Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #168874 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2023-01-22 14:28 -0500 |
| Last post | 2023-01-26 12:48 -0600 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 163 — 28 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@gmail.com> - 2023-01-22 14:28 -0500
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-01-22 20:56 +0100
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@gmail.com> - 2023-01-22 15:17 -0500
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-01-23 05:25 +0100
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@gmail.com> - 2023-01-23 09:06 -0500
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-01-23 17:14 +0100
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-01-23 08:42 -0800
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-01-23 21:27 +0100
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-01-23 13:03 -0800
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-01-23 13:24 -0800
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-01-23 14:03 -0800
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@gmail.com> - 2023-01-23 17:52 -0500
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-01-24 13:59 +0100
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-01-23 17:57 +0000
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-01-23 12:08 -0800
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@gmail.com> - 2023-01-23 17:49 -0500
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-01-23 14:59 -0800
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@gmail.com> - 2023-01-23 18:20 -0500
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-01-23 15:39 -0800
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@gmail.com> - 2023-01-23 19:18 -0500
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-01-23 20:10 -0500
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2023-01-26 09:04 -0700
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-01-22 19:56 +0000
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@gmail.com> - 2023-01-22 15:26 -0500
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-01-22 22:06 +0000
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-01-22 11:59 -0800
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@gmail.com> - 2023-01-22 15:27 -0500
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-01-22 12:31 -0800
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-01-22 12:33 -0800
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@gmail.com> - 2023-01-22 15:34 -0500
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-01-22 12:45 -0800
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-01-22 13:18 -0800
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-01-22 13:38 -0800
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-01-22 13:30 -0800
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2023-01-23 13:17 -0600
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-01-23 20:31 +0000
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-01-24 00:31 +0000
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-01-24 00:44 +0000
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@gmail.com> - 2023-01-23 19:48 -0500
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-01-24 07:23 -0800
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2023-02-03 20:41 +0000
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? bart c <bart4858@gmail.com> - 2023-02-04 17:32 -0800
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2023-02-05 06:35 -0800
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-02-05 08:32 -0800
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-02-05 08:41 -0800
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-02-05 08:49 -0800
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-02-05 08:54 -0800
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-02-05 08:28 -0800
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2023-01-22 14:17 -0800
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-01-22 23:35 +0000
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Simon.Says.Yes@gfdedsed.hgtgfrfd - 2023-01-23 00:50 +0000
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@gmail.com> - 2023-01-22 19:58 -0500
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Simon.Says.Yes@gfdedsed.hgtgfrfd - 2023-01-23 01:33 +0000
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-01-23 02:39 +0000
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2023-01-22 17:03 -0800
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Simon.Says.Yes@gfdedsed.hgtgfrfd - 2023-01-23 01:30 +0000
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-01-22 21:05 -0500
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-01-23 02:44 +0000
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-01-23 03:21 -0500
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-23 11:15 +0100
PGP signatures and BASE64 posts (Was : Why is there not a single good JSON library for C?) Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2023-01-23 12:47 +0000
Re: PGP signatures and BASE64 posts (Was : Why is there not a single good JSON library for C?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-23 14:48 +0100
Re: PGP signatures and BASE64 posts (Was : Why is there not a single good JSON library for C?) Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2023-01-23 16:52 +0300
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@gmail.com> - 2023-01-23 09:19 -0500
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-23 17:45 +0100
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@gmail.com> - 2023-01-23 18:09 -0500
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-01-23 23:44 +0000
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@gmail.com> - 2023-01-23 19:24 -0500
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-01-23 16:49 -0800
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-01-24 13:04 +0000
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@gmail.com> - 2023-01-24 17:19 -0500
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-01-24 14:33 -0800
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-01-26 18:28 +0000
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Manu Raju <MR@invalid.invalid> - 2023-01-26 18:44 +0000
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2023-01-28 23:42 +0300
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-01-26 11:56 -0800
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-01-26 20:37 +0000
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2023-01-28 23:37 +0300
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-01-28 22:27 +0000
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-01-26 18:52 -0500
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-01-25 00:33 +0000
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-01-24 17:51 -0800
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-25 11:03 +0100
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-24 15:02 +0100
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@gmail.com> - 2023-01-24 17:24 -0500
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-01-24 14:36 -0800
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-25 00:21 +0100
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-01-24 15:28 -0800
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? bart c <bart4858@gmail.com> - 2023-01-25 06:43 -0800
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-25 15:56 +0100
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-01-25 15:08 +0000
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2023-01-25 07:56 -0800
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2023-01-25 22:48 +0200
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? bart c <bart4858@gmail.com> - 2023-01-25 13:50 -0800
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2023-01-27 11:46 -0600
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-28 13:39 +0100
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2023-01-28 11:42 -0600
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-01-28 12:15 -0800
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2023-01-28 23:24 -0600
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-01-25 12:10 -0800
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-01-25 12:12 -0800
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-01-23 12:05 -0800
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-01-23 13:46 -0800
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-01-23 20:06 -0500
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-01-23 17:11 -0800
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2023-01-25 09:57 +0200
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-01-25 14:08 -0500
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2023-01-23 22:05 +0000
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@gmail.com> - 2023-01-23 18:15 -0500
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-01-23 15:36 -0800
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@gmail.com> - 2023-01-23 19:43 -0500
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-01-23 16:56 -0800
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@gmail.com> - 2023-01-23 20:12 -0500
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-01-23 17:45 -0800
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-01-23 16:58 -0800
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-01-23 17:02 -0800
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-24 15:15 +0100
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.com> - 2023-01-24 14:35 +0000
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-24 18:32 +0100
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> - 2023-01-25 22:56 +0000
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@gmail.com> - 2023-01-25 20:09 -0500
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2023-01-25 09:53 +0200
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2023-01-25 00:13 -0800
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2023-01-25 20:41 +0200
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-01-25 14:08 -0500
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-01-25 11:35 -0800
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-26 00:18 +0100
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-01-25 15:33 -0800
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2023-01-29 01:08 +0200
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-01-29 13:53 -0800
Apology to Öö Tiib (was Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C?) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-01-25 15:31 -0800
Re: Apology to Öö Tiib (was Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C?) Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2023-01-25 23:17 -0800
A comment about dogwhistles Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-01-29 13:47 -0800
Re: A comment about dogwhistles Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2023-03-03 15:05 +0200
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2023-01-26 15:16 +0300
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-01-25 10:37 -0800
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2023-01-29 20:57 -0700
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2023-01-29 23:04 -0600
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-01-22 21:09 -0800
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-01-23 02:41 +0000
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2023-01-23 11:35 +0300
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Opus <ifonly@youknew.org> - 2023-01-23 19:22 +0100
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@gmail.com> - 2023-01-23 18:18 -0500
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-01-23 16:57 -0800
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2023-01-24 18:23 -0600
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@gmail.com> - 2023-01-24 20:35 -0500
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2023-01-24 21:37 -0600
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2023-01-25 11:49 +0300
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2023-01-25 12:32 -0600
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Manu Raju <MR@invalid.invalid> - 2023-01-25 18:56 +0000
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-01-25 18:45 +0000
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2023-01-25 13:39 -0600
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@gmail.com> - 2023-01-25 17:07 -0500
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2023-01-25 17:54 -0600
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-01-26 00:04 +0000
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2023-01-25 19:27 -0600
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-01-26 02:50 -0800
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-01-26 03:07 -0800
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-01-26 04:34 -0800
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-01-26 04:56 -0800
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-01-26 05:18 -0800
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-01-26 05:23 -0800
Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2023-01-26 12:48 -0600
Page 6 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-25 12:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <490cd7bb-ced0-4c07-9f62-46019ac4187an@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #169050 |
środa, 25 stycznia 2023 o 21:10:16 UTC+1 fir napisał(a): > rename to dead fir,, and this death my appear somewhere in 2015-2-17 probably and only grows.. im doomd as hell and this only grows) i meant somewhere in 2015-2017
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-23 12:05 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <87h6whggpb.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #168928 |
Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@gmail.com> writes:
> On 1/23/23 05:15, David Brown wrote:
>> <snip/>
>> The OP here combines both signatures. I don't know which of them
>> causes the trouble, or if it is the combination of them, but it
>> seems he thinks the appearance of being smart is more important than
>> getting useful answers to his questions. "Smart-arse" is, I
>> believe, the appropriate term.
>
> The PGP signature is to prevent people from impersonating me. The
> Unicode characters in my email signature are for the pronunciation of
> my username (and an admittedly frivilous alembic character). It's
> certainly not about appearing smart. I'm not going to remove them
> because, while Unicode isn't perfect, it's the best we've got, and any
> system that doesn't support it is obsolete. That being said, i
> _would_ prefer if i could get Thunderbird to encode my messages with
> quoted-printable instead of octoctal; however, i have found no way to
> do that.
Apparently "octoctal" is an extremely obscure term for an encoding that
is almost universally called base64. Did you seriously expect your
readers to know that, or were you just trying to appear clever at the
expense of actually communicating?
When you PGP-sign a Usenet message, it becomes necessary to post two
chunks of data in a single message, one for the body of the message, and
one for its signature. The standard way to do that is MIME encoding,
which typically results in the parts being base64-encoded.
Some of us use newsreaders that recognize and correctly display
MIME-encoded messages. For example, I use Gnus, which runs under Emacs,
and I hadn't even noticed that your messages were signed and encoded.
Others use newsreaders that don't support MIME and display the
base64-encoded text directly; for example, Kaz uses slrn, which behaves
this way.
It's unlikely that anyone will try to impersonate you. I've been
participating here for decades, and I've never felt the need to worry
about it.
If someone did try to impersonate you, it would probably be some troll
doing so in response to the measures you've taken to avoid it. A
forgery would likely pass casual inspection. It would be trivial to
post a MIME-encoded PGP-signed message with a valid signature from a key
that looks like yours. Nobody is going to take the time to download
your public key from a server and check the signature.
I don't know whether the non-ASCII characters in your signature (the
text following "-- ", not your PGP signature) would be a problem. They
might be the reason your message was base64-encoded, but that encoding
might not happen if you didn't post multipart messages.
The way you post is making it unreasonably difficult for some people
here to read your messages. You cannot expect those people to change
the way they read Usenet to cater to your messages; they'll just accept
that they can't read whatever you write. Yes, a lot of Usenet software
is out of date. That's not going to change.
If you continue PGP-signing your posts here, many people will stop
paying attention to you. Decide which is more important to you:
appearing to be clever, or communicating.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for XCOM Labs
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-23 13:46 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <87r0vkgc0m.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #168937 |
Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
[...]
> It's unlikely that anyone will try to impersonate you. I've been
> participating here for decades, and I've never felt the need to worry
> about it.
[...]
Now that I think about it, that's not *quite* true. Many years ago,
IIRC, a troll did post a few fake messages under my name. It was
annoying, but not a real problem.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for XCOM Labs
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-23 20:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tqnau0$3rjfq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #168948 |
On 1/23/23 16:46, Keith Thompson wrote: > Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes: > [...] >> It's unlikely that anyone will try to impersonate you. I've been >> participating here for decades, and I've never felt the need to worry >> about it. > [...] > > Now that I think about it, that's not *quite* true. Many years ago, > IIRC, a troll did post a few fake messages under my name. It was > annoying, but not a real problem. Yes, for many months about 14 years ago someone regularly posted messages using the e-mail addresses of regular participants in comp.lang.c that he didn't like. Those messages were posted to other newsgroups, with Follow-Up-To: headers referring back to comp.lang.c. They contained inane messages designed to catch responses from those newsgroups. This tactic was not invented by him - it had been used often enough by other people that it had it's own name, but I no longer remember that name.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-23 17:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <tqnb7j$3rk11$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #168976 |
On 1/23/2023 5:06 PM, James Kuyper wrote: > On 1/23/23 16:46, Keith Thompson wrote: >> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes: >> [...] >>> It's unlikely that anyone will try to impersonate you. I've been >>> participating here for decades, and I've never felt the need to worry >>> about it. >> [...] >> >> Now that I think about it, that's not *quite* true. Many years ago, >> IIRC, a troll did post a few fake messages under my name. It was >> annoying, but not a real problem. > > Yes, for many months about 14 years ago someone regularly posted > messages using the e-mail addresses of regular participants in > comp.lang.c that he didn't like. Those messages were posted to other > newsgroups, with Follow-Up-To: headers referring back to comp.lang.c. > They contained inane messages designed to catch responses from those > newsgroups. This tactic was not invented by him - it had been used often > enough by other people that it had it's own name, but I no longer > remember that name. > bait and watch?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-25 09:57 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <874jsfkpw5.fsf@zotaspaz.fatphil.org> |
| In reply to | #168976 |
James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> writes: > On 1/23/23 16:46, Keith Thompson wrote: >> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes: >> [...] >>> It's unlikely that anyone will try to impersonate you. I've been >>> participating here for decades, and I've never felt the need to worry >>> about it. >> [...] >> >> Now that I think about it, that's not *quite* true. Many years ago, >> IIRC, a troll did post a few fake messages under my name. It was >> annoying, but not a real problem. > > Yes, for many months about 14 years ago someone regularly posted > messages using the e-mail addresses of regular participants in > comp.lang.c that he didn't like. Those messages were posted to other > newsgroups, with Follow-Up-To: headers referring back to comp.lang.c. > They contained inane messages designed to catch responses from those > newsgroups. This tactic was not invented by him - it had been used often > enough by other people that it had it's own name, but I no longer > remember that name. Joe job. "Early Joe jobs aimed at tarnishing the reputation of the apparent sender or inducing the recipients to take action against them" -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_job That particular attack was easily killable using a filter on the particular anonymiser the miscreant was using, and also on the In-Reply-To header. Phil -- We are no longer hunters and nomads. No longer awed and frightened, as we have gained some understanding of the world in which we live. As such, we can cast aside childish remnants from the dawn of our civilization. -- NotSanguine on SoylentNews, after Eugen Weber in /The Western Tradition/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-25 14:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tqrumn$pf5a$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #169029 |
On 1/25/23 02:57, Phil Carmody wrote: > James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> writes: ... >> Yes, for many months about 14 years ago someone regularly posted >> messages using the e-mail addresses of regular participants in >> comp.lang.c that he didn't like. Those messages were posted to other >> newsgroups, with Follow-Up-To: headers referring back to comp.lang.c. >> They contained inane messages designed to catch responses from those >> newsgroups. This tactic was not invented by him - it had been used often >> enough by other people that it had it's own name, but I no longer >> remember that name. > > Joe job. > > "Early Joe jobs aimed at tarnishing the reputation of the apparent > sender or inducing the recipients to take action against them" > -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_job > > That particular attack was easily killable using a filter on the > particular anonymiser the miscreant was using, and also on the > In-Reply-To header. That's not the term I was referring to, and it's not sufficiently specific. However, the article that you linked to has a link to the term I was thinking of but could not remember: sporgery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sporgery Key point: PGP signatures would not have helped avoid the problem. The sporger need not even bother attaching a PGP signature, despite the fact that the person he's pretending to be routinely does so. The sporger could provide his own perfectly valid PGP signature, the fact that it was valid for the wrong author is unlikely to be noticed. And even if the sporger copied a PGP signature from a different message, most people would ignore it. Sporging is about provoking a flood of upset responses. That a small portion of the people who would otherwise have participated in the flood, did not do so because they checked the PGP signatures, wouldn't matter much.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-23 22:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <F19b0q=pA+LXLjefu@bongo-ra.co> |
| In reply to | #168937 |
On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 12:05:04 -0800 Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote: > It's unlikely that anyone will try to impersonate you. I've been > participating here for decades, and I've never felt the need to worry > about it. Strange that because I remember years ago someone did impersonate you and several other regulars of comp.lang.c several times on several newsgroups.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-23 18:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tqn4eq$3q93v$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #168937 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On 1/23/23 15:05, Keith Thompson wrote: > Apparently "octoctal" is an extremely obscure term for an encoding that > is almost universally called base64. Did you seriously expect your > readers to know that, or were you just trying to appear clever at the > expense of actually communicating? > Neither—i used it because it's very slightly more useful than the conventional term and because it's more fun. > When you PGP-sign a Usenet message, it becomes necessary to post two > chunks of data in a single message, one for the body of the message, and > one for its signature. The standard way to do that is MIME encoding, > which typically results in the parts being base64-encoded. > I really don't understand why that's what Thunderbird does when cleartext signing is available. > Some of us use newsreaders that recognize and correctly display > MIME-encoded messages. For example, I use Gnus, which runs under Emacs, > and I hadn't even noticed that your messages were signed and encoded. > Others use newsreaders that don't support MIME and display the > base64-encoded text directly; for example, Kaz uses slrn, which behaves > this way. > That sounds like a problem with those newsreaders. > It's unlikely that anyone will try to impersonate you. I've been > participating here for decades, and I've never felt the need to worry > about it. > I'd rather play it safe. > I don't know whether the non-ASCII characters in your signature (the > text following "-- ", not your PGP signature) would be a problem. They > might be the reason your message was base64-encoded, but that encoding > might not happen if you didn't post multipart messages. > I don't know why Thunderbird uses octoctal for that instead of quoted-printable. I have no idea how to change it. > The way you post is making it unreasonably difficult for some people > here to read your messages. You cannot expect those people to change > the way they read Usenet to cater to your messages; they'll just accept > that they can't read whatever you write. Yes, a lot of Usenet software > is out of date. That's not going to change. > Why won't it change? > If you continue PGP-signing your posts here, many people will stop > paying attention to you. Decide which is more important to you: > appearing to be clever, or communicating. > I never had any desire to "appear clever" in the first place. -- ⚗︎ | /blu.mɛin.dʰak/ | shortens to "Hawk" | he/him/his/himself/Mr. bluemanedhawk.github.io Apologies if this message got encoded into octoctal. Blame Thunderbird for not behaving correctly with Unicode and PGP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-23 15:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <87ilgwg6x5.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #168955 |
Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@gmail.com> writes:
> On 1/23/23 15:05, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Apparently "octoctal" is an extremely obscure term for an encoding that
>> is almost universally called base64. Did you seriously expect your
>> readers to know that, or were you just trying to appear clever at the
>> expense of actually communicating?
>
> Neither—i used it because it's very slightly more useful than the
> conventional term and because it's more fun.
I fail to see how it's more useful. I find it much *less* useful,
partly because I had never heard of it -- and I doubt that anyone else
here had either.
When I did a Google search for "octoctal", the first two hits mentioned
"octal" but not "octoctal". The third mentions it, but it strikes me as
a collection of deliberately silly base names.
I don't claim that you made up the word "octoctal", but that was a
reasonable conclusion.
The term "base64" is common and well understood -- and there's a
standard that specifies how the 6-bit values are mapped to ASCII
characters. Calling it "octoctal" is not my idea of fun. I suspect
nobody finds it fun other than you. Is it worth it?
Calling it "octoctal" will merely annoy people. If you really want to
do that, you can, but a lot of people will then configure their
newsreaders to filter out your posts. I don't come here to be annoyed.
For that matter, I don't come here to talk about Usenet software, so if
we can get back to discussing C, a lot of us would appreciate it.
>> When you PGP-sign a Usenet message, it becomes necessary to post two
>> chunks of data in a single message, one for the body of the message, and
>> one for its signature. The standard way to do that is MIME encoding,
>> which typically results in the parts being base64-encoded.
>
> I really don't understand why that's what Thunderbird does when
> cleartext signing is available.
I don't know. I've offered a simple workaround (don't PGP-sign your
messages).
I think what you want is a way to PGP-sign your posts and have
Thunderbird encode the body of the message as plain text rather than in
base64. (It pretty much has to use a MIME multipart message to include
both the message body and the PGP signature.) I don't know -- or
frankly care -- whether Thunderbird can do that. If you want to
investigate further, feel free, but this is not the place to discuss it.
And if you do find a way to do that, non-MIME newsreaders will still
show your articles with a bunch of annoying extra junk.
>> Some of us use newsreaders that recognize and correctly display
>> MIME-encoded messages. For example, I use Gnus, which runs under Emacs,
>> and I hadn't even noticed that your messages were signed and encoded.
>> Others use newsreaders that don't support MIME and display the
>> base64-encoded text directly; for example, Kaz uses slrn, which behaves
>> this way.
>
> That sounds like a problem with those newsreaders.
Sure -- but it's a problem *for you* if you want to communicate with the
people who use those newsreaders. Kaz has already filtered out your
posts. Others are likely to follow his example.
Usenet is fundamentally a text-only medium. MIME was invented to carry
non-textual information over Usenet and email.
>> It's unlikely that anyone will try to impersonate you. I've been
>> participating here for decades, and I've never felt the need to worry
>> about it.
>
> I'd rather play it safe.
Then some people will ignore you.
>> I don't know whether the non-ASCII characters in your signature (the
>> text following "-- ", not your PGP signature) would be a problem. They
>> might be the reason your message was base64-encoded, but that encoding
>> might not happen if you didn't post multipart messages.
>>
>
> I don't know why Thunderbird uses octoctal for that instead of
> quoted-printable. I have no idea how to change it.
It's called base64. The best way to change it is to stop PGP-signing
your posts.
>> The way you post is making it unreasonably difficult for some people
>> here to read your messages. You cannot expect those people to change
>> the way they read Usenet to cater to your messages; they'll just accept
>> that they can't read whatever you write. Yes, a lot of Usenet software
>> is out of date. That's not going to change.
>
> Why won't it change?
Because Usenet is old and not nearly as active as it once was, a lot of
people are happy using old newsreaders that work just find for the vast
majority of posts (presumably Kaz likes the user interface provided by
slrn), and there isn't enough interest for developers to spend time
upgrading old software to work with MIME.
Try this: Post *one* article, in reply to this one, without a PGP
signature. Keep the same Usenet signature block if you like. And
*please* trim most of the quoted text; there's no need to repeat
everything I've just written.
>> If you continue PGP-signing your posts here, many people will stop
>> paying attention to you. Decide which is more important to you:
>> appearing to be clever, or communicating.
>
> I never had any desire to "appear clever" in the first place.
(Resisting a snarky comment.)
You're new here. People with decades of Usenet experience are tell you
that your PGP signatures are causing problems. You're not listening.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for XCOM Labs
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-23 19:43 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tqn9k8$3r9mq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #168959 |
On 1/23/23 18:36, Keith Thompson wrote: > I fail to see how [octoctal is] more useful[ than base64]. > The problem with the term "base64" is that the "64" part is written in decimal without any implicit indication that it is. "octoctal" is a term that is base-neutral. > When I did a Google search for "octoctal", the first two hits mentioned > "octal" but not "octoctal". The third mentions it, but it strikes me as > a collection of deliberately silly base names. > I'm curious: what was that third link? > Calling it "octoctal" will merely annoy people. If you really want to > do that, you can, but a lot of people will then configure their > newsreaders to filter out your posts. I don't come here to be annoyed. > For that matter, I don't come here to talk about Usenet software, so if > we can get back to discussing C, a lot of us would appreciate it. > I would also like to get the topic back to C—but it wasn't i who diverted it from there in the first place. >> I really don't understand why [Thunderbird encodes in octoctal] when >> cleartext signing is available. > > I don't know. I've offered a simple workaround (don't PGP-sign your > messages). > I do not consider that an acceptable workaround. >>> I don't know whether the non-ASCII characters in your signature (the >>> text following "-- ", not your PGP signature) would be a problem. They >>> might be the reason your message was base64-encoded, but that encoding >>> might not happen if you didn't post multipart messages. >>> >> >> I don't know why Thunderbird uses octoctal for that instead of >> quoted-printable. I have no idea how to change it. > > It's called base64. The best way to change it is to stop PGP-signing > your posts. > If i remember correctly, turning off the PGP signature will only stop the octoctalization by Thunderbird if the message is ASCII-only. >>> Yes, a lot of Usenet software is out of date. That's not going to >>> change. >> >> Why won't it change? > > Because Usenet is old and not nearly as active as it once was, a lot of > people are happy using old newsreaders that work just find for the vast > majority of posts[…], and there isn't enough interest for developers to > spend time upgrading old software to work with MIME. > That's a bloody shame. > Try this: Post *one* article, in reply to this one, without a PGP > signature. Keep the same Usenet signature block if you like. And > *please* trim most of the quoted text; there's no need to repeat > everything I've just written. > Alright then. I'm pretty certain that Thunderbird is still going to @#$% with my message because it contains unicode characters. <sarcasm>What audacity i have to use modern technology!</sarcasm> I've tried to remove redundant quotating, but it's possible my standards for redundancy are different from yours. -- ⚗︎ | /blu.mɛin.dʰak/ | shortens to "Hawk" | he/him/his/himself/Mr. bluemanedhawk.github.io Apologies if this message got encoded into octoctal. Blame Thunderbird for not behaving correctly with Unicode and PGP^W^W not in this message!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-23 16:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <tqnacm$3rbjm$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #168968 |
On 1/23/2023 4:43 PM, Blue-Maned_Hawk wrote: > On 1/23/23 18:36, Keith Thompson wrote: >> I fail to see how [octoctal is] more useful[ than base64]. >> > The problem with the term "base64" is that the "64" part is written in > decimal without any implicit indication that it is. "octoctal" is a > term that is base-neutral. [...] octal implies 8?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-23 20:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tqnb98$3r9mq$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #168972 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On 1/23/23 19:56, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > octal implies 8? > Yes—octoctal is base eight times eight, or base sixty-four. -- ⚗︎ | /blu.mɛin.dʰak/ | shortens to "Hawk" | he/him/his/himself/Mr. bluemanedhawk.github.io Apologies if this message got encoded into octoctal. Blame Thunderbird for not behaving correctly with Unicode and PGP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-23 17:45 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <tqnd86$3rup6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #168979 |
On 1/23/2023 5:12 PM, Blue-Maned_Hawk wrote: > On 1/23/23 19:56, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >> octal implies 8? >> > > Yes—octoctal is base eight times eight, or base sixty-four. > 8^2-ary Fair enough?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-23 16:58 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <87y1pseojv.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #168968 |
Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@gmail.com> writes:
> On 1/23/23 18:36, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> I fail to see how [octoctal is] more useful[ than base64].
>>
> The problem with the term "base64" is that the "64" part is written in
> decimal without any implicit indication that it is. "octoctal" is a
> term that is base-neutral.
Nonsense, and I'm done arguing with you about it. After this, I will
not reply to any post in which you use the word "octoctal".
[...]
>> I don't know. I've offered a simple workaround (don't PGP-sign your
>> messages).
>>
>
> I do not consider that an acceptable workaround.
Too bad. Do you consider having most of the regulars in this newsgroup
ignore you an acceptable workaround?
[...]
>> Try this: Post *one* article, in reply to this one, without a PGP
>> signature. Keep the same Usenet signature block if you like. And
>> *please* trim most of the quoted text; there's no need to repeat
>> everything I've just written.
>
> Alright then. I'm pretty certain that Thunderbird is still going to
> @#$% with my message because it contains unicode characters.
> <sarcasm>What audacity i have to use modern technology!</sarcasm>
>
> I've tried to remove redundant quotating, but it's possible my
> standards for redundancy are different from yours.
The article to which I'm now replying is base64-encoded. My newsreader
showed it to me as if it were plain text (including the non-ASCII
characters in your sig).
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for XCOM Labs
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
Héłłö, wòrĺð\n
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-23 17:02 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <87tu0geoco.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #168974 |
Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
> Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@gmail.com> writes:
>> On 1/23/23 18:36, Keith Thompson wrote:
[...]
>>> Try this: Post *one* article, in reply to this one, without a PGP
>>> signature. Keep the same Usenet signature block if you like. And
>>> *please* trim most of the quoted text; there's no need to repeat
>>> everything I've just written.
>>
>> Alright then. I'm pretty certain that Thunderbird is still going to
>> @#$% with my message because it contains unicode characters.
>> <sarcasm>What audacity i have to use modern technology!</sarcasm>
>>
>> I've tried to remove redundant quotating, but it's possible my
>> standards for redundancy are different from yours.
>
> The article to which I'm now replying is base64-encoded. My newsreader
> showed it to me as if it were plain text (including the non-ASCII
> characters in your sig).
In the parent article, I temporarily added some non-ASCII characters to
my .sig. The posted article was transmitted in plain text:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
I use the Gnus newsreader. There may be a way to persuade Thunderbird
to behave similarly (I don't use it). There are places (not here) where
you can probably find out how.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for XCOM Labs
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-24 15:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tqop5t$5q5t$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #168975 |
On 24/01/2023 02:02, Keith Thompson wrote: > Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes: >> Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@gmail.com> writes: >>> On 1/23/23 18:36, Keith Thompson wrote: > [...] >>>> Try this: Post *one* article, in reply to this one, without a PGP >>>> signature. Keep the same Usenet signature block if you like. And >>>> *please* trim most of the quoted text; there's no need to repeat >>>> everything I've just written. >>> >>> Alright then. I'm pretty certain that Thunderbird is still going to >>> @#$% with my message because it contains unicode characters. >>> <sarcasm>What audacity i have to use modern technology!</sarcasm> >>> >>> I've tried to remove redundant quotating, but it's possible my >>> standards for redundancy are different from yours. >> >> The article to which I'm now replying is base64-encoded. My newsreader >> showed it to me as if it were plain text (including the non-ASCII >> characters in your sig). > > In the parent article, I temporarily added some non-ASCII characters to > my .sig. The posted article was transmitted in plain text: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > > I use the Gnus newsreader. There may be a way to persuade Thunderbird > to behave similarly (I don't use it). There are places (not here) where > you can probably find out how. > Your message came through loud and clear as plain UTF-8 encoded text - no MIME parts. (I'm reading with Thunderbird on Linux - the same client as Mr. Hawk.) In the interests of confirming that non-ASCII UTF-8 is not an issue, I'm adding some extra characters in the main text and as a signature: A = π×r² ☺ -- Signature: A = π×r² ☺
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-24 14:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tqoqb0$64a2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #168997 |
On 24/01/2023 14:15, David Brown wrote: > On 24/01/2023 02:02, Keith Thompson wrote: >> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes: >>> Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@gmail.com> writes: >>>> On 1/23/23 18:36, Keith Thompson wrote: >> [...] >>>>> Try this: Post *one* article, in reply to this one, without a PGP >>>>> signature. Keep the same Usenet signature block if you like. And >>>>> *please* trim most of the quoted text; there's no need to repeat >>>>> everything I've just written. >>>> >>>> Alright then. I'm pretty certain that Thunderbird is still going to >>>> @#$% with my message because it contains unicode characters. >>>> <sarcasm>What audacity i have to use modern technology!</sarcasm> >>>> >>>> I've tried to remove redundant quotating, but it's possible my >>>> standards for redundancy are different from yours. >>> >>> The article to which I'm now replying is base64-encoded. My newsreader >>> showed it to me as if it were plain text (including the non-ASCII >>> characters in your sig). >> >> In the parent article, I temporarily added some non-ASCII characters to >> my .sig. The posted article was transmitted in plain text: >> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 >> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >> >> I use the Gnus newsreader. There may be a way to persuade Thunderbird >> to behave similarly (I don't use it). There are places (not here) where >> you can probably find out how. >> > > Your message came through loud and clear as plain UTF-8 encoded text - > no MIME parts. (I'm reading with Thunderbird on Linux - the same client > as Mr. Hawk.) > > In the interests of confirming that non-ASCII UTF-8 is not an issue, I'm > adding some extra characters in the main text and as a signature: > > A = π×r² ☺ > That also has ... Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hawk's has (for the article part): Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 If he left out the not-ascii bits of his sig, maybe that would change to 7bit. Maybe his newsreader doesn't think ES can handle 8bit and that's why it falls back to base64'ing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-24 18:32 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tqp4nq$7ik0$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #168999 |
On 24/01/2023 15:35, Richard Harnden wrote: > On 24/01/2023 14:15, David Brown wrote: >> On 24/01/2023 02:02, Keith Thompson wrote: >>> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes: >>>> Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@gmail.com> writes: >>>>> On 1/23/23 18:36, Keith Thompson wrote: >>> [...] >>>>>> Try this: Post *one* article, in reply to this one, without a PGP >>>>>> signature. Keep the same Usenet signature block if you like. And >>>>>> *please* trim most of the quoted text; there's no need to repeat >>>>>> everything I've just written. >>>>> >>>>> Alright then. I'm pretty certain that Thunderbird is still going to >>>>> @#$% with my message because it contains unicode characters. >>>>> <sarcasm>What audacity i have to use modern technology!</sarcasm> >>>>> >>>>> I've tried to remove redundant quotating, but it's possible my >>>>> standards for redundancy are different from yours. >>>> >>>> The article to which I'm now replying is base64-encoded. My newsreader >>>> showed it to me as if it were plain text (including the non-ASCII >>>> characters in your sig). >>> >>> In the parent article, I temporarily added some non-ASCII characters to >>> my .sig. The posted article was transmitted in plain text: >>> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 >>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >>> >>> I use the Gnus newsreader. There may be a way to persuade Thunderbird >>> to behave similarly (I don't use it). There are places (not here) where >>> you can probably find out how. >>> >> >> Your message came through loud and clear as plain UTF-8 encoded text - >> no MIME parts. (I'm reading with Thunderbird on Linux - the same >> client as Mr. Hawk.) >> >> In the interests of confirming that non-ASCII UTF-8 is not an issue, >> I'm adding some extra characters in the main text and as a signature: >> >> A = π×r² ☺ >> > > That also has ... > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Yes - that is as it should be. > > Hawk's has (for the article part): > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 > And that content encoding choice is the problem. > If he left out the not-ascii bits of his sig, maybe that would change to > 7bit. Maybe his newsreader doesn't think ES can handle 8bit and that's > why it falls back to base64'ing. > Note that both Hawk and I use Thunderbird on Linux, connecting to news.eternal-september.org. Same client (modulo possible minor version differences), same server.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-25 22:56 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Why is there not a single good JSON library for C |
| Message-ID | <slrntt3css.ca7.jj@iridium.wf32df> |
| In reply to | #168974 |
On 2023-01-24, Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote: > Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@gmail.com> writes: >> On 1/23/23 18:36, Keith Thompson wrote: >>> I fail to see how [octoctal is] more useful[ than base64]. >>> >> The problem with the term "base64" is that the "64" part is written in >> decimal without any implicit indication that it is. "octoctal" is a >> term that is base-neutral. > > Nonsense, and I'm done arguing with you about it. After this, I will > not reply to any post in which you use the word "octoctal". I admire your perseverance in getting so far!!!! I kill filed him a while ago - I seriously doubt he will have anything useful to say.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web