Max line width for newsgroup messages. Still have it at 76. Do I need to ?

Hello all,

My newsgroup client, OE, still has an auto-wrap line width set to 76 chars,
and I wondering if it is still called for. Are there still people who still
use a 80-char wide console screen using a client which cannot or doesn't
wrap lines itself ?

In short, is there still a reason to follow this decades old default (or is
it just a case of following it for its own sake) ?

Remark:
While my OE still sends messages auto-wrapped*, it seems to have no problem
with displaying messages that use much longer lines.

*forcing me to reformat stuf that I quote - just because a single "" is
prepended.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

On Sun, 1 Sep 2019 09:17:43 +0200, "R.Wieser"
wrote:

Hello all,

My newsgroup client, OE, still has an auto-wrap line width set to 76 chars,
and I wondering if it is still called for. Are there still people who still
use a 80-char wide console screen using a client which cannot or doesn't
wrap lines itself ?

In short, is there still a reason to follow this decades old default (or is
it just a case of following it for its own sake) ?

Remark:
While my OE still sends messages auto-wrapped*, it seems to have no problem
with displaying messages that use much longer lines.

*forcing me to reformat stuf that I quote - just because a single "" is
prepended.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser


My Forte Agent defaults to 70 chars when posting.
I have to hit "o" to see any really long lines in received
messages because it does not wrap by default.
HTH
[]'s

--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

R.Wieser wrote:
While my OE still sends messages auto-wrapped*, it seems to have no problem
with displaying messages that use much longer lines.

*forcing me to reformat stuf that I quote - just because a single "" is
prepended.

Important to this discussion is the fact that your OE msg is f=f;
format=flowed.

That means your wraps are 'soft' as opposed to hard.

X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original

However, since the information appears in an X-line, my agent doesn't
treat it the same as if it were in a Content-type line, which is the way
my agent does it.

When I used OE, I found OE Quote-Fix by Dominik Jain to be invaluable.
Those old links are dead.

--
Mike Easter

Mike,

Important to this discussion is the fact that your OE msg is f=f;
format=flowed.

While /composing/ the message ? Sure. But when the message is /send/
those lines are broken up to be no longer than that 76 char limit.

To be honest, I have no idea why the OE people did not make composing window
show what the message would look like when its posted (in short: WYSIWYG) -
including obeying the "send as plain text" setting - I still can put all
kinds of text formatting (size, color, etc) into the composition window
(which disappear on sending, and /only/ than). :-(

When I used OE, I found OE Quote-Fix by Dominik Jain to be invaluable.

I've heard about it, but if there is no need to hard-wrap such quote-fixing*
isn't really needed.

*as quote prefixes can differer between clients - and possibly not
recognised by a program - I will stil need to double check. And as I'm as
lazy as they come ... :-)

But ... the question is: Do I (still) need to hard-wrap long lines on
sending ? Or may I expect that most modern-ish readers* will (be able to)
do such wrapping themselves ?

*As, or more recent than OE6 on XP I mean.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

R.Wieser wrote:
Hello all,

My newsgroup client, OE, still has an auto-wrap line width set to 76 chars,
and I wondering if it is still called for. Are there still people who still
use a 80-char wide console screen using a client which cannot or doesn't
wrap lines itself ?

In short, is there still a reason to follow this decades old default (or is
it just a case of following it for its own sake) ?

Remark:
While my OE still sends messages auto-wrapped*, it seems to have no problem
with displaying messages that use much longer lines.

*forcing me to reformat stuf that I quote - just because a single "" is
prepended.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser



Your current server (AIOE) also enforces a line length.
Might be 150 characters or so. This may have been intended
as a solution for people in a certain kook group from
doing "cascades". (The kook group has had other limits
applied to it as well.)

As for format="Flowed", there is a FAQ of sorts.

https://joeclark.org/ffaq.html

USENET protocols enforce a line length limit of ~1000
characters for headers, so I expect the Body text has
that limit as well. This means it is in the best interest
of the Client program, to adhere to whatever that limit is.
If you can't set the client to over ~1000, that
might be the reason.

Using alt.test on AIOE, you should be able to dial in
what the limit is today. As the administrator is rather
flexible on the topic (bumped from 135 to 150 when asked
to do so). But he is unlikely to remove the limit entirely.

As it's AIOE, "have fun" applies.

Paul

Paul,

Your current server (AIOE) also enforces a line length.

To be honest, I didn't expect that. Does sound like a smart thing to do
though.

USENET protocols enforce a line length limit of ~1000

At some point that came to my mind too. If I drop the 76 char limit I
will, assuming I just keep writing paragraphs that end with a CRLF, run into
that one, which effectivily means nothing changes.

And if that doesn't create a problem, anyone who quotes such a wide
paragraph (mine or someone elses) will bring me back to square one ...

I had hoped I could just alow quotes parts to shift a bit to the right
(because of new quote prefixes) and not having to reformat them (manual or
otherwise).

Drats. I didn't really think this thru, didn't I ? :-( :-)

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

On 2019-9-2 2:28, R.Wieser wrote:
Paul,

Your current server (AIOE) also enforces a line length.

To be honest, I didn't expect that. Does sound like a smart thing
to do though.

USENET protocols enforce a line length limit of ~1000

At some point that came to my mind too. If I drop the 76 char limit
I will, assuming I just keep writing paragraphs that end with a CRLF,
run into that one, which effectivily means nothing changes.

And if that doesn't create a problem, anyone who quotes such a wide
paragraph (mine or someone elses) will bring me back to square one
...

I had hoped I could just alow quotes parts to shift a bit to the
right (because of new quote prefixes) and not having to reformat them
(manual or otherwise).

Drats. I didn't really think this thru, didn't I ? :-( :-)

Regards, Rudy Wieser


If you would like to try, Thunderbird has a feature of "rewrap" quotes,
which mostly does its work. My transition from OE to TB is quite smooth.
It was long time ago, though.

--
Regards,
Lu Wei
IM:
PGP: 0xA12FEF7592CCE1EA

In message , R.Wieser
writes:
Hello all,

My newsgroup client, OE, still has an auto-wrap line width set to 76 chars,
and I wondering if it is still called for. Are there still people who still
use a 80-char wide console screen using a client which cannot or doesn't
wrap lines itself ?

I doubt there are many (any?) still using a fixed-width screen. I don't
see that - or the fact that the convention is just old - as a reason to
drop it, though. (After all, you're still using OE!)

In short, is there still a reason to follow this decades old default (or is
it just a case of following it for its own sake) ?

Remark:
While my OE still sends messages auto-wrapped*, it seems to have no problem
with displaying messages that use much longer lines.

My client (Turnpike, 2007) has no problem with displaying (i. e.
rewrapping) _most_ posts. _Some_ do require me to scroll horizontally,
or take other action, to read long lines; oddly, they're often (possibly
always) posts containing posted text, where I can read that text in the
original post no problem.

*forcing me to reformat stuf that I quote - just because a single "" is
prepended.

(I don't usually bother to do that.)

Regards,
Rudy Wieser


JPG
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

She didn't strike me as much of a reader. It's never a good sign if someone
has a leaflet with a bookmark in it. - Sarah Millican in Rdio Times, 17-23
November 2012

In message , R.Wieser
writes:
Mike,
[]
When I used OE, I found OE Quote-Fix by Dominik Jain to be invaluable.

I've heard about it, but if there is no need to hard-wrap such quote-fixing*
isn't really needed.

OE had (has!) other benefits - IMO mainly help with avoiding
top-posting.

*as quote prefixes can differer between clients - and possibly not
recognised by a program - I will stil need to double check. And as I'm as
lazy as they come ... :-)

(-:

But ... the question is: Do I (still) need to hard-wrap long lines on
sending ? Or may I expect that most modern-ish readers* will (be able to)
do such wrapping themselves ?

*As, or more recent than OE6 on XP I mean.

You probably don't _need_ to, but - especially since even OE _can_ do it
automatically - I can't see the _harm_ in leaving it on.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser


JPG
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

She didn't strike me as much of a reader. It's never a good sign if someone
has a leaflet with a bookmark in it. - Sarah Millican in Rdio Times, 17-23
November 2012

Lu wei,

If you would like to try, Thunderbird has a feature of "rewrap" quotes,
which mostly does its work.

I will probably try OE Quote-Fix first. But it will certainly not hurt to
take a peek at what Thunderbird could mean for me. Thanks.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

John,

I doubt there are many (any?) still using a fixed-width screen. I don't
see that - or the fact that the convention is just old - as a reason to
drop it, though. (After all, you're still using OE!)

:-) I was thinking that OE was just behaving in a backward compatible
fashion, and it already had mechanisms in place to do it the "modern" way
(auto reflow).

My client (Turnpike, 2007) has no problem with displaying (
i. e. rewrapping) _most_ posts.

OE has got its own problems in that regard. When replying it sometimes
doesn't add quote prefixes to the origional messages lines. :-\

OE had (has!) other benefits - IMO mainly help with avoiding top-posting.

It does ? Can't say I've ever noticed that. I always start my message
composing at the top, pushing the origional message down (so I can both
easily grab quotes from it and re-check the context of what I'm replying
to). Up until recently I even left the origional message, marked as such,
at the bottom as a kind of attachment (as reference material).

You probably don't _need_ to, but - especially since even OE _can_ do it
automatically - I can't see the _harm_ in leaving it on.

I take it you are referring to that OE Quote-fix program. I currently have
no idea if, and how well it does its job. But if that works as advertised
there is no reason to want the hard wrapping off (and there are e few other
reasons to keep it on too ...). Maybe I should just try it (I just hope
its as easily removable as installable ...).

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

In message , R.Wieser
writes:
John,
[]
OE had (has!) other benefits - IMO mainly help with avoiding top-posting.

It does ? Can't say I've ever noticed that. I always start my message

Oops, I meant OE-quotefix. OE most definitely _encourages_ top-posting,
on its own.

composing at the top, pushing the origional message down (so I can both
easily grab quotes from it and re-check the context of what I'm replying
to). Up until recently I even left the origional message, marked as such,
at the bottom as a kind of attachment (as reference material).

I think the original idea was it put the cursor at the top of the quoted
post, but for people to then step through the original, deleting bits
they weren't responding to and adding their bits below each section.
People didn't do that though. And it was especially made worse by OE
putting the (new) .sig at the top too )-:. That - among other things -
is what OE-QuoteFix fixes.

You probably don't _need_ to, but - especially since even OE _can_ do it
automatically - I can't see the _harm_ in leaving it on.

I take it you are referring to that OE Quote-fix program. I currently have
no idea if, and how well it does its job. But if that works as advertised
there is no reason to want the hard wrapping off (and there are e few other
reasons to keep it on too ...). Maybe I should just try it (I just hope
its as easily removable as installable ...).

Yes. IIRR it works in a slightly unusual way. IIRR, it generates a
separate desktop shortcut - something like OE-with-quotefix - but I
could be wrong about that, it's been a while! (I used to use its
brother, Outlook-Quotefix, at work, until they switched to a version of
O that was incompatible with it [2003 or 2007, I forget].)

Regards,
Rudy Wieser


John
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"OLTION'S COMPLETE, UNABRIDGED HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSE
Bang! ...crumple." - Jery Oltion