If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Newsgroups
On Sun, 01 Dec 2013 18:38:33 -0700, Ken Springer
wrote: On 12/1/13 4:43 PM, Ken Blake, MVP wrote: You almost said it right, but no big problem; I know what you mean. I don't want to be picky, but let me explain. What you mean is a newsreader, not a news server. The newsreader is the program you use to get news messages from the newsreader. We may want to say "newsgroup reader" these days. I can't tell you how many times I've seen people that use the phrase "news reader" and mean solely a method of reading/following RSS feeds. They generally know nothing about newsgroups. A good point. I've always felt that "news" in "newsreader," "newsgroups," etc. was a bad choice of names and would confuse people. It's probably best to avoid *all* terms with "news" in them and say "usenet" instead. But I never thought that "usenet" was a good name either, since the name says almost nothing to describe what it is. |
Ads |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Newsgroups
On Mon, 2 Dec 2013 00:10:00 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote: You can carry on using the same _server_, which in your case I think is eternal-september. News _clients_ - several have already been suggested. Especially when addressing a newbie, I always try to avoid using the term "news client." I say "news program" or "newsreading program" instead. It isn't always clear to everyone what is meant by "client." The same goes for "e-mail client." I think "e-mail program" is clearer to most people, so I say that instead. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Newsgroups
On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 02:10:55 +0000, Good Guy
wrote: Nobody has mentioned Windows Live Mail from Microsoft. You might want to try that as well. Most people don't like it because it doesn't handle quoted email properly but you have to try it because it is your opinion that matters not somebody's. He is certainly free to try Windows Live Mail, but in this case, it's not as simple as "your opinion that matters not somebody's." Windows Live Mail *royally* screws up quoting (both in newsgroups and e-mail) and the result of using it in newsgroups is getting killfiled by many of the participants. So I *strongly* recommend against anyone's using it. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Newsgroups
Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
On Mon, 2 Dec 2013 00:10:00 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote: You can carry on using the same _server_, which in your case I think is eternal-september. News _clients_ - several have already been suggested. Especially when addressing a newbie, I always try to avoid using the term "news client." I say "news program" or "newsreading program" instead. It isn't always clear to everyone what is meant by "client." The same goes for "e-mail client." I think "e-mail program" is clearer to most people, so I say that instead. But educating people about "clients" and "servers", is important to them understanding what is going on, when things break. That's why you shouldn't limit yourself to "program", as "program" implies no external forces could ever cause a malfunction. Whereas a USENET news client is subject to the USENET server at the other end working, you having a working Internet connection, and so on. Internet Connection USENET --------------------------- USENET Server (port 119) Client (program) If the Firewall on your computer, blocked outgoing 119 for some reason, maybe you wouldn't be reading any posts. When we "invented" clients and servers at work, it's all we talked about while developing them. That, and "Remote Rendezvous", which I gather is some kind of software two-step dance :-) HTH, Paul |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Newsgroups
Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 02:10:55 +0000, Good Guy wrote: Nobody has mentioned Windows Live Mail from Microsoft. You might want to try that as well. Most people don't like it because it doesn't handle quoted email properly but you have to try it because it is your opinion that matters not somebody's. He is certainly free to try Windows Live Mail, but in this case, it's not as simple as "your opinion that matters not somebody's." Windows Live Mail *royally* screws up quoting (both in newsgroups and e-mail) and the result of using it in newsgroups is getting killfiled by many of the participants. So I *strongly* recommend against anyone's using it. I wonder if OE-QuoteFix was ever ported over to Windows Live Mail. Or if it would possibly work with it. |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Newsgroups
Bill in Co wrote:
Ken Blake, MVP wrote: On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 02:10:55 +0000, Good Guy wrote: Nobody has mentioned Windows Live Mail from Microsoft. You might want to try that as well. Most people don't like it because it doesn't handle quoted email properly but you have to try it because it is your opinion that matters not somebody's. He is certainly free to try Windows Live Mail, but in this case, it's not as simple as "your opinion that matters not somebody's." Windows Live Mail *royally* screws up quoting (both in newsgroups and e-mail) and the result of using it in newsgroups is getting killfiled by many of the participants. So I *strongly* recommend against anyone's using it. I wonder if OE-QuoteFix was ever ported over to Windows Live Mail. Or if it would possibly work with it. http://www.dusko-lolic.from.hr/wlmquote/ What is the fascination with "putting lipstick on a pig" ? :-) Why not select a tool that does things right to start with ? I have three web browsers on my OS, a tool for email, a tool for USENET. If I absolutely had to paste some text from an email, into a USENET posting, it wouldn't kill me. I think one of the browsers, could probably do everything needed. It has all the interfaces in it, so is technically capable. But some of the interfaces *aren't the best*, which is why I select another tool. I don't seek to reduce the number of programs on the computer to just one. There's no point. I have lots of free space left. Somewhere around a terabyte on the drive holding C: right now. No need to be a tight wad with space. Paul |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Newsgroups
Paul wrote:
Bill in Co wrote: Ken Blake, MVP wrote: On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 02:10:55 +0000, Good Guy wrote: Nobody has mentioned Windows Live Mail from Microsoft. You might want to try that as well. Most people don't like it because it doesn't handle quoted email properly but you have to try it because it is your opinion that matters not somebody's. He is certainly free to try Windows Live Mail, but in this case, it's not as simple as "your opinion that matters not somebody's." Windows Live Mail *royally* screws up quoting (both in newsgroups and e-mail) and the result of using it in newsgroups is getting killfiled by many of the participants. So I *strongly* recommend against anyone's using it. I wonder if OE-QuoteFix was ever ported over to Windows Live Mail. Or if it would possibly work with it. http://www.dusko-lolic.from.hr/wlmquote/ What is the fascination with "putting lipstick on a pig" ? :-) Why not select a tool that does things right to start with ? I have three web browsers on my OS, a tool for email, a tool for USENET. If I absolutely had to paste some text from an email, into a USENET posting, it wouldn't kill me. I think one of the browsers, could probably do everything needed. It has all the interfaces in it, so is technically capable. But some of the interfaces *aren't the best*, which is why I select another tool. I don't seek to reduce the number of programs on the computer to just one. There's no point. I have lots of free space left. Somewhere around a terabyte on the drive holding C: right now. No need to be a tight wad with space. Paul What tool do you have for email, Paul? and for newsgroups? I find OE, with OE-QuoteFix, works just fine. I really like the convenience, simplicity, and the ease of operation of OE for both mail and newsgroups And I still occasionally use IE8, and it's all right there together. I have used separate newsreaders (like XanaNews) in the past for special occasions, however (like when I'm trying to download some files). But for simple text postings, I think OE is great - nice and trim, fast, and easy and very convenient to use. And the mail and newsgroups are right there together, so to speak. However, I do agree it does seem like the "workaround" you presented above for Windows Mail might be a bit much. But that's for the Vista people. I have three web browsers, too: IE8, Pale Moon (a windows-based Firefox clone that was designed specifically for windows), and Firefox. If I ever "upgrade" the OS, I suppose I'd reconsider Thunderbird, since it integrates the two (mail and news) nicely. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Newsgroups
On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 19:53:39 -0500, Paul wrote:
Bill in Co wrote: Ken Blake, MVP wrote: On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 02:10:55 +0000, Good Guy wrote: Nobody has mentioned Windows Live Mail from Microsoft. You might want to try that as well. Most people don't like it because it doesn't handle quoted email properly but you have to try it because it is your opinion that matters not somebody's. He is certainly free to try Windows Live Mail, but in this case, it's not as simple as "your opinion that matters not somebody's." Windows Live Mail *royally* screws up quoting (both in newsgroups and e-mail) and the result of using it in newsgroups is getting killfiled by many of the participants. So I *strongly* recommend against anyone's using it. I wonder if OE-QuoteFix was ever ported over to Windows Live Mail. Or if it would possibly work with it. http://www.dusko-lolic.from.hr/wlmquote/ Yes, but it's an extra step, so it's not a great way to do it. What is the fascination with "putting lipstick on a pig" ? :-) LOL! Why not select a tool that does things right to start with ? Exactly! I have three web browsers on my OS, a tool for email, a tool for USENET. If I absolutely had to paste some text from an email, into a USENET posting, it wouldn't kill me. I think one of the browsers, could probably do everything needed. It has all the interfaces in it, so is technically capable. But some of the interfaces *aren't the best*, which is why I select another tool. I don't seek to reduce the number of programs on the computer to just one. There's no point. I have lots of free space left. Somewhere around a terabyte on the drive holding C: right now. No need to be a tight wad with space. Paul |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Newsgroups
In message , Paul
writes: [] http://www.dusko-lolic.from.hr/wlmquote/ What is the fascination with "putting lipstick on a pig" ? :-) My reaction to that is similar to that of someone to "making a silk purse out of a sow's ear": what would I want with a purse made of a delicate fabric, through which coins would soon wear holes - but, as for a nice pigskin wallet ... Why not select a tool that does things right to start with ? I do tend to agree, WLM isn't a good choice to start with. However, as with OE, there are those who have become used to it, and adding WLMquote is probably a lot easier than learning a new user interface. There were also corporate cases where, at least, Outlook, if not OE, was mandated, and Outlook-quotefix did for that what OE-quotefix did for OE. (Unfortunately O-q doesn't work with O-2010.) I have three web browsers on my OS, a tool for email, a tool for USENET. If I absolutely had to paste some text from an email, into a USENET posting, it wouldn't kill me. I think one of the browsers, could probably do everything needed. It has all the interfaces in it, so is technically capable. But some of the interfaces *aren't the best*, which is why I select another tool. I don't seek to reduce the number of programs on the computer to just one. There's no point. I have lots of free space left. Somewhere around a terabyte on the drive holding C: right now. No need to be a tight wad with space. We'll just have ti disagree here, which surprises me as I've usually found your posts very useful! I am not aware of _anyone_ using the same UI for both news and mail who is doing it to save disc space; some of us just like having the same (or a similar) one for each. As for the "problem" of accidentally posting when one meant to email, I don't think I've ever done it in several decades (of using Turnpike); I only see it two or three times a year I'd say (from assorted clients). Though you can be sure whenever one does appear (and is very obvious that it has happened, and no followup is needed) that someone will post a followup saying, in effect, "that wouldn't have happened if you were using different clients". You can almost hear the "na na na-na na". Paul -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf PEDANTYou didn't start that RANT/RANT block./PEDANT No. I typed <rant> several years ago. (Alisdair Wren and Stuart Brady, August/September 1998.) |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Newsgroups
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
We'll just have ti disagree here, which surprises me as I've usually found your posts very useful! I am not aware of _anyone_ using the same UI for both news and mail who is doing it to save disc space; some of us just like having the same (or a similar) one for each. As for the "problem" of accidentally posting when one meant to email, I don't think I've ever done it in several decades (of using Turnpike); I only see it two or three times a year I'd say (from assorted clients). Though you can be sure whenever one does appear (and is very obvious that it has happened, and no followup is needed) that someone will post a followup saying, in effect, "that wouldn't have happened if you were using different clients". You can almost hear the "na na na-na na". I look at it this way: 1) The modalities are a bit different. Email is possible with plain text or with HTML. You may send plain text yourself, but have to be prepared for those people sending you formatted HTML. USENET should ideally stick with just plain text. There's always a platform somewhere, without proper tools, and text is where it started. 2) Given the plain text for USENET, a person could write a tool that seeks to provide the best text-only services. Perhaps a drawing tool for drawing stick art. I could use that. An HTML mail tool wouldn't need something like that. 3) The cases I've seen where one tool does both jobs, the error messages may have been designed for email, with USENET an afterthought. For example, Microsoft may give an 8 digit hex code for some errors, whereas USENET servers give a 3 digit decimal number and a short text string. (It's part of the protocol, and the errors come from the server.) A tool designed specifically for USENET, could concentrate on passing the error messages without excess translation. 4) And (3) reminds me that "USENET is an afterthought". A dual tool starts with email, and adds USENET. You don't start with USENET and "oh by the way" let's do email too. I feel there's a "best for everything out there". You're not limited to "picking the best dual tool", when you can shop through the dual tools and also the individual tools, and get the best results. My email client, just has email entries (SMTP/POP3) in it, and no USENET servers in the list. My USENET client has only USENET servers in the list. And that seems to be working fine here - no "letters to Mom" have appeared on USENET yet. Paul |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Newsgroups
In message , Paul
writes: [news-and-email software] I look at it this way: 1) The modalities are a bit different. Email is possible with plain text or with HTML. You may send plain text yourself, but have to be prepared for those people sending you formatted HTML. USENET should ideally stick with just plain text. There's always a platform somewhere, without proper tools, and text is where it started. I agree with all that (I do indeed use plain text). However, though I wish they didn't, there are people who sent HTML (both mail and news, though more rarely in news). I can't see any harm (other than it could be said to encourage its use which is outside the scope of this discussion) of either sort of client having the capability to display it. 2) Given the plain text for USENET, a person could write a tool that seeks to provide the best text-only services. Perhaps a drawing tool for drawing stick art. I could use that. An HTML mail tool wouldn't need something like that. True, though I don't see that as a reason not to have a combined client _for those that want it_. 3) The cases I've seen where one tool does both jobs, the error messages may have been designed for email, with USENET an afterthought. For example, Microsoft may give an 8 digit hex code for some errors, whereas USENET servers give a 3 digit decimal number and a short text string. (It's part of the protocol, and the errors come from the server.) A tool designed specifically for USENET, could concentrate on passing the error messages without excess translation. 4) And (3) reminds me that "USENET is an afterthought". A dual tool starts with email, and adds USENET. You don't start with USENET and "oh by the way" let's do email too. Why not? (I remember long ago a saying something like "every program grows until it can do email".) FWIW, the combined client I use - Turnpike - doesn't give the impression of being either email with news bolted on, or news with email bolted on: it looks as if it was designed for both equally. I feel there's a "best for everything out there". You're not limited to "picking the best dual tool", when you can shop through the dual tools and also the individual tools, and get the best results. Indeed: I'm not saying anyone should be forced into a joint client. For some of us, the best tool _is_ a dual one. "Best" in that we My email client, just has email entries (SMTP/POP3) in it, and no USENET servers in the list. My USENET client has only USENET servers in the list. And that seems to be working fine here - no "letters to Mom" have appeared on USENET yet. Paul Nor from me. And from other people, I'd say I see about two or three a year - not a disaster (-:. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|