×
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.
jde iSeries wrote:
Subject Header lines on many messages are too short, cryptic,
worthless, misleading, non-intuitive and basically useless
....+....1....+....2....+....3....+....4....+....5....+....6....+
Anything longer than sixty few bytes without a Fwd: or Re: or
other prefix is likely to be wrapped in a line of text of the
message body, where the clients have a default outgoing line-wrap of
sixty few. See the copy of the subject that was taken inline, and
the added scale. No big deal, but...
Note that since most people use email clients to reply instead of
newsreader clients to post replies to messages, the /long/ subjects
get rewritten on the client with *crlf which may get replaced with
spurious blanks which makes the message thread incorrectly.
Consider Eric's retort. That message had problems threading,
where there is a <CRLF> or two blanks after "cryptic," where that
was not in the original /long/ message subject.
Good grief, guys, put a subject header on your messages that is
meaningful, so that we can understand what the topic and thread
will be, and will still be understandable and meaningful two
years from now when someone is searching the archive or if using
a search engine to search. Many of the messages posted on
midrange have such short, cryptic headers that no one knows what
the message is about unless you open and read the message.
<<SNIP>>
The subject header on this very message is pretty good at
conveying to you what the message is about
And while I would otherwise agree with the overall assessment
[although oddly, I have not noticed it much of late]... I do take
issue with the claim that the subject of this message is any good.
It is in fact overly wordy; e.g. /subject header lines/ vs simply
the one word /subject/ or /"Subject:"/? Stating both worthless and
useless? Seems the emphasis was used to the extreme, thus overkill,
having ending up with the message being lost to the audience IMO.
As an example, the layout of my NewsReader is set to only show the
first 68 characters of any subject until I actually open a message;
a number that matches my line length in message bodies.
And finally, any worthwhile complaint would be claimed; i.e.
signed by the sender. So if complaining, and wishing to be taken
seriously, please identify yourself, instead of hiding behind some
generic\fake name. Best to just withhold any complaints about the
behavior of others... at least until self attribution is remedied.
Why should the community care what some unnamed poster cares, when
they have chosen to mimic spammers by pretending to be anonymous?
My second off-topic reply today. I hope David allows me to stay.
Regards, Chuck
midrange.com
