On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Jonas de Buhr <jonas.de.b...@gmx.net> wrote: > Am Tue, 11 Oct 2011 08:54:37 -0400 > schrieb Michael Mol <mike...@gmail.com>: > >> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 7:03 AM, Jonas de Buhr >> <jonas.de.b...@gmx.net> wrote: >> > hey guys, >> > >> > please don't get me wrong on this one, i mean no offense. >> > can anyone explain to me what this is? are these lavender threads >> > some kind of trolling i don't get? >> > >> > it (apparently on purpose, since hints in that direction are >> > ignored) combines loads of annoying qualities: >> > >> > - nondescriptive titles >> > - doing everything to rip apart threads: no In-Reply-To and even >> > subject changes >> > - no line-breaks >> > - difficult to read incorrect punctuation (plenk) >> > - problem details are kept nebulous and info requests are ignored >> > - none of the proposed solutions are ever tried or commented >> >> To me, the "Lavender's" messages read like someone is going through an >> automated translation tool to get between English and their native >> language. (In this case, Chinese) >> >> "Anyone can afford ... ?" sounds like bad forced translation between >> semantic idioms. >> >> "Anyone can afford information about build kernel" >> "Can anyone afford information about build kernel" >> "Can anyone spend time helping about build kernel" >> "Can anyone spend time helping me build my kernel" >> >> That explains the punctuation (poor translation tool(!)) and nebulous >> requests. > >> His responses indicated he was reading what had been sent in >> reply. >> His first reply and his second reply were closely related, and >> when commands were offered that allowed him to find the exact >> information he needed, he gave his third reply indicating he had what >> he needed. >> >> I'm using GMail as my email client, and threading and subject lines >> showed intact for me until your "this is spam" message following the >> one I'm replying to. > > interesting, so gmail is aware of the chinese equivalent of "Re" (回复) > but doesn't use the In-Reply-To: header correctly?
The two replies I saw from him have these lines in their original headers: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Anyone can afford information about build kernel? Subject: [gentoo-user] =?gbk?B?u9i4tKO6IFtnZW50b28tdXNlcl0gQW55b25lIGNh?= =?gbk?B?biBhZmZvcmQgaW5mb3JtYXRpb24gYWJvdXQgYnVp?= =?gbk?B?bGQga2VybmVsPw==?= So the second one definitely came through worse than the first, but (for whatever reason), GMail didn't signal a topic change. (Usually, it's pretty good about that) Maybe GMail was clever enough to pick up on something like X-Reply-Hash and tie it to a thread. Dunno. -- :wq
