A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

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.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Microsoft Windows XP » General XP issues or comments
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Newsgroups



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #16  
Old December 2nd 13, 07:53 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Ken Blake, MVP[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,699
Default 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  
Old December 2nd 13, 07:57 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Ken Blake, MVP[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,699
Default 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  
Old December 2nd 13, 08:00 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Ken Blake, MVP[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,699
Default 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  
Old December 2nd 13, 09:09 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Paul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,275
Default 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  
Old December 2nd 13, 10:45 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Bill in Co
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,927
Default 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  
Old December 3rd 13, 01:53 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Paul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,275
Default 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  
Old December 3rd 13, 04:46 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Bill in Co
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,927
Default 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  
Old December 3rd 13, 03:53 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Ken Blake, MVP[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,699
Default 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  
Old December 4th 13, 01:12 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
J. P. Gilliver (John)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,291
Default 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 &ltrant&gt several years ago.
(Alisdair Wren and Stuart Brady, August/September 1998.)
  #25  
Old December 4th 13, 02:55 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Paul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,275
Default 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  
Old December 5th 13, 01:58 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
J. P. Gilliver (John)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,291
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.