ml> NOTE: see the above? here it is again repaired... this repair took 
ml> only two DELete keystrokes... the first at the end of that short 
ml> line and the second at the end of another short line that 
ml> appeared... thie reader/editor almost has it perfect but this minor 
ml> fixing is no big deal... not like trying to repair chopped and/or 
ml> missing words...

 NB> And there you were quoting my post from Mystic, so it seems
 NB> Synchronet is not at fault there.

i wasn't pointing to synchronet at that time... it was just a general
observation about the quotes with a note of how easy it was to fix with my
reader/editor...

[trim]

ml> in this case, both have the same margins... some have a shorter right
ml> margin... the quote prefix is pretty normal... [space]xx>[space]... that
ml> shoves the word "not" past the margin where it should be
wrapped to the
ml> next line but instead it is simply chopped off... now a statement that
ml> was negative reads as if it were positive...

 NB> I completely understand what you're saying. And the chopped text
 NB> annoyed me at one point too, so I asked for it to be fixed. :)

you should have seen how it used to be before numerous packages undertook
the task to fix their chainsaw quoting... there were several used all over
the network... now there are only a few but they are more noticible when
seen nowadays...

ml> you probably couldn't do it from remote but as a local only editor,
ml> possibly... the problem is that the bbs generally creates a temporary
ml> file for the editor to errmmm... edit... then when the editor exits, it
ml> saves the file and the bbs imports it into the message base... if the
ml> file has not changed, then the bbs may assume that the edit was aborted
ml> unless the editor exits with a specific errorlevel for an abort as
ml> opposed to normal termination... i rather doubt that nano and vi have
ml> such errorlevel exits capabilities... they are from a completely
ml> different world and mode of thinking... sysop/point editors are local
ml> editors that replace the bbs and its message base interface... they are a
ml> lot more than just editors because they do have to have the message base
ml> support built in...

 NB> Then I wouldn't have any interest in it. I still use my BBS all the
 NB> time. If I didn't run a BBS, I would have no reason to do any of
 NB> this. :) 

ever wonder why may sysops running BBS' also use an external message
reader? in my case it is so i can read and reply without blocking any users
from accessing the BBS'... it is done completely outside the BBS and so is
strictly message related... no going thru the bulletins or news or new
files lists or such... i do check the BBS like that from time to time but
there's no reason for me to do such once a day let alone multiple times a
day ;)

ml> the concept is really simple... starting at the top of the text to be
ml> quoted... determine if this is already quoted text or if this is a new
ml> quote and remember this (hint: boolean)... depending on which it is,
ml> inject the proper quote prefix (existing one plus '>' or the defined

 NB> [trim]

 NB> I have forwarded this part of the message to him, and mentioned the
 NB> echo we're discussing this in, in case he wants to get involved.

ok... note that i wrote that from memory and may have a part out but it
should still be easy enough to follow... i think one of the biggest changes
will be the line buffers... some programs are very simple and only allocate
fixed string length buffers which easily leads to the chopping when the
text exceeds the line buffer length...

ml> i know... i was being nice and trying not to stir it all up again ;)

 NB> I'm over it. :)

:)

ml> i dunno... there's two situations with them... one is the nonstandard
ml> format of the originaddr field... i can't make a private reply to that
ml> message based on the contents of that field as generated by synchronet...
ml> 
ml> the second situation is that of generating a MSGID for those messages
ml> without a MSGID... nick andre's posts are a perfect example... they do
ml> not have a MSGID because his system doesn't support FTS-0009...
ml> synchronet creating a MSGID and adding it to messages without one is the
ml> worst of the two situations because that message will not have the same
ml> MSGID on all systems... each synchronet system will create its own
ml> originaddr field as well as its own serial number and that blows
ml> duplicate detection all to hell...

 NB> I can see both of those points. I'm actually kinda baffled that it
 NB> was blown off and/or ignored as well. Maybe they only want one ball
 NB> in their yard to play with? :|

maybe... i dunno... it isn't the first time i've pointed out problems and
been ignored or otherwise not acknowledged...

ml> that's the easy part... just remember that there can be more than two 
ml> initials... i would use spaces and periods to locate them... not commas
ml> or dashes, though... well, maybe dashes... depends on how they're handled
ml> by other software for this task...

 NB> It would be nice if he joined up in the conversation here. That
 NB> would at least show that he's interested anyways. :)

maybe... maybe not ;)

ml> possible but it was also a cheap shot...

 NB> LOL! Isn't that how things are usually handled on Fight-o-net? :) 

not all the time... some shots are devestating and delivered while you are
looking rather than when you are not like a sucker punch...

ml>  NB> Oddly enough, Mystic is completely pascal, and seems to quote
ml>  NB> pretty damn good as far as the new proposals. Oddly enough, this
ml>  NB> software has been doing it since it's birth. :)

ml> maybe because the author saw the quote problem(s) from way back and never
ml> let it/them get into his software's editor(s) in the first place ;)

 NB> Very possible. Although I did notice something here (above). If I
 NB> were to actually quote something already quoted, it doesn't add the
 NB> '>' to the original, it adds a completely new one in front of the
 NB> old. Though I guess it's still better than now knowing who said
 NB> what in the first place. :) 

right... the recent discussion over in FTSC_PUBLIC points to a proposal
document that was released in 1989... the problems with that document are
numerous and easily allow for interpretation that some do not see... the
other thing about that proposal that many have not considered is the
question of why it is still a proposal ;)  there's not even an author's
name on it :?

)\/(ark

---