Hello, Dave. I forgive you for misspelling my name so it looks like MercuricAluminum (aluminium).
That character length business is due to a lack of a standard maximum length for subjects. The old school (DOS) set the limit very low to conserve space. The new school (Win 95) set the limit to 255 because the name of the game is "Bloated Product=>More Revenue," a theory that I think is about to expire. Anyway, I don't think Ed's software is doing anything on its own; it is probably reacting to differences in code pages/unicode -8/unicode-16 and the like. BTW, there are not invisible characters, only non-printing characters. The computer sees all but only reacts the way its been told to. HALinNY -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Crozier Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 11:55 To: 'ProFox Email List' Subject: RE: [OT] Stifling the 'racists' Hgal, Funny you should mention that as over the last few weeks I have begun to wonder what actually makes the same thread split up in Outlook 2K3. I used to think it was simply the length of the Subject line as over about 32 characters generates separate threads but recently even small subject lines (i.e the one above) seem to generate new threads randoml;y. I wonder if it is Ed's software adding invisible characters or if it is Outlook itself? Dave Crozier "A computer is a stupid machine with the ability to do incredibly smart things, while computer programmers are smart people with the ability to do incredibly stupid things. They are, in short, a perfect match" - Bill Bryson -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hal Kaplan Sent: 13 July 2006 16:00 To: ProFox Email List Subject: RE: [OT] Stifling the 'racists' FYI, Outlook 2003 on WinXP has created three "conversations" for this thread, indicating a underlying difference that is not visible to the human eye. The original MM message is one thread, there is one for Tristan's response, and there is this thread that I am responding on, which has the most messages. HTH HALinNY -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Leafe Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 07:53 To: ProFox Email List Subject: Re: [OT] Stifling the 'racists' On Jul 13, 2006, at 5:18 AM, Ted Roche wrote: > Why is it that just your OT posts seem to leak through? Look at the raw message. Some email clients use different encodings, so what might look like [OT] in your client, but which don't get caught by the filter. I've set up several regex patterns to catch these, but perhaps there are some new ones. -- Ed Leafe -- http://leafe.com -- http://dabodev.com [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
