Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.misc > #23459 > unrolled thread

Recent spam on comp.lang.c (was Re: bart again (UCX64))

Back to article view | Back to comp.misc

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Recent spam on  comp.lang.c (was Re: bart again (UCX64)) Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2023-09-08 12:22 +0000
    Re: Recent spam on  comp.lang.c (was Re: bart again (UCX64)) Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2023-09-08 13:32 +0000
      Re: Recent spam on comp.lang.c (was Re: bart again (UCX64)) candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> - 2023-09-08 08:36 -0500
        Re: Recent spam on comp.lang.c (was Re: bart again (UCX64)) Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2023-09-08 14:06 +0000
          Re: Recent spam on comp.lang.c (was Re: bart again (UCX64)) candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> - 2023-09-08 18:32 -0500
            Re: Recent spam on comp.lang.c snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2023-09-09 09:42 +0100
            Re: Recent spam on comp.lang.c (was Re: bart again (UCX64)) Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> - 2023-09-09 13:54 +0300
              Re: Recent spam on comp.lang.c snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2023-09-09 12:10 +0100
                Re: Recent spam on comp.lang.c candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> - 2023-09-09 16:04 -0500
                  Re: Recent spam on comp.lang.c snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2023-09-09 22:33 +0100
                    Re: Recent spam on comp.lang.c Lafe <lafe@lafes.invalid> - 2023-09-11 03:23 +0000
    How to change the Subject of a Usenet article (Was: Re: Recent spam on  comp.lang.c) snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2023-09-08 15:50 +0100
      Re: How to change the Subject of a Usenet article (Was: Re: Recent spam on comp.lang.c) candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> - 2023-09-08 18:27 -0500
        Re: How to change the Subject of a Usenet article snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2023-09-09 09:57 +0100
          Re: How to change the Subject of a Usenet article candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> - 2023-09-09 15:54 -0500
            Re: How to change the Subject of a Usenet article Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-09-09 22:08 +0100
              Re: How to change the Subject of a Usenet article candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> - 2023-09-09 16:18 -0500
                Re: How to change the Subject of a Usenet article Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-09-09 22:57 +0100
                  Re: How to change the Subject of a Usenet article candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> - 2023-09-09 17:14 -0500
                    Re: How to change the Subject of a Usenet article Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-09-09 23:36 +0100
                      Re: How to change the Subject of a Usenet article candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> - 2023-09-09 17:38 -0500
              on Gnus (Was: Re: How to change the Subject of a Usenet article) Julieta Shem <jshem@yaxenu.org> - 2023-12-03 13:09 -0300
                Re: on Gnus (Was: Re: How to change the Subject of a Usenet article) Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2023-12-07 02:39 -0400
                  Re: on Gnus yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> - 2023-12-07 14:39 +0000
                    Re: on Gnus Julieta Shem <jshem@yaxenu.org> - 2023-12-07 21:26 -0300
                      Re: on Gnus yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> - 2023-12-08 01:04 +0000
                        Re: on Gnus yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> - 2023-12-08 01:43 +0000
                  Re: on Gnus Julieta Shem <jshem@yaxenu.org> - 2023-12-07 21:20 -0300
                    Re: on Gnus Joerg Mertens <joerg-mertens@t-online.de> - 2023-12-09 10:33 +0100
                      Re: on Gnus Julieta Shem <jshem@yaxenu.org> - 2023-12-10 04:05 -0300
                        Re: on Gnus Joerg Mertens <joerg-mertens@t-online.de> - 2023-12-10 12:16 +0100
                          Re: on Gnus Julieta Shem <jshem@yaxenu.org> - 2023-12-10 13:19 -0300
            Re: How to change the Subject of a Usenet article Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2023-09-09 21:28 +0000
              Re: How to change the Subject of a Usenet article candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> - 2023-09-09 16:29 -0500
              Re: How to change the Subject of a Usenet article Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2023-09-10 08:24 +0000
                Re: How to change the Subject of a Usenet article issdr <p_u_n_k_i_n_d@yahoo.it> - 2023-09-10 11:04 +0200
                  on noffle and leafnode (Was: Re: How to change the Subject of a Usenet article) Julieta Shem <jshem@yaxenu.org> - 2023-12-03 13:11 -0300
                Re: How to change the Subject of a Usenet article candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> - 2023-09-10 10:19 -0500
                  Re: How to change the Subject of a Usenet article De ongekruisigde <ongekruisigde@news.eternal-september.org> - 2023-09-10 15:49 +0000
                  Re: How to change the Subject of a Usenet article Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2023-09-11 07:46 +0000
              Re: How to change the Subject of a Usenet article rdh <rdh@tilde.institute> - 2023-09-11 11:24 -0500
      Re: How to change the Subject of a Usenet article (Was: Re: Recent spam on  comp.lang.c) Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-09-09 03:16 +0000
        Re: How to change the Subject of a Usenet article snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2023-09-09 09:57 +0100
          Re: How to change the Subject of a Usenet article Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-09-09 15:10 +0000
            Re: How to change the Subject of a Usenet article snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2023-09-09 16:26 +0100
    on writing subject lines (Was: Re: Recent spam on comp.lang.c) Julieta Shem <jshem@yaxenu.org> - 2023-12-03 13:01 -0300
      Re: on writing subject lines (Was: Re: Recent spam on comp.lang.c) Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2023-12-03 16:39 +0000
        Re: on writing subject lines Julieta Shem <jshem@yaxenu.org> - 2023-12-03 14:05 -0300
        Re: on writing subject lines (Was: Re: Recent spam on comp.lang.c) candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> - 2023-12-03 14:42 -0600
          Re: on writing subject lines (Was: Re: Recent spam on comp.lang.c) kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2023-12-04 23:46 +0000
            Re: on writing subject lines (Was: Re: Recent spam on comp.lang.c) Julieta Shem <jshem@yaxenu.org> - 2023-12-05 14:53 -0300
              Re: on writing subject lines Julieta Shem <jshem@yaxenu.org> - 2023-12-05 15:25 -0300
                Re: on writing subject lines scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-12-05 19:33 +0000
      Re: on writing subject lines (Was: Re: Recent spam on comp.lang.c) Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2023-12-03 21:29 +0000
        Re: on writing subject lines Julieta Shem <jshem@yaxenu.org> - 2023-12-04 20:34 -0300
          Re: on writing subject lines Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2023-12-05 14:18 -0600
            Re: on writing subject lines Julieta Shem <jshem@yaxenu.org> - 2023-12-05 18:22 -0300
              Re: on writing subject lines scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-12-05 21:36 +0000
                Re: on writing subject lines Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2023-12-05 15:46 -0600
              Re: on writing subject lines Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2023-12-05 15:45 -0600
                Re: on writing subject lines Julieta Shem <jshem@yaxenu.org> - 2023-12-05 19:10 -0300
                  Re: on writing subject lines Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2023-12-05 22:15 -0800
              Re: on writing subject lines Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2023-12-05 21:45 +0000
              Re: on writing subject lines Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-12-05 14:40 -0800
              Re: on writing subject lines Jan van den Broek <balglaas@dds.nl> - 2023-12-06 06:54 +0000
                Re: on writing subject lines Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2023-12-05 23:19 -0800

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#23505 — Re: How to change the Subject of a Usenet article

On 9/9/23 16:28, Rich wrote:
>  From the Linux perspective, that is out of scope for a newsreader.

I don't know if I agree with that statement. While it's not something 
necessary for a good newsreader, it definitely seems like an obvious 
nice-to-have feature, allowing a user to configure offline reading from 
within the actual app they're using, rather than reading manuals for 
some other piece of software.

-- 
~rdh

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23472 — Re: How to change the Subject of a Usenet article (Was: Re: Recent spam on comp.lang.c)

On 2023-09-08, Sn!pe <snipeco.2@gmail.com> wrote:
> This will cause competent User Agents to automatically discard the  
> (Was: Old Subject) part of the header when following up but maintain
> continuity of Subject in the thread list.

Preesumably MacSoup (evidently the name of your user agent) does this?

Slrn isn't doing it; see Subject line. The (Was: ...) is intact.

Is there an RFC for this? I have the slrn code in a buildable state,
so I will take look if it's mentioned in the code anywhere.

In my opinion, if user agents were truly competent, then this entire
dance with (Was: ...) would be unnecessary.

It should be a feature of the user agent's display that when
a parent article P is available and has subject line X, and
a child article C has subject line Y, the agent itself should
display C's subject line as, perhaps:

  Subject: Y
  [Changed from: X]

or something similar.

Competence means doing something better in the UI with the available
data, produced by natural behavior, such as changing the subject without
mentioning the old subject in the subject line.

If the users have to obey some convention to produce data, that is not
really competent. Users won't.

-- 
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
NOTE: If you use Google Groups, I don't see you, unless you're whitelisted.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23477 — Re: How to change the Subject of a Usenet article

Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> wrote:

> On 2023-09-08, Sn!pe <snipeco.2@gmail.com> wrote:
> > This will cause competent User Agents to automatically discard the
> > (Was: Old Subject) part of the header when following up but maintain
> > continuity of Subject in the thread list.
> 
> Preesumably MacSoup (evidently the name of your user agent) does this?
> 

See my adjacent reply to candycane.


> Slrn isn't doing it; see Subject line. The (Was: ...) is intact.
> 
> Is there an RFC for this
>

I'm sure there is but don't ask me which one.

>
> I have the slrn code in a buildable state,
> so I will take look if it's mentioned in the code anywhere.
> 
> In my opinion, if user agents were truly competent, then this entire
> dance with (Was: ...) would be unnecessary.
> 
> It should be a feature of the user agent's display that when
> a parent article P is available and has subject line X, and
> a child article C has subject line Y, the agent itself should
> display C's subject line as, perhaps:
> 
>   Subject: Y
>   [Changed from: X]
> 
> or something similar.
> 
> Competence means doing something better in the UI with the available
> data, produced by natural behavior, such as changing the subject without
> mentioning the old subject in the subject line.
> 
> If the users have to obey some convention to produce data, that is not
> really competent. Users won't.
>

This is more like failure to use your car's turn indicators when making
a lane change.

-- 
^Ï^.         Sn!pe         <https://youtu.be/_kqytf31a8E>

 My pet rock Gordon just is.    

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23483 — Re: How to change the Subject of a Usenet article

On 2023-09-09, Sn!pe <snipeco.2@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is more like failure to use your car's turn indicators when making
> a lane change.

Okay, sure, and so then to continue with the analogy, you're saying that
a competently implemented car will turn off someone else's turn signal
when it's no longer necessary. Or react to turn signals in some other way.

-- 
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
NOTE: If you use Google Groups, I don't see you, unless you're whitelisted.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23484 — Re: How to change the Subject of a Usenet article

Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> wrote:

> On 2023-09-09, Sn!pe <snipeco.2@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
> > This is more like failure to use your car's turn indicators when making
> > a lane change.
> >
>
> Okay, sure, and so then to continue with the analogy, you're saying that
> a competently implemented car will turn off someone else's turn signal
> when it's no longer necessary. Or react to turn signals in some other way.
>

The change of Subject: is an invitation, not an order; it's like setting
a Followup-To: a different group.  It's open to the responder to change
any header that they wish.  

An analogy can be pushed too far; fun as it is, I think this diversion
has run its course.

-- 
^Ï^.         Sn!pe         <https://youtu.be/_kqytf31a8E>

 My pet rock Gordon just is.    

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23574 — on writing subject lines (Was: Re: Recent spam on comp.lang.c)

Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> writes:

[...]

> Finally (for  comp.lang.c  only) , I find even more annoying than the spam
> the fact that people don't choose an appropriate  Subject:  for their posts.
> Naming a thread  "bart again (UCX64)"  is a poor choice anyway but it
> contains a long subthread on whether the closing brace of a function is
> reachable and whether a compiler should give a warning. It would certainly
> help if posts relevant to this reflected it in the  Subject: .

[...]

One difficulty there is that a good subject requires a summary of the
content, a hard problem that schools have been failing to solve.
Notice, too, that lay people write the subject first and the message,
second, which is roughly the same as writing out the number first and
doing the arithmetic later.  

So we can sort of blame that partly on the user interfaces.  Somehow,
the subject line should come as a last step.  That might be one of the
reasons lay people love the new proprietary software for conversations
--- they don't ask them to solve hard problems.  On the contrary: they
force them not to solve them.  (You don't have much to say?  No problem:
we won't let you write more than n characters anyway.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23579 — Re: on writing subject lines (Was: Re: Recent spam on comp.lang.c)

On Sun, 03 Dec 2023 13:01:28 -0300, Julieta Shem wrote:

> So we can sort of blame that partly on the user interfaces.  Somehow,
> the subject line should come as a last step.  That might be one of the
> reasons lay people love the new proprietary software for conversations
> --- they don't ask them to solve hard problems.  On the contrary: they
> force them not to solve them.  (You don't have much to say?  No problem:
> we won't let you write more than n characters anyway.)

Even worse, these modern interfaces often /force/ people to post, 
inundating the medium with trivial chatter. ("You don't have anything to 
say? Too bad; you need to post /something/ in order to keep your account 
open.")


-- 
Lew Pitcher
"In Skills We Trust"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23580 — Re: on writing subject lines

Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> writes:

> On Sun, 03 Dec 2023 13:01:28 -0300, Julieta Shem wrote:
>
>> So we can sort of blame that partly on the user interfaces.  Somehow,
>> the subject line should come as a last step.  That might be one of the
>> reasons lay people love the new proprietary software for conversations
>> --- they don't ask them to solve hard problems.  On the contrary: they
>> force them not to solve them.  (You don't have much to say?  No problem:
>> we won't let you write more than n characters anyway.)
>
> Even worse, these modern interfaces often /force/ people to post, 
> inundating the medium with trivial chatter. ("You don't have anything to 
> say? Too bad; you need to post /something/ in order to keep your account 
> open.")

That's wild.  (I had no idea.)  Some things such as education and
communities can never be guided by commerce.  It has to come from within
the community itself.  If it ever becomes commercial, then we should
backtrack.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23582 — Re: on writing subject lines (Was: Re: Recent spam on comp.lang.c)

On 12/3/23 10:39, Lew Pitcher wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Dec 2023 13:01:28 -0300, Julieta Shem wrote:
> 
>> So we can sort of blame that partly on the user interfaces.  Somehow,
>> the subject line should come as a last step.  That might be one of the
>> reasons lay people love the new proprietary software for conversations
>> --- they don't ask them to solve hard problems.  On the contrary: they
>> force them not to solve them.  (You don't have much to say?  No problem:
>> we won't let you write more than n characters anyway.)
> 
> Even worse, these modern interfaces often /force/ people to post,
> inundating the medium with trivial chatter. ("You don't have anything to
> say? Too bad; you need to post /something/ in order to keep your account
> open.")
> 
> 

Even Google Drive is doing that now. (Though, to be fair, storage space 
is expensive)
-- 
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23599 — Re: on writing subject lines (Was: Re: Recent spam on comp.lang.c)

On 12/3/23 10:39, Lew Pitcher wrote:
> 
> Even worse, these modern interfaces often /force/ people to post,
> inundating the medium with trivial chatter. ("You don't have anything to
> say? Too bad; you need to post /something/ in order to keep your account
> open.")

You are not the customer.  You are the product.  Forcing people to post
to keep their account open means more traffic, and traffic is money.
--scott

-- 
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23606 — Re: on writing subject lines (Was: Re: Recent spam on comp.lang.c)

On 2023-12-04 20:46, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> On 12/3/23 10:39, Lew Pitcher wrote:
>>
>> Even worse, these modern interfaces often /force/ people to post,
>> inundating the medium with trivial chatter. ("You don't have anything to
>> say? Too bad; you need to post /something/ in order to keep your account
>> open.")
> 
> You are not the customer.  You are the product.  Forcing people to post
> to keep their account open means more traffic, and traffic is money.
> --scott

And that's the truth.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23607 — Re: on writing subject lines

Julieta Shem <jshem@yaxenu.org> writes:

> On 2023-12-04 20:46, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> On 12/3/23 10:39, Lew Pitcher wrote:
>>>
>>> Even worse, these modern interfaces often /force/ people to post,
>>> inundating the medium with trivial chatter. ("You don't have anything to
>>> say? Too bad; you need to post /something/ in order to keep your account
>>> open.")
>> You are not the customer.  You are the product.  Forcing people to
>> post
>> to keep their account open means more traffic, and traffic is money.
>> --scott
>
> And that's the truth.

Oh, I'm sorry for messing up your quote.  That was ThunderBird's fault
or my fault for not setting it up properly.  (I have been trying it
out.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23609 — Re: on writing subject lines

Julieta Shem <jshem@yaxenu.org> writes:
>Julieta Shem <jshem@yaxenu.org> writes:
>
>> On 2023-12-04 20:46, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>> On 12/3/23 10:39, Lew Pitcher wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Even worse, these modern interfaces often /force/ people to post,
>>>> inundating the medium with trivial chatter. ("You don't have anything to
>>>> say? Too bad; you need to post /something/ in order to keep your account
>>>> open.")
>>> You are not the customer.  You are the product.  Forcing people to
>>> post
>>> to keep their account open means more traffic, and traffic is money.
>>> --scott
>>
>> And that's the truth.
>
>Oh, I'm sorry for messing up your quote.  That was ThunderBird's fault
>or my fault for not setting it up properly.  (I have been trying it
>out.)

A properly written signature block will automatically be discarded
on replies by most well-written NNTP clients.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23581 — Re: on writing subject lines (Was: Re: Recent spam on comp.lang.c)

On 03/12/2023 16:01, Julieta Shem wrote:
> One difficulty there is that a good subject requires a summary of the
> content, a hard problem that schools have been failing to solve.
> Notice, too, that lay people write the subject first and the message,
> second, which is roughly the same as writing out the number first and
> doing the arithmetic later.
> 
> So we can sort of blame that partly on the user interfaces.  Somehow,
> the subject line should come as a last step.  That might be one of the
> reasons lay people love the new proprietary software for conversations
> --- they don't ask them to solve hard problems.  On the contrary: they
> force them not to solve them.  (You don't have much to say?  No problem:
> we won't let you write more than n characters anyway.)

The problem there is that when you are reading the message you want the 
title (summary) first.

It's quite valid to say you should write it later - but that would 
result in a different layout for reading and writing, which would be 
confusing.

For me having the title first works most of the time. It's a one line 
summary of what I want to talk about. I then expand on it in the body. 
Occasionally I go back and change the title - but not often.

Andy

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23598 — Re: on writing subject lines

Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> writes:

> On 03/12/2023 16:01, Julieta Shem wrote:
>> One difficulty there is that a good subject requires a summary of the
>> content, a hard problem that schools have been failing to solve.
>> Notice, too, that lay people write the subject first and the message,
>> second, which is roughly the same as writing out the number first and
>> doing the arithmetic later.
>>
>> So we can sort of blame that partly on the user interfaces.  Somehow,
>> the subject line should come as a last step.  That might be one of
>> the reasons lay people love the new proprietary software for
>> conversations --- they don't ask them to solve hard problems.  On the
>> contrary: they force them not to solve them.  (You don't have much to
>> say?  No problem: we won't let you write more than n characters
>> anyway.)
>
> The problem there is that when you are reading the message you want
> the title (summary) first.

Can we untie the way it is displayed from the way it is written?

> It's quite valid to say you should write it later - but that would
> result in a different layout for reading and writing, which would be 
> confusing.

Why?  It seems more confusing to have to write it first --- ``omg, I
need a subject, what do I put in there?''  If I can't decide, that's the
very definition of confusion.

> For me having the title first works most of the time. It's a one line
> summary of what I want to talk about. I then expand on it in the
> body. Occasionally I go back and change the title - but not often.

So true.  More often than not now, I write it last.  I've probably
rewritten it so many times now that I perhaps learned that it's less
work to write it last.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23610 — Re: on writing subject lines

On 12/3/23 15:29, Vir Campestris wrote:
> The problem there is that when you are reading the message you want 
> the title (summary) first.

That's a UI -> UX problem.

On 12/4/23 17:34, Julieta Shem wrote:
> Can we untie the way it is displayed from the way it is written?

Yes.

The UI can be changed so that the UX is improved.

Thunderbird will prompt if the subject is blank and ask if you want to 
change it before sending.



-- 
Grant. . . .

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23611 — Re: on writing subject lines

Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> writes:

> On 12/3/23 15:29, Vir Campestris wrote:
>> The problem there is that when you are reading the message you want
>> the title (summary) first.
>
> That's a UI -> UX problem.
>
> On 12/4/23 17:34, Julieta Shem wrote:
>> Can we untie the way it is displayed from the way it is written?
>
> Yes.
>
> The UI can be changed so that the UX is improved.

Let's dig further.  How should a mail or a USENET client display a form
so that the user fills out the subject only after the whole message is
written?

The most obvious approach, I think, is to put the field at the bottom of
the message.  We can expect users writing their message and forgetting
about the subject, but then the send button after pressed would focus
the subject field.  That'll annoy users.

Many people couldn't care less, of course.  Many people must think that
subjects are a totally useless thing.  For these people, perhaps the
client could write something else that would be minimally useful for us.
I don't what would be minimally useful.

> Thunderbird will prompt if the subject is blank and ask if you want to
> change it before sending.

In this case T'Bird misses the heart of the problem we're discussing
here.  We're not discussing how to remember to write a subject, but to
only write it after the whole post is written, when it's much easier to
describe it in a few words.  (Of course, it's nice to be remembered
about an empty subject.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23612 — Re: on writing subject lines

Julieta Shem <jshem@yaxenu.org> writes:
>Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> writes:
>
>> On 12/3/23 15:29, Vir Campestris wrote:
>>> The problem there is that when you are reading the message you want
>>> the title (summary) first.
>>
>> That's a UI -> UX problem.
>>
>> On 12/4/23 17:34, Julieta Shem wrote:
>>> Can we untie the way it is displayed from the way it is written?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> The UI can be changed so that the UX is improved.
>
>Let's dig further.  How should a mail or a USENET client display a form
>so that the user fills out the subject only after the whole message is
>written?

xrn does it perfectly.  Opens a new composition window with the
headers filled in and the cursor positioned after the ':' in
the Subject: header.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23615 — Re: on writing subject lines

On 12/5/23 15:36, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> xrn does it perfectly.  Opens a new composition window with the
> headers filled in and the cursor positioned after the ':' in
> the Subject: header.

Thunderbird does the same.

The pop-up I'm describing only happens if you send without having filled 
in the subject.



-- 
Grant. . . .

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23613 — Re: on writing subject lines

On 12/5/23 15:22, Julieta Shem wrote:
> Let's dig further.  How should a mail or a USENET client display a form
> so that the user fills out the subject only after the whole message is
> written?

I'm sure there are ways.

I would not choose to use such a client.

> The most obvious approach, I think, is to put the field at the bottom of
> the message.

I suspect that's going to cause other problems in and of itself.  But 
you do you.

I'd be more inclined to have the subject field at both the top and 
bottom if the top wasn't sufficient for some reason.

> We can expect users ...
Nope.  No we can't.

> Many people couldn't care less, of course.  Many people must think that
> subjects are a totally useless thing.

Then there are the opposite that write the entire message in the subject 
and nothing in the body.

> For these people, perhaps the
> client could write something else that would be minimally useful for us.
> I don't what would be minimally useful.

Or we could gently use societal push back and ask people to put a 
subject in place.

> In this case T'Bird misses the heart of the problem we're discussing
> here.  We're not discussing how to remember to write a subject, but to
> only write it after the whole post is written, when it's much easier to
> describe it in a few words.  (Of course, it's nice to be remembered
> about an empty subject.)

If the subject is blank and you hit send, Thunderbird asks you for a 
subject.  --  That sure seem to me like the subject being written after 
the rest of the message.



-- 
Grant. . . .

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web