On Thu, 30 Jan 2014 16:54:42 +0000, David Rance
wrote:

Children!
Children.
The way this thread had degenerated makes it more like a look into a
kindergarten,

On 31/01/2014 13:06, Nick Maclaren wrote:
In article ,
News wrote:
On 30/01/2014 13:24, stuart noble wrote:

Because he has got the sig separator in the message, rather than down
the bottom above a sig.

I've removed the space that follows the 2 hyphens, so it will now
appear. Many news readers will cut off anything after a properly
configured sig separator (2 hyphens followed by a space) - in order to
not quote the sig. If you have that combination above text you want, it
won't be quoted.

That utter stupidity was sneaked into an RFC on something else by
a loonie with a bee in his bonnet and very little knowledge of the
wider world of Email, and has never been more than patchily accepted
by the Internet community. Inter alia, trailing spaces in Email have
never been specified to be either preserved or not inserted.

Although pedant we're talking of news and nntp, not email here/pdt

And imo, its a very useful tool for those readers that take any notice
of it. That said, as you imply, some newsreaders tend to rip off the
space when posting; others know nothing of the convention.

Whatever, I'm not sure why for your invective?


While it has the effect you describe with SOME mailers, it doesn't
with others, and there are other such aberrations used by other
mailers that are intended to have the same effect and which work
even less well. It's total lunacy.

Just as the text below won't be quoted

--
regards
andy

Oh, yeah? And I am using the descendent of the de facto canonical
Unix newsreader and mailer (which is used for transport, for the
non-geeks out there).


Well, perhaps I should have qualified that as 'Just as the text below
won't be quoted by many news readers'

Besides, I was answering why it was happening, not requesting a debate
on its antecedents.

--
regards
andy

In article ,
News wrote:

Because he has got the sig separator in the message, rather than down
the bottom above a sig.

I've removed the space that follows the 2 hyphens, so it will now
appear. Many news readers will cut off anything after a properly
configured sig separator (2 hyphens followed by a space) - in order to
not quote the sig. If you have that combination above text you want, it
won't be quoted.

That utter stupidity was sneaked into an RFC on something else by
a loonie with a bee in his bonnet and very little knowledge of the
wider world of Email, and has never been more than patchily accepted
by the Internet community. Inter alia, trailing spaces in Email have
never been specified to be either preserved or not inserted.

Although pedant we're talking of news and nntp, not email here/pdt

You seem to be unaware that news handling is based on Email, and
is often/usually implemented using mail clients. Oh, and the
convention you are referring to was and is specified in the context
of Email.

And imo, its a very useful tool for those readers that take any notice
of it. That said, as you imply, some newsreaders tend to rip off the
space when posting; others know nothing of the convention.

Whatever, I'm not sure why for your invective?

Because it has always caused far more trouble than benefit. Like
the Microsoft idiocy that started this, it is useful only to a
small clique that communicate only among themselves. Inter alia,
Internet protocol Email is not the only form of Email, and was a
relatively small proportion when that RFC was perpetrated.

And, if you don't know why making trailing spaces significant in
a text format is a total idiocy, then I suggest that you look up
Lamport and tabs (which is a similar, but less stupid, misdesign).

Just as the text below won't be quoted

--

Oh, yeah? And I am using the descendent of the de facto canonical
Unix newsreader and mailer (which is used for transport, for the
non-geeks out there).

Well, perhaps I should have qualified that as 'Just as the text below
won't be quoted by many news readers'

More accurately, 'some'.

Besides, I was answering why it was happening, not requesting a debate
on its antecedents.

No, you were asserting a general rule, and I was correcting you.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On 31/01/2014 16:07, Nick Maclaren wrote:
In article ,
News wrote:


No, you were asserting a general rule, and I was correcting you.


I've seen you're arguing to ridiculous lengths, combined with oh so
learned put downs before, so I'm not going to get into it.

Suffice to say that I was explaining, accurately, why the reported issue
was happening to that person. If you want to get on one of your hobby
horses, feel free.

--
regards
andy

On Thu, 30 Jan 2014 17:04:43 +0000, David Rance
My reader gives date and time ----

"On 2014-01-29 10:46:48 +0000, Martin said:"

Even if it just a silly old microsoft proggy - lol

Nice hedge btw

On Thu, 30 Jan 2014 17:04:43 +0000, David Rance
wrote:


I didn't say that.
Also it wasn't an embedded image as you claimed, it was an embedded URL.

No? This is what you wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jan 2014 19:14:14 +0000, Another John
wrote:

In article ,
"Peter & Jeanne" wrote:

I do not think that John was suggesting " triangular" in section.
If my geometric memory - the shape being promoted is more rhombic.

Yes that's right: wider at the bottom than at the top, that's all. Sorry
should have made that clearer.

"me" wrote in message ...

Er - we are waiting.

Pete