Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.user > #269312 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Richard <rrosner5@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-05-13 22:20 +0200 |
| Last post | 2024-05-14 14:20 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 80 — 28 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user
Dovecot correct ownership for logs Richard <rrosner5@gmail.com> - 2024-05-13 22:20 +0200
Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs Geert Stappers <stappers@stappers.nl> - 2024-05-13 22:30 +0200
Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2024-05-13 22:30 +0200
Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs Richard <rrosner5@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 13:20 +0200
Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs jeremy ardley <jeremy.ardley@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 00:50 +0200
Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs Richard <rrosner5@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 13:20 +0200
Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs jeremy ardley <jeremy.ardley@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 13:40 +0200
Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2024-05-14 13:50 +0200
Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs jeremy ardley <jeremy.ardley@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 14:00 +0200
Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs Richard <rrosner5@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 19:30 +0200
Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs Richard <rrosner5@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 14:00 +0200
Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs Richard <rrosner5@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 15:20 +0200
Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs Richard <rrosner5@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 15:30 +0200
OT: Top Posting (was: Dovecot correct ownership for logs) "Loris Bennett" <loris.bennett@fu-berlin.de> - 2024-05-14 16:00 +0200
Re: OT: Top Posting (was: Dovecot correct ownership for logs) Richard <rrosner5@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 16:10 +0200
Re: OT: Top Posting gene heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2024-05-14 17:00 +0200
Re: OT: Top Posting Richard <rrosner5@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 17:10 +0200
Re: OT: Top Posting Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 21:00 +0200
Re: OT: Top Posting Larry Martell <larry.martell@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 00:30 +0200
Re: OT: Top Posting fxkl47BF@protonmail.com - 2024-05-14 19:10 +0200
Re: OT: Top Posting Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2024-05-14 19:50 +0200
Re: OT: Top Posting "James H. H. Lampert" <jamesl@touchtonecorp.com> - 2024-05-14 20:00 +0200
Re: OT: Top Posting Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2024-05-14 20:20 +0200
Re: OT: Top Posting Karen Lewellen <klewellen@shellworld.net> - 2024-05-14 20:40 +0200
Re: OT: Top Posting Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2024-05-14 21:40 +0200
Markup in mail messages (was: Re: OT: Top Posting) Max Nikulin <manikulin@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 04:20 +0200
Re: Markup in mail messages eben@gmx.us - 2024-05-15 05:40 +0200
Re: Markup in mail messages Darac Marjal <mailinglist@darac.org.uk> - 2024-05-15 17:00 +0200
Re: Markup in mail messages David <curmudgeon@telaman.net.au> - 2024-05-15 20:50 +0200
Re: Markup in mail messages Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2024-05-16 15:30 +0200
Re: Markup in mail messages <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2024-05-16 15:50 +0200
Re: Markup in mail messages Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> - 2024-05-16 16:00 +0200
Re: Markup in mail messages Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2024-05-17 21:30 +0200
Re: Markup in mail messages Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> - 2024-05-17 23:20 +0200
Re: Markup in mail messages Max Nikulin <manikulin@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 05:40 +0200
Re: Markup in mail messages <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2024-05-18 07:50 +0200
Re: Markup in mail messages Max Nikulin <manikulin@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 19:00 +0200
Re: Markup in mail messages Karl Vogel <vogelke@pobox.com> - 2024-05-17 05:50 +0200
Re: Markup in mail messages Max Nikulin <manikulin@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 07:50 +0200
Re: Markup in mail messages Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2024-05-17 13:20 +0200
Re: Markup in mail messages Max Nikulin <manikulin@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 15:30 +0200
Re: Markup in mail messages Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2024-05-18 15:50 +0200
Re: Markup in mail messages Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2024-05-16 17:10 +0200
Re: OT: Top Posting debian-user@howorth.org.uk - 2024-05-14 21:40 +0200
Re: OT: Top Posting Cindy Sue Causey <butterflybytes@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 16:40 +0200
Re: OT: Top Posting Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2024-05-15 17:00 +0200
Re: OT: Top Posting gene heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2024-05-15 20:10 +0200
Re: OT: Top Posting "Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@einval.com> - 2024-05-14 20:30 +0200
Re: OT: Top Posting Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-05-14 23:20 +0200
Re: OT: Top Posting fxkl47BF@protonmail.com - 2024-05-14 23:40 +0200
Re: OT: Top Posting Cindy Sue Causey <butterflybytes@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 15:50 +0200
Re: OT: Top Posting Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2024-05-15 16:10 +0200
Re: OT: Top Posting gene heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2024-05-15 16:50 +0200
Re: OT: Top Posting Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2024-05-15 16:50 +0200
Re: OT: Top Posting Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> - 2024-05-15 18:10 +0200
Re: OT: Top Posting "James H. H. Lampert" <jamesl@touchtonecorp.com> - 2024-05-15 18:50 +0200
Re: OT: Top Posting (was: Dovecot correct ownership for logs) <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2024-05-14 17:30 +0200
Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> - 2024-05-14 16:00 +0200
Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs Richard <rrosner5@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 20:50 +0200
Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs Alain D D Williams <addw@phcomp.co.uk> - 2024-05-14 17:40 +0200
Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2024-05-14 17:50 +0200
Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2024-05-14 13:50 +0200
Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2024-05-14 06:40 +0200
Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs Richard <rrosner5@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 13:40 +0200
Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs tomas@tuxteam.de - 2024-05-14 13:50 +0200
Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs Florent Rougon <f.rougon@free.fr> - 2024-05-14 14:10 +0200
Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs tomas@tuxteam.de - 2024-05-14 14:20 +0200
Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs jeremy ardley <jeremy.ardley@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 00:50 +0200
Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs Richard <rrosner5@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 12:30 +0200
Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs jeremy ardley <jeremy.ardley@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 12:40 +0200
Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs Richard <rrosner5@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 13:00 +0200
Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs jeremy ardley <jeremy.ardley@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 13:00 +0200
Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> - 2024-05-15 14:00 +0200
Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs Richard <rrosner5@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 13:10 +0200
Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> - 2024-05-16 14:40 +0200
Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs Richard <rrosner5@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 10:20 +0200
Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2024-05-17 14:30 +0200
Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> - 2024-05-17 14:30 +0200
Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs Richard <rrosner5@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 15:20 +0200
Re: Dovecot correct ownership for logs Richard <rrosner5@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 14:20 +0200
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
| From | Max Nikulin <manikulin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-18 15:30 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Markup in mail messages |
| Message-ID | <IFsil-ece1-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #269423 |
On 17/05/2024 18:10, Greg Wooledge wrote:
>> On 17/05/2024 10:16, Karl Vogel wrote:
>>> https://github.com/aaronsw/html2text/ might interest you. It converts
>>> (relatively) sane HTML into Markdown.
>>>
>>> I put html2text.py into $HOME/lib and use this to call it:
>>>
>>> #!/bin/sh
>>> #<html2mkd: convert reasonable HTML to Markdown
>>> exec /usr/bin/env python $HOME/lib/html2text.py ${1+"$@"}
>>> exit 1
[...]
> https://mywiki.wooledge.org/WrapperScript
>
> Short version: "$@" is good enough if your /bin/sh isn't museum-era.
> ${1+"$@"} works around a bug in some very old shells.
Thanks. I am unsure if a python2 script from 2011 is consistent with a
sh expanding "$@" to empty string, but the reason of the construct might
be just muscle memory or some guide.
The wiki article considers a symlink that was my original idea. It seems
"exit 1" can not ensure certain exit code even if exec fails (at least
with current versions of dash and bash). In addition I see no value of
/usr/bin/env in shell script. It is appropriate for the python script
shebang "#!/usr/bin/env python" (present since its initial commit).
P.S.
Portable shell section in autoconf manual mentions "${1+"$@"}" issues
with zsh (the script above requires /bin/sh explicitly):
https://www.gnu.org/savannah-checkouts/gnu/autoconf/manual/autoconf-2.72/autoconf.html#index-_0022_0024_0040_0022
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-18 15:50 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Markup in mail messages |
| Message-ID | <IFsBH-eckH-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #269448 |
On Sat, May 18, 2024 at 08:26:55PM +0700, Max Nikulin wrote:
> On 17/05/2024 18:10, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > > On 17/05/2024 10:16, Karl Vogel wrote:
> > > > https://github.com/aaronsw/html2text/ might interest you. It converts
> > > > (relatively) sane HTML into Markdown.
> > > >
> > > > I put html2text.py into $HOME/lib and use this to call it:
> > > >
> > > > #!/bin/sh
> > > > #<html2mkd: convert reasonable HTML to Markdown
> > > > exec /usr/bin/env python $HOME/lib/html2text.py ${1+"$@"}
> > > > exit 1
> [...]
> > https://mywiki.wooledge.org/WrapperScript
> >
> > Short version: "$@" is good enough if your /bin/sh isn't museum-era.
> > ${1+"$@"} works around a bug in some very old shells.
>
> Thanks. I am unsure if a python2 script from 2011 is consistent with a sh
> expanding "$@" to empty string, but the reason of the construct might be
> just muscle memory or some guide.
It has nothing to do with the program being exec-ed. The bug is in the
old implementations of /bin/sh. If you're on Debian, you don't need to
worry about it. There is *no* version of Debian which has a /bin/sh
which has this bug. Only legacy commercial Unix systems have it.
> P.S.
> Portable shell section in autoconf manual mentions "${1+"$@"}" issues with
> zsh (the script above requires /bin/sh explicitly):
> https://www.gnu.org/savannah-checkouts/gnu/autoconf/manual/autoconf-2.72/autoconf.html#index-_0022_0024_0040_0022
*sigh* zsh....
Well, once again, there is no version of Debian that uses zsh as its
/bin/sh, so you should be OK here. But if you really want to use the
case $# workaround, I won't say you're wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Curt <curty@free.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-16 17:10 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Markup in mail messages |
| Message-ID | <IEKU2-dL9J-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #269398 |
On 2024-05-16, Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote: >> When this sort of subject comes up (as it does, every so often), I wonder >> why `text/markdown` isn't offered as a mime type for sending emails. > > FWIW, last time I tried to send `text/(x-)markdown` messages, Attribute quotes accurately. https://wiki.debian.org/DebianMailingLists#Posting_Rules.2C_Guidelines.2C_and_Tips
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | debian-user@howorth.org.uk |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-14 21:40 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Top Posting |
| Message-ID | <IE6ad-dmpT-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #269353 |
Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> wrote: > In this particular instance, we've got a person from the second > culture who seems to have no idea that other cultures exist, or that > a mailing list might not adhere to their own expectations. This > person is acting belligerantly, and will not listen to gentle > reminders. There's another point that this person doesn't seem to realize, which is that he's the one asking for help, and so he should be making efforts to adapt to the desires of those he wishes to help him, rather than trying to insist they adapt to his ways :( But there's a noticeably slower response to his posts now, so maybe he'll learn by experience.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Cindy Sue Causey <butterflybytes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-15 16:40 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Top Posting |
| Message-ID | <IEnXr-dxhr-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #269353 |
-----Original Message----- From: Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: OT: Top Posting Date: 05/14/24 13:41:17 On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 05:01:31PM +0000, fxkl47BF@protonmail.com wrote: > how many times has this top post crap been dug up > don't y'all have any thing better to do It's never going to stop. We have a clash of two cultures here. The first culture are Unix users who grew up with Internet email and Usenet news. For people in this culture, there is a well-defined set of "netiquette" rules -- plain text messages, inline quoting with "> " citation characters, lines limited to ~72 characters, etc. Too funny for words! Make that twice now that I've seen line length mentioned here on Debian in over a decade++. I also referenced the inline quoting method since my new chosen email software appears to be failing with its default on that feature. Will try AGAIN to fix that as soon as I hit "Send" here BECAUSE tech reply emails are difficult to follow without those stacked ">" over ">>" pointers attached showing who said what when. And, yeah, netiquette, that's the word echoed across the Internet. I totally forgot that in my own response. It's not users picking on each other. It's a respectful "virtual handshake approved" set of standards with the straightforward purpose of putting everyone on as close to the same page as is humanly possible. PS Afterthought is that email signatures are another of that widely accepted netiquette set of standards. I consciously altered mine many years ago after reading about that, most likely also here on Debian- User. Might have been over on W3C, too, now that I think about it. That's where I first heard of Linux circa 1999. W3C's Linux reference was about installing HTML validators locally, and the rest is terminal command line history. Thank you, Developers! What you all do and that works so near flawlessly in nanoseconds still.. blows my mind to this.. second. Watching daily upgrades methodically unfold as each package successfully coordinates its place in line with the others is pure magic. :) Cindy :) -- Talking Rock, Pickens County, North Georgia * runs with birdseed! *
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-15 17:00 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Top Posting |
| Message-ID | <IEogN-dxnX-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #269380 |
Cindy Sue Causey (12024-05-15): > PS Afterthought is that email signatures are another of that widely > accepted netiquette set of standards. You can add the “Re: ” to that list. It is the sequence of four octets 0x52, 0x65, 0x3a, 0x20, and nothing else. The MUAs who write “RE: ” are wrong. The MUAs who write “Re : ” are wrong. The MUAs who write “AW: ” are wrong. The MUAs who put it in base64 are wrong. It is not a string that is designed to be internationalized, we cannot expect every MUA to know every stupid local or vanity variant of “Re: ”. Regards, -- Nicolas George
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gene heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-15 20:10 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Top Posting |
| Message-ID | <IEreG-dzmu-23@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #269383 |
On 5/15/24 10:50, Nicolas George wrote: > Cindy Sue Causey (12024-05-15): >> PS Afterthought is that email signatures are another of that widely >> accepted netiquette set of standards. > > You can add the “Re: ” to that list. > > It is the sequence of four octets 0x52, 0x65, 0x3a, 0x20, and nothing > else. > > The MUAs who write “RE: ” are wrong. > > The MUAs who write “Re : ” are wrong. > > The MUAs who write “AW: ” are wrong. > > The MUAs who put it in base64 are wrong. > > It is not a string that is designed to be internationalized, we cannot > expect every MUA to know every stupid local or vanity variant of “Re: ”. + 5, Excellent point Nicolas The same can be said for sig separators. One fellow here has it as part of his sig but his definition in his sig is incomplete. Its actually an lf,dash,dash,space.lf ignoring the comma's I used here..Some email agents won't use it as a sig separator w/o the full lf's as wrapper. cr's are not valid subs for the lf's.. > Regards, > Take care & stay well Nicolas. Cheers, Gene Heskett, CET. -- "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author, 1940) If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable. - Louis D. Brandeis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@einval.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-14 20:30 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Top Posting |
| Message-ID | <IE54u-dlNC-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #269351 |
On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 05:01:31PM +0000, fxkl47BF@protonmail.com wrote: > how many times has this top post crap been dug up > don't y'all have any thing better to do > i know > how about some real debian issues > Hi, Have a quick look at the Debian-user FAQ posted each month and the Debian Code of Conduct. Both of those are real Debian issues - they're part of the way that this mailing list operates so that people can read and understand long threads. They also allow us to maintain smaller archives that nonetheless retain the important information. May I suggest that you look back at about 30 years worth of the history here? All the very best, as ever, Andy (amacater@debian.org)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-14 23:20 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Top Posting |
| Message-ID | <IE7J0-dnrN-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #269351 |
Hello, On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 05:01:31PM +0000, fxkl47BF@protonmail.com wrote: > don't y'all have any thing better to do You must be new here. Get used to reading with a "mark thread read" key in your MUA of choice, is my best advice. Thanks, Andy -- https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fxkl47BF@protonmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-14 23:40 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Top Posting |
| Message-ID | <IE82l-dnxE-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #269363 |
On Tue, 14 May 2024, Andy Smith wrote: > Hello, > > On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 05:01:31PM +0000, fxkl47BF@protonmail.com wrote: >> don't y'all have any thing better to do > > You must be new here. sorta i've only been using versions of linux since the early 90's :) downloaded it from an archie server on to 2 floppies > > Get used to reading with a "mark thread read" key in your MUA of > choice, is my best advice. i've got to admit to being weak reading the brilliant and riveting prose is addictive and entertainment is in short supply around here especially after the chickens go to bed > > Thanks, > Andy > > -- > https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Cindy Sue Causey <butterflybytes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-15 15:50 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Top Posting |
| Message-ID | <IEnb4-dwLY-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #269344 |
-----Original Message----- From: gene heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: OT: Top Posting Date: 05/14/24 10:54:50 On 5/14/24 10:09, Richard wrote: Just because something isn't an official ISO standard doesn't mean it's not standard behavior. And how it relates to this mailing list? It's called a setting. No its not, its your refusal to use the down arrow in your reply editor to put your reply after the question. It really is that simple. If your choice of email agents cannot do that, its time to switch to an agent that can. There are dozens of them. DISCLAIMER: I just realized above portion might not quote properly. My apologies in advance if it does not. That's one glitch I haven't located a fix for, yet. The rest of the email: I think Evolution has finally fixed my own latest issues with tech reply emails just since Gmail forced all users onto its more dynamic release. My biggest issue is, hopefully "was," line length. This email is only my second reply sent in maybe 2 months so am about to find out how things are progressing. Accidentally just this second was reminded there's a setting for avoiding top posting by lunging to bottom of reply emails. That setting is found by going through the now classic 3-line settings "hamburger" then: Edit > Preferences > Composer Preferences > General (tab) There's a simple toggle on/off checkbox that says, "Start typing at the bottom." The setting for word wrapping is just a few lines above that. Regarding line length (word wrapping), that's an even less spoken "standard" that has merit at its base. I think I've seen it mentioned maybe one time in more than a decade++ on Debian. That "standard" is about usability.. readability.. aka conscious consideration for fellow list members. Best as I was able to discern from the Net [0], 72 characters is the magic number for line length because 4 extra characters are added to both ends when e.g. git processes submissions. Makes good common sense to me. PS I thought it was 80. Guess it was about those extra 8 characters. Or.. Maybe whoever I saw write that over ten years ago almost understood that "handshake standard" but not quite. That's one scary part of trusting strangers on the WWW. :) Again back to the concept of tech listserv standards, the source I'm referencing after randomly finding it via search this morning says, "The 50/72 Rule is a set of standards that are pretty well agreed upon in the industry to standardize the format of commit messages." "Pretty well agreed upon..." That's implying that unspoken list standards are really not users "picking on each other." Listserv standards is a concept that has evolved over decades for rational reasons as Developer and User communications evolved. Am not embarrassed to say Evolution has kicked my backside k/t its learning curve versus a user's level of cognitive ability. This experience ended up touching on "frightening" a couple times, e.g. I sent 2,000 online emails to (online) trash when that was not intended. It's easy to mess up badly while moving emails around between desktop folders because that activity directly affects the linked online email provider if a user approves those access permissions. For what it's worth as a huge selling point for me, I have a massive online email account. There are hundreds of thousands of emails from the last 20 years. Evolution said whatever, bring it on. Evolution appears to do some form of maybe symlinking instead of downloading so everything is available almost immediately seconds after the first time Evolution is ever fired up. Other email software I've used only seems to work by downloading. That difference is huge for anyone using a data download limiting Internet provider. NOTE: Evolution appears to possibly offer related tweaking if one prefers working offline. In the other email software cases I attempted, the software could only reach back a limited time span into history before I a-sume Gmail cut off access to touching older emails. If there's a work-around for that, I never found it. I simply (and immediately) purged the email software, instead. With Evolution, I'm instantly looking at emails I haven't seen in ~20 years. I was having a horrible time accessing those same emails in Gmail itself online. Talk about mind blowing nostalgia overload... Cindy :) [0] https://dev.to/noelworden/improving-your-commit-message-with-the-50-72-rule-3g79 -- Talking Rock, Pickens County, North Georgia * runs with birdseed! *
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-15 16:10 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Top Posting |
| Message-ID | <IEnup-dx7R-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #269378 |
Cindy Sue Causey (12024-05-15): > Best as I was able to discern from the Net [0], 72 characters is the > magic number for line length because 4 extra characters are added to > both ends when e.g. git processes submissions. Makes good common sense > to me. Git is an order of magnitude younger than the limit at 72 characters. > PS I thought it was 80. Guess it was about those extra 8 characters. It is 80 but you anticipate that people will be adding “> ” in front of your lines. > "Pretty well agreed upon..." That's implying that unspoken list > standards are really not users "picking on each other." Listserv > standards is a concept that has evolved over decades for rational > reasons as Developer and User communications evolved. Indeed. > It's easy to mess up badly while moving emails around As a general rule, GUIs suck at anything but trivial tasks. > Evolution appears to do some form of maybe symlinking instead of > downloading so everything is available almost immediately seconds after > the first time Evolution is ever fired up. The IMAP protocol is designed to let us manipulate mails directly on the server without downloading the bulk of them. A lot of GUI MUA are still designed around the old paradigm where mails are downloaded, and turned it into some kind of cache: it rarely works well. Manipulate mails directly on the server. Have a backup. If your server is often down and accessing the mails is urgent, have a local *copy* of it. > reach back a limited time span into history before I a-sume Gmail cut > off access to touching older emails. If you want mail that works well, start by avoiding services meant for the lowest common denominator of the general public. Regards, -- Nicolas George
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gene heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-15 16:50 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Top Posting |
| Message-ID | <IEo77-dxkA-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #269379 |
On 5/15/24 10:06, Nicolas George wrote: > Cindy Sue Causey (12024-05-15): >> Best as I was able to discern from the Net [0], 72 characters is the >> magic number for line length because 4 extra characters are added to >> both ends when e.g. git processes submissions. Makes good common sense >> to me. > > Git is an order of magnitude younger than the limit at 72 characters. > >> PS I thought it was 80. Guess it was about those extra 8 characters. > > It is 80 but you anticipate that people will be adding “> ” in front of > your lines. > >> "Pretty well agreed upon..." That's implying that unspoken list >> standards are really not users "picking on each other." Listserv >> standards is a concept that has evolved over decades for rational >> reasons as Developer and User communications evolved. > > Indeed. > >> It's easy to mess up badly while moving emails around > > As a general rule, GUIs suck at anything but trivial tasks. > >> Evolution appears to do some form of maybe symlinking instead of >> downloading so everything is available almost immediately seconds after >> the first time Evolution is ever fired up. > > The IMAP protocol is designed to let us manipulate mails directly on the > server without downloading the bulk of them. A lot of GUI MUA are still > designed around the old paradigm where mails are downloaded, and turned > it into some kind of cache: it rarely works well. > > Manipulate mails directly on the server. Have a backup. If your server > is often down and accessing the mails is urgent, have a local *copy* of > it. > >> reach back a limited time span into history before I a-sume Gmail cut >> off access to touching older emails. > > If you want mail that works well, start by avoiding services meant for > the lowest common denominator of the general public. > > Regards, > I'll add that googles gmail, written by former outlook developers is the biggest pita to ever hit the net. They break every rfc that can. Cheers, Gene Heskett, CET. -- "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author, 1940) If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable. - Louis D. Brandeis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-15 16:50 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Top Posting |
| Message-ID | <IEo77-dxkA-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #269378 |
On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 09:46:08AM -0400, Cindy Sue Causey wrote: > Best as I was able to discern from the Net [0], 72 characters is the > magic number for line length because 4 extra characters are added to > both ends when e.g. git processes submissions. Makes good common sense > to me. > > PS I thought it was 80. Guess it was about those extra 8 characters. For many decades, there was an industry standard that lines of text should be up to 80 characters wide. Punch cards were 80 characters wide, for example. I don't know whether punch cards were the *first* place it appeared, but they're the first I'm aware of. A lot of the printers from the last century allowed 80 characters per line on standard US 8.5x11 inch paper. I'm not sure if teletypes used 80-column paper, or 133-column paper (green bar), or a mixture. Later, we got terminals. A typical ASCII terminal (a physical one, like a DEC VT-100) is 80x24 characters, or sometimes 80x25. The 80-character line standard continued. When hardware evolved and most of us started using X11 or similar GUI interfaces, terminal emulators became the norm. xterm and other software terminal emulators use an 80x24 window as the default, for compatibility with physical terminals. When writing code in most programming languages, there are style guides that still suggest sticking to 80-character lines whenever possible. It avoids line wrapping when being read in an 80-character terminal, and besides that, really long lines of code are harder to read than shorter lines. When it comes to email or Usenet, though, the 72-character suggestion is meant to allow a bit of room for quoting markup. If I write a 79-character line of text, and then you reply to it with "> " in front, the resulting 81-character line of text either gets wrapped or truncated. Limiting yourself to 72-character lines allows a few levels of quoting before the text becomes unreadable. This is why the 72-character limit is just a suggestion, not a hard requirement. If you write lines that are 74 characters wide, probably nobody's going to care. The goal is simply to make it easy to carry on a conversation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-15 18:10 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Top Posting |
| Message-ID | <IEpmy-dyfw-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #269381 |
Since my request started this offtopic subthread I hope I can put it to rest. Yes I requested to not toppost. I asked politely, and I added pertinent response on topic. I do not claim to be right or wrong about this. I prefer interleaved style for reason. Everyone on this list heard all arguments pro and con in previous discussions, and there is no need to repeat them. It is a matter of personal choice though I have to admit I feel a bit emboldened by the posting guidelines. And in my experience a polite question goes a long way with most civilized people. You can ignore my request, well you even ask me to toppost. I will ignore it. There is no need for a lecture, you have no claim to right or wrong either. Claiming a de facto industry standard (I avoided the literally sidebar here) on majority is a questionable argument. Large numbers do not make right. There are many examples where the majority is wrong. Well I go along with majority practice knowing they are wrong, just to make life easier. I try not to yell at people though for choosing differently. And it is questionable to get you anywhere anytime fast. And I do not like that Gene was called an "epitome of humanity" in a cynical way and I earned a hypocrite long after I copped out of that discussion. Please let this rest. -H -- Henning Follmann | hfollmann@itcfollmann.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "James H. H. Lampert" <jamesl@touchtonecorp.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-15 18:50 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Top Posting |
| Message-ID | <IEpZf-dysc-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #269378 |
On 5/15/24 6:46 AM, Cindy Sue Causey wrote: . . . > No its not, its your refusal to use the down arrow in your reply editor > to put your reply after the question. It really is that simple. If your > choice of email agents cannot do that, its time to switch to an agent > that can. There are dozens of them. . . . Actually, it isn't necessarily the user's fault. Thanks to the "business standard," (and think about the initials) of top-posting over the complete, unpared quote of the entire thread, there are an awful lot of email readers (and especially webmail interfaces) that make it difficult to follow any other convention, and a few that make it damn-near impossible. Just as there are an awful lot that make it difficult or impossible to send a plain-text email. Incidentally, regarding the Hollerith card origins of the 80-column standard, the very first Hollerith cards, from the 1890 U.S. Census, had 24 columns and 12 rows of round holes, and were punched with a pantograph punch. In 1928, IBM introduced rectangular holes, in an 80-column, 10-row format, later expanded to 12 rows. -- JHHL
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | <tomas@tuxteam.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-14 17:30 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Top Posting (was: Dovecot correct ownership for logs) |
| Message-ID | <IE2gh-djAq-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #269342 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 04:08:19PM +0200, Richard wrote:
> Just because something isn't an official ISO standard doesn't mean it's not
> standard behavior. And how it relates to this mailing list? It's called a
> setting.
Most people prefer inline quoting around here (I know I do). That's
because for big mailing lists, with long threads, it works much, much
better.
That said, we usually are tolerant of top posts. What gets me
is the hostility of your reaction. You aren't going to convince
anyone. Even not with "industry standards" [1]
As far as your main concern goes... I lost interest.
Cheers
[1] Q: How many Microsoft technicians does it take to change a
light bulb?
A: None, they just redefine Darkness (TM) as the new industry
standard.
https://www.linux.com/news/how-many-microsoft-technicians-does-it-take-change-light-bulb/
--
t
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-14 16:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <IE0Rb-diBU-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #269338 |
On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 03:11:16PM +0200, Richard wrote: > "Top posting" (writing the answer above the text that's being replied to) > is literally industry standard behavior. > Whatever. It is not standard behavior in mailing lists. https://wiki.debian.org/DebianMailingLists#Posting_Rules.2C_Guidelines.2C_and_Tips But I just asked you to not to. You can ignore that, as you do. Good luck with your issues. > Also, I don't think you've really cleared out any confusion. Now, how > exactly can dovecot log to /var/log/dovecot/ without (postfix) throwing > errors? Because it clearly is for 2 out of 3 files as visible from the file > sizes in my original post. Only the debug file is empty, but maybe nothing > relevant enough has been found yet. There are entries from master, > imap, imap-login, managesieve-login, anvil and various other processes in > info and error. But the error messages from postfix still appear, also > seemingly at least vastly slowing down emails being delivered to the users, > if not bringing that to a complete halt. Only after commenting out these > locations in 10-logging.conf the mails show up for the users. > -H -- Henning Follmann | hfollmann@itcfollmann.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard <rrosner5@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-14 20:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <IE5nP-dlUn-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #269341 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
Says the one refusing to stay on topic. What a sad hypocrite. On Tue, May 14, 2024, 20:10 Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> wrote: > On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 03:11:16PM +0200, Richard wrote: > > "Top posting" (writing the answer above the text that's being replied to) > > is literally industry standard behavior. > > > Whatever. > It is not standard behavior in mailing lists. > > https://wiki.debian.org/DebianMailingLists#Posting_Rules.2C_Guidelines.2C_and_Tips > > But I just asked you to not to. You can ignore that, as you do. > > Good luck with your issues. > > > Also, I don't think you've really cleared out any confusion. Now, how > > exactly can dovecot log to /var/log/dovecot/ without (postfix) throwing > > errors? Because it clearly is for 2 out of 3 files as visible from the > file > > sizes in my original post. Only the debug file is empty, but maybe > nothing > > relevant enough has been found yet. There are entries from master, > > imap, imap-login, managesieve-login, anvil and various other processes in > > info and error. But the error messages from postfix still appear, also > > seemingly at least vastly slowing down emails being delivered to the > users, > > if not bringing that to a complete halt. Only after commenting out these > > locations in 10-logging.conf the mails show up for the users. > > > > > -H > > > -- > Henning Follmann | hfollmann@itcfollmann.com > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alain D D Williams <addw@phcomp.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-14 17:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <IE2pX-djDv-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #269338 |
On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 03:11:16PM +0200, Richard wrote: > "Top posting" (writing the answer above the text that's being replied > to) is literally industry standard behavior. Many do top post, but many do not. Places where it is often frowned on are technical mail lists such as this one. This is because only quoting to the parts of the mail that you reply to and putting you comment underneath can greatly help understanding. Read the Netiquette Guidelines (1995): https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt Other discussions here: https://idallen.com/topposting.html https://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html PS: check the dictionary definition of "literally". -- Alain Williams Linux/GNU Consultant - Mail systems, Web sites, Networking, Programmer, IT Lecturer. +44 (0) 787 668 0256 https://www.phcomp.co.uk/ Parliament Hill Computers. Registration Information: https://www.phcomp.co.uk/Contact.html #include <std_disclaimer.h>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user
csiph-web