Not just the '39 catalog, but all of 'em.
Les Cargill
http://www.radioshackcatalogs.com/
Talk about the ultimate nostalgia resource. The early '60s
ones are pretty incredible - McIntosh sold
through RS. I remember the late '70s ones very vividly.
It is very strange how our relationship with electronics
has changed.
--
Les Cargill
William Sommerwerck
smack/slurp/drool
I can't wait to find the entry for "tube straighteners".
The site is beautiful, but whoever wrote the material should have someone
check the writing:
"For over 65 years, RadioShack had produced a catalog to rival that of no
other electronics and technology company."
Les Cargill
But more people's hobbies involve electronics than in 1964. And
their hobbies are more of a part of what they are,
than they were then.
They want - or demand - insulation from the basic facts of what
the depend on.
I hope they get that. I expect that Chinese history tells another
tale, but you don't have to listen to that.
Nope.
--
Les Cargill
David Gravereaux
> David Gravereaux wrote:
>> Les Cargill wrote:
>>
>>> It is very strange how our relationship with electronics
>>> has changed.
>>
>> So true. Electronics is not considered the hobby it once was.
>>
>
> But more people's hobbies involve electronics than in 1964. And
> their hobbies are more of a part of what they are,
> than they were then.
Like the way computers are electronic, but no one builds a computer
using a soldering iron to install the parts on the motherboard?
> They want - or demand - insulation from the basic facts of what
> the depend on.
But right there you have defined it. The willingness to want to tinker
with small stuff has gone away.
When was the last time you bought speaker parts and whipped off a box on
a table saw and soldered up a crossover that you designed on paper (or
with SPICE)? Or experimented with FET preamp stage for weeks trying to
drop the noise level?
Oh, we can go down to fry's and chose a motherboard, HDD, case and build
a computer from parts, but that isn't tinkering. Far from it.
Now changing chips on your turtlebeach sound card is tweaky. Even
adding a comport to a WRT54G is tweaky.
Soundhaspriority
"Les Cargill" <lcar...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4a307b02$0$11830$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
In the "old days", when your gadget broke, you could take a trip over to
Allied Radio, or Radio Shack, and there was a reasonable chance of getting
the part you needed. Resistors and caps in standard values. One of the two
hundred tubes, or "universal replacement" semis. Nowdays, what can RS sell
you? A $19.95 surface mount desoldering kit? ;)
In the 80's many of us were desperate for the future to arrive. I
desperately wanted a computer so I could write books without resorting to
the torture of the mechanical typewriter. And I'd had just a taste of
timeshare computing, but I wanted more. So I ended up with a pile of
teletype parts, which I finally got to play the "TWX Concerto" in my
basement. The last easily repairable gadget I constructed was the famous
"Pennywhistle Modem". Unbeknownst to me, the PLL chip was defective, so I
acquired my first test bench setup to keep it aligned.
Now the future has arrived. We want for very little. The challenge of the
innovators is not to provide us with things we've always wanted, such as the
"Personal Computer", but to give us new desires. Unfortunately, none of
these desires is realizable as macrocircuitry.
There is an "open cell phone" project:
http://wiki.openmoko.org/wiki/Main_Page . One could imagine, though it's not
likely, that hobbyists could get into building custom phones. The big
holdback is that most cellphone chips are restricted. Individuals cannot buy
them, because of industry fears that such sales would enable widespread cell
network hacking.
I still assemble all my computers, but system integration does not keep the
hands or brain busy for very long.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Jay Ts
IMO, there are two problems. One is that Radio Shack has been taking one
small step after another into the grave for at least all of my life,
selling more toys and gadgets, and offering less support for the hobbyist,
and doing less and less to help kids become interested in electronics.
And the other reason is that the American educational system has been
doing pretty much the same thing. Although it's true that people who are
good at electronics are often self-taught, it's necessary to have good
mathematical skills and a good understanding of physics (electricity and
magnetism, at least) to develop analog electronic design skills.
Fifteen years ago, I heard that some universities started teaching
electronics courses without having the students actually build circuits,
and just had them use Spice to design the circuit and hand it in as the
completed assignment!
And recently, I watched some of MIT's OpenCourseware introductory
Electronic Engineering course, and was amazed to see the instructor
briefly cover inductors, then quickly put them aside basically saying
that (in my words) since reactive components are too difficult to design
with, we won't use them! (I can understand at a lesser institution, but
at MIT???) I stopped watching a few lectures after that, but the part of
the course I saw was heavily oriented towards digital design, with little
focus on analog circuits.
With all that going on, it may be a lot harder for anyone to get started
in electronics, especially analog electronics. But for me, designing and
building circuits is easier than ever, mostly because both Mouser and
Digi-Key sell millions of components through their websites, and I can
get the parts I need. (I basically stopped going to Radio Shack years
ago.) There are many good, inexpensive multimeters on the market, and
with a little careful shopping on eBay, it's possible to get a very high-
quality used oscilloscope very reasonably. Combine that with running
Spice on the computer, and using a pro-quality sound card for signal
generation, along with a software oscilloscope and software spectrum
analyzer, and you get a very powerful electronics development lab.
As long as I stay away from Radio Shack, I don't see things as getting
worse. I just think of Mouser and Digi-Key as Radio Shack's replacement,
and they are amazing by comparison!
Jay Ts
--
To contact me, use this web page:
http://www.jayts.com/contact.php
Les Cargill
> Les Cargill wrote:
>> David Gravereaux wrote:
>>> Les Cargill wrote:
>>>
>>>> It is very strange how our relationship with electronics
>>>> has changed.
>>>
>>> So true. Electronics is not considered the hobby it once was.
>>>
>>
>> But more people's hobbies involve electronics than in 1964. And
>> their hobbies are more of a part of what they are,
>> than they were then.
>
> Like the way computers are electronic, but no one builds a computer
> using a soldering iron to install the parts on the motherboard?
>
Well... it's not my distinction, really. If you soldered on it,
you owned it in a way that somebody who simply pulled it out of
a box never will .
>> They want - or demand - insulation from the basic facts of what
>> the depend on.
>
> But right there you have defined it. The willingness to want to tinker
> with small stuff has gone away.
>
> When was the last time you bought speaker parts and whipped off a box on
> a table saw and soldered up a crossover that you designed on paper (or
> with SPICE)? Or experimented with FET preamp stage for weeks trying to
> drop the noise level?
>
> Oh, we can go down to fry's and chose a motherboard, HDD, case and build
> a computer from parts, but that isn't tinkering. Far from it.
>
> Now changing chips on your turtlebeach sound card is tweaky. Even
> adding a comport to a WRT54G is tweaky.
>
It'll have to do. It's the difference between Pinocchio and the movie
"AI." If I have to explain the craft ethic on r.a.p.... cameelious
humps and all...
>
>> I hope they get that. I expect that Chinese history tells another
>> tale, but you don't have to listen to that.
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> --
>> Les Cargill
>
>
--
Les Cargill
Les Cargill
> Les Cargill wrote:
>> http://www.radioshackcatalogs.com/
>>
>> Talk about the ultimate nostalgia resource. The early '60s ones are
>> pretty incredible - McIntosh sold through RS. I remember the late '70s
>> ones very vividly.
>>
>> It is very strange how our relationship with electronics has changed.
>
> IMO, there are two problems. One is that Radio Shack has been taking one
> small step after another into the grave for at least all of my life,
I see this as metaphor for us, though. Because ... well, I feel
nostalgic because of the catalogs, you see.
> selling more toys and gadgets, and offering less support for the hobbyist,
> and doing less and less to help kids become interested in electronics.
>
What possible excuse could you give a well-adjusted child for learning
electronics, of all things, in this day and age?
We got music and blinky lights out of it. They get those things
without it.
> And the other reason is that the American educational system has been
> doing pretty much the same thing. Although it's true that people who are
> good at electronics are often self-taught,
It was ever thus.
> it's necessary to have good
> mathematical skills and a good understanding of physics (electricity and
> magnetism, at least) to develop analog electronic design skills.
>
I don't have those. I have developed, essentially the understanding
of a somewhat sophisticated consumer of analog design skills.
> Fifteen years ago, I heard that some universities started teaching
> electronics courses without having the students actually build circuits,
> and just had them use Spice to design the circuit and hand it in as the
> completed assignment!
>
Yup. It has happened. "What is a diode?" (me) "Whut?" (candidate)
> And recently, I watched some of MIT's OpenCourseware introductory
> Electronic Engineering course, and was amazed to see the instructor
> briefly cover inductors, then quickly put them aside basically saying
> that (in my words) since reactive components are too difficult to design
> with, we won't use them! (I can understand at a lesser institution, but
> at MIT???) I stopped watching a few lectures after that, but the part of
> the course I saw was heavily oriented towards digital design, with little
> focus on analog circuits.
>
> With all that going on, it may be a lot harder for anyone to get started
> in electronics, especially analog electronics. But for me, designing and
> building circuits is easier than ever, mostly because both Mouser and
> Digi-Key sell millions of components through their websites, and I can
> get the parts I need. (I basically stopped going to Radio Shack years
> ago.) There are many good, inexpensive multimeters on the market, and
> with a little careful shopping on eBay, it's possible to get a very high-
> quality used oscilloscope very reasonably. Combine that with running
> Spice on the computer, and using a pro-quality sound card for signal
> generation, along with a software oscilloscope and software spectrum
> analyzer, and you get a very powerful electronics development lab.
>
Never has so little been done by so many with so much.
> As long as I stay away from Radio Shack, I don't see things as getting
> worse. I just think of Mouser and Digi-Key as Radio Shack's replacement,
> and they are amazing by comparison!
>
Yessir, I totally agree.
> Jay Ts
--
Les Cargill
Chris Hornbeck
wrote:
>Never has so little been done by so many with so much.
But, but, but, all problems have been solved! Anything still
left in the old analog world is, by (our) definition, just a
negligible, or at worst computable-away-temporary, inconvenience.
The real world messiness of past generations is behind us.
This brave new world of models has left the sad complexities
and noisy data of the imperfect analog world behind, and
Good Riddance.
The model IS the world!
And if anyone still doesn't believe that, we have a religion
program in beta that might interest you. It runs on your
cell phone, so you know it's benign. Dip deep, darlings.
Much thanks, as always,
Chris Hornbeck
David Gravereaux
> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 00:56:19 -0400, Les Cargill <lcar...@cfl.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Never has so little been done by so many with so much.
>
> But, but, but, all problems have been solved! Anything still
> left in the old analog world is, by (our) definition, just a
> negligible, or at worst computable-away-temporary, inconvenience.
rofl
William Sommerwerck
rather than text? Though I have no reason not to trust your postings, I
really don't like opening attachments from people I don't know well.
Les Cargill
William, I see them as plain old postings.
--
Les Cargill
Soundhaspriority
He is demanding that all individuals who cannot read his posts must change
their newsreaders.
I'm not going to bother.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Les Cargill
He just needs to find the option to turn off RFC 2440 and 3156 encoding.
Since I use Mozilla ( SeaMonkey ), it apparently makes this transparent.
Or you can just filter him.
--
Les Cargill
Soundhaspriority
He seems to want to have his own private war. Dave Gravereaux, I appeal to
you. There is no point in cutting yourself off at the knees.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Richard Crowley
> Mr. Gravereaux, are you aware that your postings appear as attachments,
> rather than text? Though I have no reason not to trust your postings, I
> really don't like opening attachments from people I don't know well.
Mr. Gravereaux is posting "signed" messages (which ironically are
supposed to be MORE secure). Alas, appropriate for important
email, but pretentious and useless on Usenet. But some people
would rather poke their RFC thumb in your eye than just post
plain text messages like the rest of us.
Mr. Gravereaux correctly observes that newsreaders should be
displaying the (internally multi-part) message as plain text, but
many (like MS Outlook Express) don't do that. But since no
average people post signed messages to Usenet, it makes no
practical difference to the overwhelming majority of us.
OTOH, the only person I know who might benefit from real
PGP secured message posting would be the Real Bob Morein
to distinguish him from that pathetic poseur in OZ.
0jun...@bellsouth.net
On 2009-06-11 h0r5bc$gj3$1...@news.eternal-september.org said:
>> Mr. Gravereaux, are you aware that your postings appear as
>>attachments, rather than text? Though I have no reason not to
>>trust your postings, I really don't like opening attachments from
>people I don't know well. >
>William, I see them as plain old postings.
haven't tried to do a mime encode on them, because this is
usenet, and a text group, which means I shouldn't have to.
INStead I just plunked him and move on. I still get
to download him anyway <grumble..
After his gobbledygook is downloaded it gets filtered before
I open the reader. But, I'm nobody, so is he, and I figure
that other folks whom he'd like to have see his posts are in
the same situation so they won't be answering him either. I
put him in the same league with the punk who kept
posting the jpeg of Shania Twain in this group a few years
back.
IF he wants everybody to see his posts he'll post in text as
he should or he can stuff it, makes no difference to me.
Btw got nothing against pGP per se, had a lot of friends
used it, but they were using pgp clear sign and it still
came out as plain text when they posted to public forums.
Meanwhile to david
<plunk>
Richard webb,
replace anything before at with elspider
Don Pearce
How would PGP identify anyone on Usenet? Anyone can use PGP - and
anyway, this is a plain text news group so all of that stuff gets
stripped away. Putting multipart MIME on a text group is really very
poor manners.
d
Soundhaspriority
"Richard Crowley" <rcro...@xp7rt.net> wrote in message
news:79cumjF...@mid.individual.net...
doing things. Since usenet exists for dialoging with the largest possible
number of people, it would be self defeating.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
0jun...@bellsouth.net
On 2009-06-11 rcro...@xp7rt.net said:
>Mr. Gravereaux is posting "signed" messages (which ironically are
>supposed to be MORE secure). Alas, appropriate for important
>email, but pretentious and useless on Usenet. But some people
>would rather poke their RFC thumb in your eye than just post
>plain text messages like the rest of us.
>Mr. Gravereaux correctly observes that newsreaders should be
>displaying the (internally multi-part) message as plain text, but
>many (like MS Outlook Express) don't do that. But since no
>average people post signed messages to Usenet, it makes no
>practical difference to the overwhelming majority of us.
over the years, and the clear sign is just supposed to
authenticate who sent it. The text in a public forum is
still supposed to be readable. tHere are diferent
applications of pgp and such techniques as well.
>OTOH, the only person I know who might benefit from real
>PGP secured message posting would be the Real Bob Morein
>to distinguish him from that pathetic poseur in OZ.
Again I would agree. Bob might want to look into clear
signed messages, and make his public key available to people
on request.
Soundhaspriority
<0jun...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:mpcYl.9433$Xw4...@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
anyway. I would say my friends have solved the problem. You're one of them.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
David Gravereaux
> Very true, but, as you imply, it would require changing the customary way of
> doing things. Since usenet exists for dialoging with the largest possible
> number of people, it would be self defeating.
So then, I guess, the rest of the world should capitulate to the
long-standing MIME bug(s) found in Outlook/OutlookExpress/Live and
consider it the lowest common denominator of acceptable behavior for now
and forever, amen?
Bob, here's the triple play to avoid getting Joe-Jobbed on USENET:
Mozilla Thunderbird <http://www.mozillamessaging.com/thunderbird/>
Enigmail addon <http://enigmail.mozdev.org/>
GNU Privacy Guard <http://www.gnupg.org/>
Don't forget to upload your public key to a keyserver to make it
available to others.
======
Anyways, back to my dremel and cutting front panel holes for tweaky
electronics. It's a shame I couldn't have bought the connectors at
Radio Shack as they don't carry them anymore. The last time I was
there, I bought a multi-voltage DC power supply for a whooping $35 when
its value was barely $10.
David Gravereaux
Hash: SHA1
0jun...@bellsouth.net wrote:
....
| Agreed. I've seen some fidonet readers that would do that
| over the years, and the clear sign is just supposed to
| authenticate who sent it. The text in a public forum is
| still supposed to be readable. tHere are diferent
| applications of pgp and such techniques as well.
Clearsigned is more ugly as it places the sign within the message.
Here's an example.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkoxbsoACgkQlZadkQh/RmHo+ACgnu0HKklNbZLMzUCX2mjGjptb
wBsAn1rePAhPXrV0dg1GzoOSG+BrF7Ue
=+uhW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Laurence Payne
<davy...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> They want - or demand - insulation from the basic facts of what
>> the depend on.
>
>But right there you have defined it. The willingness to want to tinker
>with small stuff has gone away.
Now we tinker with software.
David Gravereaux
> IF he wants everybody to see his posts he'll post in text as
> he should or he can stuff it, makes no difference to me.
That's a great inaccuracy. I am posting real text. Take a look! The
problem is that it is labeled different and your newsreader mishandles
it. Scott, who apparently reads news with telnet, sees my text just
fine. That's what RFC1847 intended. Any newsreader that doesn't
understand the particulars of PGP will skip what it doesn't understand.
The body of message will be displayed normally... unless your using
broken software.
Either MIME cruft or PGP cruft in the body for clearsigning. MIME cruft
allows a NRA to remove the cruft without an understanding of signing
protocol in use.
David Gravereaux
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.pro/msg/71265bd93fa949e8
Apparently, the folks at google know how to read RFCs.
Les Cargill
David, a principle of the Internet used to be "Be liberal
in what you accept, and conservative in what you send." Just a
thought - and yes ( anticipating your argument ) I know
the RFC says OK. Indeed, my client sees it all fine. But
still...
--
Les Cargill
David Gravereaux
Thanks for the John Postel reference. That still is the way. But it is
important to realize the effect of broken software in wide spread use.
Take for example, the 'ISO-8859-1' problem on the web. IE4 disregarded
it and and replaced it with 'Windows-1252'. The behavior stayed and
exists to this day. It became so much of a problem, the IETF almost
wrote it in as an exception for HTML 4.01, if I recall. Thankfully
those M$ bastards don't have a leg to stand on for their error. Bullies!
The effect on other browsers was such that they in turn had to parse
ISO-8859-1 incorrectly so users wouldn't complain of web author's
errors. Firefox has yet to include a strict option and even sends form
data improperly.
0jun...@bellsouth.net
BOb wrote:
<snippage>
>> over the years, and the clear sign is just supposed to
>> authenticate who sent it. The text in a public forum is
>> still supposed to be readable. tHere are diferent
>> applications of pgp and such techniques as well.
>> >OTOH, the only person I know who might benefit from real
>> >PGP secured message posting would be the Real Bob Morein
>> >to distinguish him from that pathetic poseur in OZ.
>> Again I would agree. Bob might want to look into clear
>> signed messages, and make his public key available to people
>> on request.
>Richard, I figure anybody that savvy and diligent would figure it
>out anyway. I would say my friends have solved the problem. You're
>one of them.
Agreed. IF you need an extra layer though if this fool
would (but don't think he can) change his posting style
making it less obvious who's who.
Soundhaspriority
<0jun...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:pOgYl.9874$Xl4....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
there. But I think a friend can always tell a friend.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Soundhaspriority
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Soundhaspriority
David Gravereaux
Got this cool book ages ago and haven't finished reading it yet:
"Analog Circuit Design: Art, Science, and Personalities" by Jim
Williams. In it he says something like: you know your not an analog guy
when all you do is tweak EEPROM registers to get something to work.
David Gravereaux
Frank Vuotto
wrote:
>
>http://www.radioshackcatalogs.com/
>It is very strange how our relationship with electronics
>has changed.
Amen to that..
Take a look at any online audio forum ( such as diy audio.com) and you
will notice that few have any comment about how a project sounds but
many write volumes about tweeking a circuit to a .00001% lower TIM in
> COMPUTER SIMULATION <.
This thread has turned into an argument about encription methods,
....... too typical.
Frank /~ http://newmex.com/f10
@/
Sean Conolly
news:5s-dnZgOBY9KFa3X...@giganews.com...
> In the 80's many of us were desperate for the future to arrive. I
> desperately wanted a computer so I could write books without resorting to
> the torture of the mechanical typewriter. And I'd had just a taste of
> timeshare computing, but I wanted more. So I ended up with a pile of
> teletype parts, which I finally got to play the "TWX Concerto" in my
> basement. The last easily repairable gadget I constructed was the famous
> "Pennywhistle Modem". Unbeknownst to me, the PLL chip was defective, so I
> acquired my first test bench setup to keep it aligned.
That was one of the chuckles I got from the RS catalogs - the $3500 TRS-80
with the $4000 8 MB external hard disk. My old 16K CoCo was on the back page
at $400. That's what I used to learn assembly language before moving on to a
CP/M system. Still have both of those systems around here somewhere.
> Now the future has arrived. We want for very little. The challenge of the
> innovators is not to provide us with things we've always wanted, such as
> the "Personal Computer", but to give us new desires. Unfortunately, none
> of these desires is realizable as macrocircuitry.
Computers are a commodity now, it what you can do with them that matters -
such as building a budget DAW that far exceeds the four track cassette
recorders we had back in the day.
> I still assemble all my computers, but system integration does not keep
> the hands or brain busy for very long.
There's plenty of room left for imagination on the software end. You just
have to be good enough, and quick enough, to not lose your vision of the
result while you create it. Of course it has to be fun though - once it
starts feeling like work it's not much of a hobby anymore :-)
Sean
Jay Ts
> Take a look at any online audio forum ( such as diy audio.com) and you
> will notice that few have any comment about how a project sounds but
> many write volumes about tweeking a circuit to a .00001% lower TIM in
>> COMPUTER SIMULATION <.
Those who can't do, simulate.
This is really funny, because in Spice at least, the calculations of
harmonic and other distortions are incredibly inaccurate.
Jay Ts
--
To contact me, use this web page:
http://www.jayts.com/contact.php
Soundhaspriority
"Sean Conolly" <sjcono...@yaaho.com> wrote in message
news:0XPYl.10275$he4....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...[snip]
> There's plenty of room left for imagination on the software end. You just
> have to be good enough, and quick enough, to not lose your vision of the
> result while you create it. Of course it has to be fun though - once it
> starts feeling like work it's not much of a hobby anymore :-)
>
> Sean
>
Ditto. Software is the available opportunity to explore the edge of tech
and beyond.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Scott Dorsey
Fewer people are doing that too. Used to be that people who bought
a microcomputer would expect to write for code for it. Now most
microcomputers don't even come with a programming environment standard
with them.
A couple decades ago it was not unusual to see one-off consoles specifically
built for a particular studio's needs. I have been kind of surprised and
kind of saddened that we don't see one-off DAW systems.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Benj
> http://www.radioshackcatalogs.com/
>
> Talk about the ultimate nostalgia resource. The early '60s
> ones are pretty incredible - McIntosh sold
> through RS. I remember the late '70s ones very vividly.
>
> It is very strange how our relationship with electronics
> has changed.
our relationship with RS too. It was a couple of years ago when the
guy in the store told me the catalog was discontinued. Now ANY RS
catalog is "nostagia".
Scott Dorsey
>"Soundhaspriority" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>news:5s-dnZgOBY9KFa3X...@giganews.com...
>> In the 80's many of us were desperate for the future to arrive. I
>> desperately wanted a computer so I could write books without resorting to
>> the torture of the mechanical typewriter. And I'd had just a taste of
>> timeshare computing, but I wanted more. So I ended up with a pile of
>> teletype parts, which I finally got to play the "TWX Concerto" in my
>> basement. The last easily repairable gadget I constructed was the famous
>> "Pennywhistle Modem". Unbeknownst to me, the PLL chip was defective, so I
>> acquired my first test bench setup to keep it aligned.
>
>That was one of the chuckles I got from the RS catalogs - the $3500 TRS-80
>with the $4000 8 MB external hard disk. My old 16K CoCo was on the back page
>at $400. That's what I used to learn assembly language before moving on to a
>CP/M system. Still have both of those systems around here somewhere.
Note that at about the same time, Radio Shack was selling the Model 16,
which was a small business system with real multitasking and real per-process
memory protection. It did the kind of stuff that Microsoft didn't get right
until Windows 2000, almost twenty years later.
Peter Larsen
| Clearsigned is more ugly as it places the sign within the message.
That is not your choice, your choice is to listen to what people in the
newsgroup say or to get plonked and it has been not to listen so plonk you
go and you have the ultimate safety of not getting read.
Kind regards
Peter Larsen
David Gravereaux
> ...and you have the ultimate safety of not getting read.
by the ones with broken software. This post isn't an attachment,
really. Your newsreader just mishandles it poorly. Send bugs to
<mailto:blac...@microsoft.com>. Even Scott can read it and he's
apparently reading the group with telnet.
hank alrich
content! You have the ultimate option of not being read by anyone who
doesn't want to look at all that stuff.
Just because I can read it doesn't mean I have to read it.
David Gravereaux <davy...@pobox.com> wrote:
> This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
> --------------enig9DB2E5C0DACDB8B29BA315B7
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> --------------enig9DB2E5C0DACDB8B29BA315B7
> Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
> Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
> Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAko5WuQACgkQlZadkQh/RmEZ/QCg8OrwVD4IiZFrm604/84CJS7D
> 7xoAn1QqS4zeqnbTCf6W3WgGTiC8Z7cu
> =OA2m
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> --------------enig9DB2E5C0DACDB8B29BA315B7--
--
ha
shut up and play your guitar
David Gravereaux
> David, the stuff attending your post takes up more space than does the
> content! You have the ultimate option of not being read by anyone who
> doesn't want to look at all that stuff.
>
> Just because I can read it doesn't mean I have to read it.
Ask the macSOUP developer to support MIME. The sig is easily stripped
using normal MIME processing and doesn't need any knowledge of PGP.
There's probably a missing script that you're not loading from your config.
pseudo code would look something like this:
if ("multipart/signed" isin $MIMEtype) {
display (decode $MIMEpart[0]);
stop;
}
hank alrich
Sorry, David, but I am not going to ask anybody to screw with it. You
cling to Micro$loth, you get what you get. Not sure I've ever seen a
post from you with useful info.
David Gravereaux
Hash: SHA1
You see the extra crud cause your app isn't processing MIME. Don't
blame me for it. This posting just has different crud that would need
PGP specific processing to strip to pees the OE users.
I think my first posting to r.a.p was asking about a Publison Infernal
Machine 90 schematics back about 1999... Opps, no, '95
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.pro/msg/48e2dbf4e2440e91?hl=en
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvgu unir cevinpl
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAko6of8ACgkQlZadkQh/RmHVlQCdGIQFDaHm6ignYbIE3noHc/dP
Kl0An3Awgfr/OHkoU62MtU4ztIxfhbWZ
=FFTf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
David Gravereaux
be filled with the same amount crud you quoted me at first. If you are
given the option of being shown the attachment without seeing any MIME
crud, macSOUP is doing some MIME processing of body parts, but lacks an
understanding of "MIME_crypt" as listed in RFC5000 (Internet Official
Protocol Standards) 5/2008. There are external commandline MIME filters.
Misifus
Let's see, it's Hank's fault because your machine is putting extra stuff
on all your messages?
-Raf
--
Misifus-
Rafael Seibert
Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/rafiii
home: http://www.rafandsioux.com
David Gravereaux
Hash: SHA1
Misifus wrote:
...
> Let's see, it's Hank's fault because your machine is putting extra stuff
> on all your messages?
1) Hank mentions the extra MIME fluff that his reader isn't processing.
2) Yet my message is still readable in plain/text, albeit surrounded by
MIME fluff. Or, for this posting, this message is surrounded by PGP
fluff without MIME. Although with cleartext signing as this message is,
stripping requires a routine with PGP knowledge.
3) It's his choice not to process MIME.
Raf, for you have no fear. Your newsreader processes MIME correctly,
but would require the Enigmail addon to strip the clearsigned PGP cruft.
The thing is, the OE users complain when I use MIME.
So MIME if I could, but can't due to bugs in other's MUAs, so
clearsigned and ugly.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvgu unir cevinpl
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAko78U8ACgkQlZadkQh/RmFRSACg1+ktviAcwgJBz0nF9j31/nAx
ayEAnii/y01lBmT1i5RRQ0RDDs2DvEUK
=mreo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Misifus
Actually, mine sees all that too, I just clipped it.
David Gravereaux
...
> Actually, mine sees all that too, I just clipped it.
Does not.. here's the OpenPGP/MIME example. The last two were
clearsigned. You see no fluff and the sig is an attachment you could
less about like vCards. I'm running the same version of TB as you.
But, again, non-MIME processing MUAs see this message with fluff and
worse, Outlook/OutlookExpress/Live users don't see anything as their
clients mangle the message.
hank alrich
> But, again, non-MIME processing MUAs see this message with fluff and
> worse, Outlook/OutlookExpress/Live users don't see anything as their
> clients mangle the message.
Henceforth I, too, shall see nothing of this, but for a different
reason.
David Gravereaux
Hash: SHA1
hank alrich wrote:
>
> Henceforth I, too, shall see nothing of this, but for a different
> reason.
I'd be pissed, too, if ppl posted crud my nntp client couldn't process
right. I get so pissed, I might even learn XUL and write a TB extension
to fix it.
Like email in general, sender verification was a missed concept from the
git go. Hence spam, jojob, etc..
- --
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAko8oNMACgkQlZadkQh/RmE34ACfYlpskf6s1qk/ZYzfQ9o2z6eA
fLQAoOB2ser9u58VpZEddXaEJNCJy7cc
=Ff0W
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----