ml>  NB> Why does most everyone's do the same?    
   ml>    
   ml> do what? multiple quotes like this   
   ml>    
   ml> OR like this?   
   ml>    
   ml>   mn> ij> ef> ab> ab wrote this 4 quotes back   
   ml>   mn> ij> ef> ef wrote this 3 quotes back   
   ml>   mn> ij> ij wrote this 2 quotes back   
   ml>   mn> mn wrote this 1 quote back   
   ml>    
      
    NB> Looks like Mystic does it this way.    
      
   true but if the space is missing, then it prefixes the quotes with its quote   
   instead of simply adding the '>' to the existing quotes... in others words,   
   the space or not farkles it up...   
      
    NB> With all the different ways editors do it, which way is the    
    NB> correct way?    
      
   the "correct" and "defacto" way is to recognize all of the two or three   
   existing ways and then to provide the one "standard" way instead of not   
   recognizing the "normal" format and simply prefixing the current quote stuff   
   to all lines...   
      
   FWIW: the above is NOT the preferred way...   
      
    NB> And is that correct way fact or opinion?    
      
   i would call it fact and defacto standard... even though may not be written   
   out in a proposal or a standard... welcome to the world of cooperatio between   
   software coders ;)   
      
   ml> each of the above three use the same formatting rules... but if   
   ml> one doesn'   
   ml> allow for the space between the quote prefixes, it may not   
   ml> recognize it as   
   ml> previous quoted quote and would then stuff its own quote prefix onto the    
   ml> line... then you get things like what your quoter has been seen to do...   
      
    NB> What things did my quoter do? I'm pretty sure it keeps what's   
    NB> there, and adds it's own quote prefix.   
      
   it prefixed every previous quote with the quote string based on the From field   
   in the message that you were replying to...    
      
    NB> Whereas with synchronet, mine was stripping quote prefixes.    
      
   i recall that being noted but i don't recall the exact specifics :(   
      
    NB> Now you're saying both of them are wrong? I just can't win, can I?    
    NB> :)   
      
   it seems that this is true for many of us who are being complained to/about...   
   but the major difference between you and myself is that you are using your bbs   
   software for you messaging stuffs whereas i am not... i'm using my "sysop   
   editor" which is outside my bbs software and the only thing they have in   
   common is the list of message areas and the message base format being used...   
      
   ml> but the simple answer to your question is that they do the simple   
   ml> quoting    
   ml> quote chopping at the end of the line because their coder couldn't   
   ml> or didn   
   ml> won't figure out how to do it properly... in other words, some   
   ml> might use t   
   ml> term "lazy"... others, codes possibly, might say, "hey, at least   
   ml> they can    
   ml> quote. if they want better, they can write it themselves or pay   
   ml> for better   
      
    NB> I've been requesting this be changed with Mystic. I prefer word   
    NB> wrapping, rather than chopping off the end of a line.    
      
   that's called "reflowing"...   
      
    NB> It's not that bad on one quote,    
      
   it is bad enough...   
      
    NB> because I think it only chops 4 chars off the end,    
      
   look at my quote above that i left chainsawed and you can see where some   
   words, 3 letter ones, are left out and that completely changes what was   
   written :(   
      
    NB> but if you have 4 quote prefixes, I'm willing to bet you're   
    NB> getting 16 chars chopped, which isn't cool at all.   
      
   that's why the first quote method i showed is the preferred one... that is   
   where the quoting mechanism recognizes the previous quotes and simply suffixes   
   another '>' to them before reflowing the rest of the quote and prefixing the   
   '>' to the new lines as they come around during the reflowing process...   
      
   ml> yes, mine does have some problems... but i can't fix mine like he   
   ml> can in t   
   ml> software that he maintains... the source code to all the various   
   ml> packages    
   ml> has not been released and likely never will be... i know that in   
   ml> one case,   
   ml> there was $10000US spent for the sources but i doubt that it has   
   ml> brought i   
   ml> 1/3rd of that since it was bought and updated...   
      
    NB> You can fix them by switching softwares. But you wouldn't do that,   
    NB> would you?    
      
   i would if the results were worth the trouble... but what many miss is that   
   i'm still running the last available private beta version of my software...   
   software that was, at one time, one of the leading bbs packages in fidonet..   
   software that (helped to) set these (defacto) standards   
      
    NB> It's not THAT important.. right? I have a feeling that   
    NB> devs that see crappy wording in proposals, follow them how they   
    NB> want to follow them. At least that's what I got out of your   
    NB> previous discussion with Rob.    
      
   you can't put my messages on par with those who write the standards... i'm a   
   developer and coder... i'm not a standards writer ;)   
      
   ml> he specifically posted some of the messages that didn't make it out    
   ml> originally... but an RC change shouldn't frak things like that up... RC    
   ml> addresses are just additional addresses and should not be used in the    
   ml> processing of regular echomail and netmail... if a system is   
   ml> moving mail,    
   ml> can continue to do it without and breakage if they use their normal node    
   ml> address... sadly, though, this conversation has come up more than   
   ml> once ove   
   ml> years, too... sadly^2 some folk still don't listen to history and   
   ml> so they    
   ml> up with problems like you described when an RC was apparently   
   ml> hubbing mail   
   ml> had to switch things out when another person took over the RC slot...   
      
    NB> I don't think that was the situation. I think Rob had to switch his   
    NB> link to a new person completely.    
      
   which wouldn't have to have been done if the *C address was simply another   
   address and not one being used for processing mail ;)   
      
   )\/(ark   
      
    * Origin:  (1:3634/12)