgb(255,111,111); padding:0 1em 1em 1em; font-size: 15px; font-family:
> DejaVu Sans Mono, Lucida Console, monospace, MS Mincho; background:
> black;'>
Google Groups? The most broken way to post to Usenet known to man, that
Google Groups?
Thunderbird is no longer developed, security patches only. Seems web
mail killed another newsreader.
Windows Live Mail? Really?
Jeff-Relf.Me
Feb 22, 2013, 8:34:44 AM2/22/13
to
You ( Mr. "cipher" ) have shown extreme ignorance. Mozilla Thunderbird 17.0.3 was released 3 days ago. Joshua⋅Cranmer, one the developers, is in this thread. I use Google Groups a lot, every day, as do others here. Google Groups, Thunderbird and "Outlook" ( now "Windows Live Mail" ) are EXTREMELY stanards complient... truly "world class". Pan misquotes UTF⋅8/HTML. And don't blame "Ubuntu"; unlike Pan, slrn is an amazing newsreader, though it lacks the ability to display HTML/mixed⋅fonts.
Joshua Cranmer 🐧
Feb 22, 2013, 10:56:53 AM2/22/13
to
On 2/22/2013 4:54 AM, cipher wrote:
> Thunderbird is no longer developed, security patches only. Seems web
> mail killed another newsreader.
As a developer of Thunderbird, I call your claim bullshit.
> Thunderbird is no longer developed, security patches only. Seems web
> mail killed another newsreader.
Sir Gregory Hall, Esq·
Feb 22, 2013, 11:25:29 AM2/22/13
to
"Jeff Relf wrote in: news:Jeff-R...@Feb.22{5.34.AM.Seattle.2013}...
> You ( Mr. "cipher" ) have shown extreme ignorance.
Exactly correct, Jeff. Cipher needs to get educated!
Michael Moroney
Feb 22, 2013, 11:54:56 AM2/22/13
to
Jeff Relf writes:
> Google Groups, Thunderbird and "Outlook" ( now "Windows Live Mail" )
> are EXTREMELY stanards complient... truly "world class".
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> Google Groups, Thunderbird and "Outlook" ( now "Windows Live Mail" )
> are EXTREMELY stanards complient... truly "world class".
Google Groups, "world class" ?
You had better check to see what's in that catnip you're smoking...
Michael Moroney
Feb 22, 2013, 12:29:56 PM2/22/13
to
> I'm not asking you to handle UTF.8 and HTML the way
> normal people do, with normal user.agents.
And you continue to prove my point. You don't address the issue that was
raised (whether you are insane), but instead go off kooking about
something completely unrelated, whether "cypher"'s or my newsreaders can
post the way you think everyone should.
"Insane" ? Probably not. "Obsessed" ? Certainly.
Joshua Cranmer 🐧
Feb 22, 2013, 1:08:19 PM2/22/13
to
On 2/22/2013 7:34 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> I use Google Groups a lot, every day, as do others here.
> Google Groups, Thunderbird and "Outlook" ( now "Windows Live Mail" )
> are EXTREMELY stanards complient... truly "world class".
Outlook's HTML rendering makes IE 6's rendering look good, as it is
> I use Google Groups a lot, every day, as do others here.
> Google Groups, Thunderbird and "Outlook" ( now "Windows Live Mail" )
> are EXTREMELY stanards complient... truly "world class".
based off of an even older and more broken rendering engine. And
Microsoft won't update it, because they feel it's better to use the same
HTML renderer that Word uses, and, well, backwards compatibility.
Google Groups is widely despised by almost every newsgroup I've been on
(and not just for its role in Eternal September), and if it uses the
same HTML renderer as GMail, it completely strips out all styles except
for inline style applications.
Thunderbird has a broken HTML munger (insert a CRLF in the right place
and you can turn the displayed message into complete gibberish), and it
also forces everything to display in quirks mode, which can lead to some
odd results for styling. Although, given the support of HTML in Outlook,
it will probably be odd almost everywhere still.
Jeff-Relf.Me
Feb 22, 2013, 4:18:33 PM2/22/13
to
Yes, Joshua⋅Cranmer, COMPLEX HTML messages might display differently,
depending on if it's gMail (in a browser), Google Groups, Thunderbird
or WindowsLiveMail.
That's why my HTML emails/posts/web⋅pages begin:
<style> :not(:link):not(:visited){color:rgb(255,111,111)}
:link{color:rgb(155,155,155);}
:visited{color:rgb(155,155,0);} </style>
<body bgcolor=black style='margin: 0'>
<pre style='color: rgb(255,111,111); padding:0 1em 1em 1em;
font-size: 15px; font-family: DejaVu Sans Mono,
Lucida Console, monospace, MS Mincho; background: black;'>
WindowsLiveMail needs the <body bgcolor=black style='margin: 0'>;
otherwise, the background of the window wouldn't be black.
gMail and Google Groups remove the <STYLE> abd <BODY> tags;
hence the <pre style='color: rgb(255,111,111); ... background: black;'>.
LIMITED HTML is useful, less problematic, and quite ubiquitous.
For example, my CraigsList ad begins: ＜＜
<PRE><font size=4>
Location: <a href="http://maps.google.com/maps?q=+4547+19th+Ave+NE+Seattle+98105">4547 19th Ave NE Seattle</a>
North of campus (UW), between the University Village and the Ave. ＞＞
To see what it looks like, go here:
http://seattle.craigslist.org/see/roo/3606811378.html
Minutes ago, a caller asked me why my ad looks so different.
depending on if it's gMail (in a browser), Google Groups, Thunderbird
or WindowsLiveMail.
That's why my HTML emails/posts/web⋅pages begin:
<style> :not(:link):not(:visited){color:rgb(255,111,111)}
:link{color:rgb(155,155,155);}
:visited{color:rgb(155,155,0);} </style>
<body bgcolor=black style='margin: 0'>
<pre style='color: rgb(255,111,111); padding:0 1em 1em 1em;
font-size: 15px; font-family: DejaVu Sans Mono,
Lucida Console, monospace, MS Mincho; background: black;'>
otherwise, the background of the window wouldn't be black.
gMail and Google Groups remove the <STYLE> abd <BODY> tags;
hence the <pre style='color: rgb(255,111,111); ... background: black;'>.
LIMITED HTML is useful, less problematic, and quite ubiquitous.
For example, my CraigsList ad begins: ＜＜
<PRE><font size=4>
Location: <a href="http://maps.google.com/maps?q=+4547+19th+Ave+NE+Seattle+98105">4547 19th Ave NE Seattle</a>
North of campus (UW), between the University Village and the Ave. ＞＞
To see what it looks like, go here:
http://seattle.craigslist.org/see/roo/3606811378.html
Minutes ago, a caller asked me why my ad looks so different.
cipher
Feb 24, 2013, 4:56:01 PM2/24/13
to
On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 09:56:53 -0600, Joshua Cranmer 🐧 Inscribed upon the
not-a-priority-anymore-7000000469/
Golden Tablets of Usenet thusly:
> On 2/22/2013 4:54 AM, cipher wrote:
>> Thunderbird is no longer developed, security patches only. Seems web
>> mail killed another newsreader.
>
> As a developer of Thunderbird, I call your claim bullshit.
http://www.zdnet.com/mozilla-scraps-thunderbird-development-email-client-
>> Thunderbird is no longer developed, security patches only. Seems web
>> mail killed another newsreader.
>
> As a developer of Thunderbird, I call your claim bullshit.
not-a-priority-anymore-7000000469/
Message has been deleted
cipher
Feb 25, 2013, 2:21:20 AM2/25/13
to
On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 00:51:10 +0000, Lewis Inscribed upon the Golden
Tablets of Usenet thusly:
> In message <6canqj....@news.alt.net>
> declining piece of utter shit since version 2, which wasn't any good.
> There are so many simple things that TB does wrong and continues to do
> wrong.
Web mail has killed many clients. TB is no exception. They said any
future development would be done by the "community" which means it is
dead for all intents and purposes. It won't be long before major distros
exclude it, then the big reps will stop as well. matter of time...
Tablets of Usenet thusly:
> In message <6canqj....@news.alt.net>
> cipher <cip...@nospamforme.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 09:56:53 -0600, Joshua Cranmer 🐧 Inscribed upon
the
>> Golden Tablets of Usenet thusly:
>
>>> On 2/22/2013 4:54 AM, cipher wrote:
>>>> Thunderbird is no longer developed, security patches only. Seems web
>>>> mail killed another newsreader.
>>>
>>> As a developer of Thunderbird, I call your claim bullshit.
>
>> http://www.zdnet.com/mozilla-scraps-thunderbird-development-email-
client-
>> not-a-priority-anymore-7000000469/
>
> Email client hasn't ever been a priority for Mozilla and TB has been a
>> On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 09:56:53 -0600, Joshua Cranmer 🐧 Inscribed upon
the
>> Golden Tablets of Usenet thusly:
>
>>> On 2/22/2013 4:54 AM, cipher wrote:
>>>> Thunderbird is no longer developed, security patches only. Seems web
>>>> mail killed another newsreader.
>>>
>>> As a developer of Thunderbird, I call your claim bullshit.
>
>> http://www.zdnet.com/mozilla-scraps-thunderbird-development-email-
client-
>> not-a-priority-anymore-7000000469/
>
> declining piece of utter shit since version 2, which wasn't any good.
> There are so many simple things that TB does wrong and continues to do
> wrong.
Web mail has killed many clients. TB is no exception. They said any
future development would be done by the "community" which means it is
dead for all intents and purposes. It won't be long before major distros
exclude it, then the big reps will stop as well. matter of time...
Shmuel Metz
Feb 25, 2013, 3:02:47 PM2/25/13
to
In <6canqj....@news.alt.net>, on 02/24/2013
at 09:56 PM, cipher <cip...@nospamforme.org> said:
>http://www.zdnet.com/mozilla-scraps-thunderbird-development-email-client-
>not-a-priority-anymore-7000000469/
You trust ZD to get the details straight?
at 09:56 PM, cipher <cip...@nospamforme.org> said:
>http://www.zdnet.com/mozilla-scraps-thunderbird-development-email-client-
>not-a-priority-anymore-7000000469/
You trust ZD to get the details straight?
cipher
Feb 27, 2013, 12:57:59 PM2/27/13
to
On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 15:02:47 -0500, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Inscribed
upon the Golden Tablets of Usenet thusly:
> In <6canqj....@news.alt.net>, on 02/24/2013
> at 09:56 PM, cipher <cip...@nospamforme.org> said:
>
>>http://www.zdnet.com/mozilla-scraps-thunderbird-development-email-client-
>>not-a-priority-anymore-7000000469/
>
> You trust ZD to get the details straight?
Not always, but in this case they got it right...
> at 09:56 PM, cipher <cip...@nospamforme.org> said:
>
>>http://www.zdnet.com/mozilla-scraps-thunderbird-development-email-client-
>>not-a-priority-anymore-7000000469/
>
> You trust ZD to get the details straight?
Message has been deleted
XS11E
Feb 28, 2013, 12:01:18 PM2/28/13
to
sn...@spambin.fsnet.co.uk (Sn!pe) wrote:
> IMO, however good Thunderbird might be as an email client,
> as a newsreader it leaves a very great deal to be desired.
> I've played with it in a VM (I use Mac OS X) and I've come
> to the conclusion that T'bird just doesn't make the grade.
What he said, with my added opinion that T'Burp ceased to be an
acceptable email client with version 3.x and has not improved since.
--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project:
http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/
> IMO, however good Thunderbird might be as an email client,
> as a newsreader it leaves a very great deal to be desired.
> I've played with it in a VM (I use Mac OS X) and I've come
> to the conclusion that T'bird just doesn't make the grade.
What he said, with my added opinion that T'Burp ceased to be an
acceptable email client with version 3.x and has not improved since.
--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project:
http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/
cipher
Mar 1, 2013, 6:27:54 AM3/1/13
to
On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 15:02:47 -0500, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Inscribed
upon the Golden Tablets of Usenet thusly:
> In <6canqj....@news.alt.net>, on 02/24/2013
> at 09:56 PM, cipher <cip...@nospamforme.org> said:
>
>>http://www.zdnet.com/mozilla-scraps-thunderbird-development-email-client-
>>not-a-priority-anymore-7000000469/
>
> You trust ZD to get the details straight?
http://www.geek.com/articles/news/mozilla-stops-development-of-thunderbird-2012076/
> at 09:56 PM, cipher <cip...@nospamforme.org> said:
>
>>http://www.zdnet.com/mozilla-scraps-thunderbird-development-email-client-
>>not-a-priority-anymore-7000000469/
>
> You trust ZD to get the details straight?
0 new messages