Hello mark.

01 Dec 12 12:00, you wrote to me:

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

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

Though at the same time, weren't we talking about the fact that that
shouldn't have to be done? :)

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

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

I believe it. I've tested quite a few BBS softwares, as well as external
message editors.

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

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

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

I offer 7 nodes here that are rarely ever all filled up these days. I still
enjoy the whole BBS experience. Though I can already admit, that these
external readers/editors can get ~300 message bases newscanned, marked as
read, replied to, or ignored much faster than any BBS software. :)

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

 NB>> [trim]

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

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

I only forwarded it to see if it was interested, which it seemed as though
he was. So maybe he will join us.

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

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

I can only assume everything is looking better from here? 

Nicholas

---
--- SBBSecho 2.20-Linux