Email client problem with Comcast

am 25.05.2005 21:23:19 von dgmoore

My ISP is Comcast. Until last week I was able to manage my email
through Outlook 2000, Mozilla Thunderbird, and Netscape Mail. On May 21
I started to get "connection refused" and "unable to connect to server"
errors using these clients (Web mail still works). Comcast tech support
insists that nothing is wrong at their end, and that the problem must
be with my setup. My setup is correct - something has changed at their
end, but I can't find out what it is. They say they don't support these
clients so they can't (won't) help me.

Any suggestions would be appreciated.

Thanks
Dave

Re: Email client problem with Comcast

am 26.05.2005 22:29:05 von AK

Re: Email client problem with Comcast

am 27.05.2005 14:27:45 von Frank Slootweg

dgmoore@erols.com wrote:
> My ISP is Comcast. Until last week I was able to manage my email
> through Outlook 2000, Mozilla Thunderbird, and Netscape Mail. On May 21
> I started to get "connection refused" and "unable to connect to server"
> errors using these clients (Web mail still works). Comcast tech support
> insists that nothing is wrong at their end, and that the problem must
> be with my setup. My setup is correct - something has changed at their
> end, but I can't find out what it is. They say they don't support these
> clients so they can't (won't) help me.
>
> Any suggestions would be appreciated.

If you know how to speak POP or IMAP (depending on what you are using)
and/or SMTP (if you have a problem sending), then try that in a telnet
session.

If, as is the most likely, you don't, then try to get POP/IMAP or/and
SMTP session logs from your clients. (I don't use those, so I can't give
specific instructions).

If you can't do that, then (temporarily) configure and use Outlook
Express and let it generate logs. For the latter part: Tools ->
Options... -> Maintenance -> tick the Troubleshooting field for Mail
(POP/SMTP) or/and IMAP. The logfiles are named Pop3.log, Smtp.log and (I
assume) Imap.log. Finding them can be a little bit hard. In my case,
Windows XP, they are in:

C:\Documents and Settings\\Local Settings\Application Data\
Identities\{....}\Microsoft\Outlook Express\Smtp.log

Of course you can find them by searching for them, i.e. Start ->
Search -> All files and folders -> All or part of the file name:
Pop3.log -> Search.

I hope this helps.

Re: Email client problem with Comcast

am 27.05.2005 16:55:12 von dgmoore

mail.comcast.net

Re: Email client problem with Comcast

am 27.05.2005 17:08:15 von Sam

Re: Email client problem with Comcast

am 27.05.2005 17:33:37 von Frank Slootweg

Sam wrote:
> dgmoore@erols.com writes:
>
> > mail.comcast.net
>
> The above are the entire contents of your message.
>
> Would you mind answering the following question:
>
> If someone were to come into this newsgroup, comp.mail.misc, open your
> message and read it, without being aware of anything else, do you
> think that they would have any idea what the FUCK are you talking
> about?

Well, most people's newsreaders have a "show parent article" feature,
'even' the OP's one. Sorry to hear that yours is lacking this essential
functionality. Mine has had it for over two decades, so perhaps it's
time to join the 1980's?

> Or, if you were replying to someone else who posted yesterday, do you
> really believe that they remembered to write in their diary,
> yesterday, what they wrote in some message posted to this newsgroup,
> that's probably all forgotten by the time they get up this morning;
> but as soon as they saw your mysterious message they immediately
> remembered that it had something to do with something they posted
> yesterday, so they immediately rushed off to read yesterday's diary
> entry and refresh themselves on the topic, because you're such an
> important person?

Why do you assume that people's newsreaders or/and brains are as
non-functional as yours, apparently, is/are?

That doesn't mean that the OP should not be more forthcoming with
more *information*, but (not) *quoting* is not the problem.

Re: Email client problem with Comcast

am 27.05.2005 18:12:59 von Steve Baker

On 27 May 2005 07:55:12 -0700, dgmoore@erols.com wrote:

>mail.comcast.net

That's correct for checking email. The server for sending email is
smtp.comcast.net. I haven't been having any trouble with the Comcast
email lately, so I'd say something is wrong at your end.

Steve Baker

Re: Email client problem with Comcast

am 27.05.2005 18:15:29 von Steve Baker

On Fri, 27 May 2005 10:08:15 -0500, Sam wrote:

>If someone were to come into this newsgroup, comp.mail.misc, open your
>message and read it, without being aware of anything else, do you think that
>they would have any idea what the FUCK are you talking about?

Oh oh, Sam, you and Beavis are starting to sound alike.

Steve Baker

Re: Email client problem with Comcast

am 27.05.2005 18:18:37 von Sam

Re: Email client problem with Comcast

am 27.05.2005 19:49:29 von Sam

Re: Email client problem with Comcast

am 27.05.2005 20:03:39 von Frank Slootweg

Steve Baker wrote:
> On Fri, 27 May 2005 10:08:15 -0500, Sam wrote:
>
> >If someone were to come into this newsgroup, comp.mail.misc, open your
> >message and read it, without being aware of anything else, do you think that
> >they would have any idea what the FUCK are you talking about?
>
> Oh oh, Sam, you and Beavis are starting to sound alike.

Indeed. A classic case of PKB. Rather sad, because I think Sam is a
valuable and valued contributor. I just don't understand what he thinks
to accomplish with his trolling, kook-baiting and (now) worse.

Re: Email client problem with Comcast

am 27.05.2005 20:03:40 von Frank Slootweg

Sam wrote:
> Frank Slootweg writes:
>
> > Sam wrote:
[deleted]
> > Well, most people's newsreaders have a "show parent article" feature,
> > 'even' the OP's one. Sorry to hear that yours is lacking this essential
> > functionality. Mine has had it for over two decades, so perhaps it's
> > time to join the 1980's?
>
> Oh, I can look up the parent article, of course, but what if it
> expired already?

Highly unlikely for a current discussion. For an old one: Google
Groups. If expired and not archived, then who cares?

> Relying on Usenet retention policies is:

Who said anything about relying? After all, this is Usenet isn't it?

If you come up with arguments, then please use some relevant and
credible ones.

> A) Rather foolish, and
>
> B) It is extremely unlikely that the wunderkid in question has even the most
> vague notion of what a "retention policy" means.

For most users most of the time "retention policy" is *irrelevant*, so
indeed :

> you were saying?
>
> > Why do you assume that people's newsreaders or/and brains are as
> > non-functional as yours, apparently, is/are?
>
> Why do you assume that your ignorance of general practices of Usenet
> is the measuring stick that everyone has to comply with?

That comment is as silly as when I would say that you didn't have a
clue about email.

Anyway, talking about "general practices of Usenet": What about trying
to *help* people, instead of flaming them about irrelevant stuff? Or
wasn't that "general practice" on your version of Usenet?

Re: Email client problem with Comcast

am 27.05.2005 21:28:24 von AK

dgmoore@erols.com wrote:
> mail.comcast.net
>

The issue you have with your email clients might be something internal
to your system. Anti-virus email scanning?

New software firewall installed? What is the error that your email
clients report?

AK

Re: Email client problem with Comcast

am 27.05.2005 21:57:56 von Sam

Re: Email client problem with Comcast

am 27.05.2005 23:13:55 von Frank Slootweg

Sam wrote:

Thanks for your much 'softer' tone.

> Frank Slootweg writes:
[deleted]
> > Anyway, talking about "general practices of Usenet": What about
> > trying to *help* people, instead of flaming them about irrelevant
> > stuff? Or wasn't that "general practice" on your version of Usenet?
>
> Exactly what kind of help would someone be asking by posting a single
> line of text, that reads "mail.comcast.net", with this making up the
> entire contents of a post?

I can only assume that you did not see/read the *original* (base,
) posting [1]. While that wasn't a prototype of a very good
posting, it was quite reasonable. In response to the OP, AK asked a
specific question and the OP answered it. That's all.

> If people can't be bothered

PKB. If you can't be bothered to follow/read a thread, then don't
respond. Plain and simple. You don't have to follow/read a thread, but
if you don't, you have no justification to flame a poster, especially
not about totally irrelevant aspects.

> If people can't be bothered enough to frame a cogent question, they
> don't deserve to get any help.

'True', but irrelevant, because this is not such a case.

> Although pulling up a parent post is not much a big deal, expecting
> people to backtrack like that, when asking for help, seems to be
> rather rude, and inconsiderate.

In my newsreader, it's one keypress ('u', for 'up'). Big fsck-ing
deal.

BTW, in the old (real, not Lotus) Notes days, this style of
not-quoting was the default. Only when broken News came out, which could
not thread, people started to quote because they 'had' to.

It is interesting to note that quite a few Google Group posters
re-introduce the habit of non-quoting, probably because they can see
the/several other articles, instead of just one at a time.

If done right, the non-quoting method can be quite efficient and
pleasant. After all, IRL we don't go repeating what the other person
said and then add our bit. No, we just respond and, if needed, embed a
(pseudo) quote in our response. Having seen and used both methods, I can
see the advantages and disadvantages of both, and do not feel the need
to flame because someone is supposedly doing the 'wrong' thing. FWIW, I
(much) prefer the non-quoting style over the top-posting/bottom-quoting
style.

> I've reached the conclusion -- based on several years of answering
> questions for help (not just here, on Usenet) -- that if someone can't
> formulate a legible question, they'll always turn out to be a waste of
> time. Even if you go through the effort of figure out what they want,
> and give them the answer, they'll either not understand the answer
> itself, and come back with five more dumb questions, or they realized
> that they've asked the wrong question and go back to square one. Some
> people just get in way over their heads, and expect others to bail
> them out, to hand them the magical solution to whatever woes they're
> dealing with, on a silver platter.

All valid remarks (FWIW, I've been in the (technical) support business
for 35 years, so I know *exactly* what you're saying), but (IMO) not
applicable to this poster/thread.

[1]

Re: Email client problem with Comcast

am 27.05.2005 23:34:47 von Sam

Re: Email client problem with Comcast

am 30.05.2005 22:01:51 von Tim Smith

In article , Sam wrote:
> This is a MIME GnuPG-signed message. If you see this text, it means that
> your E-mail or Usenet software does not support MIME signed messages.
>
> --=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-9189-1117210720-0003
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="US-ASCII"
> Content-Disposition: inline
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
....
> Why do you assume that your ignorance of general practices of Usenet is the
> measuring stick that everyone has to comply with?
....
> --=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-9189-1117210720-0003
> Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQBCl0hgx9p3GYHlUOIRAqkkAJsEWm5GIAoviPXSRnuHO9jtiNR3SwCf aqop
> VN6qyBbRtmC4nFGlUTE+j0k=
> =2PBr
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> --=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-9189-1117210720-0003--

Your implied claim that you aren't ignorant of general practices of usenet
would have more weight if your post didn't contain all that junk.

--
--Tim Smith

Re: Email client problem with Comcast

am 30.05.2005 22:19:29 von Timo Salmi

Tim Smith wrote:
> Sam wrote:
>>This is a MIME GnuPG-signed message. If you see this text, it means that
>>--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-9189-1117210720-0003
>>Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
>>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> Your implied claim that you aren't ignorant of general practices of usenet
> would have more weight if your post didn't contain all that junk.

Just one of the elementary tricks of the trade. A calculated
irritant.

"Some writers on the Usenet news, who often are also otherwise
abusive or at least abrasive, deliberately develop some superficially
innocuous quirks to try annoy and bait the other readers into
reacting." From http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/abusive.html

All the best, Timo

--
Prof. Timo Salmi ftp & http://garbo.uwasa.fi/ archives 193.166.120.5
Department of Accounting and Business Finance ; University of Vaasa
mailto:ts@uwasa.fi ; FIN-65101, Finland
Timo's procmail tips at http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/info/proctips.html

Re: Email client problem with Comcast

am 31.05.2005 01:02:01 von Sam

Re: Email client problem with Comcast

am 04.06.2005 10:29:19 von Frank Slootweg

Sam wrote:
> Tim Smith writes:
>
> > Your implied claim that you aren't ignorant of general practices of
> > usenet would have more weight if your post didn't contain all that
> > junk.
>
> This "junk" is defined by a nine year old Internet standard. It's not
> my fault that your broken newsreader can't format it properly, like
> 99% of the rest of Internet Usenet/E-mail clients, and spews garbage
> in your face.

And exactly which "Internet standard" says that RFC 2015 (or MIME for
that matter) applies to *Usenet articles*? [1] (And your "99%" is on the
very high side, especially when counting installed copies, but also when
just counting the different types.)

> Your refusal to acknowledge the existence of RFC 2015 won't make it go
> away.

I think you mis-spelled your nym and (implied) gender.

> Resistance is futile.

We gathered that much.

[1] I.e. we are talking about e-mail, but not using it (for posting).

Re: Email client problem with Comcast

am 04.06.2005 15:12:42 von Sam

Re: Email client problem with Comcast

am 04.06.2005 19:57:59 von Frank Slootweg

Sam wrote:
> Frank Slootweg writes:
>
> > Sam wrote:
> >> Tim Smith writes:
> >>
> >> > Your implied claim that you aren't ignorant of general practices of
> >> > usenet would have more weight if your post didn't contain all that
> >> > junk.
> >>
> >> This "junk" is defined by a nine year old Internet standard. It's not
> >> my fault that your broken newsreader can't format it properly, like
> >> 99% of the rest of Internet Usenet/E-mail clients, and spews garbage
> >> in your face.
> >
> > And exactly which "Internet standard" says that RFC 2015 (or MIME for
> > that matter) applies to *Usenet articles*? [1]
>
> Look it up. I'm not going to do all the work for you.

A little hard to lookup something which doesn't exist, don't you
think? One can not prove that something does not exist, so the burden of
proof is on you, the one which implies that such an "Internet standard"
does exist.

> > (And your "99%" is on the
> > very high side, especially when counting installed copies, but also when
> > just counting the different types.)
>
> Really? There's more than five tin users left?

Did I say, or even imply, that tin has a problem with your PGP stuff?
Hint: The answer isn't "yes".

> >> Resistance is futile.
> >
> > We gathered that much.
>
> Who's "we"? You, and how many socks?

"socks"? How unimaginative! You *are* indeed sounding more and more
like AC. But to answer your question: I realize that you have a problem
with thread-navigation/-reading, but keep on trying and I'm sure you'll
figure it out.

> > [1] I.e. we are talking about e-mail, but not using it (for posting).
>
> Your last beacon of hope: desperately trying to somehow contort reality into
> suggesting that MIME does not apply to Usenet.

I'm not "suggesting" any such thing, I'm *saying* it. Look, *I* have no
problem with (sensible) use of MIME in Usenet articles, but *you* are the
one referring to mystical "Internet standard"s. *When* you do that,
you'll have to realize that there is no standard which says it's OK to
use MIME in Usenet articles.

> How pathetic. Really.

Yes, it's really pathetic that there is no such standard. There should
be, but there isn't. Life's a pain, isn't it?

> [root@commodore misc]# pwd
> /var/spool/news/articles/comp/mail/misc
> [root@commodore misc]# grep -i 'mime-version:' * | wc -l
> 185
> [root@commodore misc]# ls | wc -l
> 365
> [root@commodore misc]# bc
> bc 1.06
> Copyright 1991-1994, 1997, 1998, 2000 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> This is free software with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY.
> For details type `warranty'.
> scale=6
> 185 / 365
> .506849

Did I say that MIME isn't *used* in Usenet articles? Hint: Again the
answer isn't "yes".

But let's not concentrate on the MIME part, it's just PKB flame-bait
(but true nonetheless).

Re: Email client problem with Comcast

am 04.06.2005 21:40:58 von Sam

Re: Email client problem with Comcast

am 04.06.2005 23:42:40 von Frank Slootweg

Sam wrote:
> Frank Slootweg writes:
>
> > Sam wrote:
> >> Frank Slootweg writes:
> >>
> >> > Sam wrote:
> >> >> Tim Smith writes:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Your implied claim that you aren't ignorant of general practices of
> >> >> > usenet would have more weight if your post didn't contain all that
> >> >> > junk.
> >> >>
> >> >> This "junk" is defined by a nine year old Internet standard. It's not
> >> >> my fault that your broken newsreader can't format it properly, like
> >> >> 99% of the rest of Internet Usenet/E-mail clients, and spews garbage
> >> >> in your face.
> >> >
> >> > And exactly which "Internet standard" says that RFC 2015 (or MIME for
> >> > that matter) applies to *Usenet articles*? [1]
> >>
> >> Look it up. I'm not going to do all the work for you.
> >
> > A little hard to lookup something which doesn't exist, don't you
> > think?
>
> Right. Fortunately, that's not the case here.
>
> > One can not prove that something does not exist, so the burden of
> > proof is on you,
>
> If someone were to assert that the sky is purple, I doubt that it becomes my
> responsibility to deliver an introductory course in physics in order to
> dispute such a silly idea.

Logic isn't your strong point, is it? (Using your somewhat broken
analogy:) I'm not asking you to prove that the sky isn't purple, I'm
asking you to prove that it's blue. Shouldn't be to hard, should it?

> > the one which implies that such an "Internet standard"
> > does exist.
>
> Of course it does: http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2015.html

And where exactly in that RFC does it say that it applies to Usenet
articles?

> >> > (And your "99%" is on the
> >> > very high side, especially when counting installed copies, but also when
> >> > just counting the different types.)
> >>
> >> Really? There's more than five tin users left?
> >
> > Did I say, or even imply, that tin has a problem with your PGP stuff?
> > Hint: The answer isn't "yes".
>
> It's not my fault that you choose to play a game of cloak and dagger. Since
> you were claiming that posting MIME to Usenet is a major disaster for some
> Usenet client,

I did (claim) no such thing. Hint: PGP != MIME.

> the logical
> conclusion is that it's your Usenet client that's having a problem.
> I regret the error of trying to logically analyze your posts. I will not
> make the same mistake again.

There's that 'logic' thing again.

> >> >> Resistance is futile.
> >> >
> >> > We gathered that much.
> >>
> >> Who's "we"? You, and how many socks?
> >
> > "socks"? How unimaginative! You *are* indeed sounding more and more
> > like AC. But to answer your question: I realize that you have a problem
> > with thread-navigation/-reading, but keep on trying and I'm sure you'll
> > figure it out.
>
> I do not recall ever making a complaint of this nature. You must have me
> confused with someone else, who must've been complaining about limitations
> in his Usenet reader.

Yeah, ain't it hard to remember/lookup what has been discussed in the
very thread you're replying in?

> >> > [1] I.e. we are talking about e-mail, but not using it (for posting).
> >>
> >> Your last beacon of hope: desperately trying to somehow contort reality into
> >> suggesting that MIME does not apply to Usenet.
> >
> > I'm not "suggesting" any such thing, I'm *saying* it.
>
> And who exactly died, and made you king of Usenet? Just because you said
> something does not automatically make it true, of course.

Elvis? True. Is there a point somewhere?

> > Look, *I* have no
> > problem with (sensible) use of MIME in Usenet articles, but *you* are the
> > one referring to mystical "Internet standard"s.
>
> Last time I checked MIME was a standard.

But not for Usenet articles. Perhaps that second M really means what
it says? (And to (try to) prevent trick number 99: No, a newer standard
can not declare itself applicable to (the subject matter of) an older
one (Not that the MIME standard(s) try to do that, but some people
try.).)

> > *When* you do that,
> > you'll have to realize that there is no standard which says it's OK to
> > use MIME in Usenet articles.
>
> And there's no separate standard that says it's OK to use MIME for E-mail.

Huh? What do *you* think the second M means? (May I suggest to search
the MIME RFCs on the word "mail"? Then try the same with the word
"Usenet" (or some similar word). See what I mean?)

> This is a completely silly notion, that some kind of a separate enabling
> standard must exist in order to have a second standard apply in some
> situation.

Agreed, but the other standard (in this case the Usenet one) must
refer to the (in your opinion) 'general' one. Guess what, it doesn't.
Why? Look at the numbers/dates. Wow, there's actually some logic in it!
Amazing isn't it? Who would have thought such a thing!

> >> How pathetic. Really.
> >
> > Yes, it's really pathetic that there is no such standard. There should
> > be, but there isn't. Life's a pain, isn't it?
>
> Not for me. I'm not the one complaining, since it appears that I have no
> difficulties with reading properly MIME-formatted messages.

That's not the topic of the discussion. The topic of the discussion is
your referal to non-existing standards when people 'flame' you for your
use of PGP-signing in your Usenet articles.

> >> [root@commodore misc]# pwd
> >> /var/spool/news/articles/comp/mail/misc
> >> [root@commodore misc]# grep -i 'mime-version:' * | wc -l
> >> 185
> >> [root@commodore misc]# ls | wc -l
> >> 365
> >> [root@commodore misc]# bc
> >> bc 1.06
> >> Copyright 1991-1994, 1997, 1998, 2000 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> >> This is free software with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY.
> >> For details type `warranty'.
> >> scale=6
> >> 185 / 365
> >> .506849
> >
> > Did I say that MIME isn't *used* in Usenet articles? Hint: Again the
> > answer isn't "yes".
>
> You said that MIME should not be used for Usenet.

I said not such thing. I said "And exactly which "Internet standard"
says that RFC 2015 (or MIME for that matter) applies to *Usenet
articles*?". I.e. I said that the MIME *standard* does not *apply* to
Usenet articles, not that MIME should not be *used* for Usenet. On the
contrary, I said "Look, *I* have no problem with (sensible) use of MIME
in Usenet articles".

Contrary to what you apparently think, many people, me included, are
quite realistic when it comes to 'accepting' common practice. For
example, for (IMO) good reasons I technically violate the Usenet RFC in
my postings. But it would be silly for me to claim that the RFC says
something which it doesn't. Likewise with the use of non-ascii charset's
(i.e. part of MIME) in Usenet articles: One could not have
local-language groups without them. So that's another 'accepted' violation
of the Usenet RFC.

The problem with your 'violation', PGP-signing, is that it's not
really an 'accepted' violation and that you claim that it's not a
violation. If you would just state your opinion as such, i.e. an
opinion, then I think you would have more acceptance. However, as
another poster pointed out, I doubt that's what you're looking for.

> > But let's not concentrate on the MIME part, it's just PKB flame-bait
> > (but true nonetheless).
>
> No, let's do.

Fine by me. See above.

Re: Email client problem with Comcast

am 05.06.2005 01:22:43 von Sam

Re: Email client problem with Comcast

am 05.06.2005 09:52:51 von Frank Slootweg

Sam wrote:
> Frank Slootweg writes:
>
> > Sam wrote:
> >> Frank Slootweg writes:
> >>
> >> > Sam wrote:
> >> >> Frank Slootweg writes:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Sam wrote:
> >> >> >> Tim Smith writes:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > Your implied claim that you aren't ignorant of general practices of
> >> >> >> > usenet would have more weight if your post didn't contain all that
> >> >> >> > junk.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> This "junk" is defined by a nine year old Internet standard. It's not
> >> >> >> my fault that your broken newsreader can't format it properly, like
> >> >> >> 99% of the rest of Internet Usenet/E-mail clients, and spews garbage
> >> >> >> in your face.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > And exactly which "Internet standard" says that RFC 2015 (or MIME for
> >> >> > that matter) applies to *Usenet articles*? [1]
> >> >>
> >> >> Look it up. I'm not going to do all the work for you.
> >> >
> >> > A little hard to lookup something which doesn't exist, don't you
> >> > think?
> >>
> >> Right. Fortunately, that's not the case here.
> >>
> >> > One can not prove that something does not exist, so the burden of
> >> > proof is on you,
> >>
> >> If someone were to assert that the sky is purple, I doubt that it becomes my
> >> responsibility to deliver an introductory course in physics in order to
> >> dispute such a silly idea.
> >
> > Logic isn't your strong point, is it? (Using your somewhat broken
> > analogy:) I'm not asking you to prove that the sky isn't purple, I'm
> > asking you to prove that it's blue. Shouldn't be to hard, should it?
>
> No, but it does take some minimum amount of effort to put together a formal
> presentation, and do the math. Still, I just don't see much justification
> in expending even such a minimum amount of effort to convince someone who
> refuses to accept something that everyone else agrees is an axiom.

Translation: "I can't prove my claim, but I'll be damned if I'll admit
it, so I'll dodge."

> >> > the one which implies that such an "Internet standard"
> >> > does exist.
> >>
> >> Of course it does: http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2015.html
> >
> > And where exactly in that RFC does it say that it applies to Usenet
> > articles?
>
> The same place where it says that it doesn't.
>
> >> >> > (And your "99%" is on the
> >> >> > very high side, especially when counting installed copies, but also when
> >> >> > just counting the different types.)
> >> >>
> >> >> Really? There's more than five tin users left?
> >> >
> >> > Did I say, or even imply, that tin has a problem with your PGP stuff?
> >> > Hint: The answer isn't "yes".
> >>
> >> It's not my fault that you choose to play a game of cloak and dagger. Since
> >> you were claiming that posting MIME to Usenet is a major disaster for some
> >> Usenet client,
> >
> > I did (claim) no such thing. Hint: PGP != MIME.
>
> Hint: with RFC 2015, it is.

Hint: *Read* the paragraph to which I responded, and *read* my
response. I.e. you said "Since you were claiming that posting MIME to
Usenet is a major disaster for some Usenet client," to which I replied
"I did (claim) no such thing. Hint: PGP != MIME", because I did not
"claim" that MIME was "a major disaster for some Usenet client", but
PGP (not "a major disaster", but a nuisance). So for *that* issue PGP !=
MIME. That PGP == MIME for RFC 2015 is 'interesting', but irrelevant for
the discussion.

> >> the logical
> >> conclusion is that it's your Usenet client that's having a problem.
> >> I regret the error of trying to logically analyze your posts. I will not
> >> make the same mistake again.
> >
> > There's that 'logic' thing again.
>
> Right, that's what I said. For some peculiar reason you refuse to accept
> logical axioms, so a logical debate becomes impossible.

No, the point is that instead of reading what someone actually wrote,
you draw unfounded 'logical' conclusions and then blame your 'opponent'
for having a 'logic' problem.

> >> >> >> Resistance is futile.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > We gathered that much.
> >> >>
> >> >> Who's "we"? You, and how many socks?
> >> >
> >> > "socks"? How unimaginative! You *are* indeed sounding more and more
> >> > like AC. But to answer your question: I realize that you have a problem
> >> > with thread-navigation/-reading, but keep on trying and I'm sure you'll
> >> > figure it out.
> >>
> >> I do not recall ever making a complaint of this nature. You must have me
> >> confused with someone else, who must've been complaining about limitations
> >> in his Usenet reader.
> >
> > Yeah, ain't it hard to remember/lookup what has been discussed in the
> > very thread you're replying in?
>
> Well, it's all in due proportion. Should the subject matter of this thread
> actually be of some specific interest than it certainly would call for a
> greater effort to pay more attention to it. But that's obviously not the
> case here: this is just another pissfest by someone with either a defective
> newsreader, or who unilaterally anointed himself a spokesman on behalf of
> others who suffer from that calamity.

What, you can dish out the 'flames', but you can't take it when
someone talks back, so you resort to personal attacks?

> >> >> > [1] I.e. we are talking about e-mail, but not using it (for posting).
> >> >>
> >> >> Your last beacon of hope: desperately trying to somehow contort reality into
> >> >> suggesting that MIME does not apply to Usenet.
> >> >
> >> > I'm not "suggesting" any such thing, I'm *saying* it.
> >>
> >> And who exactly died, and made you king of Usenet? Just because you said
> >> something does not automatically make it true, of course.
> >
> > Elvis? True. Is there a point somewhere?
>
> Yes, there is.
>
> >> > Look, *I* have no
> >> > problem with (sensible) use of MIME in Usenet articles, but *you* are the
> >> > one referring to mystical "Internet standard"s.
> >>
> >> Last time I checked MIME was a standard.
> >
> > But not for Usenet articles.
>
> Of course it is.

But you can't prove it. Bummer, isn't it?

> > Perhaps that second M really means what
> > it says?
>
> And perhaps you were to educate yourself about the history of Usenet.

I already said that such comments are rather silly, but then you don't
read what people write, do you? Free clue: Google.

> Free clue: uucp.

Free (repeated) clue: Notes.

> > (And to (try to) prevent trick number 99: No, a newer standard
> > can not declare itself applicable to (the subject matter of) an older
> > one (Not that the MIME standard(s) try to do that, but some people
> > try.).)
>
> And if my grandma had wheels, she'd be a wagon.
>
> >
> >> > *When* you do that,
> >> > you'll have to realize that there is no standard which says it's OK to
> >> > use MIME in Usenet articles.
> >>
> >> And there's no separate standard that says it's OK to use MIME for E-mail.
> >
> > Huh? What do *you* think the second M means? (May I suggest to search
>
> And since when exactly did everyone decide that a document's title
> automatically superceded all the information contained within, and
> referenced, by the associated document?

Nobody decided that and nobody even implied that. Again you're not
reading what people wrote and assuming that they think stuff which they
didn't write.

> > the MIME RFCs on the word "mail"? Then try the same with the word
> > "Usenet" (or some similar word). See what I mean?)
>
> I'm going to break the news gently to you. As far as those whose opinions
> matter on this topic -- the authors and developers of E-mail and Usenet
> software -- their opinions disagree with yours, and agree with mime.

Ah, the "people support me in_email/silently/" non-argument?
Which "developers of Usenet software" would that be?

> Grasping at straws, hung from a single word in a title of a long and
> technically involved document, won't change that.

No, that's why I *also* refered to the *content* ("May I suggest to
search the MIME RFCs on the word "mail"? ..."), but you 'conveniently'
ignored/dodged that part.

> >> This is a completely silly notion, that some kind of a separate enabling
> >> standard must exist in order to have a second standard apply in some
> >> situation.
> >
> > Agreed, but the other standard (in this case the Usenet one) must
> > refer to the (in your opinion) 'general' one. Guess what, it doesn't.
> > Why?
>
> Because Usenet-related standards have evolved in a comparatively less formal
> process than E-mail-related standards.

If your claim is that Son-of-1036, USEFOR and perhaps even the GNKSA
are effectively accepted standards, then why don't you just say so,
instead of claiming that some RFC says something which it doesn't?

I actually happen to agree that they are effectively accepted
standards (just not RFCs).

> In fact, if you were to code an NNTP
> server strictly according to offishul standards, you're not going to have a
> lot of luck in talking to a single NNTP client in the world.

Yeah, that rings a bell somewhere. Probably because I've been running
that stuff for over two decades.

> It's a fairly safe bet that you've never actually coded a Usenet client,
> right?

I coded News server add-ons. Does that count? Please? Pretty please?

> > Look at the numbers/dates. Wow, there's actually some logic in it!
>
> What logic? You're having an allergic reaction to one?

> > Amazing isn't it? Who would have thought such a thing!
> >
> >> >> How pathetic. Really.
> >> >
> >> > Yes, it's really pathetic that there is no such standard. There should
> >> > be, but there isn't. Life's a pain, isn't it?
> >>
> >> Not for me. I'm not the one complaining, since it appears that I have no
> >> difficulties with reading properly MIME-formatted messages.
> >
> > That's not the topic of the discussion.
>
> Of course it is the topic. After all, didn't you begin bitching about MIME
> PGP messages?

No. I didn't "begin bitching". I joined an already running discussion.
You should really do something about that reading problem of yours.

> > The topic of the discussion is
> > your referal to non-existing standards when people 'flame' you for your
> > use of PGP-signing in your Usenet articles.
>
> What flame? I missed it. Yes, there was someone whining, pissing, and
> moaning, true. Perhaps the word 'flame' might've been used to refer to it,
> but truly that didn't even come closer to the traditional definition of what
> a flame is.

That is why I put the word "flame" in single quotes.

> You can play word games all you want, but the bottom line is that MIME is
> here to stay. Deal with it.

When you refer to non-existant RFCs, people will call you on it. Deal
with it.

> >> >> [root@commodore misc]# pwd
> >> >> /var/spool/news/articles/comp/mail/misc
> >> >> [root@commodore misc]# grep -i 'mime-version:' * | wc -l
> >> >> 185
> >> >> [root@commodore misc]# ls | wc -l
> >> >> 365
> >> >> [root@commodore misc]# bc
> >> >> bc 1.06
> >> >> Copyright 1991-1994, 1997, 1998, 2000 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> >> >> This is free software with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY.
> >> >> For details type `warranty'.
> >> >> scale=6
> >> >> 185 / 365
> >> >> .506849
> >> >
> >> > Did I say that MIME isn't *used* in Usenet articles? Hint: Again the
> >> > answer isn't "yes".
> >>
> >> You said that MIME should not be used for Usenet.
> >
> > I said not such thing.
>
> Read your own post, and try again.
>
> > I said "And exactly which "Internet standard"
> > says that RFC 2015 (or MIME for that matter) applies to *Usenet
> > articles*?".
>
> And I told you: the exact same one that says it applies to E-mail messages.

Ah, the one "which says what it doesn't"? Silly me.

> > I.e. I said that the MIME *standard* does not *apply* to
> > Usenet articles, not that MIME should not be *used* for Usenet. On the
>
> Take I-287 Northbound to exit 10. At the third traffic light make a right,
> and go until the very end. When the dirt road ends, on your left will be a
> large field filled with knits. Happy picking.

So cute, but so irrelevant/unconvincing.

> > contrary, I said "Look, *I* have no problem with (sensible) use of MIME
> > in Usenet articles".
>
> There's no "sensible" or "insensible" use of MIME. No more than there's
> "sensible" or "insensible" way to arrange English words on the page. The
> way it's usually done is left to right, top to bottom. And no official
> standard is required for everyone to understand that.
>
> Either a given message is a MIME message, or it's not. MIME is so designed
> so that properly written MIME client will be able to meaningfully deal with
> unfamiliar MIME-formatted content. That's the whole purpose of MIME. If
> some client cannot "sensibly" handle syntactically valid content, the
> problem is not that this particular usage of MIME is "insensible", but that
> the MIME client has a bug, and/or someone is just too stupid to understand
> that, and chooses to blame the messenger.

Ah, I understand! So (according to you) the use of HTML, PDF, Word,
RTF, TIFF, etc., etc. in Usenet messages is OK, because "if some client
cannot "sensibly" handle syntactically valid content, ... the MIME
client has a bug, and/or someone is just too stupid to understand that,
and chooses to blame the messenger."? Thanks for clarifying that.

> > Contrary to what you apparently think, many people, me included, are
> > quite realistic when it comes to 'accepting' common practice. For
>
> Really?

Yes, really.

> > example, for (IMO) good reasons I technically violate the Usenet RFC in
> > my postings. But it would be silly for me to claim that the RFC says
> > something which it doesn't.
>
> That's OK. There's more than one way for you to be silly.

Thanks. I'm trying to learn from you. How am I doing sofar?

> > Likewise with the use of non-ascii charset's
> > (i.e. part of MIME) in Usenet articles: One could not have
> > local-language groups without them. So that's another 'accepted' violation
> > of the Usenet RFC.
>
> Maybe in your fantasy world, but in the real world, populated with
> developers and users of well-designed Usenet software, MIME content on
> Usenet does not violate any known standard. The posted messages may not be
> readable because the specific client does not support the character set,
> perhaps, but the client will be able to detect that and take meaningful
> action.

Ah, I see! So the article does not violate the Usenet RFC, but the
client does not conform to the Usenet RFC and that somehow makes it a
non-violation. Thanks for clearing that one up.

> > The problem with your 'violation', PGP-signing, is that it's not
> > really an 'accepted' violation
>
> Says who?

Are you 'deaf'?

> > and that you claim that it's not a
> > violation.
>
> No, the problem is that every other month, or so, someone whose opinions
> matters probably as much as Jimmy Carter's thinks that they're the Next
> Coming and begins pissing and moaning about it.

Yeah, and they fail to realize that you are the only real god on
things Usenet's. How utterly respectless.

> > If you would just state your opinion as such, i.e. an
> > opinion, then I think you would have more acceptance. However, as
> > another poster pointed out, I doubt that's what you're looking for.
>
> Of course. I fail to see the need to search for something that I already
> have.

Can we please have a little look at those supporting emails? Pretty
please?

> >> > But let's not concentrate on the MIME part, it's just PKB flame-bait
> >> > (but true nonetheless).
> >>
> >> No, let's do.
> >
> > Fine by me. See above.
>
> Done.

I guess we are.

Re: Email client problem with Comcast

am 05.06.2005 16:05:19 von Sam

This is a MIME GnuPG-signed message. If you see this text, it means that
your E-mail or Usenet software does not support MIME signed messages.

--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-23327-1117980320-0002
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mime-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by mimegpg

Frank Slootweg writes:

> Sam wrote:
>> Frank Slootweg writes:
>>
>> > Sam wrote:
>> >> Frank Slootweg writes:
>> >>
>> >> > Sam wrote:
>> >> >> Frank Slootweg writes:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Sam wrote:
>> >> >> >> Tim Smith writes:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > Your implied claim that you aren't ignorant of general practic=
es of
>> >> >> >> > usenet would have more weight if your post didn't contain all =
that
>> >> >> >> > junk.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> This "junk" is defined by a nine year old Internet standard. It=
's not
>> >> >> >> my fault that your broken newsreader can't format it properly, l=
ike
>> >> >> >> 99% of the rest of Internet Usenet/E-mail clients, and spews gar=
bage
>> >> >> >> in your face.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > And exactly which "Internet standard" says that RFC 2015 (or MI=
ME for
>> >> >> > that matter) applies to *Usenet articles*? [1]
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Look it up. I'm not going to do all the work for you.
>> >> >
>> >> > A little hard to lookup something which doesn't exist, don't you
>> >> > think?
>> >>
>> >> Right. Fortunately, that's not the case here.
>> >>
>> >> > One can not prove that something does not exist, so the burde=
n of
>> >> > proof is on you,
>> >>
>> >> If someone were to assert that the sky is purple, I doubt that it beco=
mes my
>> >> responsibility to deliver an introductory course in physics in order t=
o
>> >> dispute such a silly idea.
>> >
>> > Logic isn't your strong point, is it? (Using your somewhat broken
>> > analogy:) I'm not asking you to prove that the sky isn't purple, I'm
>> > asking you to prove that it's blue. Shouldn't be to hard, should it?
>>
>> No, but it does take some minimum amount of effort to put together a form=
al
>> presentation, and do the math. Still, I just don't see much justificatio=
n
>> in expending even such a minimum amount of effort to convince someone who=

>> refuses to accept something that everyone else agrees is an axiom.
>
> Translation: "I can't prove my claim, but I'll be damned if I'll admit
> it, so I'll dodge."

Bad translation. Here's a better one: "I don't have the time to write out a=

proof that the sky is blue, and it's fine by me that the idiot who insists
it's purple will continue to remain in his state of blissful ignorance".

>> >> >> > (And your "99%" is=
on the
>> >> >> > very high side, especially when counting installed copies, but al=
so when
>> >> >> > just counting the different types.)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Really? There's more than five tin users left?
>> >> >
>> >> > Did I say, or even imply, that tin has a problem with your PGP stu=
ff?
>> >> > Hint: The answer isn't "yes".
>> >>
>> >> It's not my fault that you choose to play a game of cloak and dagger. =
Since
>> >> you were claiming that posting MIME to Usenet is a major disaster for =
some
>> >> Usenet client,
>> >
>> > I did (claim) no such thing. Hint: PGP !=3D MIME.
>>
>> Hint: with RFC 2015, it is.
>
> Hint: *Read* the paragraph to which I responded, and *read* my
> response. I.e. you said "Since you were claiming that posting MIME to
> Usenet is a major disaster for some Usenet client," to which I replied
> "I did (claim) no such thing. Hint: PGP !=3D MIME",

And now it's your turn to read what you were replying to: with RFC 2015 it
is, and you have no answer for that.

> because I did not
> "claim" that MIME was "a major disaster for some Usenet client", but

Fine, then. You were bitching just for the sake of bitching. There's no
problem, and that you're just driving around looking for a large meadow
filled with frolicking nits, just waiting to be picked.

> PGP (not "a major disaster", but a nuisance). So for *that* issue PGP !=3D=

> MIME. That PGP == MIME for RFC 2015 is 'interesting', but irrelevant f=
or
> the discussion.

Yes, let's ignore inconvenient facts. Let's sweep them out of the way. They=

interfere with useless ranting.

>> >> the log=
ical
>> >> conclusion is that it's your Usenet client that's having a problem.
>> >> I regret the error of trying to logically analyze your posts. I will =
not
>> >> make the same mistake again.
>> >
>> > There's that 'logic' thing again.
>>
>> Right, that's what I said. For some peculiar reason you refuse to accept=

>> logical axioms, so a logical debate becomes impossible.
>
> No, the point is that instead of reading what someone actually wrote,
> you draw unfounded 'logical' conclusions and then blame your 'opponent'
> for having a 'logic' problem.

And that is different from complaining just for the sake of complaining
exactly how?

>> >> >> >> Resistance is futile.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > We gathered that much.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Who's "we"? You, and how many socks?
>> >> >
>> >> > "socks"? How unimaginative! You *are* indeed sounding more and mor=
e
>> >> > like AC. But to answer your question: I realize that you have a prob=
lem
>> >> > with thread-navigation/-reading, but keep on trying and I'm sure you=
'll
>> >> > figure it out.
>> >>
>> >> I do not recall ever making a complaint of this nature. You must have=
me
>> >> confused with someone else, who must've been complaining about limitat=
ions
>> >> in his Usenet reader.
>> >
>> > Yeah, ain't it hard to remember/lookup what has been discussed in the
>> > very thread you're replying in?
>>
>> Well, it's all in due proportion. Should the subject matter of this thre=
ad
>> actually be of some specific interest than it certainly would call for a
>> greater effort to pay more attention to it. But that's obviously not the=

>> case here: this is just another pissfest by someone with either a defecti=
ve
>> newsreader, or who unilaterally anointed himself a spokesman on behalf of=

>> others who suffer from that calamity.
>
> What, you can dish out the 'flames', but you can't take it when
> someone talks back, so you resort to personal attacks?

What personal attacks? Did I just imagine someone admitting to a useless
pissfest regarding MIME in Usenet messages?

You really need to put together a coherent position statement. You're
waffling with every post. State, for the record: are MIME-formatted
messages posted to Usenet a â=9Cproblemâ=9D, or not (for some nebu=
lous, vague, and
unspecified definition of a â=9Cproblemâ=9D)?

If you oppose posting MIME-formatted content to Usenet, then you can be
written off as an old-tyme kookbag. Occasionally some crank pops up here
and there, whining about MIME content on Usenet. They have a bug up their
ass about it, for some unclear reason, and are usually good for a couple of
laughs.

And if you're fine with MIME-formatted content, then you're still a kookbag
for pissing, whining, and moaning about RFC 2015-formatted content. Because=

it is perfectly valid, conformant MIME.

But you're trying to have it both ways. Opposing MIME in one case, but then=

turning around and claiming that there's nothing wrong with MIME-formatted
Usenet content.

You should run for political office. You have the knack for it.

>> >> >> > [1] I.e. we are talking about e-mail, but not using it (for posti=
ng).
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Your last beacon of hope: desperately trying to somehow contort rea=
lity into
>> >> >> suggesting that MIME does not apply to Usenet.
>> >> >
>> >> > I'm not "suggesting" any such thing, I'm *saying* it.
>> >>
>> >> And who exactly died, and made you king of Usenet? Just because you s=
aid
>> >> something does not automatically make it true, of course.
>> >
>> > Elvis? True. Is there a point somewhere?
>>
>> Yes, there is.
>>
>> >> > Look, *I* ha=
ve no
>> >> > problem with (sensible) use of MIME in Usenet articles, but *you* ar=
e the
>> >> > one referring to mystical "Internet standard"s.
>> >>
>> >> Last time I checked MIME was a standard.
>> >
>> > But not for Usenet articles.
>>
>> Of course it is.
>
> But you can't prove it. Bummer, isn't it?

And I can't prove that the sky is blue, at this very instant. In both
cases there's very little need to do that.

>> > Perhaps that second M really means what
>> > it says?
>>
>> And perhaps you were to educate yourself about the history of Usenet.
>
> I already said that such comments are rather silly, but then you don't
> read what people write, do you? Free clue: Google.
>
>> Free clue: uucp.
>
> Free (repeated) clue: Notes.

Lotus Notes' MIME support is not very impressive, but thank you for asking. =

But that has nothing to do with MIME, you're just trying to obfuscate and
cover up your personal MIME-related fetishes.

>> > (And to (try to) prevent trick number 99: No, a newer standard
>> > can not declare itself applicable to (the subject matter of) an older
>> > one (Not that the MIME standard(s) try to do that, but some people
>> > try.).)
>>
>> And if my grandma had wheels, she'd be a wagon.
>>
>> >
>> >> > *When* you do that,
>> >> > you'll have to realize that there is no standard which says it's OK =
to
>> >> > use MIME in Usenet articles.
>> >>
>> >> And there's no separate standard that says it's OK to use MIME for E-m=
ail.
>> >
>> > Huh? What do *you* think the second M means? (May I suggest to search
>>
>> And since when exactly did everyone decide that a document's title
>> automatically superceded all the information contained within, and
>> referenced, by the associated document?
>
> Nobody decided that and nobody even implied that.

You did. Read your own post.

> Again you're not
> reading what people wrote

No, I'm just reading what you wrote.

> and assuming that they think stuff which they
> didn't write.

No, I'm assuming that you're at least capable of maintaining a consistent
position from post to post. Perhaps I'm wrong.

>> > the MIME RFCs on the word "mail"? Then try the same with the word
>> > "Usenet" (or some similar word). See what I mean?)
>>
>> I'm going to break the news gently to you. As far as those whose opinion=
s
>> matter on this topic -- the authors and developers of E-mail and Usenet
>> software -- their opinions disagree with yours, and agree with mime.
>
> Ah, the "people support me in_email/silently/" non-argument?

It's not an argument, it's a statement of fact. All Usenet/E-mail software,=

in use by more than five people worldwide, processes both Usenet and E-mail
content identically. The only difference is where the raw message content
is obtained from - a mail folder or a Usenet server.

Sorry to inform you that reality disagrees with your silly notions.

> Which "developers of Usenet software" would that be?

Try Microsoft, Mozilla, Evolution, and others. Ever heard of them?

You've been out-voted, out-programmed, and out-classed. Good luck on your
crusade to convince every one of them not to generate or consume
MIME-formatted Usenet content.

>> Grasping at straws, hung from a single word in a title of a long and
>> technically involved document, won't change that.
>
> No, that's why I *also* refered to the *content* ("May I suggest to
> search the MIME RFCs on the word "mail"? ..."), but you 'conveniently'
> ignored/dodged that part.

Straw argument. You can come up with as many justifications for your
ignorance of reality as you want, but they're not going to change anything.

Your arguments remind me of those nutjobs down South who claim that due to
some arkane technicality Texas never joined the United States.

>> >> This is a completely silly notion, that some kind of a separate enabli=
ng
>> >> standard must exist in order to have a second standard apply in some
>> >> situation.
>> >
>> > Agreed, but the other standard (in this case the Usenet one) must
>> > refer to the (in your opinion) 'general' one. Guess what, it doesn't.
>> > Why?
>>
>> Because Usenet-related standards have evolved in a comparatively less for=
mal
>> process than E-mail-related standards.
>
> If your claim is that Son-of-1036, USEFOR and perhaps even the GNKSA
> are effectively accepted standards, then why don't you just say so,

Because I don't need to say, every morning, that the sky is blue.

> instead of claiming that some RFC says something which it doesn't?

The mail formatting conventions described by RFCs 2045-2049 apply to Usenet
content. I can claim that without paying heed to some kookbag who claims
that because of a missing period they don't.

> I actually happen to agree that they are effectively accepted
> standards (just not RFCs).

Fine. So your major malfunction was just a way to pass some time, I
suppose.

>
>> =09 In fact, if you were to code an NNTP
>> server strictly according to offishul standards, you're not going to have=
a
>> lot of luck in talking to a single NNTP client in the world.
>
> Yeah, that rings a bell somewhere. Probably because I've been running
> that stuff for over two decades.
>
>> It's a fairly safe bet that you've never actually coded a Usenet client,
>> right?
>
> I coded News server add-ons. Does that count? Please? Pretty please?

Sorry, no. You actually have to process the stored content, instead of
adding a random byte, here and there.

>> > Look at the numbers/dates. Wow, there's actually some logic in it=
!
>>
>> What logic? You're having an allergic reaction to one?
>
>

A three-pointer.

>> > Amazing isn't it? Who would have thought such a thing!
>> >
>> >> >> How pathetic. Really.
>> >> >
>> >> > Yes, it's really pathetic that there is no such standard. There sh=
ould
>> >> > be, but there isn't. Life's a pain, isn't it?
>> >>
>> >> Not for me. I'm not the one complaining, since it appears that I have=
no
>> >> difficulties with reading properly MIME-formatted messages.
>> >
>> > That's not the topic of the discussion.
>>
>> Of course it is the topic. After all, didn't you begin bitching about MI=
ME
>> PGP messages?
>
> No. I didn't "begin bitching".

Ok, you made a very good impression of one. You get the gig. You open
Friday night at the club. The buffet is on the house.

> I joined an already running discussion.

I don't recall anyone pissing about MIME-formatted PGP content until you
made your grandiose entrance.

> You should really do something about that reading problem of yours.

You write it, I read it. It's as simple as that.

>> > The topic of the discussion i=
s
>> > your referal to non-existing standards when people 'flame' you for your
>> > use of PGP-signing in your Usenet articles.
>>
>> What flame? I missed it. Yes, there was someone whining, pissing, and
>> moaning, true. Perhaps the word 'flame' might've been used to refer to i=
t,
>> but truly that didn't even come closer to the traditional definition of w=
hat
>> a flame is.
>
> That is why I put the word "flame" in single quotes.

Ok, what would be the special significance of the word in double quotes,
then? It looks like a secret decoder ring is needed to decipher your
messages, and I'm going to put one together right now.

>
>> You can play word games all you want, but the bottom line is that MIME is=

>> here to stay. Deal with it.
>
> When you refer to non-existant RFCs, people will call you on it. Deal
> with it.

Last time I checked RFC 2045-2049 still existed very much. Maybe not on
your planet, but here they do exist. Take my word for it.

>> >> >> [root@commodore misc]# pwd
>> >> >> /var/spool/news/articles/comp/mail/misc
>> >> >> [root@commodore misc]# grep -i 'mime-version:' * | wc -l
>> >> >> 185
>> >> >> [root@commodore misc]# ls | wc -l
>> >> >> 365
>> >> >> [root@commodore misc]# bc
>> >> >> bc 1.06
>> >> >> Copyright 1991-1994, 1997, 1998, 2000 Free Software Foundation, Inc=
..
>> >> >> This is free software with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY.
>> >> >> For details type `warranty'.
>> >> >> scale=3D6
>> >> >> 185 / 365
>> >> >> .506849
>> >> >
>> >> > Did I say that MIME isn't *used* in Usenet articles? Hint: Again t=
he
>> >> > answer isn't "yes".
>> >>
>> >> You said that MIME should not be used for Usenet.
>> >
>> > I said not such thing.
>>
>> Read your own post, and try again.
>>
>> > I said "And exactly which "Internet standard"
>> > says that RFC 2015 (or MIME for that matter) applies to *Usenet
>> > articles*?".
>>
>> And I told you: the exact same one that says it applies to E-mail message=
s.
>
> Ah, the one "which says what it doesn't"? Silly me.

It also doesn't say that the sky is blue, but most people don't demand a
formal proof of that either. Perhaps you're an exception.

>> > I.e. I said that the MIME *standard* does not *apply* to
>> > Usenet articles, not that MIME should not be *used* for Usenet. On the
>>
>> Take I-287 Northbound to exit 10. At the third traffic light make a righ=
t,
>> and go until the very end. When the dirt road ends, on your left will be=
a
>> large field filled with knits. Happy picking.
>
> So cute, but so irrelevant/unconvincing.

Ok, so I misspelled "nit". Now, that makes it relevant.

>> > contrary, I said "Look, *I* have no problem with (sensible) use of MIME
>> > in Usenet articles".
>>
>> There's no "sensible" or "insensible" use of MIME. No more than there's
>> "sensible" or "insensible" way to arrange English words on the page. The=

>> way it's usually done is left to right, top to bottom. And no official
>> standard is required for everyone to understand that.
>>
>> Either a given message is a MIME message, or it's not. MIME is so design=
ed
>> so that properly written MIME client will be able to meaningfully deal wi=
th
>> unfamiliar MIME-formatted content. That's the whole purpose of MIME. If=

>> some client cannot "sensibly" handle syntactically valid content, the
>> problem is not that this particular usage of MIME is "insensible", but th=
at
>> the MIME client has a bug, and/or someone is just too stupid to understan=
d
>> that, and chooses to blame the messenger.
>
> Ah, I understand! So (according to you) the use of HTML, PDF, Word,
> RTF, TIFF, etc., etc. in Usenet messages is OK,

You appear to be incapable of comprehending the difference between main
content, meant to be read by humans, and ancillary metadata meant to be
automatically processed by software.

> because "if some client
> cannot "sensibly" handle syntactically valid content, ... the MIME
> client has a bug, and/or someone is just too stupid to understand that,
> and chooses to blame the messenger."? Thanks for clarifying that.

Well, if some client barfs on a message with a MIME PDF attachment, and
someone chooses to complain about that to anyone other than whoever's
responsible to the client, then yes, they're really too stupid to be allowed=

to log in to the Internet.

>> > Contrary to what you apparently think, many people, me included, are
>> > quite realistic when it comes to 'accepting' common practice. For
>>
>> Really?
>
> Yes, really.

Well, RFC 2015 existed for how long, and you still have a bug up your ass
about it.

>> > example, for (IMO) good reasons I technically violate the Usenet RFC in
>> > my postings. But it would be silly for me to claim that the RFC says
>> > something which it doesn't.
>>
>> That's OK. There's more than one way for you to be silly.
>
> Thanks. I'm trying to learn from you. How am I doing sofar?

Splendid. By next week you should meet the minimum admission requirements
for the Bozo The Clown College.

>
>> > Likewise with the use of non-ascii charset'=
s
>> > (i.e. part of MIME) in Usenet articles: One could not have
>> > local-language groups without them. So that's another 'accepted' violat=
ion
>> > of the Usenet RFC.
>>
>> Maybe in your fantasy world, but in the real world, populated with
>> developers and users of well-designed Usenet software, MIME content on
>> Usenet does not violate any known standard. The posted messages may not =
be
>> readable because the specific client does not support the character set,
>> perhaps, but the client will be able to detect that and take meaningful
>> action.
>
> Ah, I see! So the article does not violate the Usenet RFC, but the
> client does not conform to the Usenet RFC

This is meaningless gobbledy-gook. How are you doing with those nits?

> and that somehow makes it a
> non-violation. Thanks for clearing that one up.
>
>> > The problem with your 'violation', PGP-signing, is that it's not
>> > really an 'accepted' violation
>>
>> Says who?
>
> Are you 'deaf'?

No, and even if I was I'm not sur ability to post to Usenet. What do you
do, pray tell us? Hold your ear up to the monitor's screen trying to hear
the words out, and assume that everyone else does the same?

>> > and that you claim that it's not a
>> > violation.
>>
>> No, the problem is that every other month, or so, someone whose opinions
>> matters probably as much as Jimmy Carter's thinks that they're the Next
>> Coming and begins pissing and moaning about it.
>
> Yeah, and they fail to realize that you are the only real god on
> things Usenet's. How utterly respectless.

That's ok. Everyone's allowed to make mistakes. As long as they realize
the error of their ways quickly, all is forgiven.

>> > If you would just state your opinion as such, i.e. an
>> > opinion, then I think you would have more acceptance. However, as
>> > another poster pointed out, I doubt that's what you're looking for.
>>
>> Of course. I fail to see the need to search for something that I already=

>> have.
>
> Can we please have a little look at those supporting emails? Pretty
> please?

I don't need to receive E-mails supporting by contention that the sky is
blue.

>
>> >> > But let's not concentrate on the MIME part, it's just PKB flame-ba=
it
>> >> > (but true nonetheless).
>> >>
>> >> No, let's do.
>> >
>> > Fine by me. See above.
>>
>> Done.
>
> I guess we are.

--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-23327-1117980320-0002
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBCowagx9p3GYHlUOIRAuMZAJ9Sne8N/7cfIDJ4cf6JEZW4rBZSXwCe L3kx
dhL+6dV6oOvLN68p3vVB6dM=
=oIFN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-23327-1117980320-0002--

Re: Email client problem with Comcast

am 05.06.2005 19:36:15 von Frank Slootweg

[Hold on, The Good Bit (I hope) is at the very end.]

Sam wrote:
> Frank Slootweg writes:
>
> > Sam wrote:
> >> Frank Slootweg writes:
> >>
> >> > Sam wrote:
> >> >> Frank Slootweg writes:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Sam wrote:
> >> >> >> Frank Slootweg writes:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > Sam wrote:
> >> >> >> >> Tim Smith writes:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > Your implied claim that you aren't ignorant of general practices of
> >> >> >> >> > usenet would have more weight if your post didn't contain all that
> >> >> >> >> > junk.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> This "junk" is defined by a nine year old Internet standard. It's not
> >> >> >> >> my fault that your broken newsreader can't format it properly, like
> >> >> >> >> 99% of the rest of Internet Usenet/E-mail clients, and spews garbage
> >> >> >> >> in your face.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > And exactly which "Internet standard" says that RFC 2015 (or MIME for
> >> >> >> > that matter) applies to *Usenet articles*? [1]
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Look it up. I'm not going to do all the work for you.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > A little hard to lookup something which doesn't exist, don't you
> >> >> > think?
> >> >>
> >> >> Right. Fortunately, that's not the case here.
> >> >>
> >> >> > One can not prove that something does not exist, so the burden of
> >> >> > proof is on you,
> >> >>
> >> >> If someone were to assert that the sky is purple, I doubt that it becomes my
> >> >> responsibility to deliver an introductory course in physics in order to
> >> >> dispute such a silly idea.
> >> >
> >> > Logic isn't your strong point, is it? (Using your somewhat broken
> >> > analogy:) I'm not asking you to prove that the sky isn't purple, I'm
> >> > asking you to prove that it's blue. Shouldn't be to hard, should it?
> >>
> >> No, but it does take some minimum amount of effort to put together a formal
> >> presentation, and do the math. Still, I just don't see much justification
> >> in expending even such a minimum amount of effort to convince someone who
> >> refuses to accept something that everyone else agrees is an axiom.
> >
> > Translation: "I can't prove my claim, but I'll be damned if I'll admit
> > it, so I'll dodge."
>
> Bad translation. Here's a better one: "I don't have the time to write out a
> proof that the sky is blue, and it's fine by me that the idiot who insists
> it's purple will continue to remain in his state of blissful ignorance".

Time is a very feeble excuse. You only have to point to the RFC and
the section in that RFC. That is if such a RFC/section exists. Of course
making one up can indeed be time-consuming.

> >> >> >> > (And your "99%" is on the
> >> >> >> > very high side, especially when counting installed copies, but also when
> >> >> >> > just counting the different types.)
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Really? There's more than five tin users left?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Did I say, or even imply, that tin has a problem with your PGP stuff?
> >> >> > Hint: The answer isn't "yes".
> >> >>
> >> >> It's not my fault that you choose to play a game of cloak and dagger. Since
> >> >> you were claiming that posting MIME to Usenet is a major disaster for some
> >> >> Usenet client,
> >> >
> >> > I did (claim) no such thing. Hint: PGP != MIME.
> >>
> >> Hint: with RFC 2015, it is.
> >
> > Hint: *Read* the paragraph to which I responded, and *read* my
> > response. I.e. you said "Since you were claiming that posting MIME to
> > Usenet is a major disaster for some Usenet client," to which I replied
> > "I did (claim) no such thing. Hint: PGP != MIME",
>
> And now it's your turn to read what you were replying to: with RFC 2015 it
> is, and you have no answer for that.

Exactly which part of "irrelevant for the discussion." didn't you
understand? And what answer do you expect? That your statement is true,
but irrelevant? There, you just got it! Happy now? Want more
confirmation of correct, but irrelevant, statements?

> > because I did not
> > "claim" that MIME was "a major disaster for some Usenet client", but
>
> Fine, then. You were bitching just for the sake of bitching. There's no
> problem, and that you're just driving around looking for a large meadow
> filled with frolicking nits, just waiting to be picked.

You should really get that crystal ball of yours checked. Its reading-
between-the-lines capability and accuracy really sucks big time.

[More repeats of the same:]

> > PGP (not "a major disaster", but a nuisance). So for *that* issue PGP !=
> > MIME. That PGP == MIME for RFC 2015 is 'interesting', but irrelevant for
> > the discussion.
>
> Yes, let's ignore inconvenient facts. Let's sweep them out of the way. They
> interfere with useless ranting.
>
> >> >> the logical
> >> >> conclusion is that it's your Usenet client that's having a problem.
> >> >> I regret the error of trying to logically analyze your posts. I will not
> >> >> make the same mistake again.
> >> >
> >> > There's that 'logic' thing again.
> >>
> >> Right, that's what I said. For some peculiar reason you refuse to accept
> >> logical axioms, so a logical debate becomes impossible.
> >
> > No, the point is that instead of reading what someone actually wrote,
> > you draw unfounded 'logical' conclusions and then blame your 'opponent'
> > for having a 'logic' problem.
>
> And that is different from complaining just for the sake of complaining
> exactly how?
>
> >> >> >> >> Resistance is futile.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > We gathered that much.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Who's "we"? You, and how many socks?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "socks"? How unimaginative! You *are* indeed sounding more and more
> >> >> > like AC. But to answer your question: I realize that you have a problem
> >> >> > with thread-navigation/-reading, but keep on trying and I'm sure you'll
> >> >> > figure it out.
> >> >>
> >> >> I do not recall ever making a complaint of this nature. You must have me
> >> >> confused with someone else, who must've been complaining about limitations
> >> >> in his Usenet reader.
> >> >
> >> > Yeah, ain't it hard to remember/lookup what has been discussed in the
> >> > very thread you're replying in?
> >>
> >> Well, it's all in due proportion. Should the subject matter of this thread
> >> actually be of some specific interest than it certainly would call for a
> >> greater effort to pay more attention to it. But that's obviously not the
> >> case here: this is just another pissfest by someone with either a defective
> >> newsreader, or who unilaterally anointed himself a spokesman on behalf of
> >> others who suffer from that calamity.
> >
> > What, you can dish out the 'flames', but you can't take it when
> > someone talks back, so you resort to personal attacks?
>
> What personal attacks? Did I just imagine someone admitting to a useless
> pissfest regarding MIME in Usenet messages?
>
> You really need to put together a coherent position statement. You're
> waffling with every post. State, for the record: are MIME-formatted
> messages posted to Usenet a ?problem?, or not (for some nebulous, vague, and
> unspecified definition of a ?problem?)?

You *really* can't read, can you? I have answered that question
already (read: I have given my position on the matter).

> If you oppose posting MIME-formatted content to Usenet, then you can be
> written off as an old-tyme kookbag. Occasionally some crank pops up here
> and there, whining about MIME content on Usenet. They have a bug up their
> ass about it, for some unclear reason, and are usually good for a couple of
> laughs.
>
> And if you're fine with MIME-formatted content, then you're still a kookbag
> for pissing, whining, and moaning about RFC 2015-formatted content. Because
> it is perfectly valid, conformant MIME.
>
> But you're trying to have it both ways. Opposing MIME in one case, but then
> turning around and claiming that there's nothing wrong with MIME-formatted
> Usenet content.

Yes, you seem to think that MIME is a all-or-nothing thing. It isn't.
See my examples on HTML, PDF, Word, etc..

> You should run for political office. You have the knack for it.
>
> >> >> >> > [1] I.e. we are talking about e-mail, but not using it (for posting).
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Your last beacon of hope: desperately trying to somehow contort reality into
> >> >> >> suggesting that MIME does not apply to Usenet.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I'm not "suggesting" any such thing, I'm *saying* it.
> >> >>
> >> >> And who exactly died, and made you king of Usenet? Just because you said
> >> >> something does not automatically make it true, of course.
> >> >
> >> > Elvis? True. Is there a point somewhere?
> >>
> >> Yes, there is.
> >>
> >> >> > Look, *I* have no
> >> >> > problem with (sensible) use of MIME in Usenet articles, but *you* are the
> >> >> > one referring to mystical "Internet standard"s.
> >> >>
> >> >> Last time I checked MIME was a standard.
> >> >
> >> > But not for Usenet articles.
> >>
> >> Of course it is.
> >
> > But you can't prove it. Bummer, isn't it?
>
> And I can't prove that the sky is blue, at this very instant. In both
> cases there's very little need to do that.
>
> >> > Perhaps that second M really means what
> >> > it says?
> >>
> >> And perhaps you were to educate yourself about the history of Usenet.
> >
> > I already said that such comments are rather silly, but then you don't
> > read what people write, do you? Free clue: Google.
> >
> >> Free clue: uucp.
> >
> > Free (repeated) clue: Notes.
>
> Lotus Notes' MIME support is not very impressive, but thank you for asking.

Did I say "Lotus Notes"? No, I said "Notes". Your assumption shows
that *you* should "educate yourself about the history of Usenet" before
suggesting that to others. The Notes(files) system from the University
of Illinois predates Lotus Notes by many years, probably a decade or so.

> But that has nothing to do with MIME, you're just trying to obfuscate and
> cover up your personal MIME-related fetishes.

Oh, I see, and uucp *has* something to do with MIME? Didn't know that.
Thanks for enlightening me!

> >> > (And to (try to) prevent trick number 99: No, a newer standard
> >> > can not declare itself applicable to (the subject matter of) an older
> >> > one (Not that the MIME standard(s) try to do that, but some people
> >> > try.).)
> >>
> >> And if my grandma had wheels, she'd be a wagon.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> > *When* you do that,
> >> >> > you'll have to realize that there is no standard which says it's OK to
> >> >> > use MIME in Usenet articles.
> >> >>
> >> >> And there's no separate standard that says it's OK to use MIME for E-mail.
> >> >
> >> > Huh? What do *you* think the second M means? (May I suggest to search
> >>
> >> And since when exactly did everyone decide that a document's title
> >> automatically superceded all the information contained within, and
> >> referenced, by the associated document?
> >
> > Nobody decided that and nobody even implied that.
>
> You did. Read your own post.

Cite. And this time, please quote the full paragraph instead of
replying in the middle and hoping that people don't see the rest of the
paragraph which invalidates your comments.

> > Again you're not
> > reading what people wrote
>
> No, I'm just reading what you wrote.
>
> > and assuming that they think stuff which they
> > didn't write.
>
> No, I'm assuming that you're at least capable of maintaining a consistent
> position from post to post. Perhaps I'm wrong.
>
> >> > the MIME RFCs on the word "mail"? Then try the same with the word
> >> > "Usenet" (or some similar word). See what I mean?)
> >>
> >> I'm going to break the news gently to you. As far as those whose opinions
> >> matter on this topic -- the authors and developers of E-mail and Usenet
> >> software -- their opinions disagree with yours, and agree with mime.
> >
> > Ah, the "people support me in_email/silently/" non-argument?
>
> It's not an argument, it's a statement of fact. All Usenet/E-mail software,
> in use by more than five people worldwide, processes both Usenet and E-mail
> content identically. The only difference is where the raw message content
> is obtained from - a mail folder or a Usenet server.

Well, you said it, not me. I wouldn't claim such sillyness, except
(obviously) for clients which do both (e-mail and News).

> Sorry to inform you that reality disagrees with your silly notions.
>
> > Which "developers of Usenet software" would that be?
>
> Try Microsoft, Mozilla, Evolution, and others. Ever heard of them?

Ah, I see! Only clients which do both (e-mail and News), assuming that
Evolution is such a one (I don't know). Perhaps you should browse around
in news.software.readers, so that you can see for yourself how many
clients there are which just do News (and for good reasons).

And another 'nit': Last time I checked, Microsoft, Mozilla, Evolution,
weren't people, i.e. not "those whose opinions matter" (and yes, I
didn't copy-and-paste the "authors and" bit, so be happy with your
point, it's the only one you 'scored' sofar).

> You've been out-voted, out-programmed, and out-classed. Good luck on your
> crusade to convince every one of them not to generate or consume
> MIME-formatted Usenet content.

Sorry, but I have been talking to just you. You have gotten no support
in this thread and IIRC not in previous similar ones. Claiming support
from invisible and unnamed people is rather lame, don't you think?

> >> Grasping at straws, hung from a single word in a title of a long and
> >> technically involved document, won't change that.
> >
> > No, that's why I *also* refered to the *content* ("May I suggest to
> > search the MIME RFCs on the word "mail"? ..."), but you 'conveniently'
> > ignored/dodged that part.
>
> Straw argument. You can come up with as many justifications for your
> ignorance of reality as you want, but they're not going to change anything.

How is it "straw"? It addresses the very issue, that the MIME RFCs
talk only about mail (as I claim they do) and do not talk about Usenet
(as you claim they do).

But I realize that it's a bummer if a simple grep(1) shows that you
can not put your money where your mouth is, so you 'have' to resort to
further personal attacks.

> Your arguments remind me of those nutjobs down South who claim that due to
> some arkane technicality Texas never joined the United States.

Why do you single out the nutjobs in the South? What's wrong with the
ones in the North? Your bigotry shows!

> >> >> This is a completely silly notion, that some kind of a separate enabling
> >> >> standard must exist in order to have a second standard apply in some
> >> >> situation.
> >> >
> >> > Agreed, but the other standard (in this case the Usenet one) must
> >> > refer to the (in your opinion) 'general' one. Guess what, it doesn't.
> >> > Why?
> >>
> >> Because Usenet-related standards have evolved in a comparatively less formal
> >> process than E-mail-related standards.
> >
> > If your claim is that Son-of-1036, USEFOR and perhaps even the GNKSA
> > are effectively accepted standards, then why don't you just say so,
>
> Because I don't need to say, every morning, that the sky is blue.

No, you'd rather twist around for articles on end until you see
blue/purple in the face.

> > instead of claiming that some RFC says something which it doesn't?
>
> The mail formatting conventions described by RFCs 2045-2049 apply to Usenet
> content. I can claim that without paying heed to some kookbag who claims
> that because of a missing period they don't.

May I suggest you contact the authors of those RFCs and ask them if
they can somehow make these invisble but, according to you, present
nonetheless, words more visible? Or file a bug report against (GNU)
grep(1). Or ... ad infinitum.

> > I actually happen to agree that they are effectively accepted
> > standards (just not RFCs).
>
> Fine. So your major malfunction was just a way to pass some time, I
> suppose.
>
> >
> >> In fact, if you were to code an NNTP
> >> server strictly according to offishul standards, you're not going to have a
> >> lot of luck in talking to a single NNTP client in the world.
> >
> > Yeah, that rings a bell somewhere. Probably because I've been running
> > that stuff for over two decades.
> >
> >> It's a fairly safe bet that you've never actually coded a Usenet client,
> >> right?
> >
> > I coded News server add-ons. Does that count? Please? Pretty please?
>
> Sorry, no. You actually have to process the stored content, instead of
> adding a random byte, here and there.

Does it count that my add-ons *generated* content? Does demand-feed
functionality count?

> >> > Look at the numbers/dates. Wow, there's actually some logic in it!
> >>
> >> What logic? You're having an allergic reaction to one?
> >
> >
>
> A three-pointer.
>
> >> > Amazing isn't it? Who would have thought such a thing!
> >> >
> >> >> >> How pathetic. Really.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Yes, it's really pathetic that there is no such standard. There should
> >> >> > be, but there isn't. Life's a pain, isn't it?
> >> >>
> >> >> Not for me. I'm not the one complaining, since it appears that I have no
> >> >> difficulties with reading properly MIME-formatted messages.
> >> >
> >> > That's not the topic of the discussion.
> >>
> >> Of course it is the topic. After all, didn't you begin bitching about MIME
> >> PGP messages?
> >
> > No. I didn't "begin bitching".
>
> Ok, you made a very good impression of one. You get the gig. You open
> Friday night at the club. The buffet is on the house.
>
> > I joined an already running discussion.
>
> I don't recall anyone pissing about MIME-formatted PGP content until you
> made your grandiose entrance.

And this all-too-familiar memory-lapse, lack of navigation skills,
etc. is supposed to suprise us exactly why?

> > You should really do something about that reading problem of yours.
>
> You write it, I read it. It's as simple as that.

No, I write it, you don't read it, then make something up and comment
on that.

> >> > The topic of the discussion is
> >> > your referal to non-existing standards when people 'flame' you for your
> >> > use of PGP-signing in your Usenet articles.
> >>
> >> What flame? I missed it. Yes, there was someone whining, pissing, and
> >> moaning, true. Perhaps the word 'flame' might've been used to refer to it,
> >> but truly that didn't even come closer to the traditional definition of what
> >> a flame is.
> >
> > That is why I put the word "flame" in single quotes.
>
> Ok, what would be the special significance of the word in double quotes,
> then? It looks like a secret decoder ring is needed to decipher your
> messages, and I'm going to put one together right now.

It's a practice which is common in many English-speaking countries,
but apparently not in all. It's also common in many non-English-speaking
countries. It's used when the meaning is not literal (i.e. like in the
above quote) and sometimes even the opposite ("You are really are
'smart' guy, aren't you?"). Yes, there can be some ambiguity, but in
most cases the context should eliminate those. 'Sadly' (see?) enough,
there are only two types of quote marks (in normal print, ASCII, etc.).
"Deal with it."

> >> You can play word games all you want, but the bottom line is that MIME is
> >> here to stay. Deal with it.
> >
> > When you refer to non-existant RFCs, people will call you on it. Deal
> > with it.
>
> Last time I checked RFC 2045-2049 still existed very much. Maybe not on
> your planet, but here they do exist. Take my word for it.

But they don't say what you claim they say, so for all intents
and purposes, the RFCs you claim exist, don't.

> >> >> >> [root@commodore misc]# pwd
> >> >> >> /var/spool/news/articles/comp/mail/misc
> >> >> >> [root@commodore misc]# grep -i 'mime-version:' * | wc -l
> >> >> >> 185
> >> >> >> [root@commodore misc]# ls | wc -l
> >> >> >> 365
> >> >> >> [root@commodore misc]# bc
> >> >> >> bc 1.06
> >> >> >> Copyright 1991-1994, 1997, 1998, 2000 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> >> >> >> This is free software with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY.
> >> >> >> For details type `warranty'.
> >> >> >> scale=6
> >> >> >> 185 / 365
> >> >> >> .506849
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Did I say that MIME isn't *used* in Usenet articles? Hint: Again the
> >> >> > answer isn't "yes".
> >> >>
> >> >> You said that MIME should not be used for Usenet.
> >> >
> >> > I said not such thing.
> >>
> >> Read your own post, and try again.
> >>
> >> > I said "And exactly which "Internet standard"
> >> > says that RFC 2015 (or MIME for that matter) applies to *Usenet
> >> > articles*?".
> >>
> >> And I told you: the exact same one that says it applies to E-mail messages.
> >
> > Ah, the one "which says what it doesn't"? Silly me.
>
> It also doesn't say that the sky is blue, but most people don't demand a
> formal proof of that either. Perhaps you're an exception.

[From the very beginning, I have stated the brokeness of your sky
analogy. I'm sorry that it just broke down completely:]

Yes, if someone claims that there's life after death, I demand proof.

> >> > I.e. I said that the MIME *standard* does not *apply* to
> >> > Usenet articles, not that MIME should not be *used* for Usenet. On the
> >>
> >> Take I-287 Northbound to exit 10. At the third traffic light make a right,
> >> and go until the very end. When the dirt road ends, on your left will be a
> >> large field filled with knits. Happy picking.
> >
> > So cute, but so irrelevant/unconvincing.
>
> Ok, so I misspelled "nit". Now, that makes it relevant.
>
> >> > contrary, I said "Look, *I* have no problem with (sensible) use of MIME
> >> > in Usenet articles".
> >>
> >> There's no "sensible" or "insensible" use of MIME. No more than there's
> >> "sensible" or "insensible" way to arrange English words on the page. The
> >> way it's usually done is left to right, top to bottom. And no official
> >> standard is required for everyone to understand that.
> >>
> >> Either a given message is a MIME message, or it's not. MIME is so designed
> >> so that properly written MIME client will be able to meaningfully deal with
> >> unfamiliar MIME-formatted content. That's the whole purpose of MIME. If
> >> some client cannot "sensibly" handle syntactically valid content, the
> >> problem is not that this particular usage of MIME is "insensible", but that
> >> the MIME client has a bug, and/or someone is just too stupid to understand
> >> that, and chooses to blame the messenger.
> >
> > Ah, I understand! So (according to you) the use of HTML, PDF, Word,
> > RTF, TIFF, etc., etc. in Usenet messages is OK,
>
> You appear to be incapable of comprehending the difference between main
> content, meant to be read by humans, and ancillary metadata meant to be
> automatically processed by software.

Once more, your assumption is incorrect.

> > because "if some client
> > cannot "sensibly" handle syntactically valid content, ... the MIME
> > client has a bug, and/or someone is just too stupid to understand that,
> > and chooses to blame the messenger."? Thanks for clarifying that.
>
> Well, if some client barfs on a message with a MIME PDF attachment, and
> someone chooses to complain about that to anyone other than whoever's
> responsible to the client, then yes, they're really too stupid to be allowed
> to log in to the Internet.

No, no "attachment". Try again.

> >> > Contrary to what you apparently think, many people, me included, are
> >> > quite realistic when it comes to 'accepting' common practice. For
> >>
> >> Really?
> >
> > Yes, really.
>
> Well, RFC 2015 existed for how long, and you still have a bug up your ass
> about it.

*thinks* *you*.

> >> > example, for (IMO) good reasons I technically violate the Usenet RFC in
> >> > my postings. But it would be silly for me to claim that the RFC says
> >> > something which it doesn't.
> >>
> >> That's OK. There's more than one way for you to be silly.
> >
> > Thanks. I'm trying to learn from you. How am I doing sofar?
>
> Splendid. By next week you should meet the minimum admission requirements
> for the Bozo The Clown College.

> >
> >> > Likewise with the use of non-ascii charset's
> >> > (i.e. part of MIME) in Usenet articles: One could not have
> >> > local-language groups without them. So that's another 'accepted' violation
> >> > of the Usenet RFC.
> >>
> >> Maybe in your fantasy world, but in the real world, populated with
> >> developers and users of well-designed Usenet software, MIME content on
> >> Usenet does not violate any known standard. The posted messages may not be
> >> readable because the specific client does not support the character set,
> >> perhaps, but the client will be able to detect that and take meaningful
> >> action.
> >
> > Ah, I see! So the article does not violate the Usenet RFC, but the
> > client does not conform to the Usenet RFC
>
> This is meaningless gobbledy-gook. How are you doing with those nits?

Glad you agree. The "gobbledy-gook" is just a rewording of what you
wrote.

> > and that somehow makes it a
> > non-violation. Thanks for clearing that one up.
> >
> >> > The problem with your 'violation', PGP-signing, is that it's not
> >> > really an 'accepted' violation
> >>
> >> Says who?
> >
> > Are you 'deaf'?
>
> No, and even if I was I'm not sur ability to post to Usenet. What do you
> do, pray tell us? Hold your ear up to the monitor's screen trying to hear
> the words out, and assume that everyone else does the same?
>
> >> > and that you claim that it's not a
> >> > violation.
> >>
> >> No, the problem is that every other month, or so, someone whose opinions
> >> matters probably as much as Jimmy Carter's thinks that they're the Next
> >> Coming and begins pissing and moaning about it.
> >
> > Yeah, and they fail to realize that you are the only real god on
> > things Usenet's. How utterly respectless.
>
> That's ok. Everyone's allowed to make mistakes. As long as they realize
> the error of their ways quickly, all is forgiven.

Thank you, your divineness!

> >> > If you would just state your opinion as such, i.e. an
> >> > opinion, then I think you would have more acceptance. However, as
> >> > another poster pointed out, I doubt that's what you're looking for.
> >>
> >> Of course. I fail to see the need to search for something that I already
> >> have.
> >
> > Can we please have a little look at those supporting emails? Pretty
> > please?
>
> I don't need to receive E-mails supporting by contention that the sky is
> blue.
>
> >
> >> >> > But let's not concentrate on the MIME part, it's just PKB flame-bait
> >> >> > (but true nonetheless).
> >> >>
> >> >> No, let's do.
> >> >
> >> > Fine by me. See above.
> >>
> >> Done.
> >
> > I guess we are.

The Good Bit
============

As I hinted at before, I think your postings would find more
acceptance/recognition/ if you were less confrontational on
the subject and more constructive/helpful/. For example you
could point out the virtues of PGP-signing and MIME and how they should
not be a problem for totally-(MIME-)unaware clients, but could be for
some smarter-than-is-good-for-them ones and how the latter ones could
probably be configured to be more user-friendly and how, for example,
the news.software.readers group could help with that. That would be more
constructive than saying/implying that people's newsreaders are broken,
that they are 'stupid', etc..

OTOH if, like one poster suggested, your intention is to bait for
responses, then just keep on doing as you are.

Re: Email client problem with Comcast

am 05.06.2005 23:43:10 von Sam

This is a MIME GnuPG-signed message. If you see this text, it means that
your E-mail or Usenet software does not support MIME signed messages.

--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-25577-1118007791-0002
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mime-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by mimegpg

Frank Slootweg writes:

> [Hold on, The Good Bit (I hope) is at the very end.]
>
> Sam wrote:
>> Frank Slootweg writes:
>>
>> > Sam wrote:
>> >> Frank Slootweg writes:
>> >>
>> >> > Sam wrote:
>> >> >> Frank Slootweg writes:
>> >> >>
>> >
>> > Translation: "I can't prove my claim, but I'll be damned if I'll admi=
t
>> > it, so I'll dodge."
>>
>> Bad translation. Here's a better one: "I don't have the time to write ou=
t a
>> proof that the sky is blue, and it's fine by me that the idiot who insist=
s
>> it's purple will continue to remain in his state of blissful ignorance".
>
> Time is a very feeble excuse. You only have to point to the RFC and

What's feeble about choosing not to waste time on a hopeless case?

> the section in that RFC.

That's a lot of numbers there. Not really a lot, in the grand scheme of
things, of course, but more than the situation warrants.

> That is if such a RFC/section exists. Of course
> making one up can indeed be time-consuming.

I disagree. I think it takes more effort to come up with nonsensical
bullshit, such as the sky is purple, and MIME is not a standard, then the
other way around.

>> >> > I did (claim) no such thing. Hint: PGP !=3D MIME.
>> >>
>> >> Hint: with RFC 2015, it is.
>> >
>> > Hint: *Read* the paragraph to which I responded, and *read* my
>> > response. I.e. you said "Since you were claiming that posting MIME to
>> > Usenet is a major disaster for some Usenet client," to which I replied
>> > "I did (claim) no such thing. Hint: PGP !=3D MIME",
>>
>> And now it's your turn to read what you were replying to: with RFC 2015 i=
t
>> is, and you have no answer for that.
>
> Exactly which part of "irrelevant for the discussion." didn't you
> understand?

Oh, now your absurd notions about MIME are "irrelevant for the discussion"
eh? Too bad you didn't figure it out earlier.

> And what answer do you expect?

I was expecting "Sorry, it was really dumb of me to complain about MIME
content posted to Usenet; there's nothing wrong with it whatsoever and it
complies with all the relevant standards".

I guess there's still hope.

> That your statement is true,

Right.

> but irrelevant?

Wrong.

> There, you just got it! Happy now? Want more

Well, a .500 batting average isn't too shabby, I suppose.

> confirmation of correct, but irrelevant, statements?

Being right is never irrelevant.

>> > because I did not
>> > "claim" that MIME was "a major disaster for some Usenet client", but
>>
>> Fine, then. You were bitching just for the sake of bitching. There's no=

>> problem, and that you're just driving around looking for a large meadow
>> filled with frolicking nits, just waiting to be picked.
>
> You should really get that crystal ball of yours checked. Its reading-
> between-the-lines capability and accuracy really sucks big time.

I do not use a crystal ball. A deck of playing cards works even better.

>> What personal attacks? Did I just imagine someone admitting to a useless=

>> pissfest regarding MIME in Usenet messages?
>>
>> You really need to put together a coherent position statement. You're
>> waffling with every post. State, for the record: are MIME-formatted
>> messages posted to Usenet a ?problem?, or not (for some nebulous, vague, =
and
>> unspecified definition of a ?problem?)?
>
> You *really* can't read, can you?

Well then be kind enough and read it for me.

> I have answered that question
> already (read: I have given my position on the matter).

No you haven't, and by evading giving a straight answer you've just shown
that you didn't.

Even if you did, what's wrong with a plain "yes" or "no"? This is a very
simple question that calls for a straightforwar yes/no answer. Even if you
believe that you answered it already, giving a one word answer is certainly
better than useless posturing.

But, your refusal to give a straight answer exposes that your real
intentions are to waffle as much as you can, avoiding a straight answer
because your answer depends on which way the wind blows.

>> And if you're fine with MIME-formatted content, then you're still a kookb=
ag
>> for pissing, whining, and moaning about RFC 2015-formatted content. Beca=
use
>> it is perfectly valid, conformant MIME.
>>
>> But you're trying to have it both ways. Opposing MIME in one case, but t=
hen
>> turning around and claiming that there's nothing wrong with MIME-formatte=
d
>> Usenet content.
>
> Yes, you seem to think that MIME is a all-or-nothing thing. It isn't.
> See my examples on HTML, PDF, Word, etc..

I realize that facts aren't your strongest point, but I was hoping that at
least someone would quietly whisper to you that the contents of an
HTML/PDF/WORD document are completely and totally unreadable to a plain
text-only client (not really 100% true with HTML, specifically, but that's
beside the point). At least not unless the content generator supplies a
text/plain version in a multipart/alternative. Meanwhile (and sit down for
this one, so you don't hurt yourself when the following truth of life is
revealed to you), the contents of a PGP/MIME signed messages are perfectly
readable to a plain text-only client that properly implements MIME (ignoring=

for the moment the situation where HTML/PDF/WORD content is PGP-signed). The=

client ignores the PGP signature and displays the text/plain content. If it=

implements MIME correctly, that is.

Therefore, trying to compare PGP-signed posts in MIME format with
HTML/PDF/WORD MIME documents is utterly idiotic, and reveals the fact that
you have no clue as to what you're talking about.

So: we have a PDF/MSWord document on one hand. Can't be groked by a plain
text-only client no matter what. On the other hand, we have a PGP-signed
MIME post, with perfectly ordinary text/plain section. Only a total dumbass=

would allege that the two can be compared in any way.

>> > I already said that such comments are rather silly, but then you don'=
t
>> > read what people write, do you? Free clue: Google.
>> >
>> >> Free clue: uucp.
>> >
>> > Free (repeated) clue: Notes.
>>
>> Lotus Notes' MIME support is not very impressive, but thank you for askin=
g.
>
> Did I say "Lotus Notes"? No, I said "Notes".

Sorry, I forgot my secret decoder ring, and the mind ray-beam machine that
can telepathatically extract the details of whatever you're babbling about
is broken.

> Your assumption shows
> that *you* should "educate yourself about the history of Usenet" before
> suggesting that to others. The Notes(files) system from the University
> of Illinois predates Lotus Notes by many years, probably a decade or so.

Yes, indeed. And it was so famous that everyone around the world
immediately know that any time some goof says "Notes" he must be referring
to some obscure system used by a university located somewhere that most
people won't even be able to find on a map.

>> But that has nothing to do with MIME, you're just trying to obfuscate and=

>> cover up your personal MIME-related fetishes.
>
> Oh, I see, and uucp *has* something to do with MIME?

Try to keep up. uucp has a lot to do with both Usenet and E-mail, which, in=

part why both Usenet and E-mail messages follow the same formatting
conventions.

I mean, if you actually bothered to read the headers of any Usenet post you
would probably be smart enough (I hope) to notice the curiously-formatted
Path: header. Then, you would recognize a striking familiarity to E-mail
addressing back in uucp-times. Hopefully some gears would finally click in
your head and you would make a mental connection between E-mail and Usenet,
and why both mediums historically formatted their messages the same way.

> Didn't know that.

You learn something new every day.

> Thanks for enlightening me!

No problem.

>> >> And since when exactly did everyone decide that a document's title
>> >> automatically superceded all the information contained within, and
>> >> referenced, by the associated document?
>> >
>> > Nobody decided that and nobody even implied that.
>>
>> You did. Read your own post.
>
> Cite. And this time, please quote the full paragraph instead of
> replying in the middle and hoping that people don't see the rest of the
> paragraph which invalidates your comments.

You wrote in <42a2af53$0$1661$dbd4d001@news.wanadoo.nl>:

# No, that's why I *also* refered to the *content* ("May I suggest to
# search the MIME RFCs on the word "mail"? â=A6"), but you 'convenientl=
y'
# ignored/dodged that part.

Now, that fullfills the quota of "weekly research of yours that I must do
instead, because you can't". Until you categorically state that I was
right, and you were wrong, here, you will have to do your own research from
now on.

>> > Again you're not
>> > reading what people wrote
>>
>> No, I'm just reading what you wrote.
>>
>> > and assuming that they think stuff which the=
y
>> > didn't write.
>>
>> No, I'm assuming that you're at least capable of maintaining a consistent=

>> position from post to post. Perhaps I'm wrong.
>>
>> >> > the MIME RFCs on the word "mail"? Then try the same with the word
>> >> > "Usenet" (or some similar word). See what I mean?)
>> >>
>> >> I'm going to break the news gently to you. As far as those whose opin=
ions
>> >> matter on this topic -- the authors and developers of E-mail and Usene=
t
>> >> software -- their opinions disagree with yours, and agree with mime.
>> >
>> > Ah, the "people support me in_email/silently/" non-argument=
?
>>
>> It's not an argument, it's a statement of fact. All Usenet/E-mail softwa=
re,
>> in use by more than five people worldwide, processes both Usenet and E-ma=
il
>> content identically. The only difference is where the raw message conten=
t
>> is obtained from - a mail folder or a Usenet server.
>
> Well, you said it, not me.

Right. Because I know that, and I know what it means. And you don't.

> I wouldn't claim such sillyness, except

Facts are rarely silly.

> (obviously) for clients which do both (e-mail and News).

Which includes pretty much all clients used by more than five people.

>> Sorry to inform you that reality disagrees with your silly notions.
>>
>> > Which "developers of Usenet software" would that be?
>>
>> Try Microsoft, Mozilla, Evolution, and others. Ever heard of them?
>
> Ah, I see! Only clients which do both (e-mail and News), assuming that
> Evolution is such a one (I don't know). Perhaps you should browse around
> in news.software.readers, so that you can see for yourself how many
> clients there are which just do News (and for good reasons).

You forgot the remaining requirement: the client must have more than five
users.

> And another 'nit': Last time I checked, Microsoft, Mozilla, Evolution,
> weren't people,

Any reasonably person would interpret that as a reference to the organic
beings primarily responsible for the software's existence.

I'll try not to make a mistake of confusing you for a reasonable person,
agian.

> i.e. not "those whose opinions matter" (and yes, I
> didn't copy-and-paste the "authors and" bit, so be happy with your
> point, it's the only one you 'scored' sofar).

No, it's just the first one you were forced to concede.

>> You've been out-voted, out-programmed, and out-classed. Good luck on you=
r
>> crusade to convince every one of them not to generate or consume
>> MIME-formatted Usenet content.
>
> Sorry, but I have been talking to just you.

Well, you can't reasonably expected to converse with multiple entities, to
such depth, at the same time. But it's a safe bet that this isn't the first=

time you bitched for the sake of bitching, to someone, on this topic.

> You have gotten no support
> in this thread

Yes, and you have all this crowd cheering behind you.

> and IIRC not in previous similar ones. Claiming support
> from invisible and unnamed people is rather lame, don't you think?

Yup, now you were saying about all that support that you have?

>> >> Grasping at straws, hung from a single word in a title of a long and
>> >> technically involved document, won't change that.
>> >
>> > No, that's why I *also* refered to the *content* ("May I suggest to
>> > search the MIME RFCs on the word "mail"? ..."), but you 'conveniently'
>> > ignored/dodged that part.
>>
>> Straw argument. You can come up with as many justifications for your
>> ignorance of reality as you want, but they're not going to change anythin=
g.
>
> How is it "straw"? It addresses the very issue, that the MIME RFCs
> talk only about mail (as I claim they do) and do not talk about Usenet
> (as you claim they do).

But what you fail to comprehend is that they address not "mail" but the
format of E-mail messages.

Which happens to be the exact same format as Usenet messages.

> But I realize that it's a bummer if a simple grep(1) shows that you
> can not put your money where your mouth is, so you 'have' to resort to
> further personal attacks.

How much does a "dunce" cap cost? Send me your address and I'll ship you
one.

>> Your arguments remind me of those nutjobs down South who claim that due t=
o
>> some arkane technicality Texas never joined the United States.
>
> Why do you single out the nutjobs in the South?

It's the most appropriate example.

> What's wrong with the
> ones in the North?

There's nothing wrong with the nutjobs in the North. But again, logically
speaking (and I apologize in advance for trying a logical argument on you)
unless the nutjobs in the North and the nutjobs in the South are clones of
each other, raised together, and are otherwise identical in every way, logic=

indicates that they would differ in their various degrees of nuttiness, on
various topics. It's just that in this case I firmly believe that the
specific group of kookbags I referenced have the specific nature of their
kookiness more closely related to your brand's.

I can assure you that if I believe that some nutjob group in the North was
more alike in using obscure, trifle, utterly irrelevant, and probably
nonexistent historical footnotes in order to advance their point, just like
you, then I would've named them instead.

> Your bigotry shows!

Your lack of courage to face the truth shows.

>> >> >> This is a completely silly notion, that some kind of a separate ena=
bling
>> >> >> standard must exist in order to have a second standard apply in som=
e
>> >> >> situation.
>> >> >
>> >> > Agreed, but the other standard (in this case the Usenet one) must
>> >> > refer to the (in your opinion) 'general' one. Guess what, it doesn't=
..
>> >> > Why?
>> >>
>> >> Because Usenet-related standards have evolved in a comparatively less =
formal
>> >> process than E-mail-related standards.
>> >
>> > If your claim is that Son-of-1036, USEFOR and perhaps even the GNKSA
>> > are effectively accepted standards, then why don't you just say so,
>>
>> Because I don't need to say, every morning, that the sky is blue.
>
> No, you'd rather twist around for articles on end until you see
> blue/purple in the face.

No, as I said, stating the obvious is not required.

>> > instead of claiming that some RFC says something which it doesn't?
>>
>> The mail formatting conventions described by RFCs 2045-2049 apply to Usen=
et
>> content. I can claim that without paying heed to some kookbag who claims=

>> that because of a missing period they don't.
>
> May I suggest you contact the authors of those RFCs and ask them if
> they can somehow make these invisble but, according to you, present
> nonetheless, words more visible?

You can certainly suggest that. Rest assured your suggestion will be
treated with all the attention it deserves.

> Or file a bug report against (GNU)
> grep(1). Or ... ad infinitum.

Would libwww do, instead? I just found an exploitable hole in libwww, whose=

development was abandoned about three years ago. Still trying to figure out=

who needs to know about it.

>> > I actually happen to agree that they are effectively accepted
>> > standards (just not RFCs).
>>
>> Fine. So your major malfunction was just a way to pass some time, I
>> suppose.
>>
>> >
>> >> In fact, if you were to code an=
NNTP
>> >> server strictly according to offishul standards, you're not going to h=
ave a
>> >> lot of luck in talking to a single NNTP client in the world.
>> >
>> > Yeah, that rings a bell somewhere. Probably because I've been running
>> > that stuff for over two decades.
>> >
>> >> It's a fairly safe bet that you've never actually coded a Usenet clien=
t,
>> >> right?
>> >
>> > I coded News server add-ons. Does that count? Please? Pretty please?
>>
>> Sorry, no. You actually have to process the stored content, instead of
>> adding a random byte, here and there.
>
> Does it count that my add-ons *generated* content? Does demand-feed
> functionality count?

Nope, still doesn't count. If you generate content you can pick and choose
the format of your content.

On the other hand if you consume content you have to support and provide for=

every possible format the content allows for.

Big difference.

>>
>> > I joined an already running discussion=
..
>>
>> I don't recall anyone pissing about MIME-formatted PGP content until you
>> made your grandiose entrance.
>
> And this all-too-familiar memory-lapse, lack of navigation skills,
> etc. is supposed to suprise us exactly why?

You didn't seem to be the type that would be susceptible to those kinds of
shortcomings.

>> > You should really do something about that reading problem of yours.
>>
>> You write it, I read it. It's as simple as that.
>
> No, I write it, you don't read it, then make something up and comment
> on that.

I can assure you that, as painful as it is, I do read what you write. Or at=

least try to write.

>> >> > The topic of the discussio=
n is
>> >> > your referal to non-existing standards when people 'flame' you for y=
our
>> >> > use of PGP-signing in your Usenet articles.
>> >>
>> >> What flame? I missed it. Yes, there was someone whining, pissing, an=
d
>> >> moaning, true. Perhaps the word 'flame' might've been used to refer t=
o it,
>> >> but truly that didn't even come closer to the traditional definition o=
f what
>> >> a flame is.
>> >
>> > That is why I put the word "flame" in single quotes.
>>
>> Ok, what would be the special significance of the word in double quotes,
>> then? It looks like a secret decoder ring is needed to decipher your
>> messages, and I'm going to put one together right now.
>
> It's a practice which is common in many English-speaking countries,
> but apparently not in all. It's also common in many non-English-speaking
> countries. It's used when the meaning is not literal (i.e. like in the
> above quote) and sometimes even the opposite ("You are really are
> 'smart' guy, aren't you?").

Nope. Try again. The only use for single and double quotes here is to
avoid ambiguity as to where each pair of opening and closing quotes are.

> Yes, there can be some ambiguity, but in
> most cases the context should eliminate those. 'Sadly' (see?) enough,

See what?

> there are only two types of quote marks (in normal print, ASCII, etc.).
> "Deal with it."

Ok. Aces are high, Jacks are wild (or something like that).

>> >> You can play word games all you want, but the bottom line is that MIME=
is
>> >> here to stay. Deal with it.
>> >
>> > When you refer to non-existant RFCs, people will call you on it. Deal
>> > with it.
>>
>> Last time I checked RFC 2045-2049 still existed very much. Maybe not on
>> your planet, but here they do exist. Take my word for it.
>
> But they don't say what you claim they say,

Of course they do, as anyone who actually wrote a client, that had to
interpret any content defined by those RFCs, will tell you.

>>
>> It also doesn't say that the sky is blue, but most people don't demand a
>> formal proof of that either. Perhaps you're an exception.
>
> [From the very beginning, I have stated the brokeness of your sky
> analogy. I'm sorry that it just broke down completely:]

Just because you stated something doesn't mean that it's true.

> Yes, if someone claims that there's life after death, I demand proof.

I'll make a note of it.

>> >> Either a given message is a MIME message, or it's not. MIME is so des=
igned
>> >> so that properly written MIME client will be able to meaningfully deal=
with
>> >> unfamiliar MIME-formatted content. That's the whole purpose of MIME. =
If
>> >> some client cannot "sensibly" handle syntactically valid content, the
>> >> problem is not that this particular usage of MIME is "insensible", but=
that
>> >> the MIME client has a bug, and/or someone is just too stupid to unders=
tand
>> >> that, and chooses to blame the messenger.
>> >
>> > Ah, I understand! So (according to you) the use of HTML, PDF, Word,
>> > RTF, TIFF, etc., etc. in Usenet messages is OK,
>>
>> You appear to be incapable of comprehending the difference between main
>> content, meant to be read by humans, and ancillary metadata meant to be
>> automatically processed by software.
>
> Once more, your assumption is incorrect.

Oh? Is the text/plain content of PGP-signed MIME messages is a figment of
everyone's imagination, except yours'?

>> > because "if some clien=
t
>> > cannot "sensibly" handle syntactically valid content, ... the MIME
>> > client has a bug, and/or someone is just too stupid to understand that,
>> > and chooses to blame the messenger."? Thanks for clarifying that.
>>
>> Well, if some client barfs on a message with a MIME PDF attachment, and
>> someone chooses to complain about that to anyone other than whoever's
>> responsible to the client, then yes, they're really too stupid to be allo=
wed
>> to log in to the Internet.
>
> No, no "attachment". Try again.

This message's contents are text/plain. Try again.

>> >> > Contrary to what you apparently think, many people, me included, a=
re
>> >> > quite realistic when it comes to 'accepting' common practice. For
>> >>
>> >> Really?
>> >
>> > Yes, really.
>>
>> Well, RFC 2015 existed for how long, and you still have a bug up your ass=

>> about it.
>
> *thinks* *you*.

I only go based on what you write. Ok, you really don't, you're just a
troublemaker who's raising all this fuss for no good reason. I can accept
that explanation.

>> >> Maybe in your fantasy world, but in the real world, populated with
>> >> developers and users of well-designed Usenet software, MIME content on=

>> >> Usenet does not violate any known standard. The posted messages may n=
ot be
>> >> readable because the specific client does not support the character se=
t,
>> >> perhaps, but the client will be able to detect that and take meaningfu=
l
>> >> action.
>> >
>> > Ah, I see! So the article does not violate the Usenet RFC, but the
>> > client does not conform to the Usenet RFC
>>
>> This is meaningless gobbledy-gook. How are you doing with those nits?
>
> Glad you agree. The "gobbledy-gook" is just a rewording of what you
> wrote.

No, I never wrote that I believe that there's some kind of a problem with
MIME PGP messages. You wrote that. Try to keep up.

>> >> >> > But let's not concentrate on the MIME part, it's just PKB flame=
-bait
>> >> >> > (but true nonetheless).
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No, let's do.
>> >> >
>> >> > Fine by me. See above.
>> >>
>> >> Done.
>> >
>> > I guess we are.
>
> The Good Bit
> ============
>
> As I hinted at before, I think your postings would find more
> acceptance/recognition/ if you were less confrontational on

I think you grossly mis-estimate as to how much I care about how much my
posts are "accepted" by people with noses stuck in the air.

> the news.software.readers group could help with that. That would be more
> constructive than saying/implying that people's newsreaders are broken,
> that they are 'stupid', etc..

It's been shown that the only possible reasons someone would make such a
complaint are:

1) Their software can't handle proper MIME content. Case in point: some
versions of Outlook Express which barf all over themselves.

2) There's nothing wrong with their software, they just like to bitch for
the sake of bitching.

In the first case, their software is broken. Case closed. In the second
case, they are kookbags. Case closed. Feel free to choose which category
you would like to place yourself in.

> OTOH if, like one poster suggested, your intention is to bait for
> responses, then just keep on doing as you are.

Yes, I really care a lot about that poster's suggestions.

--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-25577-1118007791-0002
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD4DBQBCo3Hvx9p3GYHlUOIRAmifAJdW31RjjFuiceiUGqzxegw6SfMzAJ9Z zCjJ
qdD2hHi/TWxsAeQ0caSfkw==
=MnmZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-25577-1118007791-0002--

Re: Email client problem with Comcast

am 06.06.2005 16:08:50 von Frank Slootweg

[Only responding to the points which are (somewhat) new and the ones
where there is perhaps still a miniscule chance of communication (yeah,
right!).]

Sam wrote:
[attributions deleted]
[deleted]
> > Yes, you seem to think that MIME is a all-or-nothing thing. It isn't.
> > See my examples on HTML, PDF, Word, etc..
>
> I realize that facts aren't your strongest point, but I was hoping that at
> least someone would quietly whisper to you that the contents of an
> HTML/PDF/WORD document are completely and totally unreadable to a plain
> text-only client (not really 100% true with HTML, specifically, but that's
> beside the point).

*Who* is talking about "a plain text only client"? *I* am not.

Again another example of something which you dream up and then
imply, or outright say, that I have mentioned that. I happen to *use* a
text-only client, but this *discussion* is not limited to text-only
clients.

> At least not unless the content generator supplies a
> text/plain version in a multipart/alternative. Meanwhile (and sit down for
> this one, so you don't hurt yourself when the following truth of life is
> revealed to you), the contents of a PGP/MIME signed messages are perfectly
> readable to a plain text-only client that properly implements MIME (ignoring
> for the moment the situation where HTML/PDF/WORD content is PGP-signed). The
> client ignores the PGP signature and displays the text/plain content. If it
> implements MIME correctly, that is.

Correctness: (close to) 100%. New (to me) information content: 0%.
Relevancy: 0%.

> Therefore, trying to compare PGP-signed posts in MIME format with
> HTML/PDF/WORD MIME documents is utterly idiotic, and reveals the fact that
> you have no clue as to what you're talking about.

I fully agree that such a comparison would be idiotic. Your (implied)
assumption that I made such a one is also idiotic.

> So: we have a PDF/MSWord document on one hand. Can't be groked by a plain
> text-only client no matter what. On the other hand, we have a PGP-signed
> MIME post, with perfectly ordinary text/plain section. Only a total dumbass
> would allege that the two can be compared in any way.

Yup. (See C/N/R above.)

> >> > I already said that such comments are rather silly, but then you don't
> >> > read what people write, do you? Free clue: Google.
> >> >
> >> >> Free clue: uucp.
> >> >
> >> > Free (repeated) clue: Notes.
> >>
> >> Lotus Notes' MIME support is not very impressive, but thank you for asking.
> >
> > Did I say "Lotus Notes"? No, I said "Notes".
>
> Sorry, I forgot my secret decoder ring, and the mind ray-beam machine that
> can telepathatically extract the details of whatever you're babbling about
> is broken.
>
> > Your assumption shows
> > that *you* should "educate yourself about the history of Usenet" before
> > suggesting that to others. The Notes(files) system from the University
> > of Illinois predates Lotus Notes by many years, probably a decade or so.
>
> Yes, indeed. And it was so famous that everyone around the world
> immediately know that any time some goof says "Notes" he must be referring
> to some obscure system used by a university located somewhere that most
> people won't even be able to find on a map.

Do you *have* to continue to demonstrate that, despite your (implied)
claims of the contrary, you have no clue "about the history of Usenet"?
FYI: Notes and News were *parallel* developments in "the history of
Usenet", i.e. one could read/post (Usenet and other) "News" with Notes
and vice versa.

> >> But that has nothing to do with MIME, you're just trying to obfuscate and
> >> cover up your personal MIME-related fetishes.
> >
> > Oh, I see, and uucp *has* something to do with MIME?
>
> Try to keep up. uucp has a lot to do with both Usenet and E-mail, which, in
> part why both Usenet and E-mail messages follow the same formatting
> conventions.

You can't be *that* clueless, can you? (See above quotes:) In response
to my "Free (repeated) clue: Notes.", you said "Lotus Notes' MIME
support is not very impressive, but thank you for asking. But that has
nothing to do with MIME, you're just trying to obfuscate and cover up
your personal MIME-related fetishes.". I.e. you said that [Lotus] Notes
has nothing to do with MIME, which is true, but *irrelevant*, because my
"Free (repeated) clue: Notes." was a response to your "Free clue:
uucp.". So you completely missed the point, so I (sarcastically) replied
"Oh, I see, and uucp *has* something to do with MIME?" and in your
response you again/still completely missed the point.

> I mean, if you actually bothered to read the headers of any Usenet post you
> would probably be smart enough (I hope) to notice the curiously-formatted
> Path: header. Then, you would recognize a striking familiarity to E-mail
> addressing back in uucp-times. Hopefully some gears would finally click in
> your head and you would make a mental connection between E-mail and Usenet,
> and why both mediums historically formatted their messages the same way.

Why do you assume that someone who has *told* you that he managed
News systems for (over) two decades, doesn't know how a Path: header
works? If you had any clue about "the history of Usenet", you would have
known that it would have been very, very unlikely that those early
Usenet systems would *not* have used uucp for their *transport*. But
perhaps I can make it simpler for you: I am ...!mcvax!hpuamsa!frank. Is
that uucp-like enough for you?

[deleted]

> >> It's not an argument, it's a statement of fact. All Usenet/E-mail software,
> >> in use by more than five people worldwide, processes both Usenet and E-mail
> >> content identically. The only difference is where the raw message content
> >> is obtained from - a mail folder or a Usenet server.
> >
> > Well, you said it, not me.
>
> Right. Because I know that, and I know what it means. And you don't.
>
> > I wouldn't claim such sillyness, except
>
> Facts are rarely silly.
>
> > (obviously) for clients which do both (e-mail and News).
>
> Which includes pretty much all clients used by more than five people.
>
> >> Sorry to inform you that reality disagrees with your silly notions.
> >>
> >> > Which "developers of Usenet software" would that be?
> >>
> >> Try Microsoft, Mozilla, Evolution, and others. Ever heard of them?
> >
> > Ah, I see! Only clients which do both (e-mail and News), assuming that
> > Evolution is such a one (I don't know). Perhaps you should browse around
> > in news.software.readers, so that you can see for yourself how many
> > clients there are which just do News (and for good reasons).
>
> You forgot the remaining requirement: the client must have more than five
> users.

Does (more than) five *percent* (of the total installed base) count?
Obviously another "Usenet" area about which you have no clue. Is that
perhaps why (AFAICR) I have never seen you in any of the (non-email)
news.* groups? Nah, can't be.

[deleted]

> >> You've been out-voted, out-programmed, and out-classed. Good luck on your
> >> crusade to convince every one of them not to generate or consume
> >> MIME-formatted Usenet content.
> >
> > Sorry, but I have been talking to just you.
>
> Well, you can't reasonably expected to converse with multiple entities, to
> such depth, at the same time. But it's a safe bet that this isn't the first
> time you bitched for the sake of bitching, to someone, on this topic.
>
> > You have gotten no support
> > in this thread
>
> Yes, and you have all this crowd cheering behind you.

No, but I haven't claimed support, but you *have* (see (for example)
the above quotes).

> > and IIRC not in previous similar ones. Claiming support
> > from invisible and unnamed people is rather lame, don't you think?
>
> Yup, now you were saying about all that support that you have?
>
> >> >> Grasping at straws, hung from a single word in a title of a long and
> >> >> technically involved document, won't change that.
> >> >
> >> > No, that's why I *also* refered to the *content* ("May I suggest to
> >> > search the MIME RFCs on the word "mail"? ..."), but you 'conveniently'
> >> > ignored/dodged that part.
> >>
> >> Straw argument. You can come up with as many justifications for your
> >> ignorance of reality as you want, but they're not going to change anything.
> >
> > How is it "straw"? It addresses the very issue, that the MIME RFCs
> > talk only about mail (as I claim they do) and do not talk about Usenet
> > (as you claim they do).
>
> But what you fail to comprehend is that they address not "mail" but the
> format of E-mail messages.

What you fail to comprehend is that your assumptions about what people
think/know might be, and likely are, wrong. If you make *stupid*
assumptions, like the above quoted one, you are *guaranteed* to be
wrong. So no, I do not "fail to comprehend" "that they address the
format of E-mail messages", because that is what they actually *say*. It
would be nice if you didn't project your reading/comprehension problems
onto others.

> Which happens to be the exact same format as Usenet messages.

Nope, *not* "the exact same", that's the whole point. "has large
similarities with", yes. "the exact same as", no.

[deleted]

> >> >> It's a fairly safe bet that you've never actually coded a Usenet client,
> >> >> right?
> >> >
> >> > I coded News server add-ons. Does that count? Please? Pretty please?
> >>
> >> Sorry, no. You actually have to process the stored content, instead of
> >> adding a random byte, here and there.
> >
> > Does it count that my add-ons *generated* content? Does demand-feed
> > functionality count?
>
> Nope, still doesn't count. If you generate content you can pick and choose
> the format of your content.
>
> On the other hand if you consume content you have to support and provide for
> every possible format the content allows for.
>
> Big difference.

Well, my "content" were (News) articles, so yes I had to conform to
the RFC and could not (nor needed/wanted to) pick and choose the format.
I used the term "content" because you used it. [Deleted by LTYG Police.]

Does it count now? (Please say 'no'!)

[deleted]

> >> > That is why I put the word "flame" in single quotes.
> >>
> >> Ok, what would be the special significance of the word in double quotes,
> >> then? It looks like a secret decoder ring is needed to decipher your
> >> messages, and I'm going to put one together right now.
> >
> > It's a practice which is common in many English-speaking countries,
> > but apparently not in all. It's also common in many non-English-speaking
> > countries. It's used when the meaning is not literal (i.e. like in the
> > above quote) and sometimes even the opposite ("You are really are
> > 'smart' guy, aren't you?").
>
> Nope. Try again. The only use for single and double quotes here is to
> avoid ambiguity as to where each pair of opening and closing quotes are.

Nope. (Don't) Try again. And no, I don't have to prove my point. I'm
playing by "Sam's rules": "Look it up. I'm not going to do all the work
for you."

[deleted]

> >> You appear to be incapable of comprehending the difference between main
> >> content, meant to be read by humans, and ancillary metadata meant to be
> >> automatically processed by software.
> >
> > Once more, your assumption is incorrect.
>
> Oh? Is the text/plain content of PGP-signed MIME messages is a figment of
> everyone's imagination, except yours'?

Another case of . You made an assumption (hint: "appear"). Your
assumption was incorrect. End of story. No ifs, no buts, no made-up
'questions', no nothing.

> >> > because "if some client
> >> > cannot "sensibly" handle syntactically valid content, ... the MIME
> >> > client has a bug, and/or someone is just too stupid to understand that,
> >> > and chooses to blame the messenger."? Thanks for clarifying that.
> >>
> >> Well, if some client barfs on a message with a MIME PDF attachment, and
> >> someone chooses to complain about that to anyone other than whoever's
> >> responsible to the client, then yes, they're really too stupid to be allowed
> >> to log in to the Internet.
> >
> > No, no "attachment". Try again.
>
> This message's contents are text/plain. Try again.

[Another case of deleted]

[deleted]

> > The Good Bit
> > ============
> >
> > As I hinted at before, I think your postings would find more
> > acceptance/recognition/ if you were less confrontational on
>
> I think you grossly mis-estimate as to how much I care about how much my
> posts are "accepted" by people with noses stuck in the air.
>
> > the news.software.readers group could help with that. That would be more
> > constructive than saying/implying that people's newsreaders are broken,
> > that they are 'stupid', etc..
>
> It's been shown that the only possible reasons someone would make such a
> complaint are:
>
> 1) Their software can't handle proper MIME content. Case in point: some
> versions of Outlook Express which barf all over themselves.
>
> 2) There's nothing wrong with their software, they just like to bitch for
> the sake of bitching.
>
> In the first case, their software is broken. Case closed. In the second
> case, they are kookbags. Case closed. Feel free to choose which category
> you would like to place yourself in.

*Why* not inform/help/ the people in the first case? You
know, that silly Usenet thingie of one person trying to help another
one?

> > OTOH if, like one poster suggested, your intention is to bait for
> > responses, then just keep on doing as you are.
>
> Yes, I really care a lot about that poster's suggestions.

I think you have made it perfectly clear that independent on whether
you encounter a case 1 or 2, *you* will respond as a case 2.

Re: Email client problem with Comcast

am 06.06.2005 18:15:35 von Sam

This is a MIME GnuPG-signed message. If you see this text, it means that
your E-mail or Usenet software does not support MIME signed messages.

--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-8740-1118074538-0001
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mime-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by mimegpg

Frank Slootweg writes:

> [Only responding to the points which are (somewhat) new and the ones
> where there is perhaps still a miniscule chance of communication (yeah,
> right!).]

Translation: "I'll ignore stuff that I finally realize I was wrong about,
and hope nobody'll notice".

>
> Sam wrote:
> [attributions deleted]
> [deleted]
>> > Yes, you seem to think that MIME is a all-or-nothing thing. It isn't.
>> > See my examples on HTML, PDF, Word, etc..
>>
>> I realize that facts aren't your strongest point, but I was hoping that a=
t
>> least someone would quietly whisper to you that the contents of an
>> HTML/PDF/WORD document are completely and totally unreadable to a plain
>> text-only client (not really 100% true with HTML, specifically, but that'=
s
>> beside the point).
>
> *Who* is talking about "a plain text only client"? *I* am not.

You were talking about a client that cannot display or process those kind of=

documents. Logic indicates (there's that pesky logic again) that it can
only be a plain text-only client.

> Again another example of something which you dream up and then
> imply, or outright say, that I have mentioned that. I happen to *use* a
> text-only client, but this *discussion* is not limited to text-only
> clients.

If true, then what exactly is your major malfunction with HTML, PDF, or
Word-formatted MIME documents?

>
>> At least not unless the content generator supplies a
>> text/plain version in a multipart/alternative. Meanwhile (and sit down f=
or
>> this one, so you don't hurt yourself when the following truth of life is
>> revealed to you), the contents of a PGP/MIME signed messages are perfectl=
y
>> readable to a plain text-only client that properly implements MIME (ignor=
ing
>> for the moment the situation where HTML/PDF/WORD content is PGP-signed). =
The
>> client ignores the PGP signature and displays the text/plain content. If=
it
>> implements MIME correctly, that is.
>
> Correctness: (close to) 100%. New (to me) information content: 0%.

Translation: "just because I am not capable of verifying PGP signatures it
is therefore decreed, by fiat, that nobody else can either therefore it's
irrelevant".

> Relevancy: 0%.

Translation: "just because the PGP signature is not relevant to mes it is
therefore decreed, by fiat, that it is relevant for noone else therefore it
should not be used."

>> Therefore, trying to compare PGP-signed posts in MIME format with
>> HTML/PDF/WORD MIME documents is utterly idiotic, and reveals the fact tha=
t
>> you have no clue as to what you're talking about.
>
> I fully agree that such a comparison would be idiotic. Your (implied)
> assumption that I made such a one is also idiotic.

Of course you made such an assumption. Your memory is failing. In message
<42a2af53$0$1661$dbd4d001@news.wanadoo.nl> you wrote:

# Ah, I understand! So (according to you) the use of HTML, PDF, Word,
# RTF, TIFF, etc., etc. in Usenet messages is OK,

Up until this point I never made any kind of a reference to anything like
this. This is something that you suddenly pulled out of your ass in order
to make some kind of an idiotic (and thank you for admitting it) comparison.

Oh, and by the way: up until that point in the thread I never wrote anything=

about "HTML, PDF, Word, RTF, TIFF". Your current accusations, of me
supposedly implying that you wrote or said something that you never did, is
the textbook example of utter and total hypocricy. It exposes your own
shallow argumentative basis. You easily take offense if someone allegedly
puts words in your mouth, but you never hesitate to do the same yourself,
apparently.

>> So: we have a PDF/MSWord document on one hand. Can't be groked by a plai=
n
>> text-only client no matter what. On the other hand, we have a PGP-signed=

>> MIME post, with perfectly ordinary text/plain section. Only a total dumb=
ass
>> would allege that the two can be compared in any way.
>
> Yup. (See C/N/R above.)

And you made that comparison completely on your own initiative. I never
said anything close to that.

>> >> > I already said that such comments are rather silly, but then you d=
on't
>> >> > read what people write, do you? Free clue: Google.
>> >> >
>> >> >> Free clue: uucp.
>> >> >
>> >> > Free (repeated) clue: Notes.
>> >>
>> >> Lotus Notes' MIME support is not very impressive, but thank you for as=
king.
>> >
>> > Did I say "Lotus Notes"? No, I said "Notes".
>>
>> Sorry, I forgot my secret decoder ring, and the mind ray-beam machine tha=
t
>> can telepathatically extract the details of whatever you're babbling abou=
t
>> is broken.
>>
>> > Your assumption shows
>> > that *you* should "educate yourself about the history of Usenet" before
>> > suggesting that to others. The Notes(files) system from the University
>> > of Illinois predates Lotus Notes by many years, probably a decade or so=
..
>>
>> Yes, indeed. And it was so famous that everyone around the world
>> immediately know that any time some goof says "Notes" he must be referrin=
g
>> to some obscure system used by a university located somewhere that most
>> people won't even be able to find on a map.
>
> Do you *have* to continue to demonstrate that, despite your (implied)
> claims of the contrary, you have no clue "about the history of Usenet"?
> FYI: Notes and News were *parallel* developments in "the history of
> Usenet", i.e. one could read/post (Usenet and other) "News" with Notes
> and vice versa.

I'm sure that you, and two other people in the world who know or care about
this, could tell us a lot about it.

Strangely enough, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet#History never ever
heard of this so called major contribution to the history of Usenet.

But, golly, what do we have here? There's certainly a whole lot of
common history of Usenet and uucp documented by Wikipedia, with nary of a
reference to anything called "Notes". At least I can't find it mentioned
anywhere.

You do seem to have a habit of blabbing about things you know very little
about.

>> >> But that has nothing to do with MIME, you're just trying to obfuscate =
and
>> >> cover up your personal MIME-related fetishes.
>> >
>> > Oh, I see, and uucp *has* something to do with MIME?
>>
>> Try to keep up. uucp has a lot to do with both Usenet and E-mail, which,=
in
>> part why both Usenet and E-mail messages follow the same formatting
>> conventions.
>
> You can't be *that* clueless, can you? (See above quotes:)

I suggest that you add a footnote to that Wikipedia article advising
everyone, who believes that uucp had something to do with the history of
Usenet, is clueless.

> In response
> to my "Free (repeated) clue: Notes.", you said "Lotus Notes' MIME
> support is not very impressive, but thank you for asking. But that has
> nothing to do with MIME, you're just trying to obfuscate and cover up
> your personal MIME-related fetishes.". I.e. you said that [Lotus] Notes
> has nothing to do with MIME, which is true, but *irrelevant*, because my

True things are almost never irrelevant.

> "Free (repeated) clue: Notes." was a response to your "Free clue:
> uucp.". So you completely missed the point, so I (sarcastically) replied

I missed the point that uucp had nothing to do with the history of Usenet,
and that Notes thing -- whateverthehellitwas -- was responsible for the
modern Usenet we all love?

> "Oh, I see, and uucp *has* something to do with MIME?" and in your
> response you again/still completely missed the point.

Sometimes you really need a roadmap to map out your thought processes. You
remind me of one of my teachers who used to say "If you can't dazzle them
with your brilliance, baffle them with your bullshit". You must've had the
same teacher.

>> I mean, if you actually bothered to read the headers of any Usenet post y=
ou
>> would probably be smart enough (I hope) to notice the curiously-formatted=

>> Path: header. Then, you would recognize a striking familiarity to E-mail=

>> addressing back in uucp-times. Hopefully some gears would finally click =
in
>> your head and you would make a mental connection between E-mail and Usene=
t,
>> and why both mediums historically formatted their messages the same way.
>
> Why do you assume that someone who has *told* you that he managed
> News systems for (over) two decades, doesn't know how a Path: header
> works?

After all, there are plenty of E-mail admins who have no clue what SMTP is.
It's quite plausible that the same applies to Usenet.

> If you had any clue about "the history of Usenet", you would have
> known that it would have been very, very unlikely that those early
> Usenet systems would *not* have used uucp for their *transport*. But
> perhaps I can make it simpler for you: I am ...!mcvax!hpuamsa!frank. Is
> that uucp-like enough for you?

In that case, how do you explain your inaccurate viewpoint on the relative
historical contributions of various people, places, and things?

> [deleted]
>
>> >> It's not an argument, it's a statement of fact. All Usenet/E-mail sof=
tware,
>> >> in use by more than five people worldwide, processes both Usenet and E=
-mail
>> >> content identically. The only difference is where the raw message con=
tent
>> >> is obtained from - a mail folder or a Usenet server.
>> >
>> > Well, you said it, not me.
>>
>> Right. Because I know that, and I know what it means. And you don't.
>>
>> > I wouldn't claim such sillyness, except
>>
>> Facts are rarely silly.
>>
>> > (obviously) for clients which do both (e-mail and News).
>>
>> Which includes pretty much all clients used by more than five people.
>>
>> >> Sorry to inform you that reality disagrees with your silly notions.
>> >>
>> >> > Which "developers of Usenet software" would that be?
>> >>
>> >> Try Microsoft, Mozilla, Evolution, and others. Ever heard of them?
>> >
>> > Ah, I see! Only clients which do both (e-mail and News), assuming tha=
t
>> > Evolution is such a one (I don't know). Perhaps you should browse aroun=
d
>> > in news.software.readers, so that you can see for yourself how many
>> > clients there are which just do News (and for good reasons).
>>
>> You forgot the remaining requirement: the client must have more than five=

>> users.
>
> Does (more than) five *percent* (of the total installed base) count?

It might count if it were true. But, until you gallantly reveal the
mysterious identity of such a Usenet client, it's not possible to say,
either way.

> Obviously another "Usenet" area about which you have no clue. Is that
> perhaps why (AFAICR) I have never seen you in any of the (non-email)
> news.* groups? Nah, can't be.

Right. And I'm sure that Linus is a regular in comp.os.linux*

>
> [deleted]
>
>> >> You've been out-voted, out-programmed, and out-classed. Good luck on =
your
>> >> crusade to convince every one of them not to generate or consume
>> >> MIME-formatted Usenet content.
>> >
>> > Sorry, but I have been talking to just you.
>>
>> Well, you can't reasonably expected to converse with multiple entities, t=
o
>> such depth, at the same time. But it's a safe bet that this isn't the fi=
rst
>> time you bitched for the sake of bitching, to someone, on this topic.
>>
>> > You have gotten no suppo=
rt
>> > in this thread
>>
>> Yes, and you have all this crowd cheering behind you.
>
> No, but I haven't claimed support, but you *have* (see (for example)
> the above quotes).

I did not claim anything. I stated a fact: namely how all mail/news clients=

process E-mail and Usenet messages in the exact same identical fashion.

>> > and IIRC not in previous similar ones. Claiming support
>> > from invisible and unnamed people is rather lame, don't you think?
>>
>> Yup, now you were saying about all that support that you have?
>>
>> >> >> Grasping at straws, hung from a single word in a title of a long an=
d
>> >> >> technically involved document, won't change that.
>> >> >
>> >> > No, that's why I *also* refered to the *content* ("May I suggest t=
o
>> >> > search the MIME RFCs on the word "mail"? ..."), but you 'convenientl=
y'
>> >> > ignored/dodged that part.
>> >>
>> >> Straw argument. You can come up with as many justifications for your
>> >> ignorance of reality as you want, but they're not going to change anyt=
hing.
>> >
>> > How is it "straw"? It addresses the very issue, that the MIME RFCs
>> > talk only about mail (as I claim they do) and do not talk about Usenet
>> > (as you claim they do).
>>
>> But what you fail to comprehend is that they address not "mail" but the
>> format of E-mail messages.
>
> What you fail to comprehend is that your assumptions about what people
> think/know might be, and likely are, wrong.

Really? I'm just imagining how Mozilla/Evolution/Outlook/et al. handle MIME=

from both E-mail and Usenet sources in exact same way?

> If you make *stupid*
> assumptions, like the above quoted one, you are *guaranteed* to be
> wrong.

It's not an assumption. It's a statement of fact. Deny reality as much as
you want, but the opinion of those people, whose opinions do matter, are 180=

degrees to the opposite of yours', as evidenced by all the software that
handles both E-mail and Usenet content in the exact same way.

> So no, I do not "fail to comprehend" "that they address the
> format of E-mail messages", because that is what they actually *say*. It
> would be nice if you didn't project your reading/comprehension problems
> onto others.

Would you mind identifying where you've read that most software somehow
handles E-mail and Usenet content differently?

>> Which happens to be the exact same format as Usenet messages.
>
> Nope, *not* "the exact same", that's the whole point. "has large

Yes, exactly the same way, and _that's_ the whole point. It just occured
to me how to settle this argument, once and for all

I challenge you to come up with a message that will be handled/shown
differently depending upon whether it is received by E-mail or NNTP, by a
commonly used client that supports both. Trivial context-based differences
(such as the presence of a Newsgroup: header in the Usenet context) do not
count. Since we're discussing specifically MIME issues, the only
differences that will count are MIME-processing differences.

Put up or shut up. As you yourself are so fond of saying, you can't prove a=

negative. You can't prove that the software will display all MIME messages
exactly the same, but it theoretically possible to prove the opposite with
just ONE counterexample.

If you believe that RFC 2045-2049 somehow do not apply to Usenet and they
are not treated the same by the popular clients, now's your big chance to
show how big of a mouth you really are. Put up, or shut up. Come up with a=

MIME message that's somehow processed differently depending upon its source.

> similarities with", yes. "the exact same as", no.
>
> [deleted]
>
>> >> >> It's a fairly safe bet that you've never actually coded a Usenet cl=
ient,
>> >> >> right?
>> >> >
>> >> > I coded News server add-ons. Does that count? Please? Pretty pleas=
e?
>> >>
>> >> Sorry, no. You actually have to process the stored content, instead o=
f
>> >> adding a random byte, here and there.
>> >
>> > Does it count that my add-ons *generated* content? Does demand-feed
>> > functionality count?
>>
>> Nope, still doesn't count. If you generate content you can pick and choo=
se
>> the format of your content.
>>
>> On the other hand if you consume content you have to support and provide =
for
>> every possible format the content allows for.
>>
>> Big difference.
>
> Well, my "content" were (News) articles, so yes I had to conform to

If you are generating content you only need to conform to the subset that
your content falls into one.

If you were actually consuming content you will have to confirm to
everything.

> the RFC and could not (nor needed/wanted to) pick and choose the format.

Yes, you did. You picked whatever format was convenient to you and only had=

to make sure you conformed to the subset of the format you were using.

This is really not rocket science. If you were generating E-mail content,
for example, and you were always generating messages with a simple
attachment you only need to conform with the formatting conventions for
multipart/mixed content.

On the other hand if you are receiving and processing content you also have
to handle everything else, to some degree: multipart/related, non multipart
content, etcâ=A6 This is not really difficult to understand.

> I used the term "content" because you used it. [Deleted by LTYG Police.]
>
> Does it count now? (Please say 'no'!)

No.

> [deleted]
>
>> >> > That is why I put the word "flame" in single quotes.
>> >>
>> >> Ok, what would be the special significance of the word in double quote=
s,
>> >> then? It looks like a secret decoder ring is needed to decipher your
>> >> messages, and I'm going to put one together right now.
>> >
>> > It's a practice which is common in many English-speaking countries,
>> > but apparently not in all. It's also common in many non-English-speakin=
g
>> > countries. It's used when the meaning is not literal (i.e. like in the
>> > above quote) and sometimes even the opposite ("You are really are
>> > 'smart' guy, aren't you?").
>>
>> Nope. Try again. The only use for single and double quotes here is to
>> avoid ambiguity as to where each pair of opening and closing quotes are.
>
> Nope. (Don't)

Yup.

> Try again. And no, I don't have to prove my point. I'm
> playing by "Sam's rules": "Look it up. I'm not going to do all the work
> for you."

Neither will I.

>
> [deleted]
>
>> >> You appear to be incapable of comprehending the difference between mai=
n
>> >> content, meant to be read by humans, and ancillary metadata meant to b=
e
>> >> automatically processed by software.
>> >
>> > Once more, your assumption is incorrect.
>>
>> Oh? Is the text/plain content of PGP-signed MIME messages is a figment o=
f
>> everyone's imagination, except yours'?
>
> Another case of . You made an assumption (hint: "appear"). Your

I made no such thing. Stating a fact is not the same thing as making an
assumption.

> assumption was incorrect. End of story. No ifs, no buts, no made-up
> 'questions', no nothing.

Right, no question about it that there's major difference between MIME/PGP
content with a perfectly readable text/plain section, or HTML/PDF/Word
content, which _YOU_ brought up, which is of very little use to plain text
clients.

>> >> > because "if some cl=
ient
>> >> > cannot "sensibly" handle syntactically valid content, ... the MIME
>> >> > client has a bug, and/or someone is just too stupid to understand th=
at,
>> >> > and chooses to blame the messenger."? Thanks for clarifying that.
>> >>
>> >> Well, if some client barfs on a message with a MIME PDF attachment, an=
d
>> >> someone chooses to complain about that to anyone other than whoever's
>> >> responsible to the client, then yes, they're really too stupid to be a=
llowed
>> >> to log in to the Internet.
>> >
>> > No, no "attachment". Try again.
>>
>> This message's contents are text/plain. Try again.
>
>
>
> [Another case of deleted]

Translation: "I can't think of a way to wiggle out of it, but there's a
convenient pile of sand nearby and I make a good impression of an ostrich."

> [deleted]
>
>> > The Good Bit
>> > ============
>> >
>> > As I hinted at before, I think your postings would find more
>> > acceptance/recognition/ if you were less confrontational on
>>
>> I think you grossly mis-estimate as to how much I care about how much my
>> posts are "accepted" by people with noses stuck in the air.
>>
>> > the news.software.readers group could help with that. That would be mor=
e
>> > constructive than saying/implying that people's newsreaders are broken,
>> > that they are 'stupid', etc..
>>
>> It's been shown that the only possible reasons someone would make such a
>> complaint are:
>>
>> 1) Their software can't handle proper MIME content. Case in point: some
>> versions of Outlook Express which barf all over themselves.
>>
>> 2) There's nothing wrong with their software, they just like to bitch for=

>> the sake of bitching.
>>
>> In the first case, their software is broken. Case closed. In the second=

>> case, they are kookbags. Case closed. Feel free to choose which categor=
y
>> you would like to place yourself in.
>
> *Why* not inform/help/ the people in the first case? You
> know, that silly Usenet thingie of one person trying to help another
> one?

I am helping. I am helping right now, for example.

>> > OTOH if, like one poster suggested, your intention is to bait for
>> > responses, then just keep on doing as you are.
>>
>> Yes, I really care a lot about that poster's suggestions.
>
>

Feel free to ignore it, but it's true.

> I think you have made it perfectly clear that independent on whether
> you encounter a case 1 or 2, *you* will respond as a case 2.

I personally perfer to be classified as a case 0 myself.

--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-8740-1118074538-0001
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBCpHaqx9p3GYHlUOIRAl32AJ0bx3gasn+6slo0v4tMfwYjUlzI9ACZ ASuR
wzrBki6TUrQekZcwjwCWSPg=
=AnD2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-8740-1118074538-0001--

Re: Email client problem with Comcast

am 07.06.2005 09:38:43 von Frank Slootweg

Sam wrote:
> Frank Slootweg writes:
>
> > [Only responding to the points which are (somewhat) new and the ones
> > where there is perhaps still a miniscule chance of communication (yeah,
> > right!).]
>
> Translation: "I'll ignore stuff that I finally realize I was wrong about,
> and hope nobody'll notice".

No. I deleted the stuff where there is no progress whatsoever. As to
the latter part of your comment: Contrary to some/most people, I always
mark my deletions, so people can look up what was deleted.

> > Sam wrote:
> > [attributions deleted]
> > [deleted]
> >> > Yes, you seem to think that MIME is a all-or-nothing thing. It isn't.
> >> > See my examples on HTML, PDF, Word, etc..
> >>
> >> I realize that facts aren't your strongest point, but I was hoping that at
> >> least someone would quietly whisper to you that the contents of an
> >> HTML/PDF/WORD document are completely and totally unreadable to a plain
> >> text-only client (not really 100% true with HTML, specifically, but that's
> >> beside the point).
> >
> > *Who* is talking about "a plain text only client"? *I* am not.
>
> You were talking about a client that cannot display or process those kind of
> documents. Logic indicates (there's that pesky logic again) that it can
> only be a plain text-only client.

Cite.

> > Again another example of something which you dream up and then
> > imply, or outright say, that I have mentioned that. I happen to *use* a
> > text-only client, but this *discussion* is not limited to text-only
> > clients.
>
> If true, then what exactly is your major malfunction with HTML, PDF, or
> Word-formatted MIME documents?

I have no such "malfunction" and have never said or implied so. It's
just another case where you 'read' stuff which wasn't written.

What *did* happen is that I talked about (sensible) use of MIME in
Usenet articles. You responded with "There's no "sensible" or
"insensible" use of MIME. ...". I then responded with:

Me> Ah, I understand! So (according to you) the use of HTML, PDF, Word,
Me> RTF, TIFF, etc., etc. in Usenet messages is OK, because "if some client
Me> cannot "sensibly" handle syntactically valid content, ... the MIME
Me> client has a bug, and/or someone is just too stupid to understand that,
Me> and chooses to blame the messenger."? Thanks for clarifying that.

After that, you just drifted more and more into never-never land.

> >> At least not unless the content generator supplies a
> >> text/plain version in a multipart/alternative. Meanwhile (and sit down for
> >> this one, so you don't hurt yourself when the following truth of life is
> >> revealed to you), the contents of a PGP/MIME signed messages are perfectly
> >> readable to a plain text-only client that properly implements MIME (ignoring
> >> for the moment the situation where HTML/PDF/WORD content is PGP-signed). The
> >> client ignores the PGP signature and displays the text/plain content. If it
> >> implements MIME correctly, that is.
> >
> > Correctness: (close to) 100%. New (to me) information content: 0%.
>
> Translation: "just because I am not capable of verifying PGP signatures it
> is therefore decreed, by fiat, that nobody else can either therefore it's
> irrelevant".
> > Relevancy: 0%.
>
> Translation: "just because the PGP signature is not relevant to mes it is
> therefore decreed, by fiat, that it is relevant for noone else therefore it
> should not be used."

No, it's irrelevant because it's not related to the *current*
discusssion. We *started* with PGP-signed articles, but we *continued*
with MIME in general. *I* didn't want to do that and *said* so ("But
let's not concentrate on the MIME part, it's just PKB flame-bait (but
true nonetheless).", but you did ("No, let's do."), so we did. Are you
starting to see who has the memory-lapses and who hasn't?

> >> Therefore, trying to compare PGP-signed posts in MIME format with
> >> HTML/PDF/WORD MIME documents is utterly idiotic, and reveals the fact that
> >> you have no clue as to what you're talking about.
> >
> > I fully agree that such a comparison would be idiotic. Your (implied)
> > assumption that I made such a one is also idiotic.
>
> Of course you made such an assumption. Your memory is failing. In message
> <42a2af53$0$1661$dbd4d001@news.wanadoo.nl> you wrote:
>
> # Ah, I understand! So (according to you) the use of HTML, PDF, Word,
> # RTF, TIFF, etc., etc. in Usenet messages is OK,
>
> Up until this point I never made any kind of a reference to anything like
> this. This is something that you suddenly pulled out of your ass in order
> to make some kind of an idiotic (and thank you for admitting it) comparison.
>
> Oh, and by the way: up until that point in the thread I never wrote anything
> about "HTML, PDF, Word, RTF, TIFF". Your current accusations, of me
> supposedly implying that you wrote or said something that you never did, is
> the textbook example of utter and total hypocricy. It exposes your own
> shallow argumentative basis. You easily take offense if someone allegedly
> puts words in your mouth, but you never hesitate to do the same yourself,
> apparently.

See above.

> >> So: we have a PDF/MSWord document on one hand. Can't be groked by a plain
> >> text-only client no matter what. On the other hand, we have a PGP-signed
> >> MIME post, with perfectly ordinary text/plain section. Only a total dumbass
> >> would allege that the two can be compared in any way.
> >
> > Yup. (See C/N/R above.)
>
> And you made that comparison completely on your own initiative. I never
> said anything close to that.

See above.

> >> >> > I already said that such comments are rather silly, but then you don't
> >> >> > read what people write, do you? Free clue: Google.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Free clue: uucp.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Free (repeated) clue: Notes.
> >> >>
> >> >> Lotus Notes' MIME support is not very impressive, but thank you for asking.
> >> >
> >> > Did I say "Lotus Notes"? No, I said "Notes".
> >>
> >> Sorry, I forgot my secret decoder ring, and the mind ray-beam machine that
> >> can telepathatically extract the details of whatever you're babbling about
> >> is broken.
> >>
> >> > Your assumption shows
> >> > that *you* should "educate yourself about the history of Usenet" before
> >> > suggesting that to others. The Notes(files) system from the University
> >> > of Illinois predates Lotus Notes by many years, probably a decade or so.
> >>
> >> Yes, indeed. And it was so famous that everyone around the world
> >> immediately know that any time some goof says "Notes" he must be referring
> >> to some obscure system used by a university located somewhere that most
> >> people won't even be able to find on a map.
> >
> > Do you *have* to continue to demonstrate that, despite your (implied)
> > claims of the contrary, you have no clue "about the history of Usenet"?
> > FYI: Notes and News were *parallel* developments in "the history of
> > Usenet", i.e. one could read/post (Usenet and other) "News" with Notes
> > and vice versa.
>
> I'm sure that you, and two other people in the world who know or care about
> this, could tell us a lot about it.
>
> Strangely enough, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet#History never ever
> heard of this so called major contribution to the history of Usenet.
>
> But, golly, what do we have here? There's certainly a whole lot of
> common history of Usenet and uucp documented by Wikipedia, with nary of a
> reference to anything called "Notes". At least I can't find it mentioned
> anywhere.

Yes, I've seen many bad history descriptions, for example also ones
about "the Internet", email, etc.. It's sad, but they are there, people
tend to believe them and, like you, 'use' them to try to prove something
which can't be proven.

FWIW, my experience with Notes goes from early 1984 to somewhere in
1994, so a decade or so. There used to be a dedicated newsgroup,
news.software.notes, so you may want to Google that one (and beware of
the people which fell into the same (Lotus) trap as you did).

> You do seem to have a habit of blabbing about things you know very little
> about.

Yeah, what's only a decade of experience in the grand theme of things?

> >> >> But that has nothing to do with MIME, you're just trying to obfuscate and
> >> >> cover up your personal MIME-related fetishes.
> >> >
> >> > Oh, I see, and uucp *has* something to do with MIME?
> >>
> >> Try to keep up. uucp has a lot to do with both Usenet and E-mail, which, in
> >> part why both Usenet and E-mail messages follow the same formatting
> >> conventions.
> >
> > You can't be *that* clueless, can you? (See above quotes:)
>
> I suggest that you add a footnote to that Wikipedia article advising
> everyone, who believes that uucp had something to do with the history of
> Usenet, is clueless.

And again you try your "let's respond in the middle of a paragraph and
hope that people won't notice" trick:

> > In response
> > to my "Free (repeated) clue: Notes.", you said "Lotus Notes' MIME
> > support is not very impressive, but thank you for asking. But that has
> > nothing to do with MIME, you're just trying to obfuscate and cover up
> > your personal MIME-related fetishes.". I.e. you said that [Lotus] Notes
> > has nothing to do with MIME, which is true, but *irrelevant*, because my
>
> True things are almost never irrelevant.

1+1=2. I'm sure that is very relevant to this discussion. Perhaps I
should also mention that 2*3=6?

> > "Free (repeated) clue: Notes." was a response to your "Free clue:
> > uucp.". So you completely missed the point, so I (sarcastically) replied
>
> I missed the point that uucp had nothing to do with the history of Usenet,
> and that Notes thing -- whateverthehellitwas -- was responsible for the
> modern Usenet we all love?

No, you missed the point that my "Free (repeated) clue: Notes." was a
response to your "Free clue: uucp.", and then pulled "MIME" out of your
hat.

> > "Oh, I see, and uucp *has* something to do with MIME?" and in your
> > response you again/still completely missed the point.
>
> Sometimes you really need a roadmap to map out your thought processes. You
> remind me of one of my teachers who used to say "If you can't dazzle them
> with your brilliance, baffle them with your bullshit". You must've had the
> same teacher.
>
> >> I mean, if you actually bothered to read the headers of any Usenet post you
> >> would probably be smart enough (I hope) to notice the curiously-formatted
> >> Path: header. Then, you would recognize a striking familiarity to E-mail
> >> addressing back in uucp-times. Hopefully some gears would finally click in
> >> your head and you would make a mental connection between E-mail and Usenet,
> >> and why both mediums historically formatted their messages the same way.
> >
> > Why do you assume that someone who has *told* you that he managed
> > News systems for (over) two decades, doesn't know how a Path: header
> > works?
>
> After all, there are plenty of E-mail admins who have no clue what SMTP is.
> It's quite plausible that the same applies to Usenet.

It's rather sad that you have no clue what SMTP is. What are you going
to do about that?

> > If you had any clue about "the history of Usenet", you would have
> > known that it would have been very, very unlikely that those early
> > Usenet systems would *not* have used uucp for their *transport*. But
> > perhaps I can make it simpler for you: I am ...!mcvax!hpuamsa!frank. Is
> > that uucp-like enough for you?
>
> In that case, how do you explain your inaccurate viewpoint on the relative
> historical contributions of various people, places, and things?

(Other than in your mind,) They are not inaccurate.

> > [deleted]
> >
> >> >> It's not an argument, it's a statement of fact. All Usenet/E-mail software,
> >> >> in use by more than five people worldwide, processes both Usenet and E-mail
> >> >> content identically. The only difference is where the raw message content
> >> >> is obtained from - a mail folder or a Usenet server.
> >> >
> >> > Well, you said it, not me.
> >>
> >> Right. Because I know that, and I know what it means. And you don't.
> >>
> >> > I wouldn't claim such sillyness, except
> >>
> >> Facts are rarely silly.
> >>
> >> > (obviously) for clients which do both (e-mail and News).
> >>
> >> Which includes pretty much all clients used by more than five people.
> >>
> >> >> Sorry to inform you that reality disagrees with your silly notions.
> >> >>
> >> >> > Which "developers of Usenet software" would that be?
> >> >>
> >> >> Try Microsoft, Mozilla, Evolution, and others. Ever heard of them?
> >> >
> >> > Ah, I see! Only clients which do both (e-mail and News), assuming that
> >> > Evolution is such a one (I don't know). Perhaps you should browse around
> >> > in news.software.readers, so that you can see for yourself how many
> >> > clients there are which just do News (and for good reasons).
> >>
> >> You forgot the remaining requirement: the client must have more than five
> >> users.
> >
> > Does (more than) five *percent* (of the total installed base) count?
>
> It might count if it were true. But, until you gallantly reveal the
> mysterious identity of such a Usenet client, it's not possible to say,
> either way.

"Look it up.", i.e. see the stats in whatever news.* group they are.

> > Obviously another "Usenet" area about which you have no clue. Is that
> > perhaps why (AFAICR) I have never seen you in any of the (non-email)
> > news.* groups? Nah, can't be.
>
> Right. And I'm sure that Linus is a regular in comp.os.linux*

Priceless! I guess they don't get cockier than that.

> > [deleted]
> >
> >> >> You've been out-voted, out-programmed, and out-classed. Good luck on your
> >> >> crusade to convince every one of them not to generate or consume
> >> >> MIME-formatted Usenet content.
> >> >
> >> > Sorry, but I have been talking to just you.
> >>
> >> Well, you can't reasonably expected to converse with multiple entities, to
> >> such depth, at the same time. But it's a safe bet that this isn't the first
> >> time you bitched for the sake of bitching, to someone, on this topic.
> >>
> >> > You have gotten no support
> >> > in this thread
> >>
> >> Yes, and you have all this crowd cheering behind you.
> >
> > No, but I haven't claimed support, but you *have* (see (for example)
> > the above quotes).
>
> I did not claim anything. I stated a fact: namely how all mail/news clients
> process E-mail and Usenet messages in the exact same identical fashion.

I think you did claim support in (for *example*) the "You've been
out-voted" bit, but if you're saying that was just one of your many
hollow phrases, then I'll accept that.

> >> > and IIRC not in previous similar ones. Claiming support
> >> > from invisible and unnamed people is rather lame, don't you think?
> >>
> >> Yup, now you were saying about all that support that you have?
> >>
> >> >> >> Grasping at straws, hung from a single word in a title of a long and
> >> >> >> technically involved document, won't change that.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > No, that's why I *also* refered to the *content* ("May I suggest to
> >> >> > search the MIME RFCs on the word "mail"? ..."), but you 'conveniently'
> >> >> > ignored/dodged that part.
> >> >>
> >> >> Straw argument. You can come up with as many justifications for your
> >> >> ignorance of reality as you want, but they're not going to change anything.
> >> >
> >> > How is it "straw"? It addresses the very issue, that the MIME RFCs
> >> > talk only about mail (as I claim they do) and do not talk about Usenet
> >> > (as you claim they do).
> >>
> >> But what you fail to comprehend is that they address not "mail" but the
> >> format of E-mail messages.
> >
> > What you fail to comprehend is that your assumptions about what people
> > think/know might be, and likely are, wrong.
>
> Really? I'm just imagining how Mozilla/Evolution/Outlook/et al. handle MIME
> from both E-mail and Usenet sources in exact same way?

Can you really not parse a normal English sentence? You make an
assumption (that I "fail to comprehend ..."), but that assumption is
false. End of story. Inventing 'cute' rethorical questions don't
'correct' your false assumption(s).

> > If you make *stupid*
> > assumptions, like the above quoted one, you are *guaranteed* to be
> > wrong.
>
> It's not an assumption. It's a statement of fact. Deny reality as much as
> you want, but the opinion of those people, whose opinions do matter, are 180
> degrees to the opposite of yours', as evidenced by all the software that
> handles both E-mail and Usenet content in the exact same way.

You clearly have no clue what my opinion is, so you have no way of
telling if they agree with your imaginary pals or not.

> > So no, I do not "fail to comprehend" "that they address the
> > format of E-mail messages", because that is what they actually *say*. It
> > would be nice if you didn't project your reading/comprehension problems
> > onto others.
>
> Would you mind identifying where you've read that most software somehow
> handles E-mail and Usenet content differently?

I wouldn't mind if it was relevant. Since it isn't, I do.

> >> Which happens to be the exact same format as Usenet messages.
> >
> > Nope, *not* "the exact same", that's the whole point. "has large
>
> Yes, exactly the same way, and _that's_ the whole point. It just occured
> to me how to settle this argument, once and for all
>
> I challenge you to come up with a message that will be handled/shown
> differently depending upon whether it is received by E-mail or NNTP, by a
> commonly used client that supports both.

Since I have never claimed such a thing, there's no need/point to
respond to your 'challenge'.

> Trivial context-based differences
> (such as the presence of a Newsgroup: header in the Usenet context) do not
> count. Since we're discussing specifically MIME issues, the only
> differences that will count are MIME-processing differences.
>
> Put up or shut up. As you yourself are so fond of saying, you can't prove a
> negative. You can't prove that the software will display all MIME messages
> exactly the same, but it theoretically possible to prove the opposite with
> just ONE counterexample.
>
> If you believe that RFC 2045-2049 somehow do not apply to Usenet

Yes, I believe *that* part (with the provisions of the discussed
'accepted' 'violations', i.e. while those RFCs do not refer to Usenet
(et al) (but do refer to (e)mail), they do not "apply" to Usenet for any
sensible meaning of "apply", but current News *software* ('readers' and
servers) *use* *parts* of what in described in those RFCs).

> and they
> are not treated the same by the popular clients,

But I do *not* believe *that* part (and have never said/implied so).

> now's your big chance to
> show how big of a mouth you really are. Put up, or shut up. Come up with a
> MIME message that's somehow processed differently depending upon its source.
>
> > similarities with", yes. "the exact same as", no.

[deleted]

> >> >> You appear to be incapable of comprehending the difference between main
> >> >> content, meant to be read by humans, and ancillary metadata meant to be
> >> >> automatically processed by software.
> >> >
> >> > Once more, your assumption is incorrect.
> >>
> >> Oh? Is the text/plain content of PGP-signed MIME messages is a figment of
> >> everyone's imagination, except yours'?
> >
> > Another case of . You made an assumption (hint: "appear"). Your
>
> I made no such thing. Stating a fact is not the same thing as making an
> assumption.

The assumption is, obviously, not the fact part of the sentence, but
the assumption at the beginning of it. As I expected that you would be
as clueless/obnoxious/'funny'/ as always, I gave a hint
("(hint: "appear")"). Apparently that did also not help. So I'll spell
it out for you:

You said "You appear to be incapable of comprehending". That is an
assumption on your part. That assumption is false because I *do*
know/understand the stated difference.

> > assumption was incorrect. End of story. No ifs, no buts, no made-up
> > 'questions', no nothing.
>
> Right, no question about it that there's major difference between MIME/PGP
> content with a perfectly readable text/plain section, or HTML/PDF/Word
> content, which _YOU_ brought up, which is of very little use to plain text
> clients.

which ("plain text clients"), I did *not* bring up.

[deleted]

> >> > The Good Bit
> >> > ============
> >> >
> >> > As I hinted at before, I think your postings would find more
> >> > acceptance/recognition/ if you were less confrontational on
> >>
> >> I think you grossly mis-estimate as to how much I care about how much my
> >> posts are "accepted" by people with noses stuck in the air.
> >>
> >> > the news.software.readers group could help with that. That would be more
> >> > constructive than saying/implying that people's newsreaders are broken,
> >> > that they are 'stupid', etc..
> >>
> >> It's been shown that the only possible reasons someone would make such a
> >> complaint are:
> >>
> >> 1) Their software can't handle proper MIME content. Case in point: some
> >> versions of Outlook Express which barf all over themselves.
> >>
> >> 2) There's nothing wrong with their software, they just like to bitch for
> >> the sake of bitching.
> >>
> >> In the first case, their software is broken. Case closed. In the second
> >> case, they are kookbags. Case closed. Feel free to choose which category
> >> you would like to place yourself in.
> >
> > *Why* not inform/help/ the people in the first case? You
> > know, that silly Usenet thingie of one person trying to help another
> > one?
>
> I am helping. I am helping right now, for example.

Then may I suggest you wake up, because you are obviously dreaming.

> >> > OTOH if, like one poster suggested, your intention is to bait for
> >> > responses, then just keep on doing as you are.
> >>
> >> Yes, I really care a lot about that poster's suggestions.
> >
> >
>
> Feel free to ignore it, but it's true.

> > I think you have made it perfectly clear that independent on whether
> > you encounter a case 1 or 2, *you* will respond as a case 2.
>
> I personally perfer to be classified as a case 0 myself.

Re: Email client problem with Comcast

am 07.06.2005 15:49:58 von Sam

This is a MIME GnuPG-signed message. If you see this text, it means that
your E-mail or Usenet software does not support MIME signed messages.

--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-10660-1118152199-0001
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Frank Slootweg writes:

> Sam wrote:
>> Frank Slootweg writes:
>>
>> > [Only responding to the points which are (somewhat) new and the ones
>> > where there is perhaps still a miniscule chance of communication (yeah,
>> > right!).]
>>
>> Translation: "I'll ignore stuff that I finally realize I was wrong about,
>> and hope nobody'll notice".
>
> No. I deleted the stuff where there is no progress whatsoever. As to

Says you. I think you've been making some progress. Very little but it's
still progress.

> the latter part of your comment: Contrary to some/most people, I always
> mark my deletions, so people can look up what was deleted.

Most people won't, and you count on that.

>> > Sam wrote:
>> > [attributions deleted]
>> > [deleted]
>> >> > Yes, you seem to think that MIME is a all-or-nothing thing. It isn't.
>> >> > See my examples on HTML, PDF, Word, etc..
>> >>
>> >> I realize that facts aren't your strongest point, but I was hoping that at
>> >> least someone would quietly whisper to you that the contents of an
>> >> HTML/PDF/WORD document are completely and totally unreadable to a plain
>> >> text-only client (not really 100% true with HTML, specifically, but that's
>> >> beside the point).
>> >
>> > *Who* is talking about "a plain text only client"? *I* am not.
>>
>> You were talking about a client that cannot display or process those kind of
>> documents. Logic indicates (there's that pesky logic again) that it can
>> only be a plain text-only client.
>
> Cite.

See above.

>
>> > Again another example of something which you dream up and then
>> > imply, or outright say, that I have mentioned that. I happen to *use* a
>> > text-only client, but this *discussion* is not limited to text-only
>> > clients.
>>
>> If true, then what exactly is your major malfunction with HTML, PDF, or
>> Word-formatted MIME documents?
>
> I have no such "malfunction"

Then why bring it up?

> and have never said or implied so. It's

Did everyone imagine you bring up your beef with "HTML/PDF/WORD"?

> just another case where you 'read' stuff which wasn't written.

I just read what you write. You may not like it when I point out all of its
fallacies, but you can't address that by denying writing it in the first
place.

> What *did* happen is that I talked about (sensible) use of MIME in
> Usenet articles. You responded with "There's no "sensible" or
> "insensible" use of MIME. ...". I then responded with:
>
> Me> Ah, I understand! So (according to you) the use of HTML, PDF, Word,
> Me> RTF, TIFF, etc., etc. in Usenet messages is OK, because "if some client
> Me> cannot "sensibly" handle syntactically valid content, ... the MIME
> Me> client has a bug, and/or someone is just too stupid to understand that,
> Me> and chooses to blame the messenger."? Thanks for clarifying that.

In other words: you have a beef with HTML/PDF/Word content. If not, why
even bring it up in the first place.

> After that, you just drifted more and more into never-never land.

You'll just need to improve your arguments.

>> >> At least not unless the content generator supplies a
>> >> text/plain version in a multipart/alternative. Meanwhile (and sit down for
>> >> this one, so you don't hurt yourself when the following truth of life is
>> >> revealed to you), the contents of a PGP/MIME signed messages are perfectly
>> >> readable to a plain text-only client that properly implements MIME (ignoring
>> >> for the moment the situation where HTML/PDF/WORD content is PGP-signed). The
>> >> client ignores the PGP signature and displays the text/plain content. If it
>> >> implements MIME correctly, that is.
>> >
>> > Correctness: (close to) 100%. New (to me) information content: 0%.
>>
>> Translation: "just because I am not capable of verifying PGP signatures it
>> is therefore decreed, by fiat, that nobody else can either therefore it's
>> irrelevant".
>> > Relevancy: 0%.
>>
>> Translation: "just because the PGP signature is not relevant to mes it is
>> therefore decreed, by fiat, that it is relevant for noone else therefore it
>> should not be used."
>
> No, it's irrelevant because it's not related to the *current*
> discusssion.

Yes it does. After all, the "current" discussion began with your beef about
my signatures.

Try to keep up.

> We *started* with PGP-signed articles, but we *continued*
> with MIME in general.

Since PGP-signed article is a MIME article, the topic has not
substantatively changed. You only claim that it's changed is when you are
unable to refute my points.

> *I* didn't want to do that and *said* so ("But

What you said so, at any time in the past, can obviously change in order to
accomodate your latest argument.

> let's not concentrate on the MIME part, it's just PKB flame-bait (but
> true nonetheless).", but you did ("No, let's do."), so we did. Are you
> starting to see who has the memory-lapses and who hasn't?

I can easily see who has the artificial memory lapses when it is most
convenient for him.

>> >> Therefore, trying to compare PGP-signed posts in MIME format with
>> >> HTML/PDF/WORD MIME documents is utterly idiotic, and reveals the fact that
>> >> you have no clue as to what you're talking about.
>> >
>> > I fully agree that such a comparison would be idiotic. Your (implied)
>> > assumption that I made such a one is also idiotic.
>>
>> Of course you made such an assumption. Your memory is failing. In message
>> <42a2af53$0$1661$dbd4d001@news.wanadoo.nl> you wrote:
>>
>> # Ah, I understand! So (according to you) the use of HTML, PDF, Word,
>> # RTF, TIFF, etc., etc. in Usenet messages is OK,
>>
>> Up until this point I never made any kind of a reference to anything like
>> this. This is something that you suddenly pulled out of your ass in order
>> to make some kind of an idiotic (and thank you for admitting it) comparison.
>>
>> Oh, and by the way: up until that point in the thread I never wrote anything
>> about "HTML, PDF, Word, RTF, TIFF". Your current accusations, of me
>> supposedly implying that you wrote or said something that you never did, is
>> the textbook example of utter and total hypocricy. It exposes your own
>> shallow argumentative basis. You easily take offense if someone allegedly
>> puts words in your mouth, but you never hesitate to do the same yourself,
>> apparently.
>
> See above.

Thanks, but I don't need your help to underscore when I'm right. I can do
that by myself.

>> >> So: we have a PDF/MSWord document on one hand. Can't be groked by a plain
>> >> text-only client no matter what. On the other hand, we have a PGP-signed
>> >> MIME post, with perfectly ordinary text/plain section. Only a total dumbass
>> >> would allege that the two can be compared in any way.
>> >
>> > Yup. (See C/N/R above.)
>>
>> And you made that comparison completely on your own initiative. I never
>> said anything close to that.
>
> See above.

Oh, stop it. You're flattering me. There's no need to keep pointing out
how right I am.

>> >
>> > Do you *have* to continue to demonstrate that, despite your (implied)
>> > claims of the contrary, you have no clue "about the history of Usenet"?
>> > FYI: Notes and News were *parallel* developments in "the history of
>> > Usenet", i.e. one could read/post (Usenet and other) "News" with Notes
>> > and vice versa.
>>
>> I'm sure that you, and two other people in the world who know or care about
>> this, could tell us a lot about it.
>>
>> Strangely enough, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet#History never ever
>> heard of this so called major contribution to the history of Usenet.
>>
>> But, golly, what do we have here? There's certainly a whole lot of
>> common history of Usenet and uucp documented by Wikipedia, with nary of a
>> reference to anything called "Notes". At least I can't find it mentioned
>> anywhere.
>
> Yes, I've seen many bad history descriptions, for example also ones

All right: let's play the "everyone else is stupid and only I know the real
history" blame game.

> about "the Internet", email, etc.. It's sad, but they are there, people

I am unable to find anything objectionable in those other Wiki articles.

> tend to believe them and, like you, 'use' them to try to prove something
> which can't be proven.

The fact that nobody else really has heard of this major contributor to the
history of Usenet can easily be proven. See the Wiki article for the proof.

In fact, go ahead and find some other established source of historical data.

> FWIW, my experience with Notes goes from early 1984 to somewhere in
> 1994, so a decade or so. There used to be a dedicated newsgroup,
> news.software.notes, so you may want to Google that one (and beware of
> the people which fell into the same (Lotus) trap as you did).

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/news.software.notes/abou t

Wow. That sure was an active newsgroup.

The prosecution rests.

>> You do seem to have a habit of blabbing about things you know very little
>> about.
>
> Yeah, what's only a decade of experience in the grand theme of things?

A decade of experience in bullshitting is still a decade of experience in
bullshitting.

>> >
>> > You can't be *that* clueless, can you? (See above quotes:)
>>
>> I suggest that you add a footnote to that Wikipedia article advising
>> everyone, who believes that uucp had something to do with the history of
>> Usenet, is clueless.
>
> And again you try your "let's respond in the middle of a paragraph and
> hope that people won't notice" trick:

And again you try your "let's change the topic hoping nobody will notice how
wrong I was" trick.

>
>> > In response
>> > to my "Free (repeated) clue: Notes.", you said "Lotus Notes' MIME
>> > support is not very impressive, but thank you for asking. But that has
>> > nothing to do with MIME, you're just trying to obfuscate and cover up
>> > your personal MIME-related fetishes.". I.e. you said that [Lotus] Notes
>> > has nothing to do with MIME, which is true, but *irrelevant*, because my
>>
>> True things are almost never irrelevant.
>
> 1+1=2. I'm sure that is very relevant to this discussion. Perhaps I
> should also mention that 2*3=6?

That would certainly be more relevant than some of the things you've said.

>> > "Free (repeated) clue: Notes." was a response to your "Free clue:
>> > uucp.". So you completely missed the point, so I (sarcastically) replied
>>
>> I missed the point that uucp had nothing to do with the history of Usenet,
>> and that Notes thing -- whateverthehellitwas -- was responsible for the
>> modern Usenet we all love?
>
> No, you missed the point that my "Free (repeated) clue: Notes." was a
> response to your "Free clue: uucp.", and then pulled "MIME" out of your
> hat.

And you completely missed the point that nobody, except the three posters to
news.software.notes is aware of Notes' contribution to the history of
Usenet, while uucp's role is widely known.

But thank you for playing. We have some lovely parting gifts for you.

>> >> I mean, if you actually bothered to read the headers of any Usenet post you
>> >> would probably be smart enough (I hope) to notice the curiously-formatted
>> >> Path: header. Then, you would recognize a striking familiarity to E-mail
>> >> addressing back in uucp-times. Hopefully some gears would finally click in
>> >> your head and you would make a mental connection between E-mail and Usenet,
>> >> and why both mediums historically formatted their messages the same way.
>> >
>> > Why do you assume that someone who has *told* you that he managed
>> > News systems for (over) two decades, doesn't know how a Path: header
>> > works?
>>
>> After all, there are plenty of E-mail admins who have no clue what SMTP is.
>> It's quite plausible that the same applies to Usenet.
>
> It's rather sad that you have no clue what SMTP is. What are you going
> to do about that?

I'm going to chuckle at your pathetic attempt at a retort, which backfired
more than an eleven year old Toyota.

>> > If you had any clue about "the history of Usenet", you would have
>> > known that it would have been very, very unlikely that those early
>> > Usenet systems would *not* have used uucp for their *transport*. But
>> > perhaps I can make it simpler for you: I am ...!mcvax!hpuamsa!frank. Is
>> > that uucp-like enough for you?
>>
>> In that case, how do you explain your inaccurate viewpoint on the relative
>> historical contributions of various people, places, and things?
>
> (Other than in your mind,) They are not inaccurate.

And the remaining survivors of "Heaven's Gate" are still waiting for their
spaceship to arrive.

>> >> You forgot the remaining requirement: the client must have more than five
>> >> users.
>> >
>> > Does (more than) five *percent* (of the total installed base) count?
>>
>> It might count if it were true. But, until you gallantly reveal the
>> mysterious identity of such a Usenet client, it's not possible to say,
>> either way.
>
> "Look it up.", i.e. see the stats in whatever news.* group they are.

It's not possible to look up something that does not exist.

>
>> > Obviously another "Usenet" area about which you have no clue. Is that
>> > perhaps why (AFAICR) I have never seen you in any of the (non-email)
>> > news.* groups? Nah, can't be.
>>
>> Right. And I'm sure that Linus is a regular in comp.os.linux*
>
> Priceless! I guess they don't get cockier than that.

It's difficult to be more cockier than to assume that anyone with any
knowledge in some particular area must be a regular participant of a given
newsgroup.

But that point, along with the surviving clues, went completely over your
head.

>> >> Well, you can't reasonably expected to converse with multiple entities, to
>> >> such depth, at the same time. But it's a safe bet that this isn't the first
>> >> time you bitched for the sake of bitching, to someone, on this topic.
>> >>
>> >> > You have gotten no support
>> >> > in this thread
>> >>
>> >> Yes, and you have all this crowd cheering behind you.
>> >
>> > No, but I haven't claimed support, but you *have* (see (for example)
>> > the above quotes).
>>
>> I did not claim anything. I stated a fact: namely how all mail/news clients
>> process E-mail and Usenet messages in the exact same identical fashion.
>
> I think you did claim support in (for *example*) the "You've been
> out-voted" bit,

It's not a claim of anything. It's a statement of fact based on cursory
evaluation of most commonly used clients. This is not really such rocket
science.

> but if you're saying that was just one of your many
> hollow phrases, then I'll accept that.

If you can't bring yourself to accept a proven fact, and you must disparage
it as hollow to do so, so be it.

>> >> >
>> >> > How is it "straw"? It addresses the very issue, that the MIME RFCs
>> >> > talk only about mail (as I claim they do) and do not talk about Usenet
>> >> > (as you claim they do).
>> >>
>> >> But what you fail to comprehend is that they address not "mail" but the
>> >> format of E-mail messages.
>> >
>> > What you fail to comprehend is that your assumptions about what people
>> > think/know might be, and likely are, wrong.
>>
>> Really? I'm just imagining how Mozilla/Evolution/Outlook/et al. handle MIME
>> from both E-mail and Usenet sources in exact same way?
>
> Can you really not parse a normal English sentence? You make an

Give me a logical, English sentence and I'll parse it. I'm waiting.

> assumption (that I "fail to comprehend ..."), but that assumption is
> false.

It's not an assumption, but a conclusion based on easily observable facts.

> End of story. Inventing 'cute' rethorical questions don't
> 'correct' your false assumption(s).

My conclusions do not need to be corrected.

>> > If you make *stupid*
>> > assumptions, like the above quoted one, you are *guaranteed* to be
>> > wrong.
>>
>> It's not an assumption. It's a statement of fact. Deny reality as much as
>> you want, but the opinion of those people, whose opinions do matter, are 180
>> degrees to the opposite of yours', as evidenced by all the software that
>> handles both E-mail and Usenet content in the exact same way.
>
> You clearly have no clue what my opinion is,

True, most people don't, but I think that I have a pretty good idea of what
it is.

> so you have no way of
> telling if they agree with your imaginary pals or not.

Oh, you'd be surprised at my cognitive abilities.

>
>> > So no, I do not "fail to comprehend" "that they address the
>> > format of E-mail messages", because that is what they actually *say*. It
>> > would be nice if you didn't project your reading/comprehension problems
>> > onto others.
>>
>> Would you mind identifying where you've read that most software somehow
>> handles E-mail and Usenet content differently?
>
> I wouldn't mind if it was relevant. Since it isn't, I do.

Translation: facts which dispell my ingrown beliefs are automatically
proclaimed irrelevant.

>> >> Which happens to be the exact same format as Usenet messages.
>> >
>> > Nope, *not* "the exact same", that's the whole point. "has large
>>
>> Yes, exactly the same way, and _that's_ the whole point. It just occured
>> to me how to settle this argument, once and for all
>>
>> I challenge you to come up with a message that will be handled/shown
>> differently depending upon whether it is received by E-mail or NNTP, by a
>> commonly used client that supports both.
>
> Since I have never claimed such a thing, there's no need/point to
> respond to your 'challenge'.

Your denial of your previous statements, after realizing that you can't
support them, is predictable. You spend nearly half the time denying stuff
that you've written in your previous message.

>> Trivial context-based differences
>> (such as the presence of a Newsgroup: header in the Usenet context) do not
>> count. Since we're discussing specifically MIME issues, the only
>> differences that will count are MIME-processing differences.
>>
>> Put up or shut up. As you yourself are so fond of saying, you can't prove a
>> negative. You can't prove that the software will display all MIME messages
>> exactly the same, but it theoretically possible to prove the opposite with
>> just ONE counterexample.
>>
>> If you believe that RFC 2045-2049 somehow do not apply to Usenet
>
> Yes, I believe *that* part (with the provisions of the discussed

And some people believe that they are personal friends of Bigfoot.

> 'accepted' 'violations', i.e. while those RFCs do not refer to Usenet
> (et al) (but do refer to (e)mail), they do not "apply" to Usenet for any
> sensible meaning of "apply", but current News *software* ('readers' and
> servers) *use* *parts* of what in described in those RFCs).

You many continue to hold your beliefs. People who actually know how things
work, who actually write and use Usenet software, will continue to ignore
your beliefs, and proceed accordingly.

Here's some armor, and a spear. Go for it, cowboy. Those windmills over
there won't know what hit 'em.

>> and they
>> are not treated the same by the popular clients,
>
> But I do *not* believe *that* part (and have never said/implied so).

You only believe things when it is convenient for you. But, once your
beliefs are shown to be ludicrous you always disclaim them. How convenient.

>> now's your big chance to
>> show how big of a mouth you really are. Put up, or shut up. Come up with a
>> MIME message that's somehow processed differently depending upon its source.
>>
>> > similarities with", yes. "the exact same as", no.
>
> [deleted]

Translation: "I can't do that but rather than admit to being wrong I'll
deny that I ever suggested anything like that in the first place."

>> >> >> You appear to be incapable of comprehending the difference between main
>> >> >> content, meant to be read by humans, and ancillary metadata meant to be
>> >> >> automatically processed by software.
>> >> >
>> >> > Once more, your assumption is incorrect.
>> >>
>> >> Oh? Is the text/plain content of PGP-signed MIME messages is a figment of
>> >> everyone's imagination, except yours'?
>> >
>> > Another case of . You made an assumption (hint: "appear"). Your
>>
>> I made no such thing. Stating a fact is not the same thing as making an
>> assumption.
>
> The assumption is, obviously, not the fact part of the sentence, but
> the assumption at the beginning of it.

Albert Einstein to the white courtesy phone, please. Your assistance is
needed.

> As I expected that you would be
> as clueless/obnoxious/'funny'/ as always, I gave a hint
> ("(hint: "appear")"). Apparently that did also not help. So I'll spell
> it out for you:
>
> You said "You appear to be incapable of comprehending". That is an
> assumption on your part.

No, it's an observation. Go to www.m-w.com and look up the meaning of
"appear".

> That assumption is false because I *do*
> know/understand the stated difference.

You only know it until it becomes more convenient to deny that you ever
known it or claimed to have known it.

>
>> > assumption was incorrect. End of story. No ifs, no buts, no made-up
>> > 'questions', no nothing.
>>
>> Right, no question about it that there's major difference between MIME/PGP
>> content with a perfectly readable text/plain section, or HTML/PDF/Word
>> content, which _YOU_ brought up, which is of very little use to plain text
>> clients.
>
> which ("plain text clients"), I did *not* bring up.

The ones you tried to bring up in order to advance your feeble comparison
against media-rich clients.

>> >> It's been shown that the only possible reasons someone would make such a
>> >> complaint are:
>> >>
>> >> 1) Their software can't handle proper MIME content. Case in point: some
>> >> versions of Outlook Express which barf all over themselves.
>> >>
>> >> 2) There's nothing wrong with their software, they just like to bitch for
>> >> the sake of bitching.
>> >>
>> >> In the first case, their software is broken. Case closed. In the second
>> >> case, they are kookbags. Case closed. Feel free to choose which category
>> >> you would like to place yourself in.
>> >
>> > *Why* not inform/help/ the people in the first case? You
>> > know, that silly Usenet thingie of one person trying to help another
>> > one?
>>
>> I am helping. I am helping right now, for example.
>
> Then may I suggest you wake up, because you are obviously dreaming.

No, I'm quite awake, thank you. I never post until I've had my stimulating
beverage.

--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-10660-1118152199-0001
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBCpaYHx9p3GYHlUOIRAqwKAJwPVK99S0I24whsJDPRn+IphypWuACf fhil
GQqCGcG/HpQEARW1ThdrkrY=
=EDTH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-10660-1118152199-0001--

Re: Email client problem with Comcast

am 07.06.2005 17:11:19 von Frank Slootweg

Sam wrote:
> Frank Slootweg writes:
>
> > Sam wrote:
> >> Frank Slootweg writes:
> >>
> >> > [Only responding to the points which are (somewhat) new and the ones
> >> > where there is perhaps still a miniscule chance of communication (yeah,
> >> > right!).]
> >>
> >> Translation: "I'll ignore stuff that I finally realize I was wrong about,
> >> and hope nobody'll notice".
> >
> > No. I deleted the stuff where there is no progress whatsoever. As to
>
> Says you. I think you've been making some progress. Very little but it's
> still progress.

I don't think *we* have been making any progress, and I think 'we' are
even going backwards in this response (of yours). So I think I'll (try
to? :-)) stop.

Of course you will see it differently, but I'm getting sick of your
distortions (and even insinuations of intentional faul play). That is my
main reason to stop. Heated debates are fine. Distortions, bordering on
outright lies, and unfounded insinuations are not.

For the record:

- I gladly accept your PGP(-signing) expertise.

- I gladly accept your MIME expertise.

- I gladly accept your e-mail expertise.

- However I do not accept your Usenet/News 'expertise' because you have
clearly and repeatedly demonstrated that you have very little of that.

I hope we can have a more fruitful exchange next time.

Bye for now.

[rest deleted]

Re: Email client problem with Comcast

am 07.06.2005 18:19:14 von Sam