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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #67290 > unrolled thread

Re: Supersedes demonstration message

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c

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

  Re: Supersedes demonstration message Mark Storkamp <mstorkamp@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-13 08:43 -0500
    Re: Supersedes demonstration message Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-08-13 16:43 +0200
      Re: Supersedes demonstration message Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-13 12:13 -0700
        Re: Supersedes demonstration message raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-08-13 21:02 +0000

#67290 — Re: Supersedes demonstration message

In article <Supersedes-20150813151209@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de>,
 ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) wrote:

>   This message here containes the following header line.
> 
> Supersedes: <Supersedes-20150813151049@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de>
> 
>   This means that it should replace the previous message with
>   the message ID given in the Supersedes header line with this
>   new message.
> 
>   The superseded message only contained this single text line:
>   »This message will soon be superseded by another message.«
> 
>   In the meantime, I also have canceled the message that had
>   the message ID »<Cancel-20150813150848@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de>«.

I don't believe any implementation is required to honor those headers. 

Sort of like the register keyword.

Ever heard of alt.test?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#67298

On 13/08/2015 15:43, Mark Storkamp wrote:

> Ever heard of alt.test?

Servers may handle clc and alt.test differently.

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

#67325

Noob <root@127.0.0.1> writes:
> On 13/08/2015 15:43, Mark Storkamp wrote:
>> Ever heard of alt.test?
>
> Servers may handle clc and alt.test differently.

Possibly, but surely making alt.test behave differently would defeat its
purpose.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

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

#67340

Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:

> Noob <root@127.0.0.1> writes:
> > On 13/08/2015 15:43, Mark Storkamp wrote:
> >> Ever heard of alt.test?
> >
> > Servers may handle clc and alt.test differently.
> 
> Possibly, but surely making alt.test behave differently would defeat its
> purpose.

Not at all; servers may handle comp.* and alt.* differently, and
historically _have_ done so, for what were then and may still be good
reasons.

However, there is also comp.test, which would work... except that
Stefan's aim was to not to _test_ cancels and supersedes, but to
_demonstrate_ them to another comp.lang.c reader. (Though what he
_managed_ to demonstrate, at least on my server, is that they don't
work, which was predicted.)

Richard

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c

csiph-web