Greetings Januk!
First I had to TRACK DOWN "(No Subject)" and which technically *IS* a
subject. If it really was NO SUBJECT then there would be
Subject=""
Which still isn't the case. Which is why
Okay man, I got 5:870 messages with "(No Subject) in TBUDL.
That's FIVE out of EIGHTHUNDRED AND SEVENTY MESSAGES! This is not
"Frequent!" This is not a widespread problem!
Out of those FIVE MESSAGES,
Julio Cesar da Costa <jcc@ositedotcomdotbr> Wrote ONE MESSAGE
Nick Andriash <andriash@homedotcom> Wrote TWO MESSAGE
Jamie Dainton <jamie.dainton@lineonedotnet> Wrote ONE MESSAGE
Larry Barrett <larry@kyotecdotcomdotbr> Wrote ONE MESSAGE
That's FOUR PEOPLE OUT OF NINETY EIGHT PEOPLE!!
That's also hardly a frequency worth mentioning.
BTW-I don't see you in there. From 9-DEC-1999
Anyone want to do further statistics? Like say someone that has 40K
messages in their little database? I know there are people out here
that have 40,000+ messages...
Okay, let's ADD YOU, for a ratio of 5:98 so FIVE PEOPLE
out of NINETY EIGHT PEOPLE, wrote messages with no subject.
5 in 98, Sure is frequent. Wow. Let's round it off to 6/100
-=-=-=-=-=-=- HIGH FREQUENCY GOT YOUR TONGUE? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
6% No Subject
94% With Subject
-=-=-=-=-=-=- HIGH FREQUENCY GOT YOUR TONGUE? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Round it again.. total .05% harmonic subject distortion
Hell that's better than my soundcard! LOL
I consider it a GODSEND not having restrictive NON-RFC
Compliant nonsense imposed on me. It's fluff man.. Fluff.
And RFC 822 shows this:
=== BEGIN
3.1.2. STRUCTURE OF HEADER FIELDS
Once a field has been unfolded, it may be viewed as being com-
posed of a field-name followed by a colon (":"), followed by a
field-body, and terminated by a carriage-return/line-feed.
The field-name must be composed of printable ASCII characters
(i.e., characters that have values between 33. and 126.,
decimal, except colon). The field-body may be composed of any
ASCII characters, except CR or LF. (While CR and/or LF may be
present in the actual text, they are removed by the action of
unfolding the field.)
Certain field-bodies of headers may be interpreted according
to an internal syntax that some systems may wish to parse.
These fields are called "structured fields". Examples
include fields containing dates and addresses. Other fields,
such as "Subject" and "Comments", are regarded simply as
strings of text.
Note: Any field which has a field-body that is defined as
other than simply <text> is to be treated as a struc-
tured field.
Field-names, unstructured field bodies and structured
field bodies each are scanned by their own, independent
"lexical" analyzers.
=== END
Okay, These fields are regarded as "strings of text" it says. Well ""
is *MY* string of text! And there's nothing in the RFC's that say that
shouldn't happen. After all NOTHING *IS* a string. (ALT-255)
However if I choose to put something meaningful into that field, to
help YOU SORT through theres nothing wrong with that either, yet if
you REQUIRE ME to have a pop-up NAG SCREEN then your treading on my
shoes.
Your forcing *YOUR TEXT* into the field described by RFC 822/ on *MY*
message, and that my friend don't go down well with homey the clown.
Neither is a nagging-pop-up when it's MY OPTION (as per RFC 822) to
leave that field blank.
On Monday, May 15, 2000 at 20:22:19 GMT -0700 (which was 8:22 PM where
you think I live) [EMAIL PROTECTED] typed:
JA> Hello phil,
JA> On Monday, May 15, 2000 at 19:57:44 GMT -0700 (which was 7:57 PM
JA> where I live) [EMAIL PROTECTED] typed:
>> Greetings John!
>> I have 870 messages in TBUDL and not one of them is lacking a SUBJECT.
>> So, I don't see where your getting your statistics from. Sounds like
>> an ABC poll to me. Where's the facts?
>> Also in TBBETA I have 1660 messages and not one is lacking a Subject
>> line. Where's the facts, really.. I don't see it. Were these missing
>> subjects in 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999? Earlier? When?
JA> There are a couple in the past couple of days on the TBUDL list. I
JA> personally contributed a few when I first got TB. Check the archives
JA> from late November, early December to see mine. Lots of people new
JA> to TB make this mistake.
--
... Black Sabbath speaks about The Bat!: The Bat! Laughing Spreads His Wings, Oh La
Cher!
--- The Bat! 1.42f + 98Lite + Revenge of Mozilla II
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team double click here:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--------------------------------------------------------------
You are subscribed as : [email protected]
