Eagle question

[Olin Lathrop]

Rolf wrote:
>> Actually I think your biggest gripe is that it breaks the way you
>> chose to look at PIClist threads.
>
> This is why it irritates me, because when you reply to messages I
> can't see what message you are replying to easily.

But I don't care, and I'd have to do work to change it.  Fix it on your end
if it bothers you that much.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
[phone].  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Rolf-4]

Q.E.D

Rolf

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Peter Todd-2]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 12:51:19PM -0400, Rolf wrote:
> Hi Peter
>
> Where is it that you found that mail clients can truncate the
> "References" header?

jwz mentions it in his page, I haven't actually read any of the relevent
RFCs myself.

> Also, I can't seem to figure out where we are losing the 'In-Reply-To'
> header either.... I am adding it when I send (well, Thunderbird is...),
> but it is not appearing in the list posting (nor for anyone else).

You sure? I see it being correctly set; remember that In-Reply-To is
usually hidden by your email client. The References header is again
correctly set, and again usually hidden.

> I imagine that the 'mailman' software is stripping off more than just
> the 'Reply-To' header, but the 'In-Reply-To' header as well. This is a
> definite bug with the mailman handling. List Admins... are you there?
> There rules set up to replace the 'Reply-To' header with
> '"Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <piclist@...>' ... are
> these rules also stripping the 'In-Reply-To' header?

Again, check your email client...

Of course, Reply-To munging is a totally different issue again with some
rather strong opinions surrounding it. :)

> Thanks
>
> Rolf
>
> P.S. will be out of town this weekend (including Friday). Hope you have
> a good and successful  time at Nathan Phillips Sq.

Thanks! Once I get some photos I'll post them somewhere online for
people to see.

- --
http://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFIdDgg3bMhDbI9xWQRAkCHAJ9tlrdsVGZVOSIkk577IMeTAZ54ngCfZqT6
2SZi4Ief7Qd4AZl3VLOeqPo=
=mbBQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Peter Todd-2]

On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 12:51:11PM -0400, Olin Lathrop wrote:
> Peter Todd wrote:
> > In any case deleting that "thread nonsense" is definetely a bad idea.
>
> Actually it worked fine.  I got the message back from the list intact.  You
> obviously did too since you replied to it.  I just checked, and the
> piclist.com list archive put the message in the right thread, with your
> reply correctly following.

Not quite. The message got in the right thread, due to the obvious "same
subject line and close time" rule, correctly following due to the latter
"date based" rule. Add a complication or two and something would have
broken. Mutt for instance displays the attached "broken, and best guess
thread" symbol in such situations. It also has commands to explicitly
break threads up.

> You said email clients are allowed to abritrarily truncate the references
> list, so deleting all the thread nonsense is even standard compliant
> according to you.
 
You can be right or you can be effective, pick one. By truncating the
References, your email client/smtp server combo may be "right" but
definetely not effective.


I was curious enough to actually look up the relevant standard, RFC
1036: 2.2.5, which was written for Usenet news, but is de-facto applied
to email:

    It is permissible to not include the entire previous "References" line
    if it is too long.  An attempt should be made to include a reasonable
    number of backwards references.

And RFC 822: 4.6.3, which is the original email standard:

    The contents of this field identify other  correspondence which  this
    message references.  Note that if message identifiers are used, they
    must use the msg-id specification format.

Looks like pretty plain language to me. If anything, I suspect the
reason why the language was never tightened up, is that email clients do
a generally very good job of following the obvious de-facto
interpretation, and as for the ones that don't, no standard is going to
change silly implementations. Hell, your setup almost works perfectly,
aside from one line truncation bug that crops up sometimes.

> Everything is working fine for me to the level I care about.  There is no
> problem to solve.  If you don't like the way it looks in your mailer, fix
> *your* mailer.

My mailer can not recover information deleted by your mailer.

--
http://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org


--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist