Subj : Password Errors To : Nicholas Boel From : mark lewis Date : Fri Aug 31 2012 01:31:15 ml> NB> Why does most everyone's do the same? ml> ml> do what? multiple quotes like this ml> ml> OR like this? ml> ml> mn> ij> ef> ab> ab wrote this 4 quotes back ml> mn> ij> ef> ef wrote this 3 quotes back ml> mn> ij> ij wrote this 2 quotes back ml> mn> mn wrote this 1 quote back ml> NB> Looks like Mystic does it this way. true but if the space is missing, then it prefixes the quotes with its quote instead of simply adding the '>' to the existing quotes... in others words, the space or not farkles it up... NB> With all the different ways editors do it, which way is the NB> correct way? the "correct" and "defacto" way is to recognize all of the two or three existing ways and then to provide the one "standard" way instead of not recognizing the "normal" format and simply prefixing the current quote stuff to all lines... FWIW: the above is NOT the preferred way... NB> And is that correct way fact or opinion? i would call it fact and defacto standard... even though may not be written out in a proposal or a standard... welcome to the world of cooperatio between software coders ;) ml> each of the above three use the same formatting rules... but if ml> one doesn' ml> allow for the space between the quote prefixes, it may not ml> recognize it as ml> previous quoted quote and would then stuff its own quote prefix onto the ml> line... then you get things like what your quoter has been seen to do... NB> What things did my quoter do? I'm pretty sure it keeps what's NB> there, and adds it's own quote prefix. it prefixed every previous quote with the quote string based on the From field in the message that you were replying to... NB> Whereas with synchronet, mine was stripping quote prefixes. i recall that being noted but i don't recall the exact specifics :( NB> Now you're saying both of them are wrong? I just can't win, can I? NB> :) it seems that this is true for many of us who are being complained to/about... but the major difference between you and myself is that you are using your bbs software for you messaging stuffs whereas i am not... i'm using my "sysop editor" which is outside my bbs software and the only thing they have in common is the list of message areas and the message base format being used... ml> but the simple answer to your question is that they do the simple ml> quoting ml> quote chopping at the end of the line because their coder couldn't ml> or didn ml> won't figure out how to do it properly... in other words, some ml> might use t ml> term "lazy"... others, codes possibly, might say, "hey, at least ml> they can ml> quote. if they want better, they can write it themselves or pay ml> for better NB> I've been requesting this be changed with Mystic. I prefer word NB> wrapping, rather than chopping off the end of a line. that's called "reflowing"... NB> It's not that bad on one quote, it is bad enough... NB> because I think it only chops 4 chars off the end, look at my quote above that i left chainsawed and you can see where some words, 3 letter ones, are left out and that completely changes what was written :( NB> but if you have 4 quote prefixes, I'm willing to bet you're NB> getting 16 chars chopped, which isn't cool at all. that's why the first quote method i showed is the preferred one... that is where the quoting mechanism recognizes the previous quotes and simply suffixes another '>' to them before reflowing the rest of the quote and prefixing the '>' to the new lines as they come around during the reflowing process... ml> yes, mine does have some problems... but i can't fix mine like he ml> can in t ml> software that he maintains... the source code to all the various ml> packages ml> has not been released and likely never will be... i know that in ml> one case, ml> there was $10000US spent for the sources but i doubt that it has ml> brought i ml> 1/3rd of that since it was bought and updated... NB> You can fix them by switching softwares. But you wouldn't do that, NB> would you? i would if the results were worth the trouble... but what many miss is that i'm still running the last available private beta version of my software... software that was, at one time, one of the leading bbs packages in fidonet.. software that (helped to) set these (defacto) standards NB> It's not THAT important.. right? I have a feeling that NB> devs that see crappy wording in proposals, follow them how they NB> want to follow them. At least that's what I got out of your NB> previous discussion with Rob. you can't put my messages on par with those who write the standards... i'm a developer and coder... i'm not a standards writer ;) ml> he specifically posted some of the messages that didn't make it out ml> originally... but an RC change shouldn't frak things like that up... RC ml> addresses are just additional addresses and should not be used in the ml> processing of regular echomail and netmail... if a system is ml> moving mail, ml> can continue to do it without and breakage if they use their normal node ml> address... sadly, though, this conversation has come up more than ml> once ove ml> years, too... sadly^2 some folk still don't listen to history and ml> so they ml> up with problems like you described when an RC was apparently ml> hubbing mail ml> had to switch things out when another person took over the RC slot... NB> I don't think that was the situation. I think Rob had to switch his NB> link to a new person completely. which wouldn't have to have been done if the *C address was simply another address and not one being used for processing mail ;) )\/(ark * Origin: (1:3634/12) SEEN-BY: 229/426 103/705 218/720 214/22 102/401 103/1 218/215 840 301/1 SEEN-BY: 218/860 880 601 870 930 124/5016 218/700 1 10/1 218/0 10/0 .