Re: GMail vs. COBOL

[Tomasz Rola]

On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 05:27:37PM -0500, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Aug 2016 19:07:20 +0200, Tomasz Rola wrote:
> >
> >I could have written that poor MUAs lead to respondends being unable
> >to trim their emails to manageable size ... 
> > 
> I've heard of this misbehavior but never suffered it. 

I believe I suffer it on a daily basis. You too, probably. There are
MUAs who will not conform to standards, and the number of people
sending from their smartphones is growing too - I think it is hard to
trim text using one's finger or a mouse, and it is hard to do serious
editing or writing without help given by decent editor (and even small
effort could be helped and it adds up the more often one writes). So I
guess that users of such platforms suffer more than I - I would, if I
had to use them for writing. However, I have very limited experience -
so maybe they do not suffer as much as I imagine.

Given I am only reading those emails, this gives me just an
itch... about two or three hundred times a month (I am avid mailing
lists subscriber so I believe the number to be literal rather than a
metaphore). As of now I am going throu various webpages to see how I
can help myself - modular technology to the rescue.

> I assumed it was by design for integrity, preventing misquotation or
> alteration of context or denial of previous statements.

As of integrity, deniability etc, I guess people have been writing
emails for about 50 years, give or take a decade, so perhaps something
could be learned from the past. Or maybe not. Anyway, the digitally
signed _unedited_ copy could be used as a proof who wrote what, when,
maybe even where (some tweaks to existing solutions could be required
for all this, albeit I am not sure about jurisdiction where such proof
could serve in a court). Thus manipulating someone else's words would
make no sense as long as she could serve such a signed copy. The
archive could be a reliable third party to serve one. Alas, archives
come up and down, and personal computers can be broken into. I admit I
have not studied this subject at all.

However, I do not think that leaving full copy in response is going to
solve such problem better, or solve it at all. Or that anybody choose
to make program do so because of such noble intention.

-- 
Regards,
Tomasz Rola

--
** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature.  **
** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home**
** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened...  **
** **
** Tomasz Rola  mailto:tomasz_r...@bigfoot.com **

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: GMail vs. COBOL

[Paul Gilmartin]

On Sat, 20 Aug 2016 19:07:20 +0200, Tomasz Rola wrote:
>
>I could have written that poor MUAs lead to respondends being unable
>to trim their emails to manageable size ... 
> 
I've heard of this misbehavior but never suffered it.  I assumed it was
by design for integrity, preventing misquotation or alteration of context
or denial of previous statements.

But that's what archives are for, as Oliver North and Hillary Clinton learned.

-- gil

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: GMail vs. COBOL

[Tomasz Rola]

On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 10:22:09PM -0400, Phil Smith III wrote:
> What the top-posting vs. bottom-posting folks don't seem to recognize is
> that both have their uses.

Maybe. But choosing just one option is very limiting, like claiming
that talking about oneself has its merits and talking about others has
its merits - where is the vast sea of other possibilities?

> In a business conversation, a thread may go thru 20 exchanges, and then
> someone new gets added. That person is going to be completely lost without
> the history to follow up on, and the existing respondents aren't going to
> appreciate trying to catch them up.

Interesting scenario. You probably are right with this one.

[...]
> So.let's not restart this war, eh? It'll never be solved anyway. But if
> you're going to bottom-post, you really do need to trim. Paging through
> multiple screens to read a one-line response is just irritating.

I do not want to (re)start any war but I feel an urge to share an
opinion, which is, I think a problem with top-bottom is more related
to introduction of poor mailing applications. I cannot remember when
in my life I had to "page down" to find one line response (on the
bottom, I presume) because when I want to go there, I press "End" on
my keyboard. It is that easy.

I could have written that poor MUAs lead to respondends being unable
to trim their emails to manageable size (do they even have keyboards,
nowadays?), then eventually complaining about poor experience with
email (but not so much about poor apps), then perhaps murmuring about
"mail going to be dead" (because, with such a poor experience, what
else could happen) and so on. But, life is short and if the rest of
the world wants to shoot itself in the knee, why not. First, it is
their knee. Then, they might find it pleasurable. And besides, someone
could have thought I wanted to start a flame, while I have better
things to do :-) .

-- 
Regards,
Tomasz Rola

--
** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature.  **
** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home**
** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened...  **
** **
** Tomasz Rola  mailto:tomasz_r...@bigfoot.com **

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: GMail vs. COBOL

[Phil Smith III]

What the top-posting vs. bottom-posting folks don't seem to recognize is
that both have their uses.

 

In a business conversation, a thread may go thru 20 exchanges, and then
someone new gets added. That person is going to be completely lost without
the history to follow up on, and the existing respondents aren't going to
appreciate trying to catch them up.

 

In a personal conversation between two people, it's reasonable to
bottom-post, since both sides presumably have the entire thread handy. List
conversations also (typically) make the history easy to find.

 

And then there's what one is just plain used to. I was raised on
bottom-posting, but found it impossible to follow threads and joined the
top-posting world. And with bandwidth essentially no longer an issue, it's
at worst harmless.

 

So.let's not restart this war, eh? It'll never be solved anyway. But if
you're going to bottom-post, you really do need to trim. Paging through
multiple screens to read a one-line response is just irritating.

 

.phsiii


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: GMail vs. COBOL

[Paul Gilmartin]

On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 16:16:49 -0400, Gord Tomlin wrote:

>On 2016-08-18 15:25, Bill Woodger wrote:
>> Gord, other than sounding slightly risque, I have no idea what 
>> bottom-posting may mean.
>
Have you heard the nickname for the new British super-airship?

>... Personally, I hate bottom-posting, but the
>majority here seem to be in favor of it, so I comply. I don't
>bottom-post except on listservs.
>
I go a somewhat different way:  I trim all the material to which I'm not
directly replying, especially .sigs, disclaimers, and legal notices.  If someone
wants to review it, it's in the archives.  Then if I comment on two or
more points in a message, I put my comments proximate to the relevant
quoted material.

Often, if I'm replying to multiple plies, I'll copy and paste them together
and post a single reply, rather than several.

I don't believe it's hard to read, especially if I trim thoroughly, and more
important as a colleague observes, it matches the flow of normal verbal
communication.

-- gil

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: GMail vs. COBOL

[J R]

Hear, hear!  (Or "me too" as Skip mooted.)  

Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 18, 2016, at 17:40, Jesse 1 Robinson <jesse1.robin...@sce.com> wrote:
> 
> I'm totally on the side of top-posting. The only justification I've heard for 
> bottom-feeding is the vacuous observation that a first time reader of a 
> thread has to read all the way down to find out what's been said. Duh. A 
> first time reader has to do that anyway. An existing reader familiar with the 
> thread can see "what's new" immediately rather than slogging all the way down 
> to find only 'me too'. Once you've joined a thread, you're now an existing 
> reader.
> 
> And BTW, finding the beginning of a bottom post is not necessarily trivial. 
> You may have to scroll up and down for a while to locate it. Top posting puts 
> the beginning at the top where it's obvious.  
> 
> .
> .
> .
> J.O.Skip Robinson
> Southern California Edison Company
> Electric Dragon Team Paddler 
> SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager
> 323-715-0595 Mobile
> 626-302-7535 Office
> robin...@sce.com
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On 
> Behalf Of Charles Mills
> Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 1:36 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: (External):Re: GMail vs. COBOL
> 
> I get dozens of business e-mails a day and no one, no one in the business 
> community bottom-posts. If find it to be a quaint listserve oddity. So flame 
> me.
> 
> Charles
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On 
> Behalf Of Gord Tomlin
> Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 4:17 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: GMail vs. COBOL
> 
>> On 2016-08-18 15:25, Bill Woodger wrote:
>> Gord, other than sounding slightly risque, I have no idea what 
>> bottom-posting may mean.
> 
> Bottom-posting is placing your reply at the bottom of the message, as I did 
> here. Top-posting is placing your reply at the top of the message, as you did 
> with yours.
> 
> There is a standard that declares bottom-posting to be correct, and 
> top-posting to be incorrect. Personally, I hate bottom-posting, but the 
> majority here seem to be in favor of it, so I comply. I don't bottom-post 
> except on listservs.
> 
> 
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: GMail vs. COBOL

[Jesse 1 Robinson]

I'm totally on the side of top-posting. The only justification I've heard for 
bottom-feeding is the vacuous observation that a first time reader of a thread 
has to read all the way down to find out what's been said. Duh. A first time 
reader has to do that anyway. An existing reader familiar with the thread can 
see "what's new" immediately rather than slogging all the way down to find only 
'me too'. Once you've joined a thread, you're now an existing reader.

And BTW, finding the beginning of a bottom post is not necessarily trivial. You 
may have to scroll up and down for a while to locate it. Top posting puts the 
beginning at the top where it's obvious.  

.
.
.
J.O.Skip Robinson
Southern California Edison Company
Electric Dragon Team Paddler 
SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager
323-715-0595 Mobile
626-302-7535 Office
robin...@sce.com

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Charles Mills
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 1:36 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: (External):Re: GMail vs. COBOL

I get dozens of business e-mails a day and no one, no one in the business 
community bottom-posts. If find it to be a quaint listserve oddity. So flame me.

Charles

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Gord Tomlin
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 4:17 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: GMail vs. COBOL

On 2016-08-18 15:25, Bill Woodger wrote:
> Gord, other than sounding slightly risque, I have no idea what bottom-posting 
> may mean.

Bottom-posting is placing your reply at the bottom of the message, as I did 
here. Top-posting is placing your reply at the top of the message, as you did 
with yours.

There is a standard that declares bottom-posting to be correct, and top-posting 
to be incorrect. Personally, I hate bottom-posting, but the majority here seem 
to be in favor of it, so I comply. I don't bottom-post except on listservs.


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: GMail vs. COBOL

[Charles Mills]

I get dozens of business e-mails a day and no one, no one in the business 
community bottom-posts. If find it to be a quaint listserve oddity. So flame me.

Charles

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Gord Tomlin
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 4:17 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: GMail vs. COBOL

On 2016-08-18 15:25, Bill Woodger wrote:
> Gord, other than sounding slightly risque, I have no idea what bottom-posting 
> may mean.

Bottom-posting is placing your reply at the bottom of the message, as I did 
here. Top-posting is placing your reply at the top of the message, as you did 
with yours.

There is a standard that declares bottom-posting to be correct, and top-posting 
to be incorrect. Personally, I hate bottom-posting, but the majority here seem 
to be in favor of it, so I comply. I don't bottom-post except on listservs.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: GMail vs. COBOL

[Gord Tomlin]

On 2016-08-18 15:25, Bill Woodger wrote:

Gord, other than sounding slightly risque, I have no idea what bottom-posting 
may mean.


Bottom-posting is placing your reply at the bottom of the message, as I 
did here. Top-posting is placing your reply at the top of the message, 
as you did with yours.


There is a standard that declares bottom-posting to be correct, and 
top-posting to be incorrect. Personally, I hate bottom-posting, but the 
majority here seem to be in favor of it, so I comply. I don't 
bottom-post except on listservs.


--

Regards, Gord Tomlin
Action Software International
(a division of Mazda Computer Corporation)
Tel: (905) 470-7113, Fax: (905) 470-6507

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: GMail vs. COBOL

[Bill Woodger]

Thanks, Bill, got to that now. Even after reading the manual, it still took 
time to realise that the quote possibility only emerges once you've already 
clicked on Reply.

The thing is, having got this far, am I still breaking things (topics) in gmail?

Gord, other than sounding slightly risque, I have no idea what bottom-posting 
may mean. There's always a search engine.

On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 12:09:37 -0500, Bill Godfrey  wrote:

>When replying from the listserv web interface, the way to quote the message 
>you are replying to  is to click on the large double-quote icon in the lower 
>right. This message was sent that way.
>

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: GMail vs. COBOL

[Gord Tomlin]

On 2016-08-18 13:09, Bill Godfrey wrote:

When replying from the listserv web interface, the way to quote the message you 
are replying to  is to click on the large double-quote icon in the lower right. 
This message was sent that way.

On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 11:16:09 -0500, Bill Woodger wrote:


Well, I was wrong about there being no "reply" from the listserv.ua.edu. If you go into an archive 
month, you can reply there (can't work out how to get quoted text, but I can always "reply" in the 
google group, copy, paste in here, type what else I want (and trim) and "Send Message" from here, 
then Discard in google groups).


For me (on Thunderbird), your message resulted in thread breakage.

BTW, is there anything in the settings of the listserv web interface 
(which I don't use) that controls top-posting vs. bottom-posting? Some 
people (I'm not one of them) have a strong preference for 
bottom-posting, based in part on standards.


--

Regards, Gord Tomlin
Action Software International
(a division of Mazda Computer Corporation)
Tel: (905) 470-7113, Fax: (905) 470-6507

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: GMail vs. COBOL

[Bill Godfrey]

When replying from the listserv web interface, the way to quote the message you 
are replying to  is to click on the large double-quote icon in the lower right. 
This message was sent that way.

On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 11:16:09 -0500, Bill Woodger wrote:

>Well, I was wrong about there being no "reply" from the listserv.ua.edu. If 
>you go into an archive month, you can reply there (can't work out how to get 
>quoted text, but I can always "reply" in the google group, copy, paste in 
>here, type what else I want (and trim) and "Send Message" from here, then 
>Discard in google groups).
>

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: GMail vs. COBOL

[Tomasz Rola]

On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 05:26:25PM +0200, Tomasz Rola wrote:
[...]
> Hope this helps somebody. Sending via listserv interface to the list's
> archive seems to be source of the problem - I have not had time to log
> in there and see myself, but according to Bill W. there is no "reply
> to" option, only "add new". Chances are, listserv does not store
> anything else beyound what it can show on web page, and judging by
> mailman archives (of some other lists) I have inspected so far, the
> "message-id" field is not included, thus reply would not have
> "In-Reply-To" field either, or have wrong value.

Addendum: I have inspected one mailman archive of some other list
(gzipped text archive, downloaded, ungzipped, lessed) and both
"Message-Id" and "In-Reply-To" are present there, only not displayed
when list archive is viewed with web browser. So perhaps the solution
would be to add "reply to" button _or_ to add ability in "add new" so
one can specify this is response, not a new thread.

-- 
Regards,
Tomasz Rola

--
** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature.  **
** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home**
** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened...  **
** **
** Tomasz Rola  mailto:tomasz_r...@bigfoot.com **

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: GMail vs. COBOL

[Bill Woodger]

Well, I was wrong about there being no "reply" from the listserv.ua.edu. If you 
go into an archive month, you can reply there (can't work out how to get quoted 
text, but I can always "reply" in the google group, copy, paste in here, type 
what else I want (and trim) and "Send Message" from here, then Discard in 
google groups).

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: GMail vs. COBOL

[Tomasz Rola]

On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 08:23:56AM -0400, Gord Tomlin wrote:
[...]
> For me (I receive the messages with Thunderbird), Paul Gilmartin's
> messages also break threads on IBM-MAIN; Gil is active here, so his
> posts break lots of threads for me. Interestingly, his posts do not
> break threads on ASSEMBLER-LIST. There are plenty of moving parts
> here.

If you are curious enough, I suggest to have a look at his email's
headers and compare with description I gave in one of my previous
posts in this thread:

   :: Some appear to use listserv's web face on certain days (and have
   :: no "In-Reply-To" in their messages) and on other days they send
   :: from "Apple some-some 1.0" (and seem to have the right field in
   :: header).

Hope this helps somebody. Sending via listserv interface to the list's
archive seems to be source of the problem - I have not had time to log
in there and see myself, but according to Bill W. there is no "reply
to" option, only "add new". Chances are, listserv does not store
anything else beyound what it can show on web page, and judging by
mailman archives (of some other lists) I have inspected so far, the
"message-id" field is not included, thus reply would not have
"In-Reply-To" field either, or have wrong value.

-- 
Regards,
Tomasz Rola

--
** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature.  **
** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home**
** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened...  **
** **
** Tomasz Rola  mailto:tomasz_r...@bigfoot.com **

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: GMail vs. COBOL

[Gord Tomlin]

On 2016-08-17 21:31, zMan wrote:

Heck, people reply to existing
threads with new topics;


This is a pure human behavioral issue, and drives me nuts.

--

Regards, Gord Tomlin
Action Software International
(a division of Mazda Computer Corporation)
Tel: (905) 470-7113, Fax: (905) 470-6507

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: GMail vs. COBOL

[Gord Tomlin]

On 2016-08-18 07:18, Steve Horein wrote:

On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 11:49 PM, Ed Jaffe 
wrote:


> On 8/17/2016 6:31 PM, zMan wrote:
>

>> I mean, "When I read the list in GMail, I don't want to see a thread
>> broken
>> into 27 different ones simply because some folks use non-compliant MUAs."
>>

>
> Yes, every reply from Bill Woodger starts a new thread. I have not yet
> examined the headers to understand why.
>
> This might also happen with some other posters, but Bill's are _by far_
> the most numerous...
>
> --
> Edward E Jaffe
> Phoenix Software International, Inc
> 831 Parkview Drive North
> El Segundo, CA 90245
> http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/
>
>

It is not specific to any one client, it is specific to Bill's
behavior/preference:


For me (I receive the messages with Thunderbird), Paul Gilmartin's 
messages also break threads on IBM-MAIN; Gil is active here, so his 
posts break lots of threads for me. Interestingly, his posts do not 
break threads on ASSEMBLER-LIST. There are plenty of moving parts here.


--

Regards, Gord Tomlin
Action Software International
(a division of Mazda Computer Corporation)
Tel: (905) 470-7113, Fax: (905) 470-6507

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: GMail vs. COBOL

[Steve Horein]

On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 11:49 PM, Ed Jaffe 
wrote:

> On 8/17/2016 6:31 PM, zMan wrote:
>
>> I mean, "When I read the list in GMail, I don't want to see a thread
>> broken
>> into 27 different ones simply because some folks use non-compliant MUAs."
>>
>
> Yes, every reply from Bill Woodger starts a new thread. I have not yet
> examined the headers to understand why.
>
> This might also happen with some other posters, but Bill's are _by far_
> the most numerous...
>
> --
> Edward E Jaffe
> Phoenix Software International, Inc
> 831 Parkview Drive North
> El Segundo, CA 90245
> http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/
>
>
It is not specific to any one client, it is specific to Bill's
behavior/preference:

On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Bill Woodger 
 wrote:

> I use google groups to view the list, and https://listserv.ua.edu/cgi-
> bin/wa?A0=IBM-MAIN to post to the list. I have email delivery turned off,
> and do not reply to (the non-existent) emails from gmail.
>
> The google groups presents everything nicely by topic, whether I include
> Re: at the start of the subject or not. So I was unaware of the fracturing
> of topics occurring elsewhere.
>
> *As far as I know, I can only "add new", not "reply to", when using the
> archive to post to the list.*
>
> Given that I don't want or need a whole bunch of emails - if anyone can
> suggest a "better" way to reply without messing other people about, I am
> very open to suggestions.
>

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: GMail vs. COBOL

[Ed Jaffe]

On 8/17/2016 6:31 PM, zMan wrote:

I mean, "When I read the list in GMail, I don't want to see a thread broken
into 27 different ones simply because some folks use non-compliant MUAs."


Yes, every reply from Bill Woodger starts a new thread. I have not yet 
examined the headers to understand why.


This might also happen with some other posters, but Bill's are _by far_ 
the most numerous...


--
Edward E Jaffe
Phoenix Software International, Inc
831 Parkview Drive North
El Segundo, CA 90245
http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: GMail vs. COBOL

[zMan]

I mean, "When I read the list in GMail, I don't want to see a thread broken
into 27 different ones simply because some folks use non-compliant MUAs."

Principle of Least Astonishment suggests, at least to me, that this would
make sense. And given that the predominant desktop client (Outlook--like it
or not, it is the predominant one) just looks at Subject:, and that
mistakenly merging a thread in a discussion forum is pretty unlikely, I'm
suggesting that there's no real downside. Heck, people reply to existing
threads with new topics; this is the inverse. And less likely (what are the
odds that there will be two unconnected threads called "GMail vs. COBOL" at
the same time?)

I certainly understand the purist argument; maybe it could be optional
(though I'd argue that it should be enabled by default).

But this is really OT and I misdoubt that GMail devs read this list...
...though maybe they should!

On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 8:01 PM, Tomasz Rola <rto...@ceti.com.pl> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 05:02:38PM -0500, Bill Woodger wrote:
> > And now from the archive, posted as a reply to my last.
> >
>
> Both messages came to my mailbox, unlinked from the thread and from
> each other. But I have already linked them. I am using mutt, all it
> takes is four strokes per message - and if the message comes with its
> own subthread linked below, that is even better, whole subthread gets
> placed where it belongs.
>
> During last two years I have learned to enter those strokes without
> thinking much - *n& - and n to locate next lost subthread. I
> think it is time to configure my first keyboard macro in mutt, if
> possible.
>
> If you would like to try something, I will try to help.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Tomasz Rola
>
> --
> ** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature.  **
> ** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home**
> ** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened...  **
> ** **
> ** Tomasz Rola  mailto:tomasz_r...@bigfoot.com **
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>



-- 
zMan -- "I've got a mainframe and I'm not afraid to use it"

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: GMail vs. COBOL

[Tomasz Rola]

On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 05:02:38PM -0500, Bill Woodger wrote:
> And now from the archive, posted as a reply to my last.
> 

Both messages came to my mailbox, unlinked from the thread and from
each other. But I have already linked them. I am using mutt, all it
takes is four strokes per message - and if the message comes with its
own subthread linked below, that is even better, whole subthread gets
placed where it belongs.

During last two years I have learned to enter those strokes without
thinking much - *n& - and n to locate next lost subthread. I
think it is time to configure my first keyboard macro in mutt, if
possible.

If you would like to try something, I will try to help.

-- 
Regards,
Tomasz Rola

--
** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature.  **
** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home**
** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened...  **
** **
** Tomasz Rola  mailto:tomasz_r...@bigfoot.com **

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: GMail vs. COBOL

[Clark Morris]

[Default] On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 14:50:29 -0700 (PDT), in
bit.listserv.ibm-main Bill Woodger  wrote:

>As I understand it, when I "reply" from the google groups display, only the 
>google-groups readers can see it, it doesn't go to the list itself. So you, 
>Tomasz, can't see this one.

Does Google have reply to poster via e-mail and if so will it reply to
ibm=main if that is the sending group?  I am using that function in
Agent to reply.

Clark Morris
>
>This would be the most convenient way to interact with the mailing list, but 
>it doesn't work like that. Apparently.
>
>On Tuesday, 16 August 2016 22:17:39 UTC+2, Tomasz Rola  wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 12:17:51PM -0500, Bill Woodger wrote:
>> > I use google groups to view the list, and
>> > https://listserv.ua.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=IBM-MAIN to post to the
>> > list. I have email delivery turned off, and do not reply to (the
>> > non-existent) emails from gmail.
>> > 
>> > The google groups presents everything nicely by topic, whether I
>> > include Re: at the start of the subject or not. So I was unaware of
>> > the fracturing of topics occurring elsewhere.
>> > 
>> > As far as I know, I can only "add new", not "reply to", when using
>> > the archive to post to the list.
>> 
>> I see. So you prefer to use the group via the web. I have not had the
>> time to ask for password to archive interface, but I can see the "log
>> in to send reply" button on every email from this thread as displayed
>> in G-groups. I wonder if it could do the job?
>> 
>> > Given that I don't want or need a whole bunch of emails - if anyone
>> > can suggest a "better" way to reply without messing other people
>> > about, I am very open to suggestions.
>> 
>> Myself, I have no idea, considering your preferences. I do not use web
>> based solutions (a.k.a. apps) very often.
>> 
>> Wrt to "messing" - I hope I did not sound rude. My message was not
>> meant to offend anybody. And, your case represents certain wider
>> trend. I have looked up and there are quite a few "offenders". Some
>> appear to use listserv's web face on certain days (and have no
>> "In-Reply-To" in their messages) and on other days they send from
>> "Apple some-some 1.0" (and seem to have the right field in
>> header). Some send their emails via Extortosoft Outlook/Exchange and
>> have no such field (not sure, coincidence? causation?). Finally, I
>> have found some emails on another group which had the field but with
>> bad value, i.e. pointing to the email I have never received, even if
>> the contents pointed to the actual email I had in my mailbox - so the
>> mailing list software mangled headers (replaced right message id with
>> wrong one, how nice) and broke threading, for whatever reason.
>> 
>> And it took me only few minutes, who knows what is there waiting for
>> me to have another look.
>> 
>> Thus, I think you do not have to do anything particular, because
>> things are messed up in so many places, the big picture will look the
>> same.
>> 
>> Now, stop worrying and I... will love scripting, perhaps ;-).
>> 
>> -- 
>> Regards,
>> Tomasz Rola

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: GMail vs. COBOL

[Bill Woodger]

And now from the archive, posted as a reply to my last.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: GMail vs. COBOL

[Bill Woodger]

So, to test, do you see the message I posted below?

On Tuesday, 16 August 2016 23:50:31 UTC+2, Bill Woodger  wrote:
> As I understand it, when I "reply" from the google groups display, only the 
> google-groups readers can see it, it doesn't go to the list itself. So you, 
> Tomasz, can't see this one.
> 
> This would be the most convenient way to interact with the mailing list, but 
> it doesn't work like that. Apparently.
> 
> On Tuesday, 16 August 2016 22:17:39 UTC+2, Tomasz Rola  wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 12:17:51PM -0500, Bill Woodger wrote:
> > > I use google groups to view the list, and
> > > https://listserv.ua.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=IBM-MAIN to post to the
> > > list. I have email delivery turned off, and do not reply to (the
> > > non-existent) emails from gmail.
> > > 
> > > The google groups presents everything nicely by topic, whether I
> > > include Re: at the start of the subject or not. So I was unaware of
> > > the fracturing of topics occurring elsewhere.
> > > 
> > > As far as I know, I can only "add new", not "reply to", when using
> > > the archive to post to the list.
> > 
> > I see. So you prefer to use the group via the web. I have not had the
> > time to ask for password to archive interface, but I can see the "log
> > in to send reply" button on every email from this thread as displayed
> > in G-groups. I wonder if it could do the job?
> > 
> > > Given that I don't want or need a whole bunch of emails - if anyone
> > > can suggest a "better" way to reply without messing other people
> > > about, I am very open to suggestions.
> > 
> > Myself, I have no idea, considering your preferences. I do not use web
> > based solutions (a.k.a. apps) very often.
> > 
> > Wrt to "messing" - I hope I did not sound rude. My message was not
> > meant to offend anybody. And, your case represents certain wider
> > trend. I have looked up and there are quite a few "offenders". Some
> > appear to use listserv's web face on certain days (and have no
> > "In-Reply-To" in their messages) and on other days they send from
> > "Apple some-some 1.0" (and seem to have the right field in
> > header). Some send their emails via Extortosoft Outlook/Exchange and
> > have no such field (not sure, coincidence? causation?). Finally, I
> > have found some emails on another group which had the field but with
> > bad value, i.e. pointing to the email I have never received, even if
> > the contents pointed to the actual email I had in my mailbox - so the
> > mailing list software mangled headers (replaced right message id with
> > wrong one, how nice) and broke threading, for whatever reason.
> > 
> > And it took me only few minutes, who knows what is there waiting for
> > me to have another look.
> > 
> > Thus, I think you do not have to do anything particular, because
> > things are messed up in so many places, the big picture will look the
> > same.
> > 
> > Now, stop worrying and I... will love scripting, perhaps ;-).
> > 
> > -- 
> > Regards,
> > Tomasz Rola

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: GMail vs. COBOL

[Paul Gilmartin]

On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 22:51:18 +0200, Tomasz Rola wrote:

>On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 12:57:45PM -0400, zMan wrote:
>> Tomasz,
>>
>> I understand. But the MUAs mostly link by Subject: line;
>
>Uhum, I am not sure what you mean. But if I read you right this
>time[0], I was "always" sure the proper way to link one message to
>another is by utilising information from other header fields - maybe
>using "Subject" as a last resort. Fields like "List-Id", "List-Owner",
>sometimes "Reply-To", and last but not least, "In-Reply-To".
>
That "last" should be first.  It's the Right Way.

>> I'm suggesting that GMail could do the same, at least for notes
>> classified as "Forums".  "We have the technology"...
> 
Alas, the Internet has deteriorated to supporting the dumbest users
at the cost of restricting function for the smarter.  Much of the
criterion is to restrict the number of phone calls to tech support,
the preponderance of which come from those dumbest users.

-- gil

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: GMail vs. COBOL

[Tomasz Rola]

On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 12:57:45PM -0400, zMan wrote:
> Tomasz,
> 
> I understand. But the MUAs mostly link by Subject: line;

Uhum, I am not sure what you mean. But if I read you right this
time[0], I was "always" sure the proper way to link one message to
another is by utilising information from other header fields - maybe
using "Subject" as a last resort. Fields like "List-Id", "List-Owner",
sometimes "Reply-To", and last but not least, "In-Reply-To".

> I'm suggesting that GMail could do the same, at least for notes
> classified as "Forums".  "We have the technology"...

[0] Yeah. It seems I misunderstood your original post, where I took
your use of word "threading" as synonym for my problem. And now I
understand you want to sort incoming emails into different, say,
folders, using some kind of, say, filters? This kind of tricks were
easy when I sorted my mails with procmail (classified each email based
on their headers, leaving out spam). Ok, maybe not that easy but
doable. I do not know if this method could be ported to G-mail
filters, after quick glance on their help.

Sorting with procmail worked fine, until one day spam started to come
from mailing lists themselves. After that, having messages in many
different folders lost lot of its charm, so I do not sort nowadays.

-- 
Regards,
Tomasz Rola

--
** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature.  **
** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home**
** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened...  **
** **
** Tomasz Rola  mailto:tomasz_r...@bigfoot.com **

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: GMail vs. COBOL

[Tomasz Rola]

On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 12:17:51PM -0500, Bill Woodger wrote:
> I use google groups to view the list, and
> https://listserv.ua.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=IBM-MAIN to post to the
> list. I have email delivery turned off, and do not reply to (the
> non-existent) emails from gmail.
> 
> The google groups presents everything nicely by topic, whether I
> include Re: at the start of the subject or not. So I was unaware of
> the fracturing of topics occurring elsewhere.
> 
> As far as I know, I can only "add new", not "reply to", when using
> the archive to post to the list.

I see. So you prefer to use the group via the web. I have not had the
time to ask for password to archive interface, but I can see the "log
in to send reply" button on every email from this thread as displayed
in G-groups. I wonder if it could do the job?

> Given that I don't want or need a whole bunch of emails - if anyone
> can suggest a "better" way to reply without messing other people
> about, I am very open to suggestions.

Myself, I have no idea, considering your preferences. I do not use web
based solutions (a.k.a. apps) very often.

Wrt to "messing" - I hope I did not sound rude. My message was not
meant to offend anybody. And, your case represents certain wider
trend. I have looked up and there are quite a few "offenders". Some
appear to use listserv's web face on certain days (and have no
"In-Reply-To" in their messages) and on other days they send from
"Apple some-some 1.0" (and seem to have the right field in
header). Some send their emails via Extortosoft Outlook/Exchange and
have no such field (not sure, coincidence? causation?). Finally, I
have found some emails on another group which had the field but with
bad value, i.e. pointing to the email I have never received, even if
the contents pointed to the actual email I had in my mailbox - so the
mailing list software mangled headers (replaced right message id with
wrong one, how nice) and broke threading, for whatever reason.

And it took me only few minutes, who knows what is there waiting for
me to have another look.

Thus, I think you do not have to do anything particular, because
things are messed up in so many places, the big picture will look the
same.

Now, stop worrying and I... will love scripting, perhaps ;-).

-- 
Regards,
Tomasz Rola

--
** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature.  **
** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home**
** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened...  **
** **
** Tomasz Rola  mailto:tomasz_r...@bigfoot.com **

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: GMail vs. COBOL

[Bill Woodger]

I use google groups to view the list, and 
https://listserv.ua.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=IBM-MAIN to post to the list. I have 
email delivery turned off, and do not reply to (the non-existent) emails from 
gmail. 

The google groups presents everything nicely by topic, whether I include Re: at 
the start of the subject or not. So I was unaware of the fracturing of topics 
occurring elsewhere.

As far as I know, I can only "add new", not "reply to", when using the archive 
to post to the list. 

Given that I don't want or need a whole bunch of emails - if anyone can suggest 
a "better" way to reply without messing other people about, I am very open to 
suggestions.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: GMail vs. COBOL

[zMan]

Tomasz,

I understand. But the MUAs mostly link by Subject: line; I'm suggesting
that GMail could do the same, at least for notes classified as "Forums".
"We have the technology"...

On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Tomasz Rola  wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 01:54:25PM -0400, zMan wrote:
> > Sure would be nice if GMail were half as good at threading as COBOL is at
> > detecting recursive calls. I see TEN different threads with the same
> > subject.
> >
> > (Yes, I understand Message-ID and that some mailers [human or otherwise]
> > remove it, thus breaking automatic threading, but for discussion
> > lists--which Google already groks, as it puts these threads into
> Forums--it
> > could use a slightly less restrictive algorithm, nu?)
>
> I am not sure if this is gmail's fault. It seems to me, bad messages
> lack the "In-Reply-To" field in their headers. Some messages from
> gmail users I have inspected display this field, some do not. Without
> it, most if not all MUAs (mail user agent - program to read and write
> emails) cannot process threads correctly.
>
> I spend considerable amount of time manually linking broken threads[0]
> in my MUA, even before I decide if the thread is worth reading. Every
> time I bless the keyboard shortcuts (never have to touch mouse to
> read). These come mostly from IBM-MAIN, sometimes from one or two
> other lists I am subscribed to.
>
> A quick inspection suggests that one of the "offenders" [1] does not
> send his emails via gmail, even as he comes with a gmail address. So
> perhaps source of the problem lies beyound gmail's domain.
>
> [0] To the point when I start thinking this should be computer's job.
>
> [1] Bill Woodger, I am looking at you but I am not accusing you,
> m'kay? But when I send this message, I will chase down your answer to
> zMan and manually link it. Again...
>
> --
> Regards,
> Tomasz Rola
>
> --
> ** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature.  **
> ** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home**
> ** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened...  **
> ** **
> ** Tomasz Rola  mailto:tomasz_r...@bigfoot.com **
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>



-- 
zMan -- "I've got a mainframe and I'm not afraid to use it"

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: GMail vs. COBOL

[Tomasz Rola]

On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 01:54:25PM -0400, zMan wrote:
> Sure would be nice if GMail were half as good at threading as COBOL is at
> detecting recursive calls. I see TEN different threads with the same
> subject.
> 
> (Yes, I understand Message-ID and that some mailers [human or otherwise]
> remove it, thus breaking automatic threading, but for discussion
> lists--which Google already groks, as it puts these threads into Forums--it
> could use a slightly less restrictive algorithm, nu?)

I am not sure if this is gmail's fault. It seems to me, bad messages
lack the "In-Reply-To" field in their headers. Some messages from
gmail users I have inspected display this field, some do not. Without
it, most if not all MUAs (mail user agent - program to read and write
emails) cannot process threads correctly.

I spend considerable amount of time manually linking broken threads[0]
in my MUA, even before I decide if the thread is worth reading. Every
time I bless the keyboard shortcuts (never have to touch mouse to
read). These come mostly from IBM-MAIN, sometimes from one or two
other lists I am subscribed to.

A quick inspection suggests that one of the "offenders" [1] does not
send his emails via gmail, even as he comes with a gmail address. So
perhaps source of the problem lies beyound gmail's domain.

[0] To the point when I start thinking this should be computer's job.

[1] Bill Woodger, I am looking at you but I am not accusing you,
m'kay? But when I send this message, I will chase down your answer to
zMan and manually link it. Again...

-- 
Regards,
Tomasz Rola

--
** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature.  **
** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home**
** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened...  **
** **
** Tomasz Rola  mailto:tomasz_r...@bigfoot.com **

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: GMail vs. COBOL

[Bill Woodger]

Perhaps now I know what you are talking about :-)

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

GMail vs. COBOL

[zMan]

Sure would be nice if GMail were half as good at threading as COBOL is at
detecting recursive calls. I see TEN different threads with the same
subject.

(Yes, I understand Message-ID and that some mailers [human or otherwise]
remove it, thus breaking automatic threading, but for discussion
lists--which Google already groks, as it puts these threads into Forums--it
could use a slightly less restrictive algorithm, nu?)
-- 
zMan -- "I've got a mainframe and I'm not afraid to use it"

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN