Olin Lathrop wrote: > Rolf wrote: > >> By the way, your mail systems have yet once again failed to process >> the long lines according to standards. Hence, archiving of your mails >> in a reasonable fashion is not possible. >> > > I don't see how you can tell how my mail system does or doesn't process > received lines, or why it's even any of your business. It is my business because your non-compliant mails end up in my mailbox. > Besides, list > archives only have to do with what people send, not how individual members > receive it. On the contrary, list archives are all about presenting list correspondence in a way that makes sense. This means doing things like grouping all mails about one subject together in to a 'thread', so that you can follow a complete conversation. That is one way to present archive data. There are other ways (like all mail from a particular person, or all mails chronologically, etc.), but, threading an archived conversaion makes a lot of sense. As it happens, it also makes sense to thread current (not-yet-archived) conversations so that as a reader, yu can read the 'Correct Units' discussion, and then once that is done, to get to the 'Self Documenting Code vs. Comments' discussion. This makes dealing with the list volume easier for some, instead of processing the mails in some other order. Mail readers are designed to 'thread' conversations to allow them to be browsed in their conversational hierarchy (thread), and all the replies to a particular mail are listed 'indented' under that mail. In fact, threading of conversations is so useful that a standard was written and the concept of theading was incorporated in to the standard. This was done a long time ago (about 1975 or so), before e-mail itself was standardized in RFC822 in 1982 and then it's revisions. So, Theading of messages is important to many people (even if not to you). Now, as I have said before to you, the threading is implemented by using the "References" header in an e-mail, which lists all the mails that came before that message in it's header. When a MUA composes a reply or forward message, it should copy the MessageID of the mail you are rplying to, and append it to the References header of that mail. In this way the References of your new mail will contain all the messageid's of previous mails. This could end up being a long list if there are lots of 'parent' messages that are replied to. Now, it happens that, on occasion, piclist generates such deep threads that the references line reaches a certain lenght. It also happens that not all mails to piclist contain the complete 'references' header. In fact, it seems that all mails from you which should have references lines in excess of 255 characters are truncated, and lines which should say things like: References: <04d001c9276b$0099e780$6f02a8c0@ws11><...snipped...><01b101c93128$af0038d0$0300a8c0@main> instead say: References: <04d001c9276b$0099e780$6f02a8c0@ws11><...snipped...><01b101c9312 (I have included <...snip...> so that the line is short enough for your mail systems to grok.) So, it is my business. Empirically, only mails from you are victim of this issue. So, joining the dots (or using 'Olin Speak'), "I guess your system is broken...". > Unless of course you let your computer get infected with > spyware, then maybe how you receive messages does affect some archive > somewhere. > > > ******************************************************************** > Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products > (978) 742-9014. Gold level PIC consultants since 2000. > Maybe how the archive receives the mail makes a difference too.... ever think of that, that it is no just me? Try Nabble. See here: http://www.nabble.com/Self-documenting-code-vs.-Comments-tt19831816.html That is the current archive of this exact thread. Notice how most of your responses are out-of-sync with what you actually reply to? They are all 'higher' up the thread hierarchy than they belong. It appears that you reply many times to particular posts, but, in reality, your mail systems are corrupting the threads, and it leads to confusion. I am not suggesting Nabble is perfect, but, like all other systems, it can only produce good info with good input, and I am afraid that it is only your system in the whole piclist community that is produceing the garbage that is part of the threaded GIGO that is threading in piclist... Still, your Obdurate nature probably will prevail and you will find some way to blame the rest of the world for your misconfigurations, suggesting that the world should change to match your POV. You have stated before on this exact issue that you don't care about how the rest of the world sees your posts, well, let's see if your attitude will change.... This is the second time now that I have pointed out what your systems are doing wrong, and how it impacts the real world. It is a real problem, and a simple solution. Only you can fix it. The ball is in your court. If you want I am sure that I, and a number of other people on Piclist would be very happy to help you diagnose where the issue is. Rolf -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist