×
The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.
On 03 Jul 2013 13:15, rob@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
If you're going to bottom post, especially <with emphasis> to a
reply by chuck pence, then bottom post BEFORE any double dashes.
Several readers truncate at the double dashes and it's a pet peeve
of Chuck's.
He probably didn't see your reply. I'm not trying to bust
your chops; just trying to get you a reply from Chuck.
<<SNIP>>
The "double dashes" in that message had no negative impact, because
they were in fact *just* double-dashes; no blank\space following them.
The End-Of-Message (EOM) marker is actually the undelimited string of
the comma-delimited characters "dash,dash,space,CR,LF" [where CR
represents the Carriage Control control character and the LF represents
the Line Feed control character]. And that string of characters is only
recognized as an EOM marker if those characters directly follow a <CRLF>
as End of Record (EOR) marker; i.e. an EOM is recognized only when a
dash-dash-space appear on a line all by themselves, as its own /record/
in the text stream.
Anyhow the concern [as origin for my pet peeve] is not just for me,
but for the archives; i.e. for the benefit of those who will sometime in
the future, refer to those archives. We should not be rude to them, by
making those archives somewhat or totally unreadable. For example, when
someone bottom-posts *after* a [valid] EOM causes the message to be
omitted entirely from the archive, effectively their having posted no
reply; a very confusing and frustrating effect, for anyone reviewing the
archives.
I did however have a concern with the responded-to posting, for its
lack of USENET-style quoting. Because when I first reviewed the
message, I did in fact, not see any reply; i.e. it appeared as though
someone had accidentally just reposted my message rather than having
quoted my message and then additionally having composed some inquiry or
comment in response.
A link to that message in the midrange archive; notice how what
Birgitta wrote is clearly "quoted", whereas my text was clearly *not*
quoted:
http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l/201307/msg00062.html
A link to that message in another archive; notice how the /quoting/
is the greater-than signs [a la USENET], and again the lack of any
apparent quoting should be similarly conspicuous:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.hardware.ibm.midrange/190637
midrange.com
