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

Groups > alt.comp.software.thunderbird > #16913 > unrolled thread

x-face / face still a thing in Thunderbird?

Started byaRubes <aRubes@pm.me>
First post2025-06-11 00:58 +0300
Last post2025-06-12 15:05 -0400
Articles 7 on this page of 27 — 9 participants

Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.software.thunderbird

Contents

  x-face / face still a thing in Thunderbird? aRubes <aRubes@pm.me> - 2025-06-11 00:58 +0300
    Re: x-face / face still a thing in Thunderbird? "Alan K." <alan@invalid.com> - 2025-06-10 18:57 -0400
      Re: x-face / face still a thing in Thunderbird? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-06-10 19:25 -0400
        Re: x-face / face still a thing in Thunderbird? VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-06-10 19:17 -0500
          Re: x-face / face still a thing in Thunderbird? Frank Miller <miller@posteo.ee> - 2025-06-11 03:44 +0200
            Re: x-face / face still a thing in Thunderbird? Bob Henson <bob.henson@outlook.com> - 2025-06-11 10:46 +0100
          Re: x-face / face still a thing in Thunderbird? Bob Henson <bob.henson@outlook.com> - 2025-06-11 10:37 +0100
            Re: x-face / face still a thing in Thunderbird? VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-06-11 09:31 -0500
      Re: x-face / face still a thing in Thunderbird? sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> - 2025-06-10 18:31 -0500
        Re: x-face / face still a thing in Thunderbird? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-06-10 21:46 -0400
        Re: x-face / face still a thing in Thunderbird? "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2025-06-11 15:30 +0200
          Re: x-face / face still a thing in Thunderbird? sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> - 2025-06-11 12:35 -0500
            Re: x-face / face still a thing in Thunderbird? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-06-11 15:16 -0400
              Re: x-face / face still a thing in Thunderbird? Frank Miller <miller@posteo.ee> - 2025-06-11 22:49 +0200
                Re: x-face / face still a thing in Thunderbird? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-06-11 18:52 -0400
                  Re: x-face / face still a thing in Thunderbird? Frank Miller <miller@posteo.ee> - 2025-06-12 01:12 +0200
              Re: x-face / face still a thing in Thunderbird? sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> - 2025-06-11 16:04 -0500
            Re: x-face / face still a thing in Thunderbird? "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2025-06-11 21:32 +0200
              Re: x-face / face still a thing in Thunderbird? sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> - 2025-06-11 16:02 -0500
                Re: x-face / face still a thing in Thunderbird? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-06-11 23:19 -0400
                  Re: x-face / face still a thing in Thunderbird? sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> - 2025-06-11 22:46 -0500
                Re: x-face / face still a thing in Thunderbird? "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2025-06-13 19:12 +0200
      Re: x-face / face still a thing in Thunderbird? Frank Miller <miller@posteo.ee> - 2025-06-11 01:37 +0200
    Re: x-face / face still a thing in Thunderbird? Frank Miller <miller@posteo.ee> - 2025-06-11 01:44 +0200
    Re: x-face / face still a thing in Thunderbird? Nil <rednoise9@rednoise9.invalid> - 2025-06-11 12:27 -0400
      Re: x-face / face still a thing in Thunderbird? "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2025-06-11 19:27 +0200
        Re: x-face / face still a thing in Thunderbird? Nil <rednoise9@rednoise9.invalid> - 2025-06-12 15:05 -0400

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#16939

Fromsticks <wolverine01@charter.net>
Date2025-06-11 22:46 -0500
Message-ID<102dij5$1vpkv$4@dont-email.me>
In reply to#16938
On 6/11/2025 10:19 PM, Paul wrote:
> On Wed, 6/11/2025 5:02 PM, sticks wrote:
>> On 6/11/2025 2:32 PM, s|b wrote:
>>> On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 12:35:15 -0500, sticks wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> just search X-face.  It's the dumbest thing ever for usenet IMO.
>>>
>>>>> What about Face header then?
>>>   
>>>> What about it?
>>>
>>> If the X-Face header is the dumbest thing for Usenet, then what is the
>>> Face header? (X-Face != Face)
>>
>> equally stupid.
>>
> 
> To me, they seem to be the same outer dimension, except one is color.

---snip---

I just prefer text based discussion.  This stuff seems rather silly to me.


-- 
Darwinism Is Junk Science!!

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

#16960

From"s|b" <me@privacy.invalid>
Date2025-06-13 19:12 +0200
Message-ID<mb34f8F41bnU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#16934
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 16:02:14 -0500, sticks wrote:

> > If the X-Face header is the dumbest thing for Usenet, then what is the
> > Face header? (X-Face != Face)
 
> equally stupid.

I'd say it's stupid-er. I remember a discussion from long time ago that
the Face header wasn't even a real header and that is was basically a
binary.

-- 
s|b

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

#16917

FromFrank Miller <miller@posteo.ee>
Date2025-06-11 01:37 +0200
Message-ID<6848C1D0.3070304@backwurst.de>
In reply to#16914
Alan K. wrote:
> On 6/10/25 5:58 PM, aRubes wrote:
>> I am seeing some nice Gravatar / libravatar user icons via extensions. Wondered whether 
>> the old (but cool) way is something still doable, and how do you achieve it
> For people like me that are oblivious to what you are talking about,  could you explain in 
> a few sentences?

It's an outdated way of showing small black&white pictures in the
header section of a posting. That pictures were encoded in the header,
only some dozen pixels in size. Only usenet nerds tended to use them as
a kind of personal avatar.
I never got used to this childish kind of nonsense and filtered the
display of x-face out.

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

#16918

FromFrank Miller <miller@posteo.ee>
Date2025-06-11 01:44 +0200
Message-ID<6848C349.3050205@backwurst.de>
In reply to#16913
aRubes wrote:
> I am seeing some nice Gravatar / libravatar user icons via extensions. 
> Wondered whether the old (but cool) way is something still doable, and 
> how do you achieve it

Nope, just forget it. That was just a superfluous nonsense, which won't
come back.

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

#16928

FromNil <rednoise9@rednoise9.invalid>
Date2025-06-11 12:27 -0400
Message-ID<XnsB2FB7EB62D115nilch1@wheedledeedle.moc>
In reply to#16913
On 10 Jun 2025, aRubes <aRubes@pm.me> wrote in
alt.comp.software.thunderbird: 

> I am seeing some nice Gravatar / libravatar user icons via
> extensions. Wondered whether the old (but cool) way is something
> still doable, and how do you achieve it

If your news agent can add custom headers, you can add an X-face image. 
But I don't think Thunderbird or many other readers will display it. My 
old buddy, Xnews can see them, although I remember I had to tweak it a 
little to do so.

I've got an X-face that I set up, like, 20 years ago, but almost nobody 
can see it. I had even forgotten it was there, until someone mentioned 
it recently!

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

#16929

From"s|b" <me@privacy.invalid>
Date2025-06-11 19:27 +0200
Message-ID<matskhF7qmdU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#16928
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 12:27:22 -0400, Nil wrote:

> I've got an X-face that I set up, like, 20 years ago, but almost nobody 
> can see it. 

It's a guitar!

<https://www.dairiki.org/xface/>

-- 
s|b

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

#16953

FromNil <rednoise9@rednoise9.invalid>
Date2025-06-12 15:05 -0400
Message-ID<XnsB2FC99766FA52nilch1@wheedledeedle.moc>
In reply to#16929
On 11 Jun 2025, "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote in
alt.comp.software.thunderbird: 

> On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 12:27:22 -0400, Nil wrote:
> 
>> I've got an X-face that I set up, like, 20 years ago, but almost
>> nobody can see it. 
> 
> It's a guitar!
> 
><https://www.dairiki.org/xface/>

Oh, look! It's an eye!

I remember laboring over that thing, trying to make it legible. I think 
I made a bass one, too. After all that work, it's here to stay!

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.software.thunderbird

csiph-web