Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #5972

Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects?

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com>
wrote:
>In article <4e14ef70$0$1580$c3e8da3$92d0a893@news.astraweb.com>,
>Steve Erwin  <trollHunter@Usenet.4.usenetizens.org.invalid> wrote:
>> blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >In article <4e14a510$0$6450$c3e8da3$b1356c67@news.astraweb.com>,
>> >Steve Erwin  <trollHunter@Usenet.4.usenetizens.org.invalid> wrote:
>> >> blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>
>[ snip ]
>
>> As an aside, may I suggest you try this syntax in trn
>> as a "From"? 
>> "blmblm@myrealbox.com" <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com>
>> The change may then allow your "nym" to list
>> 'correctly' in the message group for all reader
>> software;
>> example of your header display in one reader is here:
>> https://rapidshare.com/files/664524757/trn_UsenetSyntax.jpg
>
>Eh.  I'm not sure I *want* only the part you have in double quotes
>to display (which is what would happen, right?) -- it's no longer a
>working address, and while the actual address in the angle brackets
>works, anyone who assumes the "nym" is a working address ....
>
The fog in the picture would clear were you see the
list I uploaded. But never mind, let's try this?
In a "From" you have two fields:
1. name
2. active link

the name can be anything---> 2Many_Nyms%
the link *must* be in this form--> xxxxx@xxx.xxx
and *should* be valid--> blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com
but *could* be invalid--->
blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com.null
or
blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com.invalid
or
blmblm.myrealbox@SPAMgmail.com

..... about the differences?
Today it maybe a tad foolish to be publishing a valid
email addy in a "From". Spam might not worry you
yourself (many peeps are setup very well to deny Spam
to their boxen) but it does contribute to "network
overload/stress" when the spamBots start searching for
a home for something that appears valid.
Adding "SPAM" anywhere in an email address no longer
works as a "deSpam", the bots are onto it.
AFAIK.. "invalid" or "null" are the only 'tags' that
render a modern email address useless to spamBots.

But I digress...

For the first part of "From"?
nntp clients have variance in how they interpret what
the user types as syntax and what is actually tX'd as
data.
In a Windows GUI, you just type (in the name field)
your desired "handle" and most intuitive GUI's will
output;
Joe B. Bloggs 
to the list of posters names seen in a header pull.

In nix clients it is often the case to be adding double
quotes to the "handle" to enable the tX to the server
to list the name. ie, "Joe B. Bloggs" delivers 
Joe B. Bloggs 
No double quotes and the list shows;
Joe B. Bloggs <xxxxx@xxx.xxx>
This is how your headers appear in a list view.

For the second part of "From"?
In a Windows GUI you just type (in the email address
field) your described published email address and most
intuitive GUI's will output the syntax *only* in the
*header* fields, both in a "reply to" line (or "wrote")
in the body of the post, and in the 'hidden' headers of
the original post.
It will not appear in the list of poster's names.
This is how it *should* be.

In nix clients it is often the case to be adding angle
brackets to the email address so as to have the server
recognise a conforming post (RFC's) and accept the
article. Some servers will accept anything, yet as the
post propagates around farms the message gets rejected
and thus only a few readers using poorly configured
servers will see the post. And usually even that is
limited as the cleanup rate (TTL) usually drops the
post within hours/days.

Now of course there are exceptions to just about all
of any man made 'rule', and, yes..  there are some who
delight in discovering "why it is so". Thus -nobody- is
going to give you grief for a poorly displayed "nym" ,
as maybe that is how you -want- it.

"Lamers" may be an exception, you could 'hear' a squeak
from  the likes of "Kit-Kat", well.. maybe not in the
near future [cough] :->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

My two bits is just saying,, "this is what it *looks*
like, is that cool with you?". 
And I ask, cos guys like me immediately think "newbie"
when seeing a handle listing in that way.
That, or ,"okay, that troll just fukd up!"<BG>
Even the most skilled troll makes mistakes.. mheh heh

An' you aint no newbie :-)


>(Not that it matters, but you've found for me one more site that
>apparently requires a newer version of Javascript than is included
>in the Firefox on the system I usually use at home -- when I point
>that old Firefox at the above URL, I get something that asks me to
>log in or create an account.
>  
/nods
RS has denied my 0pera9+ completely for quite some time
now.
I use FFv3.0 or lynx, and have accounts, so no problem.

As I understood it the published link immediately
coughed up a dialog box (in a web browser) which then
prompted saving the file to a drive.
Maybe RS (like a number of others ) have made it that
one must have an account to grab files, I do not know.
If you want a second go at it I would strip some stuff
out and try a few methods other than my standard
approach..mkay?

>If there's a way to download the file
>without creating an account, it's not obvious ....  Trying again
>with a more recent browser gave better results (an option for "free
>download").  What a pain.  Why I don't replace that old Firefox --
>eh, long story, comes down to "more trouble than you might think".)
>
All of this -  "URLS to files on the web" is why it
pays to go get "binary enabled". It is just too easy to
upload a file to a remote group (from the conversation)
and just publish the Message-ID.
Buuuut today we just do not seem to be able to sell
that message over and above "too easy" java enabled web
services, which, as you discover.. aint so lubricating
to information exchange as the designers would have
Joe Public believe:-/
BuuuT that is another topic<g>

Holler if I can help, mkay?

-- 

Steve

Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Alex J <vstrength@gmail.com> - 2011-06-28 02:29 -0700
  Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-06-28 07:33 -0400
    OT "sic" (was Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-06-28 15:56 +0000
      Re: OT "sic" (was Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-06-28 12:19 -0400
    Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Michal Kleczek <kleku75@gmail.com> - 2011-06-28 18:41 +0200
      Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-06-28 13:10 -0400
        Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Michal Kleczek <kleku75@gmail.com> - 2011-06-28 19:53 +0200
          Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-06-28 14:13 -0400
            Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations <supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations@averylongandannoyingdomainname.com> - 2011-06-28 14:23 -0400
              Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-06-28 14:33 -0400
                Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations <supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations@averylongandannoyingdomainname.com> - 2011-06-28 14:52 -0400
                Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-06-28 16:20 -0400
                Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations <supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations@averylongandannoyingdomainname.com> - 2011-06-29 00:53 -0400
                Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-06-29 01:04 -0400
                Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations <supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations@averylongandannoyingdomainname.com> - 2011-06-29 01:43 -0400
              Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-06-28 11:42 -0700
                Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations <supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations@averylongandannoyingdomainname.com> - 2011-06-28 14:54 -0400
                Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-06-28 12:34 -0700
                Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? markspace <-@.> - 2011-06-28 13:20 -0700
                Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-06-28 13:44 -0700
                Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations <supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations@averylongandannoyingdomainname.com> - 2011-06-29 01:05 -0400
                Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-06-28 16:21 -0400
                Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations <supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations@averylongandannoyingdomainname.com> - 2011-06-29 01:06 -0400
                Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-28 14:30 -0700
          Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2011-06-29 18:56 +0200
      Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-28 13:43 -0700
        Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-06-28 20:43 -0400
          Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-28 21:14 -0700
        Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations <supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations@averylongandannoyingdomainname.com> - 2011-06-29 01:12 -0400
          Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-07-01 18:28 -0700
            Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations <supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations@averylongandannoyingdomainname.com> - 2011-07-02 00:19 -0400
          Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-07-01 19:05 -0700
            Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations <supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations@averylongandannoyingdomainname.com> - 2011-07-02 00:26 -0400
            Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-04 09:39 -0700
              Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations <supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations@averylongandannoyingdomainname.com> - 2011-07-05 02:11 -0400
    Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Alex J <vstrength@gmail.com> - 2011-07-05 16:56 -0700
      Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? "John B. Matthews" <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2011-07-06 00:57 -0400
      Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations <supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations@averylongandannoyingdomainname.com> - 2011-07-06 05:55 -0400
  Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-06-28 14:40 -0400
  Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2011-06-29 19:15 +0200
  Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> - 2011-06-30 23:04 +0100
    Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? KitKat <kitkat_11697@gmail.example.com> - 2011-06-30 18:29 -0400
      Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-06-30 17:05 -0700
        Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? KitKat <kitkat_11697@gmail.example.com> - 2011-06-30 20:17 -0400
          Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> - 2011-07-01 21:22 +0100
      Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> - 2011-07-01 21:40 +0100
        Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? KitKat <kitkat_11697@gmail.example.com> - 2011-07-01 18:08 -0400
          Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-05 12:15 -0700
            Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? KitKat <kitkat_11697@gmail.example.com> - 2011-07-05 15:30 -0400
              Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-07-05 21:10 +0000
                Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-05 22:08 -0700
                Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? KitKat <kitkat_11697@gmail.example.com> - 2011-07-06 05:57 -0400
                Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 17:07 +0000
                Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Steve Erwin <trollHunter@Usenet.4.usenetizens.org.invalid> - 2011-07-07 04:08 +1000
                Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 19:09 +0000
                Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Steve Erwin <trollHunter@Usenet.4.usenetizens.org.invalid> - 2011-07-07 09:26 +1000
                Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? KitKat <kitkat_11697@gmail.example.com> - 2011-07-06 20:25 -0400
                Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-07-07 19:37 +0000
                Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-07-07 19:35 +0000
                Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Steve Erwin <trollHunter@Usenet.4.usenetizens.org.invalid> - 2011-07-07 14:34 -0700
                OT names/nyms/etc. (was Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects?) blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-07-08 17:19 +0000
                Re: OT names/nyms/etc. (was Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects?) Steve Erwin <trollHunter@Usenet.4.usenetizens.org.invalid> - 2011-07-09 05:41 +1000
                Re: OT names/nyms/etc. (was Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects?) blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-07-08 19:58 +0000
                Re: OT names/nyms/etc. (was Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects?) lewbloch <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-07-08 13:45 -0700
                Re: OT names/nyms/etc. (was Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects?) Steve Erwin <trollHunter@Usenet.4.usenetizens.org.invalid> - 2011-07-10 01:50 -0400
                Re: OT names/nyms/etc. (was Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects?) blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-07-10 19:15 +0000
                Re: OT names/nyms/etc. (was Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects?) KitKat <kitkat_11697@gmail.example.com> - 2011-07-10 18:38 -0400
                Re: OT names/nyms/etc. (was Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects?) KitKat <kitkat_11697@gmail.example.com> - 2011-07-09 00:29 -0400
                Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? KitKat <kitkat_11697@gmail.example.com> - 2011-07-09 00:26 -0400
                Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? KitKat <kitkat_11697@gmail.example.com> - 2011-07-06 20:05 -0400
                Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Steve Erwin <trollHunter@Usenet.4.usenetizens.org.invalid> - 2011-07-07 10:24 +1000
                Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? KitKat <kitkat_11697@gmail.example.com> - 2011-07-06 21:52 -0400
                Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Steve Erwin <trollHunter@Usenet.4.usenetizens.org.invalid> - 2011-07-07 12:43 +1000
                Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? KitKat <kitkat_11697@gmail.example.com> - 2011-07-06 23:00 -0400
    Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-07-21 20:27 -0400
    Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-07-21 20:30 -0400
      Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Henderson <h1@g1.f1> - 2011-07-22 00:20 -0400
        Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-07-22 10:17 -0400
          Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-07-22 09:30 -0700
            Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-07-22 09:45 -0700
            Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-07-22 14:53 -0400
      Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? v_borchert@despammed.com (Volker Borchert) - 2011-07-22 04:39 +0000
        Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-07-22 10:19 -0400
  Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-07-21 20:33 -0400
    Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-07-21 21:08 -0700
      Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-07-22 10:20 -0400

csiph-web