Cheap Linux Hardware - [OT]Re: Cheap Hardware

Author

[OT]Re: Cheap Hardware

Rodney

2007-09-25, 7:19 am

[edit]
> It seemed to me that if I reply to the original message, or even the one I
> am replying to now, my reply should go only to the "Reply To:" group, but
> it never happens. It makes the "Reply To:" header pretty ineffective.
>

To Which "Reply To" header are you referring? There is no "Reply To"
header in either your post or the one you are replying to in this thread.
Therefore, I'm confused by what you mean by "it never happens" and what
you mean by "ineffective". However, this is way off topic for this
spam thread.

Moe Trin

2007-09-25, 7:15 pm

On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.hardware, in article
<pan.2007.09.25.08.41.14.499236@127.0.0.1>, Rodney wrote:

[Please include some attribution so people have a clue as to who you
are responding to.]

>[edit]

1036 Standard for interchange of USENET messages. M.R. Horton, R.
Adams. December 1987. (Format: TXT=46891 bytes) (Obsoletes RFC0850)
(Status: UNKNOWN)

Last paragraph of section 2.0

Certain headers are required, and certain other headers are
optional. Any unrecognized headers are allowed, and will be passed
through unchanged. The required header lines are "From", "Date",
"Newsgroups", "Subject", "Message-ID", and "Path". The optional
header lines are "Followup-To", "Expires", "Reply-To", "Sender",
"References", "Control", "Distribution", "Keywords", "Summary",
"Approved", "Lines", "Xref", and "Organization". Each of these
header lines will be described below.

Section 2.2.1

2.2.1. Reply-To

This line has the same format as "From". If present, mailed replies
to the author should be sent to the name given here. Otherwise,
replies are mailed to the name on the "From" line. (This does not
prevent additional copies from being sent to recipients named by the
replier, or on "To" or "Cc" lines.) The full name may be optionally
given, in parentheses, as in the "From" line.

Section 2.2.3

2.2.3. Followup-To

This line has the same format as "Newsgroups". If present, follow-
up messages are to be posted to the newsgroup or newsgroups listed
here. If this line is not present, follow-ups are posted to the
newsgroup or newsgroups listed in the "Newsgroups" line.

If the keyword poster is present, follow-up messages are not
permitted. The message should be mailed to the submitter of the
message via mail.

Note that most readers will ignore a "Followup-To: poster" header, just
as many ignore a "Reply-To:" header.
[vbcol=seagreen]
>To Which "Reply To" header are you referring? There is no "Reply To"
>header in either your post or the one you are replying to in this
>thread.

I think it's a bit of mis-understanding on Doug's part. While RFC1036
isn't an official standard (note the Status: line above), it's the
most common practice. One of these days, the 'Usefor' group will get
their fingers out, and finally get the replacements published. They've
been agonizing over them for quite some time.

"Netnews Article Format", Charles Lindsey, 9-Jan-07,
<draft-ietf-usefor-usefor-12.txt>

"Netnews Architecture and Protocols", Russ Allbery, Charles Lindsey,
3-Jul-07, <draft-ietf-usefor-usepro-08.txt>

>Therefore, I'm confused by what you mean by "it never happens" and what
>you mean by "ineffective".

Note the difference between the "Followup-To:" and "Reply-To:" headers.
They serve completely different purposes.

>However, this is way off topic for this spam thread.

The "spam thread" is off topic for a posting to comp.os.linux.hardware.

Old guy

Rodney

2007-09-26, 7:20 am

On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 14:52:25 -0500, Moe Trin wrote:

> [Please include some attribution so people have a clue as to who you are
> responding to.]

Well Moe, it is threaded. But,I recognised that if this had been a busy
thread the quick and dirty way I just erased everything might lead to
confusion, I just didn't expect it would in this thread, unless people
only read new messages without threading. I'm fairly sure everyone reading
this does have said clue. No need to make it seem more complicated than
necessary.

[edit standards]

[Moe]
> I think it's a bit of mis-understanding on Doug's part. While RFC1036
> isn't an official standard (note the Status: line above), it's the most
> common practice. One of these days, the 'Usefor' group will get their
> fingers out, and finally get the replacements published. They've been
> agonizing over them for quite some time.
>
>

I also think it is a misunderstanding on Doug's part, that's why I was
asking for clarification for what *he* meant before answering further. Now
I won't have to answer further.

[Rodney to Doug]
>
[Moe to Rodney]
> Note the difference between the "Followup-To:" and "Reply-To:" headers.
> They serve completely different purposes.
>

Note I wrote, confused by what he meant, that doesn't indicate that I was
confused about the headers, yet you replied this to me. I don't think that
is because I didn't attribute to Doug, I just think you didn't read
carefully enough. I realise you don't have much time to read these things
when you follow 85 newsgroups per day.

[Rodney]
>
[Moe]
> The "spam thread" is off topic for a posting to comp.os.linux.hardware.
>

Agreed, hence I prefaced my reply with [OT].

Another old guy.