Rather than tangentialise perfectly good topics, is it me, or does there
seem to be a marked increase in posts which are not quoted properly?

Wthout checking all the posts, I assume Outlook Express is to blame?...

Tim S wrote:
Rather than tangentialise perfectly good topics, is it me, or does
there seem to be a marked increase in posts which are not quoted
properly?

Wthout checking all the posts, I assume Outlook Express is to
blame?...

Nope. It's people posting through Google groups I believe. A real pain in
the bum when you're trying to make sense of long threads.

Tim D

"Tim S" wrote in message
...
Rather than tangentialise perfectly good topics, is it me, or does there
seem to be a marked increase in posts which are not quoted properly?

Wthout checking all the posts, I assume Outlook Express is to blame?...



I use Outlook Express, so how is this reply for quote marks?

mark

On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 22:13:54 +0000, Tim S wrote:

Rather than tangentialise perfectly good topics, is it me, or does there
seem to be a marked increase in posts which are not quoted properly?

Wthout checking all the posts, I assume Outlook Express is to blame?...


Several reasons

a) people are not able to snip posts as they have no idea how usenet
works

b) dumb ****s who crosspost

c) scottish dumbos are the main reason tho

mark wrote:


"Tim S" wrote in message
...
Rather than tangentialise perfectly good topics, is it me, or does there
seem to be a marked increase in posts which are not quoted properly?

Wthout checking all the posts, I assume Outlook Express is to blame?...



I use Outlook Express, so how is this reply for quote marks?

Fine but can Outlook on an exchange server be persuaded to do the same?

AJH

mark coughed up some electrons that declared:


"Tim S" wrote in message
...
Rather than tangentialise perfectly good topics, is it me, or does there
seem to be a marked increase in posts which are not quoted properly?

Wthout checking all the posts, I assume Outlook Express is to blame?...



I use Outlook Express, so how is this reply for quote marks?

mark

Is good. I thought I'd seen a reference before to OE and "quotefix" but
maybe I'm wrong.

But it's still MS's fault

even if it's Google's[1]


[1] Google can do no evil, but MS are the devil's colostomy bags

Sorry - it's that Tesco Value Gin...

On 24 Mar, 22:29, "Tim Downie"
wrote:
Tim S wrote:
Rather than tangentialise perfectly good topics, is it me, or does
there seem to be a marked increase in posts which are not quoted
properly?

Wthout checking all the posts, I assume Outlook Express is to
blame?...

Nope. *It's people posting through Google groups I believe. *A real pain in
the bum when you're trying to make sense of long threads.

Try reading it via Google Groups, looks much better.

coughed up some electrons that declared:

On 24 Mar, 22:29, "Tim Downie"
wrote:
Tim S wrote:
Rather than tangentialise perfectly good topics, is it me, or does
there seem to be a marked increase in posts which are not quoted
properly?

Wthout checking all the posts, I assume Outlook Express is to
blame?...

Nope. *It's people posting through Google groups I believe. *A real pain
in the bum when you're trying to make sense of long threads.

Try reading it via Google Groups, looks much better.

Why would I want to do that?

USENET is USENET is NNTP - I like it because it puts the control of how I
read where it belongs - in my client program. There is no web forum,
including Google Groups (as a web front end to USENET) that even comes
close in functionality.

Don't get me wrong - Google is good for a) historical searches as DejaNews
was before it; b) as an emergency interface when at a friends or in an
Internet Cafe. But it is not, for me (and many others) how USENET should
be.

As to the quoting - it's not hard to stick a "" in front of the quoted text
is it? I find it easier to follow than any amount of colouration or fancy
vertical lines.

Cheers

Tim

"Tim S" wrote in message
...
Rather than tangentialise perfectly good topics, is it me, or does there
seem to be a marked increase in posts which are not quoted properly?

Wthout checking all the posts, I assume Outlook Express is to blame?...


Kinda, sortof

The problem is when OE (or Windows Mail) users reply to posts made using
Google groups. Allocation of blame is a moot point. It never used to be a
problem, until something changed on GG, but it only affects OE/WM.

'quotefix' fixes it - if you really want the annoyances of 'quotefix'.

Personally, I parallel run all my newsgroup subs on Thunderbird and if
someone makes a post via GG that is actually worth responding to, I'll use
T-bird for that post.

On Mar 25, 12:30 pm, "OG" wrote:

The problem is when OE (or Windows Mail) users reply to posts made using
Google groups. Allocation of blame is a moot point. It never used to be a
problem, until something changed on GG, but it only affects OE/WM.

'quotefix' fixes it - if you really want the annoyances of 'quotefix'.

OK, someone with OE reply to this then.

"Matty F" wrote in message
...
On Mar 25, 12:30 pm, "OG" wrote:

The problem is when OE (or Windows Mail) users reply to posts made using
Google groups. Allocation of blame is a moot point. It never used to be
a
problem, until something changed on GG, but it only affects OE/WM.

'quotefix' fixes it - if you really want the annoyances of 'quotefix'.

OK, someone with OE reply to this then.

Worked fine. No quotefix here, it got the quotes right on its own.

Your post had:

Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

as opposed to the more normal GG output of:

Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

It's the second line which throws OE - it really can't cope with converting
that in to standard quoted form.

So, your post looks like it came via GG - what did you do?

In article ,
"Clive George" writes:
"Matty F" wrote in message
...
On Mar 25, 12:30 pm, "OG" wrote:

The problem is when OE (or Windows Mail) users reply to posts made using
Google groups. Allocation of blame is a moot point. It never used to be
a
problem, until something changed on GG, but it only affects OE/WM.

'quotefix' fixes it - if you really want the annoyances of 'quotefix'.

OK, someone with OE reply to this then.

Worked fine. No quotefix here, it got the quotes right on its own.

Your post had:

Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

as opposed to the more normal GG output of:

Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

It's the second line which throws OE - it really can't cope with converting
that in to standard quoted form.

The two references to "quoted" here are completely unrelated, and
quoted-printable is nothing to do with quoting original text in
response messages.

_Content-Transfer-Encoding:_ is a MIME header, and MIME is not valid
in News messages. MIME = Multimedia Internet _Mail_ Extensions, not
News Extensions. Some News clients will recognise it because they
also handle Mail. News is specfied to be 7bit anyway, so if you
encode it as MIME _Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit_, then that's what
it is anyway and you'll see the right thing even if you ignore the
MIME header because you don't know what it means in a News message.

Having said that, I include the following MIME headers if my
article includes a £ (pound) sign, so that those News readers
which know how to display non-ACSII characters can tell which 8-bit
character set I'm using and thus can display the pound sign correctly.

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

although this is strictly outside what News supports, in respect of
being non-7-bit, and being non-ASCII.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Clive George" writes:
"Matty F" wrote in message
...
On Mar 25, 12:30 pm, "OG" wrote:

The problem is when OE (or Windows Mail) users reply to posts made
using
Google groups. Allocation of blame is a moot point. It never used to
be
a
problem, until something changed on GG, but it only affects OE/WM.

'quotefix' fixes it - if you really want the annoyances of 'quotefix'.

OK, someone with OE reply to this then.

Worked fine. No quotefix here, it got the quotes right on its own.

Your post had:

Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

as opposed to the more normal GG output of:

Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

It's the second line which throws OE - it really can't cope with
converting
that in to standard quoted form.

The two references to "quoted" here are completely unrelated, and
quoted-printable is nothing to do with quoting original text in
response messages.

Actually, it is - the problem with OE is it can't cope with putting the
marks in for messages which have that header. Yes, it's a bug, and yes,
it'll have been around for ages, and yes, MS are idiots for not fixing it.

On 24 Mar, 23:42, Tim S wrote:
coughed up some electrons that declared:

On 24 Mar, 22:29, "Tim Downie"
wrote:
Tim S wrote:
Rather than tangentialise perfectly good topics, is it me, or does
there seem to be a marked increase in posts which are not quoted
properly?

Wthout checking all the posts, I assume Outlook Express is to
blame?...

Nope. *It's people posting through Google groups I believe. *A real pain
in the bum when you're trying to make sense of long threads.

Try reading it via Google Groups, looks much better.

Why would I want to do that?

USENET is USENET is NNTP - I like it because it puts the control of how I
read where it belongs - in my client program. There is no web forum,
including Google Groups (as a web front end to USENET) that even comes
close in functionality.

Don't get me wrong - Google is good for a) historical searches as DejaNews
was before it; b) as an emergency interface when at a friends or in an
Internet Cafe. But it is not, for me (and many others) how USENET should
be.

As to the quoting - it's not hard to stick a "" in front of the quoted text
is it? *I find it easier to follow than any amount of colouration or fancy
vertical lines.

Cheers

Tim

OK Tim - or anyone else.

I regard myself as being reasonably computer literate, and can cope
with what most applications I run throw at me, but I've tried a number
of Usenet apps. over the years and never been able to come to terms
with them, nor found them any advantage, except perhaps for KF's, over
Google Groups.

I find the layout perfectly satisfactory and comprehensible, and just
do wonder what seems to be the 'geeks' eye rejection of it as a Usenet
reader.

Equally then if you are going to convince me that I shouldn't use
Google, what should I be using and are there adequate tutorials in
setting it up ?

I would say that once again this topic has been raised as a tirade
against a section of this collective without anything constructive
being said - and I see that the poor Scots are being singled out;
what's the justification for that?

Rob

"andrew" wrote

Fine but can Outlook on an exchange server be persuaded to do the same?

AJH
Presumably not!
I use Outlook via exchange, but if you select Go-News, Outlook Express is
launched automatically.
Works for me though, because you are thrown into a separate account and
therefore are not going to use your general email address in a Newsgroup
post accidentally.

Phil

Matty F wrote:
On Mar 25, 12:30 pm, "OG" wrote:

The problem is when OE (or Windows Mail) users reply to posts made
using Google groups. Allocation of blame is a moot point. It never
used to be a problem, until something changed on GG, but it only
affects OE/WM.

'quotefix' fixes it - if you really want the annoyances of
'quotefix'.

OK, someone with OE reply to this then.

Your wish is my command :-) I do have OE Quotefix installed though. Does
that make a difference?


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

Rob G wrote:
On 24 Mar, 23:42, Tim S wrote:
coughed up some electrons that declared:

On 24 Mar, 22:29, "Tim Downie"
wrote:
Tim S wrote:
Rather than tangentialise perfectly good topics, is it me, or does
there seem to be a marked increase in posts which are not quoted
properly?

Wthout checking all the posts, I assume Outlook Express is to
blame?...

Nope. It's people posting through Google groups I believe. A real
pain in the bum when you're trying to make sense of long threads.

Try reading it via Google Groups, looks much better.

Why would I want to do that?

USENET is USENET is NNTP - I like it because it puts the control of
how I read where it belongs - in my client program. There is no web
forum, including Google Groups (as a web front end to USENET) that
even comes close in functionality.

Don't get me wrong - Google is good for a) historical searches as
DejaNews was before it; b) as an emergency interface when at a
friends or in an Internet Cafe. But it is not, for me (and many
others) how USENET should be.

As to the quoting - it's not hard to stick a "" in front of the
quoted text is it? I find it easier to follow than any amount of
colouration or fancy vertical lines.

Cheers

Tim

OK Tim - or anyone else.

I regard myself as being reasonably computer literate, and can cope
with what most applications I run throw at me, but I've tried a number
of Usenet apps. over the years and never been able to come to terms
with them, nor found them any advantage, except perhaps for KF's, over
Google Groups.

I find the layout perfectly satisfactory and comprehensible, and just
do wonder what seems to be the 'geeks' eye rejection of it as a Usenet
reader.

Equally then if you are going to convince me that I shouldn't use
Google, what should I be using and are there adequate tutorials in
setting it up ?

I would say that once again this topic has been raised as a tirade
against a section of this collective without anything constructive
being said - and I see that the poor Scots are being singled out;
what's the justification for that?

Rob

On Mar 25, 8:41 pm, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:
Matty F wrote:
On Mar 25, 12:30 pm, "OG" wrote:

The problem is when OE (or Windows Mail) users reply to posts made
using Google groups. Allocation of blame is a moot point. It never
used to be a problem, until something changed on GG, but it only
affects OE/WM.

'quotefix' fixes it - if you really want the annoyances of
'quotefix'.

OK, someone with OE reply to this then.

Your wish is my command :-) I do have OE Quotefix installed though. Does
that make a difference?

It looks fine!

Rob G wrote:
On 24 Mar, 23:42, Tim S wrote:
coughed up some electrons that declared:

On 24 Mar, 22:29, "Tim Downie"
wrote:
Tim S wrote:
Rather than tangentialise perfectly good topics, is it me, or does
there seem to be a marked increase in posts which are not quoted
properly?

Wthout checking all the posts, I assume Outlook Express is to
blame?...

Nope. It's people posting through Google groups I believe. A real
pain in the bum when you're trying to make sense of long threads.

Try reading it via Google Groups, looks much better.

Why would I want to do that?

USENET is USENET is NNTP - I like it because it puts the control of
how I read where it belongs - in my client program. There is no web
forum, including Google Groups (as a web front end to USENET) that
even comes close in functionality.

Don't get me wrong - Google is good for a) historical searches as
DejaNews was before it; b) as an emergency interface when at a
friends or in an Internet Cafe. But it is not, for me (and many
others) how USENET should be.

As to the quoting - it's not hard to stick a "" in front of the
quoted text is it? I find it easier to follow than any amount of
colouration or fancy vertical lines.

Cheers

Tim

OK Tim - or anyone else.

I regard myself as being reasonably computer literate, and can cope
with what most applications I run throw at me, but I've tried a number
of Usenet apps. over the years and never been able to come to terms
with them, nor found them any advantage, except perhaps for KF's, over
Google Groups.

OE (with Quotefix) is perfectly easy to use and gives a far nicer interface
to reading & responding to messages than any web interface. Of course using
any newsreader does depend on you subscribing to a news service, either one
supplied by your own ISP or one that you subscribe to (like
new.individual.net).

Tim D

Rob G coughed up some electrons that declared:

On 24 Mar, 23:42, Tim S wrote:
coughed up some electrons that declared:

On 24 Mar, 22:29, "Tim Downie"
wrote:
Tim S wrote:
Rather than tangentialise perfectly good topics, is it me, or does
there seem to be a marked increase in posts which are not quoted
properly?

Wthout checking all the posts, I assume Outlook Express is to
blame?...

Nope. *It's people posting through Google groups I believe. *A real
pain in the bum when you're trying to make sense of long threads.

Try reading it via Google Groups, looks much better.

Why would I want to do that?

USENET is USENET is NNTP - I like it because it puts the control of how I
read where it belongs - in my client program. There is no web forum,
including Google Groups (as a web front end to USENET) that even comes
close in functionality.

Don't get me wrong - Google is good for a) historical searches as
DejaNews was before it; b) as an emergency interface when at a friends or
in an Internet Cafe. But it is not, for me (and many others) how USENET
should be.

As to the quoting - it's not hard to stick a "" in front of the quoted
text is it? *I find it easier to follow than any amount of colouration or
fancy vertical lines.

Cheers

Tim

OK Tim - or anyone else.

I regard myself as being reasonably computer literate, and can cope
with what most applications I run throw at me, but I've tried a number
of Usenet apps. over the years and never been able to come to terms
with them, nor found them any advantage, except perhaps for KF's, over
Google Groups.

Hi

That's fine.

I find the layout perfectly satisfactory and comprehensible, and just
do wonder what seems to be the 'geeks' eye rejection of it as a Usenet
reader.

Also good

Equally then if you are going to convince me that I shouldn't use
Google, what should I be using and are there adequate tutorials in
setting it up ?

Google is good for lots of people.

But USENET was here before Google and has certain conventions, quoting
with "" being one of them, and for those of us who wish to use USENET is
the way nature designed it, we cannot follow threads where the quoting has
gone tits up without unnecessary brain strain.

I use knode on linux and it suits me fine - it's far easier for me to run
around lots of groups, sort and score messages/authors and
follow/watch/ignore threads - none of which Google Groups can manage
adequately, if at all.

I would say that once again this topic has been raised as a tirade
against a section of this collective without anything constructive
being said - and I see that the poor Scots are being singled out;
what's the justification for that?

This thread is a concession so I don't mess up other threads by complaining
about quoting issues. I just wanted to get to the bottom of why there seem
to be an increasing number of posts where the quoting marks are missing.

Call it a tirade if you like, but I feel it is justified, otherwise a great
many people who use NNTP readers are just going to get fed up and filter
out people or Google Groups or anything posted with OE, which is a shame
because the users of those systems often have much to contribute.

BTW - I use an NNTP client for the same reason I use an IMAP client for
mail: (IMHO) web(mail|usenet) just utterly sucks in comparison to using
a "proper" client, but is handy for emergency and remote use (I run
Horde/IMP webmail for myself, even though I hardly use it, because
sometimes I just have to, such as from a mate's house).

I'm not suggesting that people who like web(mail|usenet) suck - but they
should remain considerate of the long established conventions so that we
can all work together.

Cheers

Tim

The Medway Handyman coughed up some electrons that declared:

Matty F wrote:
On Mar 25, 12:30 pm, "OG" wrote:

The problem is when OE (or Windows Mail) users reply to posts made
using Google groups. Allocation of blame is a moot point. It never
used to be a problem, until something changed on GG, but it only
affects OE/WM.

'quotefix' fixes it - if you really want the annoyances of
'quotefix'.

OK, someone with OE reply to this then.

Your wish is my command :-) I do have OE Quotefix installed though. Does
that make a difference?



That works

"Matty F" wrote in message
...
On Mar 25, 12:30 pm, "OG" wrote:

The problem is when OE (or Windows Mail) users reply to posts made using
Google groups. Allocation of blame is a moot point. It never used to be
a
problem, until something changed on GG, but it only affects OE/WM.

'quotefix' fixes it - if you really want the annoyances of 'quotefix'.

OK, someone with OE reply to this then.

That quoted fine, but most GG posts don't.

As Clive George asked, do you know why your post had
"Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit" rather than "Content-Transfer-Encoding:
quoted-printable" ?

On Mar 25, 10:04 pm, "OG" wrote:
"Matty F" wrote in message

...

On Mar 25, 12:30 pm, "OG" wrote:

The problem is when OE (or Windows Mail) users reply to posts made using
Google groups. Allocation of blame is a moot point. It never used to be
a
problem, until something changed on GG, but it only affects OE/WM.

'quotefix' fixes it - if you really want the annoyances of 'quotefix'.

OK, someone with OE reply to this then.

That quoted fine, but most GG posts don't.

As Clive George asked, do you know why your post had
"Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit" rather than "Content-Transfer-Encoding:
quoted-printable" ?

I have no idea. I am not aware of any changeable options in GG.
It's been 7bit for at least the last year. I'm using Firefox. Maybe
other browsers are different.

"Matty F" wrote in message
...
On Mar 25, 10:04 pm, "OG" wrote:
"Matty F" wrote in message

...

On Mar 25, 12:30 pm, "OG" wrote:

The problem is when OE (or Windows Mail) users reply to posts made
using
Google groups. Allocation of blame is a moot point. It never used to
be
a
problem, until something changed on GG, but it only affects OE/WM.

'quotefix' fixes it - if you really want the annoyances of 'quotefix'.

OK, someone with OE reply to this then.

That quoted fine, but most GG posts don't.

As Clive George asked, do you know why your post had
"Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit" rather than "Content-Transfer-Encoding:
quoted-printable" ?

I have no idea. I am not aware of any changeable options in GG.
It's been 7bit for at least the last year. I'm using Firefox. Maybe
other browsers are different.

Yes, it looks like FF does it differently.

I've done some experiments using IE7, Chrome and FF2 , the results of which
can be summarised
- New posts made via gg are posted with the 7bit encoding flag regardless of
the browser used.
- Replies via gg using IE7 or Chrome are posted as quoted-printable
- Replies via gg using Firefox 2 are posted as 7bit

OE/WM do/es not quote correctly if the original message was sent using
quoted-printable.

On Mar 24, 10:29*pm, "Tim Downie"
wrote:
Tim S wrote:
Rather than tangentialise perfectly good topics, is it me, or does
there seem to be a marked increase in posts which are not quoted
properly?

Wthout checking all the posts, I assume Outlook Express is to
blame?...

Nope. *It's people posting through Google groups I believe. *A real pain in
the bum when you're trying to make sense of long threads.

Tim D

Well, this is posted through GG. GG puts the in all the correct
places when quoting your post, and places the cursor at the end ready
for bottom posting.

It either the way *some* people use GG, or the way *some* peoples
newsreaders work.

I always use the "more options - reply route", rather than the
"reply" option at the bottom of each post. There used to be a
difference, but there soesn't seem to be now.

MBQ

Man at B&Q wrote:
On Mar 24, 10:29 pm, "Tim Downie"
wrote:
Tim S wrote:
Rather than tangentialise perfectly good topics, is it me, or does
there seem to be a marked increase in posts which are not quoted
properly?
Wthout checking all the posts, I assume Outlook Express is to
blame?...
Nope. It's people posting through Google groups I believe. A real pain in
the bum when you're trying to make sense of long threads.

Tim D

Well, this is posted through GG. GG puts the in all the correct
places when quoting your post, and places the cursor at the end ready
for bottom posting.

It either the way *some* people use GG, or the way *some* peoples
newsreaders work.


It's a bit of both.
As Clive George has pointed out, for Outlook Express /Windows Mail to
insert the quote '' correctly, the Content-Transfer-Encoding: parameter
has to be correctly set.
If = "7bit", quoting works correctly in OE/WM
If = "quoted-printable" quoting doesn't work in OE/WM

The problem with google groups is to do with the way that the parameter
is set.

I've done some experiments using IE7, Chrome and FF2 , the results of
which can be summarised as follows:-
- New posts made via gg are posted with 7bit encoding regardless of the
browser used.
- Replies via gg using IE7 or Chrome are posted as quoted-printable
- Replies via gg using Firefox 2 are posted as 7bit

"OG" wrote in message
...
Man at B&Q wrote:
On Mar 24, 10:29 pm, "Tim Downie"
wrote:
Tim S wrote:
Rather than tangentialise perfectly good topics, is it me, or does
there seem to be a marked increase in posts which are not quoted
properly?
Wthout checking all the posts, I assume Outlook Express is to
blame?...
Nope. It's people posting through Google groups I believe. A real pain
in
the bum when you're trying to make sense of long threads.

Tim D

Well, this is posted through GG. GG puts the in all the correct
places when quoting your post, and places the cursor at the end ready
for bottom posting.

It either the way *some* people use GG, or the way *some* peoples
newsreaders work.


It's a bit of both.
As Clive George has pointed out, for Outlook Express /Windows Mail to
insert the quote '' correctly, the Content-Transfer-Encoding: parameter
has to be correctly set.
If = "7bit", quoting works correctly in OE/WM
If = "quoted-printable" quoting doesn't work in OE/WM

The problem with google groups is to do with the way that the parameter is
set.

I've done some experiments using IE7, Chrome and FF2 , the results of
which can be summarised as follows:-
- New posts made via gg are posted with 7bit encoding regardless of the
browser used.
- Replies via gg using IE7 or Chrome are posted as quoted-printable
- Replies via gg using Firefox 2 are posted as 7bit


If I'm not mistaken, your post to gg was made using Firefox 3, is that
right? - in which case, we can mark that down as another one that changes
the encoding to "quoted-printable". :-(

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:04:35 +0000, Huge wrote:
Try reading it via Google Groups, looks much better.

Much better just killfiling the whole mess.

Hmm, I think an option to 'flag' gg messages might be nice, just so I know
in advance that I might be about to read a complete and utter mess of a
post.

Some gg users do seem to have useful things to say - but if I have to make
extra effort to pick out their comments from the previous poster, or
scroll through yards of stuff that I've already seen, then I often find I
can't be bothered. Having a clear warning at the top of gg posts might
motivate me to come back to their messages when I'm more in the mood for a
challenge :-)

cheers

Jules

"Man at B&Q" wrote in message
news:fd11470f-073b-417c-8525-

Well, this is posted through GG. GG puts the in all the correct
places when quoting your post, and places the cursor at the end ready
for bottom posting.

Your post was quoted-printable, therefore OE didn't put the marks in when
I replied to it.

In message , Clive
George writes
"Man at B&Q" wrote in message
news:fd11470f-073b-417c-8525-

Well, this is posted through GG. GG puts the in all the correct
places when quoting your post, and places the cursor at the end ready
for bottom posting.

Your post was quoted-printable, therefore OE didn't put the marks in when
I replied to it.



Well, they seemed to be their when I read your reply
--
Chris French

On Mar 25, 1:10*pm, "OG" wrote:
"OG" wrote in message

...



Man at B&Q wrote:
On Mar 24, 10:29 pm, "Tim Downie"
wrote:
Tim S wrote:
Rather than tangentialise perfectly good topics, is it me, or does
there seem to be a marked increase in posts which are not quoted
properly?
Wthout checking all the posts, I assume Outlook Express is to
blame?...
Nope. *It's people posting through Google groups I believe. *A real pain
in
the bum when you're trying to make sense of long threads.

Tim D

Well, this is posted through GG. GG puts the in all the correct
places when quoting your post, and places the cursor at the end ready
for bottom posting.

It either the way *some* people use GG, or the way *some* peoples
newsreaders work.

It's a bit of both.
As Clive George has pointed out, for Outlook Express /Windows Mail to
insert the quote '' correctly, the Content-Transfer-Encoding: parameter
has to be correctly set.
If = "7bit", quoting works correctly in OE/WM
If = "quoted-printable" quoting doesn't work in OE/WM

The problem with google groups is to do with the way that the parameter is
set.

I've done some experiments using IE7, Chrome and FF2 , the results of
which can be summarised as follows:-
- New posts made via gg are posted with 7bit encoding regardless of the
browser used.
- Replies via gg using IE7 or Chrome are posted as quoted-printable
- Replies via gg using Firefox 2 are posted as 7bit

If I'm not mistaken, your post to gg was made using Firefox 3, is that
right? *- in which case, we can mark that down as another one that changes
the encoding to "quoted-printable". :-(

Yes, so they changed it between FF2 and FF3?

MBQ

In message om, Jules
writes
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:04:35 +0000, Huge wrote:
Try reading it via Google Groups, looks much better.

Much better just killfiling the whole mess.

Hmm, I think an option to 'flag' gg messages might be nice, just so I know
in advance that I might be about to read a complete and utter mess of a
post.

Some gg users do seem to have useful things to say - but if I have to make
extra effort to pick out their comments from the previous poster, or
scroll through yar

I'm failing to see the problem here.

I've even gone and done a quick search for all the messages I have here
in uk.d-i-y that appear to have come from Googlegroups. reading through
a random section of them, they all seemed fine, quoted properly, I could
make out the replies ok.

--
Chris French

"chris French" wrote in message
...
In message , Clive George
writes
"Man at B&Q" wrote in message
news:fd11470f-073b-417c-8525-

Well, this is posted through GG. GG puts the in all the correct
places when quoting your post, and places the cursor at the end ready
for bottom posting.

Your post was quoted-printable, therefore OE didn't put the marks in
when
I replied to it.



Well, they seemed to be their when I read your reply

Yes, that's because I've got a keyboard and the ability to use it :-)

Man at B&Q wrote:
On Mar 25, 1:10 pm, "OG" wrote:
"OG" wrote in message

...



Man at B&Q wrote:
On Mar 24, 10:29 pm, "Tim Downie"
wrote:
Tim S wrote:
Rather than tangentialise perfectly good topics, is it me, or does
there seem to be a marked increase in posts which are not quoted
properly?
Wthout checking all the posts, I assume Outlook Express is to
blame?...
Nope. It's people posting through Google groups I believe. A real pain
in
the bum when you're trying to make sense of long threads.
Tim D
Well, this is posted through GG. GG puts the in all the correct
places when quoting your post, and places the cursor at the end ready
for bottom posting.
It either the way *some* people use GG, or the way *some* peoples
newsreaders work.
It's a bit of both.
As Clive George has pointed out, for Outlook Express /Windows Mail to
insert the quote '' correctly, the Content-Transfer-Encoding: parameter
has to be correctly set.
If = "7bit", quoting works correctly in OE/WM
If = "quoted-printable" quoting doesn't work in OE/WM
The problem with google groups is to do with the way that the parameter is
set.
I've done some experiments using IE7, Chrome and FF2 , the results of
which can be summarised as follows:-
- New posts made via gg are posted with 7bit encoding regardless of the
browser used.
- Replies via gg using IE7 or Chrome are posted as quoted-printable
- Replies via gg using Firefox 2 are posted as 7bit
If I'm not mistaken, your post to gg was made using Firefox 3, is that
right? - in which case, we can mark that down as another one that changes
the encoding to "quoted-printable". :-(

Yes, so they changed it between FF2 and FF3?

MBQ

It's looking like they must have - hence my use of T-bird for this reply.

"chris French" wrote in message
...
In message om, Jules
writes
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:04:35 +0000, Huge wrote:
Try reading it via Google Groups, looks much better.

Much better just killfiling the whole mess.

Hmm, I think an option to 'flag' gg messages might be nice, just so I know
in advance that I might be about to read a complete and utter mess of a
post.

Some gg users do seem to have useful things to say - but if I have to make
extra effort to pick out their comments from the previous poster, or
scroll through yar

I'm failing to see the problem here.

Clearly :-)

I've even gone and done a quick search for all the messages I have here in
uk.d-i-y that appear to have come from Googlegroups. reading through a
random section of them, they all seemed fine, quoted properly, I could
make out the replies ok.

But if somebody using OE replies to those GG replies, the quoting will be
wrong by default - it'll require either quotefix or manual fixing to correct
it. Do you understand that yet?

OG wrote:
"Matty F" wrote in message
...
On Mar 25, 12:30 pm, "OG" wrote:

The problem is when OE (or Windows Mail) users reply to posts made
using Google groups. Allocation of blame is a moot point. It never
used to be a
problem, until something changed on GG, but it only affects OE/WM.

'quotefix' fixes it - if you really want the annoyances of
'quotefix'.

OK, someone with OE reply to this then.

That quoted fine, but most GG posts don't.

As Clive George asked, do you know why your post had
"Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit" rather than
"Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable" ?

I don't have the faintest idea what that means, it's complete gibberish to
me.



--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
...
OG wrote:
"Matty F" wrote in message
...
On Mar 25, 12:30 pm, "OG" wrote:

The problem is when OE (or Windows Mail) users reply to posts made
using Google groups. Allocation of blame is a moot point. It never
used to be a
problem, until something changed on GG, but it only affects OE/WM.

'quotefix' fixes it - if you really want the annoyances of
'quotefix'.

OK, someone with OE reply to this then.

That quoted fine, but most GG posts don't.

As Clive George asked, do you know why your post had
"Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit" rather than
"Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable" ?

I don't have the faintest idea what that means, it's complete gibberish to
me.

It's not really relevant to you :-) But if you really care, look at the
properties of the message within OE, and do view source - you'll see that
line in there.

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
...
OG wrote:
"Matty F" wrote in message
...
On Mar 25, 12:30 pm, "OG" wrote:

The problem is when OE (or Windows Mail) users reply to posts made
using Google groups. Allocation of blame is a moot point. It never
used to be a
problem, until something changed on GG, but it only affects OE/WM.

'quotefix' fixes it - if you really want the annoyances of
'quotefix'.

OK, someone with OE reply to this then.

That quoted fine, but most GG posts don't.

As Clive George asked, do you know why your post had
"Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit" rather than
"Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable" ?

I don't have the faintest idea what that means, it's complete gibberish to
me.

My mistake - I should have been asking the question of Matty F.

We seem to have identified that it's because he was using Firefox 2 browser
to reply via google groups.

"OG" wrote in message
...

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
...
OG wrote:
"Matty F" wrote in message
...
On Mar 25, 12:30 pm, "OG" wrote:

The problem is when OE (or Windows Mail) users reply to posts made
using Google groups. Allocation of blame is a moot point. It never
used to be a
problem, until something changed on GG, but it only affects OE/WM.

'quotefix' fixes it - if you really want the annoyances of
'quotefix'.

OK, someone with OE reply to this then.

That quoted fine, but most GG posts don't.

As Clive George asked, do you know why your post had
"Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit" rather than
"Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable" ?

I don't have the faintest idea what that means, it's complete gibberish
to me.

My mistake - I should have been asking the question of Matty F.

You did, as the quoted text shows.

In message , Clive
George writes
"chris French" wrote in message
k...
In message om, Jules
writes
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:04:35 +0000, Huge wrote:
Try reading it via Google Groups, looks much better.

Much better just killfiling the whole mess.

Hmm, I think an option to 'flag' gg messages might be nice, just so I know
in advance that I might be about to read a complete and utter mess of a
post.

Some gg users do seem to have useful things to say - but if I have to make
extra effort to pick out their comments from the previous poster, or
scroll through yar

I'm failing to see the problem here.

Clearly :-)

I've even gone and done a quick search for all the messages I have here in
uk.d-i-y that appear to have come from Googlegroups. reading through a
random section of them, they all seemed fine, quoted properly, I could
make out the replies ok.

But if somebody using OE replies to those GG replies, the quoting will be
wrong by default - it'll require either quotefix or manual fixing to correct
it. Do you understand that yet?



but the complaint originally seemed to be that posts from Google Groups
where problematical becuase of poor quoting, not snipping (can't see why
that is a GG issue though, but really the problem then is OE?

Can't quite se why GG and it's users should be getting such a hard time
when the problem seems to be the buggy behaviour of a particular client
--
Chris French