Re: [ql-users] List etiquette. (Was: ms-users-and-smalltalk-list)
On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 06:55:53PM +0100, Wolfgang Lenerz wrote: On 7 Feb 2002, at 16:11, Richard Zidlicky wrote: Btw, out of 821 messages I have (selectively) archived of this group a mere 172 were sent using Outlook. Eudora 262, Turnpike 68, Bat 37, sylpheed 24, Lotus 6, Calypso 59, Mozilla 51, kmail 27, talk 1, pine 69, mutt 91. Totally incomplete and unrepresentative survey. So you are not archiving mine, then, hmmm? Why the ostracism? I've missed Pegasus, sorry. So that makes 35 Pegasus in total, 30x v3.12c, 3x v4.0-beta 40, 1x v3.12a, 1x plain v3.12 And none from a QL mail prog :( (phew back on topic) Most likely I have simply missed them because I don't know which identification to look for, this was a very simple 'grep | wc -l' job. Looking more carefully, there were aproximately 1200 messages and not nearly all user agents were recognised by my search. Bye Richard A fairly incomplete list of recognised mailers, most of which I've never even heard about: User-Agent: Messenger-Pro/2.50a (MsgServe/1.50) (RISC-OS/4.02) POPstar/2.03 User-Agent: Messenger-Pro/2.50a (RemoteNB/1.50) (RISC-OS/4.04) User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; m18) Gecko/20001108 Netscape6/6.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; m18) Gecko/20010131 Netscape6/6.01 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011128 Netscape6/6.2.1 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.3) Gecko/20010808 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i User-Agent: Turnpike/6.00-* User-Agent: Turnpike/6.01-* X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.480) X-Mailer: Calypso Version 3.20.01.01 (3) X-Mailer: Calypso Version 3.30.00.00 (3) X-Mailer: EPOC Email Version 2.00 X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 X-Mailer: InterChange (Hydra) SMTP v3.61.08 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.55) X-Mailer: Juno 4.0.11 X-Mailer: Juno 5.0.33 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.1.95.2] X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.1.99] X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.2c (Intl) 2 February 2000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express ** X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en-gb]C-CCK-MCD NetscapeOnline.co.uk (Win98; I) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.14-5.0 i686) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Win98; U) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en]C-CCK-MCD DT (Win98; U) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en] (Win98; U) X-Mailer: Opera 6.0 build 1010 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version ** X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.6.2 (GTK+ 1.2.10; m68k-unknown-linux-gnu) X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.6.6 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i586-pc-linux-gnu) X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.6.6 (GTK+ 1.2.7; m68k-unknown-linux-gnu) X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.7.0 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i586-pc-linux-gnu) X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.53d) Educational X-Mailer: Turnpike (16) Version 3.05 TAcmmXknIL7OXIc0kwFhLCfE4G X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 S RZcc0UWosLzvHU7p6P7fW9s6SI X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U ++5IPib03shhitBLaT+GcPw+nQ X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.3 08feb96 MediaMail) X-Mailer: talk21 v1.18 - http://talk21.btopenworld.com X-Nextstep-Mailer: Mail 3.3 (Enhance 2.2p1) X-mailer: FoxMail 2.1 [en] X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32
Re: [ql-users] List etiquette. (Was: ms-users-and-smalltalk-list)
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Richard Zidlicky [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 06:55:53PM +0100, Wolfgang Lenerz wrote: On 7 Feb 2002, at 16:11, Richard Zidlicky wrote: Btw, out of 821 messages I have (selectively) archived of this group a mere 172 were sent using Outlook. Eudora 262, Turnpike 68, Bat 37, sylpheed 24, Lotus 6, Calypso 59, Mozilla 51, kmail 27, talk 1, pine 69, mutt 91. Totally incomplete and unrepresentative survey. So you are not archiving mine, then, hmmm? Why the ostracism? I've missed Pegasus, sorry. So that makes 35 Pegasus in total, 30x v3.12c, 3x v4.0-beta 40, 1x v3.12a, 1x plain v3.12 And none from a QL mail prog :( (phew back on topic) Most likely I have simply missed them because I don't know which identification to look for, this was a very simple 'grep | wc -l' job. Looking more carefully, there were aproximately 1200 messages and not nearly all user agents were recognised by my search. Bye Richard A fairly incomplete list of recognised mailers, most of which I've never even heard about: clip Interesting list :-) ... thanks for that, certainly a good variety. -- Malcolm Cadman
Re: [ql-users] List etiquette. (Was: ms-users-and-smalltalk-list)
In article 3C62CDB9.23456.19AAD2@localhost, Wolfgang Lenerz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes On 7 Feb 2002, at 16:11, Richard Zidlicky wrote: Btw, out of 821 messages I have (selectively) archived of this group a mere 172 were sent using Outlook. Eudora 262, Turnpike 68, Bat 37, sylpheed 24, Lotus 6, Calypso 59, Mozilla 51, kmail 27, talk 1, pine 69, mutt 91. Totally incomplete and unrepresentative survey So you are not archiving mine, then, hmmm? Why the ostracism? And none from a QL mail prog :( (phew back on topic) Interesting statistics though ... it just shows what a varied bunch we are on this newsgroup. -- Malcolm Cadman
RE: [ql-users] List etiquette. (Was: ms-users-and-smalltalk-list)
-Original Message- From: Phoebus R. Dokos [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 3:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [ql-users] List etiquette. (Was: ms-users-and-smalltalk-list) 5. No matter how much you agree or disagree with Peter, you have to admit that we do not (because it's convenient or because we forget) include the OT: prefix in our mail subject lines when its appropriate... This alone could save a lot of trouble and similar phenomena in the future. Phoebus, as will have been noted from other posts, and also from a number of private posts I have received, many people thought that we were on topic so no need for the OT. Additionally, what's the point of putting OT anyway - when I download my messages, I get all the OT ones as well. OK, it might mean that I can not bother to read those posts, but the problem is deciding if it is OT for everyone, or only for some. Peter's attitude was totally unacceptable in my opinion, and that of those who emailed me privately. He doesn't own or run the list, and while we do sometimes get a bit 'way off topic' a polite reminder usually gets us all back on-line again. His feeble attempt at blackmail blew up in his face. Sure, we have no lost a hardware guru, but we still have Dexter, Nasta, Tony et al (in alphabetical order guys - honest) and at least they are able to have *constructive* opinions on hardware (and software) other than their own. And, check out the 'slant' of Peter's ad in QL Toady, he manages to get a nice dig in about QPC - even after all the correspondance on this list and in QL Toady over the merits of software or hardware solutions. I'm not into hardware so I won't miss Peter on this list. Others who are into hardware, may well miss him. However, isn't there a hardware list anyway, and if so, technically, all hardware discussions are off topic for this list. (I'm not too sure if there is a hardware list, but I believe Nasta may have mentioned it recently.) Anyway, this is one of the friendliest lists I'm on, so lets keep it that way. We're all in it together. Cheers, Norman. - Norman Dunbar Database/Unix administrator Lynx Financial Systems Ltd. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: 0113 289 6265 Fax: 0113 289 3146 URL: http://www.Lynx-FS.com - This email is intended only for the use of the addressees named above and may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not an addressee you must not read it and must not use any information contained in it, nor copy it, nor inform any person other than Lynx Financial Systems or the addressees of its existence or contents. If you have received this email and are not a named addressee, please delete it and notify the Lynx Financial Systems IT Department on 0113 2892990.
RE: [ql-users] List etiquette. (Was: ms-users-and-smalltalk-list)
-Original Message- From: Tony Firshman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 11:36 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ql-users] List etiquette. (Was: ms-users-and-smalltalk-list) Do you mean 'a real 68060 QL instead of emulators' That is pretty mild I think, or have I missed something. Yep, that's the one. I just thought it was 'slanted' following on from the recent discussions of the merits of H/W versus S/W and what was real and what was not. More like getting the last word in. I might be far to suspicious though :o) Regards, Norman. - Norman Dunbar Database/Unix administrator Lynx Financial Systems Ltd. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: 0113 289 6265 Fax: 0113 289 3146 URL: http://www.Lynx-FS.com - This email is intended only for the use of the addressees named above and may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not an addressee you must not read it and must not use any information contained in it, nor copy it, nor inform any person other than Lynx Financial Systems or the addressees of its existence or contents. If you have received this email and are not a named addressee, please delete it and notify the Lynx Financial Systems IT Department on 0113 2892990.
Re: [ql-users] List etiquette. (Was: ms-users-and-smalltalk-list)
On Thu, 7 Feb 2002 at 12:13:21, Norman Dunbar wrote: (ref: [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Do you mean 'a real 68060 QL instead of emulators' That is pretty mild I think, or have I missed something. Yep, that's the one. I just thought it was 'slanted' following on from the recent discussions of the merits of H/W versus S/W and what was real and what was not. More like getting the last word in. I might be far to suspicious though :o) I think, taking a deep breath, that this is unfair to Peter (8)# -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:257/67) +44(0)1442-828255 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.firshman.demon.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG
RE: [ql-users] List etiquette. (Was: ms-users-and-smalltalk-list)
Ok, then I apologise (he could be lurking) for the misreading. Sorry Peter. Regards, Norman. - Norman Dunbar Database/Unix administrator Lynx Financial Systems Ltd. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: 0113 289 6265 Fax: 0113 289 3146 URL: http://www.Lynx-FS.com - -Original Message- From: Tony Firshman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 1:25 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ql-users] List etiquette. (Was: ms-users-and-smalltalk-list) On Thu, 7 Feb 2002 at 12:13:21, Norman Dunbar wrote: (ref: [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Do you mean 'a real 68060 QL instead of emulators' That is pretty mild I think, or have I missed something. Yep, that's the one. I just thought it was 'slanted' following on from the recent discussions of the merits of H/W versus S/W and what was real and what was not. More like getting the last word in. I might be far to suspicious though :o) I think, taking a deep breath, that this is unfair to Peter (8)# -- QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:257/67) +44(0)1442-828255 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.firshman.demon.co.uk Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG This email is intended only for the use of the addressees named above and may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not an addressee you must not read it and must not use any information contained in it, nor copy it, nor inform any person other than Lynx Financial Systems or the addressees of its existence or contents. If you have received this email and are not a named addressee, please delete it and notify the Lynx Financial Systems IT Department on 0113 2892990.
Re: [ql-users] List etiquette. (Was: ms-users-and-smalltalk-list)
On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 08:51:08AM -, Norman Dunbar wrote: -Original Message- From: Phoebus R. Dokos [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 3:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [ql-users] List etiquette. (Was: ms-users-and-smalltalk-list) 5. No matter how much you agree or disagree with Peter, you have to admit that we do not (because it's convenient or because we forget) include the OT: prefix in our mail subject lines when its appropriate... This alone could save a lot of trouble and similar phenomena in the future. Phoebus, as will have been noted from other posts, and also from a number of private posts I have received, many people thought that we were on topic so no need for the OT. Additionally, what's the point of putting OT anyway - when I download my messages, I get all the OT ones as well. OK, it might mean that I can not bother to read those posts, but the problem is deciding if it is OT for everyone, or only for some. Peter's attitude was totally unacceptable in my opinion, and that of those who emailed me privately. what a looser.. everyone here has the right for at least one rant per year so what is your problem? He told his opinion and took consequences. Are you surprised that there were people who considered this list as QL related? If the general consensus (as you claim) is that more than 80% of talk on this list should be devoted to some M$ virus nonsense he won't be the last one to quit. Even for those for whom this might be relevant there are better sources of information, gather a few pointers and send them out as a FAQ next time this subject comes up. What's so wrong about getting a virus anyway? Millions of people get them every day, they can't all be wrong. Perhaps they like the thrill of it or need an excuse for not doing work, I suspect getting a computer virus is nowadays considered a vital part of socialization procedure.. some sort of prepubertal ritual if you know what I mean. Don't deprive the folks of it. Are we back to the kindergarten after almost 20 years existence of the QL? Would please finally someone write a really QooL virus for the QL so that we can consider it modern and trendy again and don't need to discuss other computers virii ?! Btw, out of 821 messages I have (selectively) archived of this group a mere 172 were sent using Outlook. Eudora 262, Turnpike 68, Bat 37, sylpheed 24, Lotus 6, Calypso 59, Mozilla 51, kmail 27, talk 1, pine 69, mutt 91. Totally incomplete and unrepresentative survey. Bye Richard
RE: [ql-users] List etiquette. (Was: ms-users-and-smalltalk-list)
-Original Message- From: Richard Zidlicky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 3:11 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ql-users] List etiquette. (Was: ms-users-and-smalltalk-list) [ND] Peter's attitude was totally unacceptable in my opinion, and that of those [ND] who emailed me privately. [RZ] what a looser.. everyone here has the right for at least one rant per [RZ]year so what is your problem? (loser.) But as you say, we are all entitled to one rant a year. [RZ]Are you surprised that there were people who considered this list as [RZ]QL related? Not in the slightest. [RZ]If the general consensus (as you claim) is that more than 80% of talk on [RZ]this list should be devoted to some M$ virus nonsense he won't be the last [RZ}one to quit. Well, I never claimed 80%, or indeed any figures, so where you get 80% from I have no idea. All I said was, I reveived a number of private emails from people on this list who agreed that the subject was on topic. In fact 100% agreed. However, I did not get private emails from 100% of the people on this list, but there were, and still are, those who replied via the list, that it was on topic as well. I don't have any problems with the list being QL specific, that's what it is ther for, Peter threw a total wobbly and baled out, for nothing, or at least not a lot. That's all I remarked/ranted about. In other words, his totally childish attitude. Nothing else. [RZ}Even for those for whom this might be relevant there are [RZ}better sources of information, gather a few pointers and send them out [RZ}as a FAQ next time this subject comes up. Good idea. [RZ}What's so wrong about getting a virus anyway? Millions of people get them every day, they can't all be [RZ}wrong. Perhaps they like the thrill of it or need an excuse for not doing [RZ}work, I suspect getting a computer virus is nowadays considered a vital [RZ}part of socialization procedure.. some sort of prepubertal ritual if you [RZ}know what I mean. Don't deprive the folks of it. I hope your tongue was firmly in cheek there. [RZ}Are we back to the kindergarten after almost 20 years existence [RZ}of the QL? Peter certainly is - I'm not, and I don't suspect anyone else here is either. [RZ}Would please finally someone write a really QooL virus for the QL so [RZ}that we can consider it modern and trendy again and don't need to [RZ}discuss other computers virii ?! I like the use of 'QooL' much more street cred than that bloody awful 'Kewl' stuff you get on other NGs :o) [RZ}Btw, out of 821 messages I have (selectively) archived of this group [RZ}a mere 172 were sent using Outlook. Eudora 262, Turnpike 68, Bat 37, [RZ}sylpheed 24, Lotus 6, Calypso 59, Mozilla 51, kmail 27, talk 1, [RZ}pine 69, mutt 91. Totally incomplete and unrepresentative survey. So, not many non-PCs there then perhaps ? I'm pretty sure that we all agree that the list has gone OT on the subject now. I suspect I caused a bit of a stir when I had my annual rant - it certainly fired up a few people and increased the bandwidth a bit, however, I stand by what I said. Regardless of the fact that the discussions in progress at the time were or were not OT for a QL list, I think Peter's tantrun was out of place and uncalled for. What is wrong with a polite email asking people to take it privately if they want to finish the discussion, or please try to keep the discussions on QL related subjects etc. But to come on in and effectively resign just because a few emails not to his liking were received is a bit over the top. I'm a member of a few work related NGs, a few non-work related, and if the subjecty is off topic, a polite reminder is all that is required. It is simple and effective. Shall we call it a day now ? Cheers, Norman. - Norman Dunbar Database/Unix administrator Lynx Financial Systems Ltd. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: 0113 289 6265 Fax: 0113 289 3146 URL: http://www.Lynx-FS.com - This email is intended only for the use of the addressees named above and may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not an addressee you must not read it and must not use any information contained in it, nor copy it, nor inform any person other than Lynx Financial Systems or the addressees of its existence or contents. If you have received this email and are not a named addressee, please delete it and notify the Lynx Financial Systems IT Department on 0113 2892990.
Re: [ql-users] List etiquette. (Was: ms-users-and-smalltalk-list)
On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 04:48:03PM -, Norman Dunbar wrote: [RZ]If the general consensus (as you claim) is that more than 80% of talk on [RZ]this list should be devoted to some M$ virus nonsense he won't be the last [RZ}one to quit. Well, I never claimed 80%, or indeed any figures, so where you get 80% from I have no idea. it was approximately 80% of trafic the last few days and you were defending this practice, simple conclusion. [RZ}Are we back to the kindergarten after almost 20 years existence [RZ}of the QL? Peter certainly is - I'm not, and I don't suspect anyone else here is either. I suspect Peter is trying to do something useful with his time. It is kindergarten attitude however when we receive advices on something as trivial as reading mail. [RZ}Btw, out of 821 messages I have (selectively) archived of this group [RZ}a mere 172 were sent using Outlook. Eudora 262, Turnpike 68, Bat 37, [RZ}sylpheed 24, Lotus 6, Calypso 59, Mozilla 51, kmail 27, talk 1, [RZ}pine 69, mutt 91. Totally incomplete and unrepresentative survey. So, not many non-PCs there then perhaps ? it doesn't matter how many PC's or whatever, the point was that Outlook specific issues are interesting only for a fraction of the readers. Btw many of the listed mailers run on different platforms so the above survey doesn't tell much about the computers people use. What is wrong with a polite email asking people to take it privately if they want to finish the discussion, or please try to keep the discussions on QL related subjects etc. But to come on in and effectively resign just because a few emails not to his liking were received is a bit over the top. Just a few emails? How many discussions did we have in the last 6 months about: - Outlook and viruses - How to prevent Outlook from sending HTML mail People voiced their concern about this repeatedly but it didn't help much obviously. We should tolerate a modest level of offtopic messages but the last 4 virus discussions were a bit too much. Bye Richard
Re: [ql-users] List etiquette. (Was: ms-users-and-smalltalk-list)
I thought I would chime in here on the current topic of the mailing list. In keeping with the style RANT ON I find a lot of the traffic on this group to be not really worth my time to read. The delete key is my handy little friend and I use it often after skimming the subject line. There is too much Oh, Yea or Me, too messages. RANT OFF I do read the list because amongst all of the chaff there are occasionally little bits of gold, well worth my time reading most of the messages in the list. As a reader of USENET for 13 years, I know that at time the signal to noise ratio can be low, but I'm used to it. I find the list to be my main source of current QL information and help. QL Today is nice, but the mailing list is current and timely. I will not unsubscribe from the list, because to do so I would become a QL hermit. I prefer to be the guy sitting in the back of the room, listening to all the discussion, and piping up only when I have something worthy to say. I'd rather have the mailing list chatty than completely silent. So, continue on with the blather, my friends, as this California will listen. Tim flame me, I dare you Swenson
RE: [ql-users] List etiquette. (Was: ms-users-and-smalltalk-list)
Richard, it was approximately 80% of trafic the last few days and you were defending this practice, simple conclusion. An incorrect conclusion then.I wasn't defending anything. I was giving my opinion thet Peter over reacted. I haven't got time to count up all the emails, so I'll take your word on the 80% figure. Btw many of the listed mailers run on different platforms so the above survey doesn't tell much about the computers people use. I know that too. Just a few emails? How many discussions did we have in the last 6 months about: - Outlook and viruses - How to prevent Outlook from sending HTML mail Dunno - how many ? I don't archive anything from this list, or any others, unless it is relevant to me or my job. Anything off topic or not relavant to me (say hardware for example) gets deleted after a cursory glance. Unless anything catches my interest, it's history. People voiced their concern about this repeatedly but it didn't help much obviously. I'll take your word for it, but until Peter stormed off, nobody else mentioned it in respect to this conversation. We should tolerate a modest level of offtopic messages but the last 4 virus discussions were a bit too much. Probably true. IO can't remember. Bye Richard Cheers, Norman. - Norman Dunbar Database/Unix administrator Lynx Financial Systems Ltd. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: 0113 289 6265 Fax: 0113 289 3146 URL: http://www.Lynx-FS.com - This email is intended only for the use of the addressees named above and may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not an addressee you must not read it and must not use any information contained in it, nor copy it, nor inform any person other than Lynx Financial Systems or the addressees of its existence or contents. If you have received this email and are not a named addressee, please delete it and notify the Lynx Financial Systems IT Department on 0113 2892990.
Re: [ql-users] List etiquette. (Was: ms-users-and-smalltalk-list)
I wrote: 1. First of all, our freedom must stop where someone else's freedom stops. This is a fundamental democratic responsibility and I for one, no matter how much I agree or disagree with any side's position have to respect that... Well that would be stops when the other's STARTS anyway you get the message!
