@MSGID: 2:221/1.59 153a2d58
How does this look?
SEEN-BY: 103/705 154/10 203/0 221/1 6 360 229/426 240/1120 5832
280/464
SEEN-BY: 280/5003 5555 288/100 310/31 396/45 423/81 120 712/848 770/1 SEEN-BY: 2452/250
@PATH: 221/1 280/464
@MSGID: 2:221/1.59 153a2d58
How does this look?
--- ---Tear here --- ---
* Origin: (2:221/1.59)
SEEN-BY: 103/705 154/10 203/0 221/1 6 360 229/426 240/1120 5832 280/464 SEEN-BY: 280/5003 5555 288/100 310/31 396/45 423/81 120 712/848 770/1 SEEN-BY: 2452/250
@PATH: 221/1 280/464
On 2020-02-01 18:56:44, I wrote to All:^^^
@MSGID: 2:221/1.59 153a2d58
How does this look?
Everybody is 'Sysop' on their own system, so everybody's got a personal message now... ;)
How does this look?
SEEN-BY: 153/757 154/10 203/0 221/1 6 360 240/1120 280/464 5003 5555 335/364
SEEN-BY: 423/81 4500/1 5020/1042
@PATH: 221/1 6
@MSGID: 2:221/1.59 153a2d58
How does this look?
--- ---Tear here --- ---
* Origin: (2:221/1.59)
SEEN-BY: 203/0 221/1 6 360 240/1120 280/464 5003 5555 423/81
@PATH: 221/1
How does this look?
--- ---Tear here--- ---
* Origin: (2:221/1.59)
SEEN-BY: 203/0 221/1 6 360 240/1120 280/464 5003 5555 423/81
@PATH: 221/1
How does this look?
--- ---Tear here--- ---
* Origin: (2:221/1.59)
SEEN-BY: 103/705 154/10 203/0 221/1 6 360 229/426 240/1120 5832 280/464 SEEN-BY: 280/5003 5555 288/100 310/31 396/45 423/81 120 712/848 770/1 SEEN-BY: 2452/250
@PATH: 221/1 280/464
How does this look?
it looks like you need to fix your name... using "sysop" is just ugh in distributed areas... especially since any replies will trigger for all sysops in the area...
Hi Sysop.
01 Feb 20 22:09:54, you wrote to All:
No kludges at all!
--- ---Tear here--- ---;)
Hi Sysop,
On 2020-02-01 22:09:54, I wrote to All:
How does this look?
Bad. No kludge lines at all...
it looks like you need to fix your name... using "sysop" is justugh in distributed areas... especially since any replies will
trigger for all sysops in the area...
Better? :)
How does this look?
Bad. No kludge lines at all...
Hmmm.. :(
And the quoting system of this thing is not following the "rules". :(
Re: Re: checking..
By: August Abolins to Wilfred van Velzen on Sun Feb 02 2020 17:03:27
How does this look?
Bad. No kludge lines at all...
Hmmm.. :(
And the quoting system of this thing is not following the "rules".:(
not sure what you're saying... the control lines look fine to me...
It's the quoting lines using the >'s that not what I expected. It's puttingyour initials on EVERY line.
BTW, did you manually adjust *your* quoting? Where did the "AB>" and "AN>"above come from?
Hi Sysop.
01 Feb 20 22:09:54, you wrote to All:
TK >Sy> How does this look?
No kludges at all!
I think your system is putting in the MSGID, and there should be an AREA.
Is there no CHARS kludge atleast?
I'm pretty sure HPT is not adding MSGID to in-transit messages.
AREA is not a kludge. :)
I'm pretty sure HPT is not adding MSGID to in-transit messages.
AREA is not a kludge. :)
on the one hand, i can agree... on the other, after all this time that FTN been around, they're no longer kludges but, in fact, defacto standardcontr
lines ;)
on the one hand, i can agree... on the other, after all this time
that FTN been around, they're no longer kludges but, in fact,
defacto standard contr lines ;)
Jerking off with your left hand or right hand is still jerking off.
TK >Sy> How does this look?
No kludges at all!
I think your system is putting in the MSGID, and there should be anAREA.
I'm pretty sure HPT is not adding MSGID to in-transit messages.
AREA is not a kludge. :)
Is there no CHARS kludge atleast?
As said: No kludges at all.
By: Rob Swindell to Tommi Koivula on Mon Feb 03 2020 11:21:47
I'm pretty sure HPT is not adding MSGID to in-transit messages.
^^AREA is not a kludge. :)
on the one hand, i can agree... on the other, after all this time that
FTN has been around, they're no longer kludges but, in fact, defacto standard control lines ;)
AREA is not a kludge. :)
Is there no CHARS kludge atleast?
As said: No kludges at all.
By: Rob Swindell to Tommi Koivula on Mon Feb 03 2020 11:21:47
I'm pretty sure HPT is not adding MSGID to in-transit messages.
^^AREA is not a kludge. :)
DM ?
on the one hand, i can agree... on the other, after all this time that FTN has been around, they're no longer kludges but, in fact, defacto standard control lines ;)
Perusing through the ftsc docs, there is no specific definition for this stuff except that anything starting with SOH (^) is are called "control paragraphs (also called kludges or kludge lines)" [ref fts-4000, para 2]
So, that means ^AREA falls within the definition above.
Therefore, to tell me that the test message had "no kludges" is incorrect. :)
So, that means ^AREA falls within the definition above.
It would if the AREA line started with a Ctrl-A (SOH, ^A), but it
doesn't. So technically, the AREA line is not a "control paragraph". :-(
Therefore, to tell me that the test message had "no kludges" isincorrect.
:)
Debatable.
on the one hand, i can agree... on the other, after all this time
that FTN has been around, they're no longer kludges but, in fact,
defacto standard control lines ;)
Perusing through the ftsc docs, there is no specific definition for
this stuff except that anything starting with SOH (^) is are called "control paragraphs (also called kludges or kludge lines)" [ref
fts-4000, para 2]
So, that means ^AREA falls within the definition above.
Therefore, to tell me that the test message had "no kludges" is incorrect.:)
The ^AREA and ^MSGID kludges seem to be the bare minimum requirement in theheader.
So, that means ^AREA falls within the definition above.
It would if the AREA line started with a Ctrl-A (SOH, ^A), but it
doesn't. So technically, the AREA line is not a "control
paragraph". :-(
Dang it! (Hanging my head in shame.) I made an incorrect
assumption about that one! :(
Jerking off with your left hand or right hand is still jerking off.
true but has nothing to do with the difference between "kludge lines" and "control lines" ;)
you're not the first one to do that... many FTN coders have done the same thing... some even put ^A with AREA as well so software has to detectboth,
AREA: and ^AAREA:...
lines (left hand) or control lines (right hand), then its self-gratification.Jerking off with your left hand or right hand is still jerking off.
true but has nothing to do with the difference between "kludge lines" and "control lines" ;)
I stand by my self-educated statement. If someone is obsessed with kludge
you're not the first one to do that... many FTN coders have done the samething... some even put ^A with AREA as well so software has to detect both, AREA: and ^AAREA:...
Oh wise one, at first I did not believe this, until I quickly checked theD'Bridge tosser code. And yes, it checks both.
Since that code was unchanged since the verrrrrry early 90's, maybe evenlate 80's, I'm guessing the introduction of AREA was not straightforward.
"control paragraphs (also called kludges or kludge lines)" [ref
fts-4000, para 2]
yes this is true... remember, also, the definition of kludge...
The ^AREA and ^MSGID kludges seem to be the bare minimum
requirement in the header.
ummmmm... no... the AREA line is an indicator that a message is
an echomail message... netmail messages do not have an AREA
line... MSGID is not required at all even though some people try
to push that it is...
Yes. MSGID doesn't seem to be a "requirement" according to ftsc docs.
But shouldn't it be, by now?
Definition of kludge
: a haphazard or makeshift solution to a problem and especially to a
computer or programming problem
Yes, I've always interpreted the use of kludges in fidonet as an after-thought or an add-on to accommodate new practices, or progress.
The ftsc docs always lag behind as to what's *really* going on and
how people define things.
But as you can see, even the ftsc just throws in the term kludge
without further reference or explanation.
The ^AREA and ^MSGID kludges seem to be the bare minimum
requirement in the header.
ummmmm... no... the AREA line is an indicator that a message is
an echomail message... netmail messages do not have an AREA
line... MSGID is not required at all even though some people try
to push that it is...
Yes. MSGID doesn't seem to be a "requirement" according to ftsc docs.
But shouldn't it be, by now?
Technically, Subj and To and From wouldn't be required either?
MSGID/REPLY is a nonsense kludge only somewhat useful for message-threading.
It also has a laughable joke of a scheme for attempting to prevent duplicates.
In the 90's and into the early 2000's, nobody cared two shits about it
Around the same time, some fell in love with threaded replies and by naturally-occuring arrogance, those that did not have this stupid kludge pair
along with TZUTC, PID/TID and CHRS were flamed with running "shit software".
But threading is so handy when one needs to trace the flow of aconversatio
For example, OXP can follow a thread with the arrow controls, plus it can produce a nice graphical tree representation if desired. Something like *that* is a good improvement for echomail.
Regarding dupechecking.. what other way is there to check? Is it simply by matching a name or date exactly, against a log? Is it by creating a local
The flaming is a shame. But the real winners are demonstrated by thesoftwa
that ends up widely used.
Nick Andre wrote to Mark Lewis <=-
I stand by my self-educated statement. If someone is obsessed with
kludge lines (left hand) or control lines (right hand), then its self-gratification.
Nick Andre wrote to August Abolins <=-
That explains why we have some in this echo who masturbate all over any test-message that doesn't suit their self-imposed stroke-fest fantasy.
Sysop wrote to All <=-
How does this look?
--- ---Tear here --- ---
* Origin: (2:221/1.59)
August Abolins wrote to mark lewis <=-
it looks like you need to fix your name... using "sysop" is just ugh in distributed areas... especially since any replies will trigger for all sysops in the area...
Better? :)
@TZUTC: -0500
@MSGID: 1900.fido_fidotest@1:229/200 22a35188
@REPLY: 2:221/1.59 153a2d58
@PID: Synchronet 3.17c-Linux Aug 27 2019 GCC 5.4.0
@TID: SBBSecho 3.09-Linux r3.139 Aug 27 2019 GCC 5.4.0
@CHRS: ASCII 1
Sysop wrote to All <=-
How does this look?
--- ---Tear here --- ---
* Origin: (2:221/1.59)
^ Like that.
It's the quoting lines using the >'s that not what I expected. It's putting AA>your initials on EVERY line.
Jerking off with your left hand or right hand is still jerking off.
Fidonetters have been known for verbal masturbation.
How does this look?
How does this look?
LW8DFM--- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20120515
@MSGID: 1:220/30@fidonet 5e846325
@PID: CNet PRO 5.21b
I don't get it. Did I setup my base wrong?
Jonathan Hodges aka Crackerjak - SysOp of the Second Coming BBS scbbs.ddns.net:6400 - 150+ door games RetroNet 80:774/82 FidoNet 1:22/30
C=Net 64:500/12 PiNet 314:314/240 AmigaNet 39:902/531 SEEN-BY: 1/19 16/0 103/705 123/130 131 142/799 154/10 50 201/0 203/0 SEEN-BY: 203/124 220/30 221/0 1 229/101 426 230/0 240/5832 261/38
280/464
SEEN-BY: 280/5003 5555 288/100 310/31 320/119 219 322/0 756 396/45
423/120
SEEN-BY: 712/848 770/1 2452/250
@PATH: 220/30 322/0 320/219 203/0 280/464
I don't get it. Did I setup my base wrong?
LW8DFM--- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20120515
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 368 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 52:26:54 |
Calls: | 7,887 |
Calls today: | 1 |
Files: | 12,962 |
Messages: | 5,788,718 |