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 | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
identifying _followups_ to a poster?
Anyone know a way to identify, not only posts from a poster, but
followups to his/her posts? In another 'group and with another poster looking at the References: header seems to help, but I don't think so in this case. I'm looking for something that works with just the headers - obviously if the body contains "Fred said", then I know it's a followup to Fred, but by then I'm looking at the body anyway. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf After I'm dead I'd rather have people ask why I have no monument than why I have one. -Cato the Elder, statesman, soldier, and writer (234-149 BCE) |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
identifying _followups_ to a poster?
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
Anyone know a way to identify, not only posts from a poster, but followups to his/her posts? In another 'group and with another poster looking at the References: header seems to help, but I don't think so in this case. I'm looking for something that works with just the headers - obviously if the body contains "Fred said", then I know it's a followup to Fred, but by then I'm looking at the body anyway. Use an NNTP client that has the option to hide all posts in a subthread to a flagged post. When I flag a post as Ignored, an option also marks all replies under that post as also Ignored. I use a default view of Hide Ignored Messages. That way, if I need to look at the unwanted posts, I can switch to the All Messages view. Also, if I delete an unwanted post, the thread will reappear when someone submits a new reply to the unwanted post and why I hide instead of delete. Hiding keeps the posts in my client's message store so it can hide all child posts of a flagged parent post. As I recall, Turnpike is an old NNTP client. That's not necessarily a bad thing since my NNTP client, 40tude Dialog, is also ancient and abandoned. It's been too long since I last trialed Thunderbird (which lasted only 6 months before I gave up on it for e-mail and newsgroups) to remember if it has an option to hide the entire subthread of a flagged post. https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/ignore-threads That has a "Ignore a subthread" section so Thunderbird will apparently flag an entire subthread under a flagged parent post. However, that describes how to manually perform the hide of a subthread, not how to set an option and use rules/filters to hide a parent post and all replies (child posts) to it. Thunderbird has its Usenet support community over at ---. ..-------------------' '--- mozilla.support.thunderbird (server = news.mozilla.org, port = 119) Sorry, I don't use Turnpike to know what features it has. Turnpike was acquired by Demon Internet who then proferred it to their customers. It has only a small following outside of the Demon Internet customerbase. For more help with that newsreader, ask in its newsgroup over at ---. ..----------' '--- demon.ip.support.turnpike I looked at http://www.plainfaqs.org.uk/six/ufaq.html but did not see anything regarding filters or watch/hide options, especially on subthreads (child posts) of a flagged parent post. From its FAQs, look doubtful Turnpike has the features you need to hide a post and its entire subthread. If the Turnpike Usenet community is dead, another place to ask about newsreaders is over at ---. ..--------------------------------------------' '--- news.software.readers Be sure to specify "Turnpike" in the Subject so others know which client you are asking about. I had to look in your headers to see what you used here to post your inquiry. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
identifying _followups_ to a poster?
In message , VanguardLH
writes: J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: [] Use an NNTP client that has the option to hide all posts in a subthread to a flagged post. When I flag a post as Ignored, an option also marks all replies under that post as also Ignored. I use a default view of Hide Ignored Messages. That way, if I need to look at the unwanted posts, I can switch to the All Messages view. Also, if I delete an unwanted post, the thread will reappear when someone submits a new reply to the unwanted post and why I hide instead of delete. Hiding keeps the posts in my client's message store so it can hide all child posts of a flagged parent post. As I recall, Turnpike is an old NNTP client. That's not necessarily a bad thing since my NNTP client, 40tude Dialog, is also ancient and [] Yes, I can mark a thread as "uninteresting", which I admit I'd forgotten in this context. But I'd still have to see one followup post to the person I'd killfiled to make/mark that thread uninteresting. Be sure to specify "Turnpike" in the Subject so others know which client you are asking about. I had to look in your headers to see what you used here to post your inquiry. I was wondering about general principles (I'd have asked in the Turnpike newsgroup, I think, otherwise), to see if anyone could think of anything header-specific that would identify followups. I hadn't thought of the _combination_ of headers implied by marking a thread uninteresting; thanks. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Where [other presenters] tackle the world with a box of watercolours, he takes a spanner. - David Butcher (on Guy Martin), RT 2015/1/31-2/6 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
identifying _followups_ to a poster?
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
Yes, I can mark a thread as "uninteresting", which I admit I'd forgotten in this context. But I'd still have to see one followup post to the person I'd killfiled to make/mark that thread uninteresting. That's why I said you'll have to investigate the settings within Turnpike to see if it can apply the flag to all child posts of a parent post flagged as "uninteresting". If the client cannot do that, there's nothing you can do to emulate the effect. Yes, you could define a rule but you would have to do that everytime you wanted to tag a parent post as unwanted with a rule that looks for the same Message-ID as the parent listed in the child's References header. That would be very tedious: find an unwanted post, define a new rule to add its MID in a regex looking for a blacklist of MIDs in the References header, and repeat ad nauseum on each new unwanted post. You'll probably hit some maximum length for the regex string to parse it so you end up with multiple MIDs-in-References blacklist rules. You really want an NNTP client that will maintain its MID blacklist for you. Also, when threads get long, the References header will get truncated. The starting thread remains listed as the first one in the References headers but after that the leading MIDs will get removed to make room for newer trailing MIDs (i.e., FIFO on MID removal except for the very first MID). So the MID on which your rule checks could disappear from the References header. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
identifying _followups_ to a poster?
In message , VanguardLH
writes: J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: Yes, I can mark a thread as "uninteresting", which I admit I'd forgotten in this context. But I'd still have to see one followup post to the person I'd killfiled to make/mark that thread uninteresting. That's why I said you'll have to investigate the settings within Turnpike to see if it can apply the flag to all child posts of a parent post flagged as "uninteresting". If the client cannot do that, there's nothing you can do to emulate the effect. It does that (when I mark a post/thread as uninteresting, I see no more posts in that thread). But I still have to see the first one to mark it as uninteresting: this is the first followup, as I don't see the original post as that's by the person I've killfiled. In another 'group, I've been able to set up a rule based on the References header that stops me seeing any posts by a particular poster _and_ any followups to that person's posts, but that can't be done here AFAICS - you'll know why (-:! There probably isn't _any_ way to do that in this case, other than seeing the first followup and marking the thread uninteresting. Yes, you could define a rule but you would have to do that everytime you wanted to tag a parent post as unwanted with a rule that looks for the same Message-ID as the parent listed in the child's References header. That would be very tedious: find an unwanted post, define a new rule to add its MID in a regex looking for a blacklist of MIDs in the References header, and repeat ad nauseum on each new unwanted post. You'll probably hit some maximum length for the regex string to parse it so you end up with multiple MIDs-in-References blacklist rules. You really want an NNTP client that will maintain its MID blacklist for you. Fortunately, the "uninteresting" flag in TP does that, I think. (I'm _assuming_ it discards the rule when all posts in the thread have expired [I have expiry set to three days in most 'groups], but I don't know. Maybe I'll ask in the TP 'group!) Also, when threads get long, the References header will get truncated. Yes, I've noticed that. The starting thread remains listed as the first one in the References headers but after that the leading MIDs will get removed to make room for newer trailing MIDs (i.e., FIFO on MID removal except for the very first MID). So the MID on which your rule checks could disappear from the References header. Is that just generally what happens, or is it part of some RFC? -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf "I'm not against women. Not often enough, anyway." - Groucho Marx |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
identifying _followups_ to a poster?
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , VanguardLH writes: J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: Yes, I can mark a thread as "uninteresting", which I admit I'd forgotten in this context. But I'd still have to see one followup post to the person I'd killfiled to make/mark that thread uninteresting. That's why I said you'll have to investigate the settings within Turnpike to see if it can apply the flag to all child posts of a parent post flagged as "uninteresting". If the client cannot do that, there's nothing you can do to emulate the effect. It does that (when I mark a post/thread as uninteresting, I see no more posts in that thread). But I still have to see the first one to mark it as uninteresting: this is the first followup, as I don't see the original post as that's by the person I've killfiled. Does "killfile" mean you deleted the parent post or you flagged it (and hidden it)? Deleting means the client may no longer keep track of that parent post. Presumably you are using a rule or filter to set an "uninteresting" flag on an unwanted post; else, you'll have to do it manually on every parent post you don't want to see. When you say "followup", are you talking about replies or the use of the FollowUp-To header? In another 'group, I've been able to set up a rule based on the References header that stops me seeing any posts by a particular poster _and_ any followups to that person's posts, why (-:! There probably isn't _any_ way to do that in this case, other than seeing the first followup and marking the thread uninteresting. The MID header is going to change every time a poster submits an article. All you can filter out is ONE thread by MID. The next time the poster submits, their MID will be something different. The only filtering on MID would eliminate all posts by someone is if that someone always uses a right-token that remains the same and is never used by anyone else, like varstring@theirdomain where they registered theredomain and no one else uses it. I have my NNTP client use a unique right-token in my MID header but it isn't registered and anyone could use it, not just me. Someone could attempt to forge my identity and I couldn't stop them (unless they used the same NNTP provider and I complained to get their account killed - which obviously works only at registered NNTP provides). If they are using a common right-token or they aren't assigning one at all and letting the NNTP server assign one then you cannot use MID to filter out all posts by one poster, only one of their posts (and replies to it by checking the References header). You would need to define a blacklist rule that lists every MID used in the past and then for the new articles that show up, something like: ^References: \S*(mid1|mid2|...|midN) But that list would have to get manually updated by you after you see their next new post. Doesn't look like Turnpike is working for you regarding its "uninteresting" flag. If it did, you should be able to define a rule to identify the *poster* to then set the uninteresting flag (and recurse that flag onto any child posts). If you don't want to see the first post by the unwanted poster and any replies to them, you need to use a rule to set the flag on their parent post and an option in the client to recurse that flag onto any child posts. Trying to do the same with rules means you will see their first post (to get their MID) and then update your rule to hide any child posts all of which is retroactive since you are doing this yourself after first seeing their parent post. Although rules can be defined based on the From header to identify a poster, the sender can specify what is in that header. It's not like they logged into an account that forces the account owner's name in the From header. The sender can claim to be whomever they want. I could submit a post with a From header that says I'm you. If they use a unique right-token in their MID header (as I do) then you could filter on that value (in the MID header and in the References header). If they are using the MID assigned by their NNTP provider or some common one, like for Forte Agent, or keep varying the right-token then filtering on their MID is pointless and you're wasting your time (unless you are editing the view of message retroactively which is a waste of time). From and Message-ID are overview headers. To better filter on unwanted posts (content) or posters, you need to include the non-overview headers in your filters. However, most NNTP clients will only retrieve the overview headers. Even if they let you test using regex on all headers, if they only retrieve overview headers than you are restricted on what you can test. For example, while I have rules to flag mixmin posters using the MID header, I mostly rely on a rule testing the PATH header to see if the article originated at a mixmin server. PATH is a non-overview header. Even in my client, I won't get the non-overview headers unless I configure the client to retrieve the entire article, not just the overview headers. Retrieving the entire article takes time but then I only visit text-only newsgroups so the articles are small (but a huge count of articles will take a long time to download on first subscribing to a newsgroup). Even if you retrieve all of an article, whether you can test on non-overview headers depends on what the client allows you to specify in their rules. While I can do a lot in my choice of NNTP client, others with less capable clients who want that level of filtering will have to employ their own local NNTP server (eg., Hamster) to leech from their NNTP provider. Filtering on MID likely gets you only *ONE* subthread to ignore, and you would be retroactively editing your rule(s) to flag MIDs in new posts by the unwanted poster. When the poster submits again, the MID will be different. Filtering on the From header presumes the poster uses a fixed nym (comment and e-mail fields). The more headers you can employ in a rule then the more focused is your rule and less likely to incur false positives on other posters you do want to see. You might be stuck with only overview headers available in your rules. Some clients will let you test on non-overview headers, too, provided you configure the client to retrieve all of an article. There is the XPAT command to have the client request the server to search for matching articles based on any header but I've yet to find an NNTP provider that has this turned on. It would waste a monsterous portion of their resources to let users have their server performing searches, plus not many clients support XPAT searches. The starting thread remains listed as the first one in the References headers but after that the leading MIDs will get removed to make room for newer trailing MIDs (i.e., FIFO on MID removal except for the very first MID). So the MID on which your rule checks could disappear from the References header. Is that just generally what happens, or is it part of some RFC? Could be specified by an RFC but I'd have to dig into it. Could be it is a de facto standard (as are signature blocks delimited by a line of "-- \n" which is a de facto standard, not per RFC). Servers don't need the References header. It is supplied only to allow clients to thread the posts into hiearchical conversations. In fact, the server doesn't add this header. The client(s) do. They compile the References header on send to become part of the submitted message. The next client that retrieves that article will append the MID for their submitted article as a reply. If one client corrupts or deletes the References header upon submit then it's lost to everyone else thereafter. References is a client-generated header. A per RFC 5322, section 3.6.4, mentioned below: The "In-Reply-To:" and "References:" fields are used when creating a reply to a message. They hold the message identifier of the original message and the message identifiers of other messages (for example, in the case of a reply to a message that was itself a reply). It is also used in e-mail messages. Clients use the References header to organize the posts into a tree or hierarchical structure to show subthreading. I have run into users who e-mail clients (usually mobile clients, like those on phones) do not add the References header. Every time someone replies, it becomes a new thread. Very frustrating when you are trying to have a conversation but the other person starts a whole new thread. Some NNTP-to-HTTP gateways (web sites that leech from Usenet to make their community look bigger or provide a webnews UI for boobs to Usenet) don't keep or generated the References header which ****s over that thread (which is no longer a thread) back in Usenet. Even Microsoft's own NNTPbridge proxy was ****ing up the References header by inserting 20073bca-ecf4-4593-89b4-9fec1443bc4f as the MID in the References header instead of . As per RFC 5322 (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322), section 3.6, page 21, the References header may appear 0 or 1 times; that is, it is optional but if present can appear only once. Any time an RFC specifies "SHOULD" or "RECOMMENDED" means it optional. Only if something is "REQUIRED" must it be present. There are a ton of SHOULDs that I'd like to see become REQUIREDs. It is the *client* that replies (and updates the References header), not the server. Everything on the server is flat: just a bunch of articles in a database. Servers don't care about hierarchy of articles (which replies to which). The server provides the articles, not how they might be organized. It is because clients add and manage the References header for why it is an optional header per RFC 5322. Servers don't need it, don't use it, just some client generated data to keep in the article. I used to think the absence of the References header in someone's reply but they used "" in the Subject header and even may have quoted parent post content in the body meant they accidentally sent a new message to start a new thread instead of replying to an existing thread. Nope, some clients **** up by not adding the References header. Some gateways don't add the References header to the forum posts (because web-based forums don't use References to thread a conversation and that's because most web-based forums are flat instead of hierarchical). The truncation (reduction) of MIDs in the References header is caused by clients that cannot branch depths of a tree beyond some maximum level. Although the References header, as with most others, can have continuation lines (following lines are preceding by one, or more, space characters), it is still treated as one long string. Every program will have a maximum length to a string. To keep that last portion of threading intact, the string must be reduced in length to allow adding the new MID for the parent post in a reply. The maximum physical length of a header line is 998 octets (it's based on really old hardware); see https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5536, section 2.2, page 9. Continuation lines were created to exceed that length limit; however, each physical line is still restricted to 998 octets maximum. That continuation lines can be used to bypass the physical line length maximum does not obviate that programs will encounter maximums in processing strings. Some posters deliberately employ excessively long MID values. Their intent is to more quickly break the threading by making the References header's value too long to handle. I've seen such malicious posters that had MID values of several hundred characters long. The MID header (and PATH header) cannot span multiple physical lines. Breakage must occur at a parsing point between multiple values and there are none within a MID value so, in theory, a MID value could be up to 986 octets (998 octets minus the 12 for "Message-ID: "). |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
identifying _followups_ to a poster?
In message , VanguardLH
writes: J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: In message , VanguardLH writes: J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: Yes, I can mark a thread as "uninteresting", which I admit I'd forgotten in this context. But I'd still have to see one followup post to the person I'd killfiled to make/mark that thread uninteresting. That's why I said you'll have to investigate the settings within Turnpike to see if it can apply the flag to all child posts of a parent post flagged as "uninteresting". If the client cannot do that, there's nothing you can do to emulate the effect. It does that (when I mark a post/thread as uninteresting, I see no more posts in that thread). But I still have to see the first one to mark it as uninteresting: this is the first followup, as I don't see the original post as that's by the person I've killfiled. Does "killfile" mean you deleted the parent post or you flagged it (and hidden it)? Deleting means the client may no longer keep track of that parent post. Presumably you are using a rule or filter to set an "uninteresting" flag on an unwanted post; else, you'll have to do it manually on every parent post you don't want to see. I used "killfile" as it seems a common term for: I've set a rule to not see posts by a certain poster. I _assume_ that uses the From: header, but have no idea in practice; it works, so I don't worry. When you say "followup", are you talking about replies or the use of the FollowUp-To header? I'm talking about posts which Turnpike recognises as being in the same thread. I _assume_ it does that by using the References: header. (Within Turnpike, if _I_ hit "Reply", it sends a private email to the poster of the post I have open, usually asking me to confirm that that's what I want to do rather than post a followup to the 'group; if I hit Followup, it posts a followup. But other clients may use the terms differently.) In another 'group, I've been able to set up a rule based on the References header that stops me seeing any posts by a particular poster _and_ any followups to that person's posts, why (-:! There probably isn't _any_ way to do that in this case, other than seeing the first followup and marking the thread uninteresting. The MID header is going to change every time a poster submits an article. All you can filter out is ONE thread by MID. The next time the poster submits, their MID will be something different. The only filtering on MID would eliminate all posts by someone is if that someone always uses a right-token that remains the same and is never used by anyone else, like varstring@theirdomain where they registered theredomain and no one else uses it. I have my NNTP client use a unique That's how it works in the case of the other poster on the other newsgroup. The one here seems to have nothing consistent in his/her MIDs. right-token in my MID header but it isn't registered and anyone could use it, not just me. Someone could attempt to forge my identity and I couldn't stop them (unless they used the same NNTP provider and I complained to get their account killed - which obviously works only at registered NNTP provides). If they are using a common right-token or they aren't assigning one at all and letting the NNTP server assign one then you cannot use MID to filter out all posts by one poster, only one of their posts (and replies to it by checking the References header). You would need to define a blacklist rule that lists every MID used in the past and then for the new articles that show up, something like: ^References: \S*(mid1|mid2|...|midN) But that list would have to get manually updated by you after you see their next new post. Doesn't look like Turnpike is working for you regarding its "uninteresting" flag. If it did, you should be able to define a rule to identify the *poster* to then set the uninteresting flag (and recurse that flag onto any child posts). If you don't want to The "uninteresting" flag applies to threads, not posters. I can't mark an Author as uninteresting, only Kill. [] To better filter on unwanted posts (content) or posters, you need to include the non-overview headers in your filters. However, most NNTP clients will only retrieve the overview headers. Even if they let you I don't even know what the difference is. But _please_ don't tell me! This was just a minor wonder: you've already spent _far_ too much time on it for me! [another ~31 lines!] The starting thread remains listed as the first one in the References headers but after that the leading MIDs will get removed to make room for newer trailing MIDs (i.e., FIFO on MID removal except for the very first MID). So the MID on which your rule checks could disappear from the References header. Is that just generally what happens, or is it part of some RFC? Could be specified by an RFC but I'd have to dig into it. Could be it is a de facto standard (as are signature blocks delimited by a line of "-- \n" which is a de facto standard, not per RFC). That's interesting: I thought, from the number of both people and clients that ignore it, it must be an RFC. (People and programmers generally ignore RFCs.) [] It is also used in e-mail messages. Clients use the References header to organize the posts into a tree or hierarchical structure to show subthreading. I have run into users who e-mail clients (usually mobile clients, like those on phones) do not add the References header. Every time someone replies, it becomes a new thread. Very frustrating when you are trying to have a conversation but the other person starts a whole new thread. Some NNTP-to-HTTP gateways (web sites that leech from I don't think Turnpike does threads in email, though if there's an RFC that says it should do something with Reference: headers, it probably does. [another 54 lines] I submit! (Bangs arm on canvas.) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Of course some of it [television] is bad. But some of everything is bad - books, music, family ... - Melvyn Bragg, RT 2017/7/1-7 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|