Home > Archive > C > August 2006 > Should attachments be accepted in comp.lang.c?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Should attachments be accepted in comp.lang.c?
|
|
| Keith Thompson 2006-08-16, 9:56 pm |
| Recently a poster here posted some C code as an attachment.
Should attachments (text only) be considered acceptable in this
newsgroup?
I don't recall the subject even coming up until just a few days ago.
Almost everyone here posts C code as plain inline text.
I think we can agree that binary attachments are inappropriate. But
what about text-only attachments? It's argued that newsreaders that
don't handle attachments will display them as plain inline text, and
those that do will handle them in some convenient manner.
In fact, it appears that a text attachment in a posted article is
represented as approximately 4 header lines, followed by the content
of the attachment, followed by 1 trailer line. (I determined this by
grabbing a copy of the orginal article in question using a small Perl
script and the NNTP protocol, rather than via a newsreader; I expect
that a newsreader that doesn't understand attachments would simply
display the extra lines along with the content.)
Personally, I tend to prefer inline text rather than attachments, even
for multiple chunks of code. If I want to try compiling a posted
piece of code, I copy it from the window in which I'm reading news,
then paste it into a window on the machine where I want to compile it.
If I had to save the attachment to do this, I'd have to copy the
resulting file from one machine to another; not impossible, of course,
but inconvenient enough that I often wouldn't bother. Of course,
others will have different preferences.
I'll offer one data point. I read news using Gnus, a newsreader that
runs under GNU Emacs. It handles attachments reasonable well; the
file name is displayed in bold text, and the attachment is expanded
inline after I move the cursor on top of it and press <enter>. (Note
that I'm referring to a text cursor, not a mouse cursor, so moving it
to the right spot can require several keystrokes.) I presume there's
command to save the attachment as a file, but I haven't bothered to
find out. As I said, I prefer inline text to attachments, but I can
deal with them if there's a consensus that they're acceptable. If
there are people using newsreaders that make plain-text attachments
difficult to handle, I suggest that attachments should be discouraged.
This was discussed recently in the "passing a union's field to a
function" thread, particularly in the "Posting sample C-code as
attachment" subthread. There was some disagreement about whether any
conclusion had been reached. I thought it would be useful to have
this discussion in its own thread.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
| |
| Dik T. Winter 2006-08-16, 9:56 pm |
| In article <lnhd0cgolt.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:
> Recently a poster here posted some C code as an attachment.
>
> Should attachments (text only) be considered acceptable in this
> newsgroup?
I think not. If you want text to be seen by all, you should put it in the
main article. Text only newsreaders (like mine) will just display it as
part of the main body of the article, with some surrouding nonsense (and
after the signature, so they may skip it).
Text only newsreaders that are aware of attachments (like yours) will not
show it, but ask you for a place to store it. And that place can be
quite inconvenient, as it is possibly not in a place where you have
access to a compiler.
--
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/
| |
| Ian Collins 2006-08-16, 9:56 pm |
| Dik T. Winter wrote:
> In article <lnhd0cgolt.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:
>
> I think not. If you want text to be seen by all, you should put it in the
> main article. Text only newsreaders (like mine) will just display it as
> part of the main body of the article, with some surrouding nonsense (and
> after the signature, so they may skip it).
> Text only newsreaders that are aware of attachments (like yours) will not
> show it, but ask you for a place to store it. And that place can be
> quite inconvenient, as it is possibly not in a place where you have
> access to a compiler.
According to Keith, Gnus does show the attachment.
Are there any text only newsreaders in uses that don't either inline
attachments, or provide a means to view them?
I'm ambivalent on the subject, my newsreader shows attachments inline.
--
Ian Collins.
| |
| Walter Roberson 2006-08-16, 9:56 pm |
| In article <lnhd0cgolt.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>,
Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
>Recently a poster here posted some C code as an attachment.
>Should attachments (text only) be considered acceptable in this
>newsgroup?
In my opinion, NO.
>I think we can agree that binary attachments are inappropriate. But
>what about text-only attachments? It's argued that newsreaders that
>don't handle attachments will display them as plain inline text, and
>those that do will handle them in some convenient manner.
No MIME. It gives my newsreader indigestion if I allow my newsreader
to process it, and it gives -me- indigestion if I don't allow my
newsreader to process it.
The order of the attachments is not fixed by the MIME standards,
by the way, so clients are free to (and some well-known ones *will*)
sometimes put the attachments first and -then- the message.
--
Prototypes are supertypes of their clones. -- maplesoft
| |
| Robert Gamble 2006-08-16, 9:56 pm |
| Keith Thompson wrote:
> Recently a poster here posted some C code as an attachment.
>
> Should attachments (text only) be considered acceptable in this
> newsgroup?
I don't think so. I can think of absolutely no benefit from allowing
attachments but plenty of reasons not to:
- It is inconvenient for me to have to download an attachment
seperately and I (and I suspect many others) would be considerably less
likely to take the time to do so than I would if the code in question
were presented inline. I use 3 different newreaders (including Google
Groups) and only one of them seems to automatically embed the contents
of attachments inline (and not always very well), it also happens to be
the one I use the least.
- If the encoding of the attached file does not match the encoding used
on the system in which the file is detached and read there can be
issues, this doesn't occur with inline text since the newsreader
presents the text in the native encoding. For example, the attachment
in the post you mentioned was apparently created on a *nix machine and
didn't display properly on my Windows machine. I have to either
convert the line-feeds to carriage return + line feeds or open the file
with a program that does this automatically. If I wasn't discouraged
from reading attachments before, I am now.
- If legitimate messages can contain attachments, I can't tell my
newsreader to not download articles that contain attachments assuming
they are Spam, or rather I still can but I will just never see the
articles in question.
- Allowing attachments certainly won't help encourage people to post
*small* examples, when people realize it is just as easy to attach a
20K file as it is a 2K file and it doesn't make the post *look* any
larger, many won't be as hesitant to do so.
- Many news servers have a very long retention of text-only newsgroups
because the amount of storage required to keep the articles on the
server is minimal. Allowing attachments could greatly increase the
amount of space required to do so and as a result retention among
servers may decrease.
Is it any more difficult for someone to post the code inline than to
post it as an attachment? What would be the proposed benefit from
allowing attachments?
Robert Gamble
| |
| Ronald Bruck 2006-08-16, 9:56 pm |
| In article <lnhd0cgolt.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>, Keith Thompson
<kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
> Recently a poster here posted some C code as an attachment.
>
> Should attachments (text only) be considered acceptable in this
> newsgroup?
>
> I don't recall the subject even coming up until just a few days ago.
> Almost everyone here posts C code as plain inline text.
>
> I think we can agree that binary attachments are inappropriate. But
> what about text-only attachments? It's argued that newsreaders that
> don't handle attachments will display them as plain inline text, and
> those that do will handle them in some convenient manner.
MY newsreader (Thoth, running under Mac OS X 10.47) didn't show the
attachments as either attachments OR as embedded text. I saw nothing
AT ALL.
I checked the article on a couple of different news servers, just to be
sure it wasn't my news server which was censoring them. And I set the
"View" mode to "Show Details". Nada.
I believe the main objections to attachments are: size; and viruses.
The former is no worse than putting them inline; the latter is
irrelevant for text attachments (unless you're stupid enough to read
them with Microsoft Word).
Allowing text attachments is probably "the lesser of two weevils". But
be aware, not everybody may be able to read them.
BTW, how do you distinguish between text and binary attachments?
--
Ron Bruck
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
| |
| Keith Thompson 2006-08-16, 9:56 pm |
| Ronald Bruck <bruck@math.usc.edu> writes:
[...]
> BTW, how do you distinguish between text and binary attachments?
If we were going to decide that text attachments are acceptable and
binary attachments are not, then I suppose the distinction would be
that text attachments are those that are still legible (with extra
header and footer lines) when displayed by a newsreader that ignores
attachments.
The header lines for the attachment that started this discussion were:
Content-Type: text/x-csrc; name="union.c"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="union.c"
I suppose the Content_Type starting with "text/" is indicative -- but
then again there are different kinds of text.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
| |
| Len Philpot 2006-08-16, 9:56 pm |
| On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 19:40:52 -0700, Ronald Bruck wrote:
> MY newsreader (Thoth, running under Mac OS X 10.47) didn't show the
> attachments as either attachments OR as embedded text. I saw nothing
> AT ALL.
Simply another data point (FWIW, since I'm definitely a lurker here in
read-only mode) --
The newsreader I'm using now, 40tude Dialog / WinXP, displays all
attachments as well as a raw view in a menu adjacent to the
(attachment-less) article body. That allows the reader to see the
article body sans attachments, the attachments individually and the
whole thing togther inline.
As far as any other platforms go, I don't recall offhand how tin handles
things, as it's been a while since I had either a Linux or Solaris box
at home.
So for me, it doesn't really matter. Maybe the additional info will help
somehow.
--
---- Len Philpot -------- l e n @ p h i l p o t . o r g (no spaces)
------- ><> ------------- http://members.cox.net/lenphilpot/
| |
| CBFalconer 2006-08-16, 9:56 pm |
| Keith Thompson wrote:
>
> Recently a poster here posted some C code as an attachment.
>
> Should attachments (text only) be considered acceptable in this
> newsgroup?
No.
Various systems will automatically strip attachments from news
posts, or even totally suppress the post.
--
"The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without
formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to
deny him the judgement of his peers, is in the highest degree
odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government
whether Nazi or Communist." -- W. Churchill, Nov 21, 1943
| |
| Mikhail Teterin 2006-08-17, 3:56 am |
| Keith Thompson wrote:
> This was discussed recently in the "passing a union's field to a
> function" thread, particularly in the "Posting sample C-code as
> attachment" subthread. There was some disagreement about whether any
> conclusion had been reached. I thought it would be useful to have
> this discussion in its own thread.
You may also start another thread on the subject:
Should everyone be *forced* to post in the same manner?
Because I don't see, how your troubles (or lack thereof) are supposed to
compell *me*. My postings are on-topic of the news-group, and so are the
attachements.
I'm at a loss over this desire for uniformity, you are displaying...
While I'm here, let me quickly go over the objections raised so far:
* Various systems will automatically strip attachments from news
posts, or even totally suppress the post.
That's a problem with those "various systems". A poster, aware of the issue,
may still attach C-code to postings, hurting no one, but him/herself.
* It is inconvenient for me to have to download an attachment
That's a reason for *you* not to bother, but not a reason to ban such posts.
* If the encoding of the attached file does not match the encoding
used on the system in which the file is detached and read there can be
Converting the plain text between platforms' EOL representation is a trivial
excercise. All text-editors, that come with compilers (including vim and
emacs) are smart enough to automatically detect the proper EOL format,
while the good old `vi' can strip Windows' Ctrl-M in one short command.
Posting in-line and copy/pasting is likelier to introduce subtle problems
and is guaranteed to make code-review difficult (references to line-numbers
are off).
* If legitimate messages can contain attachments, I can't tell my
Are you REALLY willing to through MIME away, because spammers abuse it? Come
on -- have the "spammer already won"? :-)
* Allowing attachments certainly won't help encourage people to post
Uhh, place a maximum size limit, then. This is silly...
* Text only newsreaders that are aware of attachments will not
show it, but ask you for a place to store it. And that place can be
quite inconvenient, as it is possibly not in a place where you have
access to a compiler.
A MIME-aware newsreader, that does not offer to show the attachment as plain
text (especially, if the type is set to text/*) is broken...
Really and trully, all complete files (rather than illustratory segments)
should be placed on a web-site by the poster, posting just a link, IMO :-)
Soon, when everyone gets their own web-server, we'll be able to make this a
requirement. This will save space/bandwidth AND allow post-posting
corrections of the C-code.
-mi
| |
| Andrew Poelstra 2006-08-17, 3:56 am |
| On 2006-08-17, Robert Gamble <rgamble99@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Is it any more difficult for someone to post the code inline than to
> post it as an attachment? What would be the proposed benefit from
> allowing attachments?
>
I believe that it's more difficult for me to post the code inline (using
vi's :read command) than it is to attach a file (using slrn's attachment
feature, which is one keystroke after posting the file.)
Also, it's easier to compile code that's in its own neat little package,
without text surrounding it. I don't have copy and paste on my terminal
(if I do, I don't know how to use it), so this would be simpler than
1) Saving the message
2) Switching ttys to edit saved file
3) Hacking out the headers/message/signature portion of file
4) Compile with output piped to a temp file
5) Return to first tty to reply
6) Typing :read /tmp/compile_output to post the output.
Having an attached file would save the 3rd step, which is the majority
of the work.
Having said all that, my newsreader displays attachments inline, so it's
a moot point for me and I have no opinion.
--
Andrew Poelstra <http://www.wpsoftware.net/projects>
To reach me by email, use `apoelstra' at the above domain.
"Do BOTH ends of the cable need to be plugged in?" -Anon.
| |
| Andrew Poelstra 2006-08-17, 3:56 am |
| On 2006-08-17, Mikhail Teterin <usenet+meow@aldan.algebra.com> wrote:
> Keith Thompson wrote:
>
> You may also start another thread on the subject:
>
> Should everyone be *forced* to post in the same manner?
>
> Because I don't see, how your troubles (or lack thereof) are supposed to
> compell *me*. My postings are on-topic of the news-group, and so are the
> attachements.
>
The newsgroup is here to help you. It is your right to make it difficult
or not worth it for us to help, but then again, it's also your right to
shoot yourself in the foot. Have fun with that.
> I'm at a loss over this desire for uniformity, you are displaying...
>
> While I'm here, let me quickly go over the objections raised so far:
>
> * Various systems will automatically strip attachments from news
> posts, or even totally suppress the post.
>
> That's a problem with those "various systems". A poster, aware of the issue,
> may still attach C-code to postings, hurting no one, but him/herself.
>
Ah, so we should switch newservers, readers, platforms, proxies, and/or
locations? Being as most of those aren't possible or desirable in most
circumstances, eliminating the problem through conformance doesn't seem
such such a big deal.
> * It is inconvenient for me to have to download an attachment
>
> That's a reason for *you* not to bother, but not a reason to ban such posts.
>
It's a reason to frown upon such posts; your argument can also be used
to support top-posting, incomprehensible W3bSpeak, and OT questions.
> * If the encoding of the attached file does not match the encoding
> used on the system in which the file is detached and read there can be
>
> Converting the plain text between platforms' EOL representation is a trivial
> excercise. All text-editors, that come with compilers (including vim and
> emacs) are smart enough to automatically detect the proper EOL format,
> while the good old `vi' can strip Windows' Ctrl-M in one short command.
>
> Posting in-line and copy/pasting is likelier to introduce subtle problems
> and is guaranteed to make code-review difficult (references to line-numbers
> are off).
>
1) Even if it's simple, it's still a pain to convert.
2) What should those of us reading newsgroups on a mainframe?
(Answer to #2: Stop, drop, and roll.)
> * If legitimate messages can contain attachments, I can't tell my
>
> Are you REALLY willing to through MIME away, because spammers abuse it? Come
> on -- have the "spammer already won"? :-)
>
Really OT: Have you seen ING Direct's new security system? Yes, the
spammers and phishers appear to have "won". It's best not to think
about it.
> * Allowing attachments certainly won't help encourage people to post
>
> Uhh, place a maximum size limit, then. This is silly...
>
Still a pain and an inconvience.
> * Text only newsreaders that are aware of attachments will not
> show it, but ask you for a place to store it. And that place can be
> quite inconvenient, as it is possibly not in a place where you have
> access to a compiler.
>
> Really and trully, all complete files (rather than illustratory segments)
> should be placed on a web-site by the poster, posting just a link, IMO :-)
>
Many people do that. It works pretty well; one line, no headers, easy to
ignore, quick to load off the newserver...
> Soon, when everyone gets their own web-server, we'll be able to make this a
> requirement. This will save space/bandwidth AND allow post-posting
> corrections of the C-code.
>
No, it's still much more convienient to post inline code. I'd need to log
into a new terminal to read a web page, and I'd have to memorize the URL
because I don't know how to transfer text across ttys.
--
Andrew Poelstra <http://www.wpsoftware.net/projects>
To reach me by email, use `apoelstra' at the above domain.
"Do BOTH ends of the cable need to be plugged in?" -Anon.
| |
| Keith Thompson 2006-08-17, 3:56 am |
| Mikhail Teterin <usenet+meow@aldan.algebra.com> writes:
> Keith Thompson wrote:
>
>
> You may also start another thread on the subject:
>
> Should everyone be *forced* to post in the same manner?
Feel free to start such a thread if you like. I won't, because the
answer is obviously no.
This is an unmoderated newsgroup; nobody is forced to do, or not to
do, anything. We have a general (but not universal) consensus about
what is and is not considered appropriate here, but we have no
enforcement mechanism other than persuasion and killfiles.
If you haven't read it already, I recommend
<http://clc-wiki.net/wiki/Introduction_to_comp.lang.c>.
> Because I don't see, how your troubles (or lack thereof) are supposed to
> compell *me*. My postings are on-topic of the news-group, and so are the
> attachements.
Great. Topicality isn't the only issue.
If you posted text whose lines are alternately 20 and 110 characters
long, you would get complaints regardless of its topicality, because
it would be difficult to read. Most likely nobody would complain to
your ISP or set up a cancelbot, but some people would probably start
to ignore our posts, and others might even killfile you.
As we've seen in this thread, attachments cause real problems for real
people.
> I'm at a loss over this desire for uniformity, you are displaying...
It's not so much a desire for uniformity as a lack of desire for
variation for its own sake. Posting code samples inline has worked
very well here for decades. If attachments were better, I wouldn't
object.
> While I'm here, let me quickly go over the objections raised so far:
>
> * Various systems will automatically strip attachments from news
> posts, or even totally suppress the post.
>
> That's a problem with those "various systems". A poster, aware of the issue,
> may still attach C-code to postings, hurting no one, but him/herself.
>
> * It is inconvenient for me to have to download an attachment
>
> That's a reason for *you* not to bother, but not a reason to ban
> such posts.
Again, nobody is suggesting banning anything. But if you ask for
help, I'm at a loss to understand why you'd want to make things more
difficult for (some of) the people who are otherwise willing and able
to help you.
> * If the encoding of the attached file does not match the
> encoding used on the system in which the file is detached
> and read there can be
>
> Converting the plain text between platforms' EOL representation is a trivial
> excercise. All text-editors, that come with compilers (including vim and
> emacs) are smart enough to automatically detect the proper EOL format,
> while the good old `vi' can strip Windows' Ctrl-M in one short command.
It's an additional step that you're forcing (some of) your readers to
take.
> Posting in-line and copy/pasting is likelier to introduce subtle
> problems and is guaranteed to make code-review difficult (references
> to line-numbers are off).
>
> * If legitimate messages can contain attachments, I can't tell my
>
> Are you REALLY willing to through MIME away, because spammers abuse it? Come
> on -- have the "spammer already won"? :-)
I'm willing to avoid using MIME in a discussion newsgroup like this
one.
> * Allowing attachments certainly won't help encourage people to post
>
> Uhh, place a maximum size limit, then. This is silly...
>
> * Text only newsreaders that are aware of attachments will
> not show it, but ask you for a place to store it. And that
> place can be quite inconvenient, as it is possibly not in a
> place where you have access to a compiler.
>
> A MIME-aware newsreader, that does not offer to show the attachment as plain
> text (especially, if the type is set to text/*) is broken...
Some people here apparently use such newsreaders. They work perfectly
until people start posting attachments.
> Really and trully, all complete files (rather than illustratory segments)
> should be placed on a web-site by the poster, posting just a link, IMO :-)
Posting links is just fine; people do it here all the time.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
| |
| Mark F. Haigh 2006-08-17, 3:56 am |
| Andrew Poelstra wrote:
> On 2006-08-17, Robert Gamble <rgamble99@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I believe that it's more difficult for me to post the code inline (using
> vi's :read command) than it is to attach a file (using slrn's attachment
> feature, which is one keystroke after posting the file.)
>
> Also, it's easier to compile code that's in its own neat little package,
> without text surrounding it. I don't have copy and paste on my terminal
> (if I do, I don't know how to use it), so this would be simpler than
> 1) Saving the message
> 2) Switching ttys to edit saved file
> 3) Hacking out the headers/message/signature portion of file
> 4) Compile with output piped to a temp file
> 5) Return to first tty to reply
> 6) Typing :read /tmp/compile_output to post the output.
>
> Having an attached file would save the 3rd step, which is the majority
> of the work.
<snippage>
I appreciate what you're saying. However, I think a root issue is a
dichotomy of philosophies. Many see the group as primarily a literary
medium-- a well-spoken matching of wits followed by a gradual
devolution into a flamewar, with intellectual proceeds going to charity
(aka the OP). Attachments are simply more noise in an already faint
signal. On the other hand, many don't see what all the fuss is about.
I'm firmly in the first group. There's a subtle and simple brutality
to the 72-column gridiron. I have to deal with
pathologically-formatted code daily. Why would I want to open
somebody's most-likely fubar-ed attachment? It seems like a kind of
 omasochism to me.
As an aside, for your situation, throw the code's line range into a
file, then compile and read the result at the same time with a
':r!your_script_name' or something. Sheesh.
Mark F. Haigh
mfhaigh@sbcglobal.net
| |
| Skarmander 2006-08-17, 3:56 am |
| Walter Roberson wrote:
<snip>
> The order of the attachments is not fixed by the MIME standards,
> by the way, so clients are free to (and some well-known ones *will*)
> sometimes put the attachments first and -then- the message.
Not true. "The primary subtype for multipart, 'mixed', is intended for use
when the body parts are independent and need to be bundled *in a particular
order*." --RFC 2046 [Emphasis mine.] "As with 'multipart/mixed', the order
of body parts is significant." (on "multipart/alternative"). The same is in
the earlier RFC 1521.
The same applies to "multipart/digest", though that's not relevant here;
only "multipart/parallel" doesn't have significant order, but that is
inherent to the semantics.
Clients that mess up the order on reading are plain wrong, although it's
true that the RFC could be more explicit about this; "mixed" and
"independent body parts" don't imply "mix it up". Clients may mess up the
order on *composing* a message, but that's a quality of interface issue;
presumably they ought to send parts in the order they were attached, with
the main message first.
All that said, it is doubtlessly true that there are many poor MIME
implementations around.
S.
| |
| Mark F. Haigh 2006-08-17, 3:56 am |
| Mikhail Teterin wrote:
<snip>
> Because I don't see, how your troubles (or lack thereof) are supposed to
> compell *me*. My postings are on-topic of the news-group, and so are the
> attachements.
>
> I'm at a loss over this desire for uniformity, you are displaying...
>
I love how you go from that to this:
<snip>
> Soon, when everyone gets their own web-server, we'll be able to make this a
> requirement.
Nicely done. Are you part of ERT's extended family or something?
Mark F. Haigh
mfhaigh@sbcglobal.net
| |
| jaysome 2006-08-17, 3:56 am |
| On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 11:35:20 +0200, Skarmander
<invalid@dontmailme.com> wrote:
>Walter Roberson wrote:
><snip>
>
>Not true. "The primary subtype for multipart, 'mixed', is intended for use
>when the body parts are independent and need to be bundled *in a particular
>order*." --RFC 2046 [Emphasis mine.] "As with 'multipart/mixed', the order
>of body parts is significant." (on "multipart/alternative"). The same is in
>the earlier RFC 1521.
>
>The same applies to "multipart/digest", though that's not relevant here;
>only "multipart/parallel" doesn't have significant order, but that is
>inherent to the semantics.
>
>Clients that mess up the order on reading are plain wrong, although it's
>true that the RFC could be more explicit about this; "mixed" and
>"independent body parts" don't imply "mix it up". Clients may mess up the
>order on *composing* a message, but that's a quality of interface issue;
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I think you meant, "quality of implementation"? Kinda like the
Standard C system() function:
system(cmd);/* may be implemeneted as {return 0;}
>presumably they ought to send parts in the order they were attached, with
>the main message first.
>
>All that said, it is doubtlessly true that there are many poor MIME
>implementations around.
All that said, by any account, clients that don't work--unlike the
client Forte Agent that does work running on Microsoft Windows XP
--with attachments are plain broken.
--
jay
| |
| Richard Tobin 2006-08-17, 3:56 am |
| In article <lnhd0cgolt.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>,
Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
>In fact, it appears that a text attachment in a posted article is
>represented as approximately 4 header lines, followed by the content
>of the attachment, followed by 1 trailer line.
Unfortunately that's only one of several ways of attaching text. It
may instead be base-64 encoded (much like uuencoding) or encoded so as
to preserve various characters while leaving much of the text
unchanged. On one mailing list I subscribe to, many messages are
unreadable without decoding even though they could perfectly well be
sent as plain text.
-- Richard
| |
| Skarmander 2006-08-17, 7:56 am |
| jaysome wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 11:35:20 +0200, Skarmander
> <invalid@dontmailme.com> wrote:
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> I think you meant, "quality of implementation"? Kinda like the
> Standard C system() function:
>
> system(cmd);/* may be implemeneted as {return 0;}
>
Well, I was alluding to it, but it's not quite the same thing. A client has
to send attachments in the proper order, quality or no, but the manner in
which to specify this order is, eh, unspecified. The interface may not offer
or even imply an order in parts.
S.
| |
| CBFalconer 2006-08-17, 7:56 am |
| Mikhail Teterin wrote:
> Keith Thompson wrote:
>
.... snip ...
>
> While I'm here, let me quickly go over the objections raised so far:
>
> * Various systems will automatically strip attachments from news
> posts, or even totally suppress the post.
>
> That's a problem with those "various systems". A poster, aware of
> the issue, may still attach C-code to postings, hurting no one, but
> him/herself.
Those "systems" are the ones that are propagating usenet around the
world, not the individual readers.
--
"The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without
formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to
deny him the judgement of his peers, is in the highest degree
odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government
whether Nazi or Communist." -- W. Churchill, Nov 21, 1943
| |
| Al Balmer 2006-08-17, 6:56 pm |
| On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 01:03:43 GMT, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
wrote:
>Recently a poster here posted some C code as an attachment.
>
>Should attachments (text only) be considered acceptable in this
>newsgroup?
>
>I don't recall the subject even coming up until just a few days ago.
>Almost everyone here posts C code as plain inline text.
>
>I think we can agree that binary attachments are inappropriate. But
>what about text-only attachments? It's argued that newsreaders that
>don't handle attachments will display them as plain inline text, and
>those that do will handle them in some convenient manner.
For the record, my reader (in its current configuration) displays an
icon. I can tell it to "launch" the attachment in an editor (for
text), but that's a separate operation, and I probably won't bother,
even if I'm sure it contains nothing but text.
More to the point, what's the point? If a text-only attachment is
equivalent to posting the text in-line, why not post it in-line? If
there's inconvenience in cutting and pasting text rather than
attaching a file, let the inconvenience be on the part of the one
poster, not the many readers.
--
Al Balmer
Sun City, AZ
| |
| Al Balmer 2006-08-17, 6:56 pm |
| On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 03:04:43 GMT, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
wrote:
>Ronald Bruck <bruck@math.usc.edu> writes:
>[...]
>
>If we were going to decide that text attachments are acceptable and
>binary attachments are not, then I suppose the distinction would be
>that text attachments are those that are still legible (with extra
>header and footer lines) when displayed by a newsreader that ignores
>attachments.
>
>The header lines for the attachment that started this discussion were:
>
> Content-Type: text/x-csrc; name="union.c"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit
> Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="union.c"
>
>I suppose the Content_Type starting with "text/" is indicative -- but
>then again there are different kinds of text.
But why would I be displaying the header lines? Certainly, I can ask
the reader what kind of an attachment it is, but why should I bother?
--
Al Balmer
Sun City, AZ
| |
| Walter Roberson 2006-08-17, 6:56 pm |
| In article <2246331.ILUC65yT0V@aldan.algebra.com>,
Mikhail Teterin <usenet+meow@aldan.algebra.com> wrote:
>You may also start another thread on the subject:
> Should everyone be *forced* to post in the same manner?
>Because I don't see, how your troubles (or lack thereof) are supposed to
>compell *me*. My postings are on-topic of the news-group, and so are the
>attachements.
> * Allowing attachments certainly won't help encourage people to post
>Uhh, place a maximum size limit, then. This is silly...
I don't see why your maximum size limit should compell *me*. If my
posting is on-topic and so are my attachments, then why should I be
*forced* to restrict myself to your arbitrary limits? It's not like
I'm planning to post 62 petabytes or something silly like that --
a few dozen terabytes should be enough this year, and by the time I need
a petabyte, you'll be on a faster connection anyhow.
>A MIME-aware newsreader, that does not offer to show the attachment as plain
>text (especially, if the type is set to text/*) is broken...
trn does not so offer. trn offers to process the whole article
through an external mime decoder (not provided with trn), and if
one has such as decoder, odds are that the external decoder will offer
to save the attachment to disk rather than to display it (since the
external decoder doesn't know that it's invoked in the context of
a newsgroup article.)
--
All is vanity. -- Ecclesiastes
| |
| Walter Roberson 2006-08-17, 6:56 pm |
| In article <44e43855$0$4520$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>,
Skarmander <invalid@dontmailme.com> wrote:
>Walter Roberson wrote:
[color=darkred]
>Not true. "The primary subtype for multipart, 'mixed', is intended for use
>when the body parts are independent and need to be bundled *in a particular
>order*." --RFC 2046 [Emphasis mine.]
>Clients that mess up the order on reading are plain wrong
>Clients may mess up the
>order on *composing* a message, but that's a quality of interface issue;
>presumably they ought to send parts in the order they were attached, with
>the main message first.
When I wrote the paragraph, I was thinking of the composition process.
I have numerous times received email in which, at the pure text level,
the attachments proceeded the message (often, but not exclusively,
in instances where something was being forwarded.)
--
Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? It hath
been already of old time, which was before us. -- Ecclesiastes
| |
| Robert Gamble 2006-08-17, 6:56 pm |
|
Mikhail Teterin wrote:
> Keith Thompson wrote:
>
>
> You may also start another thread on the subject:
>
> Should everyone be *forced* to post in the same manner?
>
> Because I don't see, how your troubles (or lack thereof) are supposed to
> compell *me*. My postings are on-topic of the news-group, and so are the
> attachements.
>
> I'm at a loss over this desire for uniformity, you are displaying...
>
> While I'm here, let me quickly go over the objections raised so far:
First off, nobody can *force* you to do anything, some people may try
to compel you to not post attachments but there is nothing they can do
to keep you from doing so.
It is obvious from this thread that many people would take issue with
articles containing attachments and many of those people would likely
not feel the need to try to overcome the obstacles involved, however
insignificant you may feel them to be, to read the attachment. If you
want to post attachments, go ahead, but just realize that you are
basically saying to everyone: "I am posting this as an attachment to
make my life a little bit easier and I expect everyone to go out of
their way if need be to read it". That attitude won't go over well
with the vast majority of the folks here, especially if you are asking
for help at the same time, such behavior will probably just land you in
multiple killfiles. It really doesn't much matter what you think of
the objections of others because it isn't going to change their view.
In the end you might annoy some folks by posting attachments but you
are really hurting yourself more than anyone else.
Robert Gamble
| |
| Default User 2006-08-17, 6:56 pm |
| Keith Thompson wrote:
> Recently a poster here posted some C code as an attachment.
>
> Should attachments (text only) be considered acceptable in this
> newsgroup?
No.
Brian
| |
| Default User 2006-08-17, 6:56 pm |
| Mikhail Teterin wrote:
> You may also start another thread on the subject:
>
> Should everyone be forced to post in the same manner?
Is everyone forced to read your posts and help you? No.
Brian
| |
| Walter Roberson 2006-08-17, 6:56 pm |
| In article <1155833949.709277.321790@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
Robert Gamble <rgamble99@gmail.com> wrote:
>Mikhail Teterin wrote:
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
>First off, nobody can *force* you to do anything, some people may try
>to compel you to not post attachments but there is nothing they can do
>to keep you from doing so.
I haven't bothered to look to see which posting ISP Mikhail is using,
or to look up their Terms of Service. It is common, though, for ISPs to
write in their Terms of Service wording to the effect that Usenet
conventions must be followed. The restriction against posting MIME or
other forms of attachment in newsgroups that do not explicitly permit
such, is longstanding, and is enforced by some ISPs. Such clauses are
not rare, as the same clause variety is used to deal with spammers, and
with those who post abusive messages in newsgroups not intended to
convey such abuse.
Thus, until such time as comp.lang.c actively permits MIME, there
are ISPs that will enforce restrictions against MIME (though it is
quite uncommon for such ISPs to act without someone having complained
to them.)
--
If you lie to the compiler, it will get its revenge. -- Henry Spencer
| |
| Keith Thompson 2006-08-17, 6:56 pm |
| Al Balmer <albalmer@att.net> writes:
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 03:04:43 GMT, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
> wrote:
>
>
> But why would I be displaying the header lines? Certainly, I can ask
> the reader what kind of an attachment it is, but why should I bother?
I wasn't suggesting that you should. I was attempting to come up with
a plausible answer to Ronald Bruck's question: "how do you distinguish
between text and binary attachments?". *If* we were to decide that
text attachments are acceptable but binary attachments are not, then
we'd need a definition that distinguishes between them. That doesn't
imply that each individual reader needs to be able to make that
distinction.
On the other hand, if I see an attachment I'm going to be nervous
about doing anything with it, even it it claims to be plain text.
Suppose some malicious poster posts an article with an attachment that
*claims* to be a plain text file named "foo.c", but it's actually a
malware program called "foo.c.exe" or something. There are systems on
which it's entirely too easy to open such an attachment. I'm sure
that Mikhail Teterin, the poster who triggered this discussion,
wouldn't do such a thing, but others would. By avoiding attachments,
we can minimize this risk. (I read news on a Linux box, and I don't
believe my newsreader is going to attempt to execute an attachment if
I don't explicitly tell it to, but others are in different
situtation.)
I don't know a lot about how various software handles attachments on
vulnerable systems (yeah, I mean MS Windows). Perhaps someone else
can comment further on how much of a problem this can actually be.
This doesn't mean the spammers and virus writers have won. It means
that avoiding attachments is one way we can defend ourselves against
them. IMHO, it's a small price to pay; I'm not at all convinced that
attachments provide enough of a benefit to be worth the trouble of
dealing with even plain text attachments, let alone any risks of
malware.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
| |
| Mark McIntyre 2006-08-17, 6:56 pm |
| On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 01:03:43 GMT, in comp.lang.c , Keith Thompson
<kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
>Recently a poster here posted some C code as an attachment.
>
>Should attachments (text only) be considered acceptable in this
>newsgroup?
This is a discussion group, not a sources group. If people want to
post code to be commented on, it should either be short and inline, or
a link. If tehy want to post code to share, this is the wrong placae.
>I think we can agree that binary attachments are inappropriate.
Absolutely.
>But what about text-only attachments?
Whats the use of posting an attachment? I can't comment on it, except
by spending my valuable time opening the blasted files in some sort of
editor and copy-pasting it back into my newsreader. Thats an absurd
amount of hassle.
>It's argued that newsreaders that
>don't handle attachments will display them as plain inline text, and
>those that do will handle them in some convenient manner.
Convenient for *what* though? Remember, this isn't a filesharing
newsgroup, its a discussion group, and if we can't trivially annotate
code theres no point posting it.
--
Mark McIntyre
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan
| |
| Mark McIntyre 2006-08-17, 6:56 pm |
| On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 02:15:21 -0400, in comp.lang.c , Mikhail Teterin
<usenet+meow@aldan.algebra.com> wrote:
>You may also start another thread on the subject:
>
> Should everyone be *forced* to post in the same manner?
I am generally amazed at how people do things in usenet they'd never
do IRL. I mean, IRL if you wanted advice about motorcycles, would you
go into the bikers bar and complain about the beer? Course not, you'd
get chucked out on your ear.
>Because I don't see, how your troubles (or lack thereof) are supposed to
>compell *me*.
Nobody can compel you. They can however ignore you, permanently. You
then get no benefit from this group, which presumably is what you
want.
>Really and trully, all complete files (rather than illustratory segments)
>should be placed on a web-site by the poster, posting just a link, IMO :-)
Yup.
>Soon, when everyone gets their own web-server,
You're being facetious, but this is trivially possible already and
without personal webservers. Apparently you've never come across any
of the social networking sites, or wikis, or etc etc etc
--
Mark McIntyre
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan
| |
| Mark McIntyre 2006-08-17, 6:56 pm |
| On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 21:45:05 GMT, in comp.lang.c , Keith Thompson
<kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
>I don't know a lot about how various software handles attachments on
>vulnerable systems (yeah, I mean MS Windows). Perhaps someone else
>can comment further on how much of a problem this can actually be.
Its an actual problem, if you're the sort of person who has assigned
admin / root permissions to his normal login account, or if you're
unfortunate enough to be running Win98/ME, older MacOS etc. It can
even be a serious annoyance if you have a properly restricted account.
I blush to recall that I once accidentally executed an attachment in
Lotus Notes, which deleted every gif and jpg from my C drive.
>This doesn't mean the spammers and virus writers have won. It means
>that avoiding attachments is one way we can defend ourselves against
>them. IMHO, it's a small price to pay; I'm not at all convinced that
>attachments provide enough of a benefit to be worth the trouble of
>dealing with even plain text attachments, let alone any risks of
>malware.
I agree absolutely with this. Even text attachments need not be
harmless. Some OSen are notorious for concealing the true nature of
files (I meanb, which cretin thought a bright idea to default to
"hide" the executable-ness of files?) or for trying to outthink the
user (cue MacOS...)
--
Mark McIntyre
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan
| |
| Ben Pfaff 2006-08-17, 6:56 pm |
| Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:
> In fact, it appears that a text attachment in a posted article is
> represented as approximately 4 header lines, followed by the content
> of the attachment, followed by 1 trailer line. (I determined this by
> grabbing a copy of the orginal article in question using a small Perl
> script and the NNTP protocol, rather than via a newsreader; I expect
> that a newsreader that doesn't understand attachments would simply
> display the extra lines along with the content.)
[...]
> I read news using Gnus, a newsreader that runs under GNU Emacs.
For what it's worth, in Gnus, you can see the "raw" format of the
article by typing "C-u g" in the summary buffer. There's no need
to go to the trouble of generating your own NNTP.
--
"To get the best out of this book, I strongly recommend that you read it."
--Richard Heathfield
| |
| Eigenvector 2006-08-17, 6:56 pm |
|
"Keith Thompson" <kst-u@mib.org> wrote in message
news:lnhd0cgolt.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org...
> Recently a poster here posted some C code as an attachment.
>
> Should attachments (text only) be considered acceptable in this
> newsgroup?
>
> I don't recall the subject even coming up until just a few days ago.
> Almost everyone here posts C code as plain inline text.
>
> I think we can agree that binary attachments are inappropriate. But
> what about text-only attachments? It's argued that newsreaders that
> don't handle attachments will display them as plain inline text, and
> those that do will handle them in some convenient manner.
>
> In fact, it appears that a text attachment in a posted article is
> represented as approximately 4 header lines, followed by the content
> of the attachment, followed by 1 trailer line. (I determined this by
> grabbing a copy of the orginal article in question using a small Perl
> script and the NNTP protocol, rather than via a newsreader; I expect
> that a newsreader that doesn't understand attachments would simply
> display the extra lines along with the content.)
>
> Personally, I tend to prefer inline text rather than attachments, even
> for multiple chunks of code. If I want to try compiling a posted
> piece of code, I copy it from the window in which I'm reading news,
> then paste it into a window on the machine where I want to compile it.
> If I had to save the attachment to do this, I'd have to copy the
> resulting file from one machine to another; not impossible, of course,
> but inconvenient enough that I often wouldn't bother. Of course,
> others will have different preferences.
>
> I'll offer one data point. I read news using Gnus, a newsreader that
> runs under GNU Emacs. It handles attachments reasonable well; the
> file name is displayed in bold text, and the attachment is expanded
> inline after I move the cursor on top of it and press <enter>. (Note
> that I'm referring to a text cursor, not a mouse cursor, so moving it
> to the right spot can require several keystrokes.) I presume there's
> command to save the attachment as a file, but I haven't bothered to
> find out. As I said, I prefer inline text to attachments, but I can
> deal with them if there's a consensus that they're acceptable. If
> there are people using newsreaders that make plain-text attachments
> difficult to handle, I suggest that attachments should be discouraged.
>
> This was discussed recently in the "passing a union's field to a
> function" thread, particularly in the "Posting sample C-code as
> attachment" subthread. There was some disagreement about whether any
> conclusion had been reached. I thought it would be useful to have
> this discussion in its own thread.
>
> --
> Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org
> <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
You can attempt to mandate this group all you want (not you personally), it
really doesn't matter, people are going to do what they are going to do. If
someone wants to post attachments that's fine with me, I simply won't look
at them. Not that my opinion matters at all, as I'm really only a lurker.
This has nothing to do with newsreaders, it has everything to do with
laziness on the part of the poster and whether or not this group is prepared
to begin allowing wholesale code debugging. Because when it gets down to
it, I can't think of a reasonable justification for having to post more than
50 or so lines of code - if troubleshooting is your aim that is. But that
is just my opinion.
| |
| Keith Thompson 2006-08-17, 6:56 pm |
| Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> writes:
> Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:
[...]
>
> For what it's worth, in Gnus, you can see the "raw" format of the
> article by typing "C-u g" in the summary buffer. There's no need
> to go to the trouble of generating your own NNTP.
Thanks, that's a useful tip.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
| |
| CBFalconer 2006-08-17, 9:56 pm |
| Keith Thompson wrote:
> Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> writes:
> [...]
>
> Thanks, that's a useful tip.
The same in Netscape or Thunderbird with "ALT-v u".
--
"The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without
formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to
deny him the judgement of his peers, is in the highest degree
odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government
whether Nazi or Communist." -- W. Churchill, Nov 21, 1943
| |
| Peter Shaggy Haywood 2006-08-17, 9:56 pm |
| Groovy hepcat Keith Thompson was jivin' on Thu, 17 Aug 2006 01:03:43
GMT in comp.lang.c.
Should attachments be accepted in comp.lang.c?'s a  scene! Dig it!
>Recently a poster here posted some C code as an attachment.
>
>Should attachments (text only) be considered acceptable in this
>newsgroup?
No. There's no reason to attach what can be cut and pasted into the
body of the post. And some Usenet servers remove attachments.
--
Dig the even newer still, yet more improved, sig!
http://alphalink.com.au/~phaywood/
"Ain't I'm a dog?" - Ronny Self, Ain't I'm a Dog, written by G. Sherry & W. Walker.
I know it's not "technically correct" English; but since when was rock & roll "technically correct"?
| |
| Herbert Rosenau 2006-08-18, 3:56 am |
| On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 16:39:22 UTC, roberson@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca (Walter
Roberson) wrote:
>
> I don't see why your maximum size limit should compell *me*. If my
> posting is on-topic and so are my attachments, then why should I be
> *forced* to restrict myself to your arbitrary limits? It's not like
> I'm planning to post 62 petabytes or something silly like that --
> a few dozen terabytes should be enough this year, and by the time I need
> a petabyte, you'll be on a faster connection anyhow.
Why should one try to open spam? Only spammers try to attach something
like
"test.c .exe" to force the reader to
open the worm, virus or other malware.
Servers around the world are trained to kill news when they have an
attachement to save theyr users from malware independant of the type
of attachement.
You like to be identified as spammer? Try to post attachements. You'll
quiickly blocked by regulars. So nothing of you will be readed by
experienced users. You'll arrive no help on that.
--
Tschau/Bye
Herbert
Visit http://www.ecomstation.de the home of german eComStation
eComStation 1.2 Deutsch ist da!
| |
| Walter Roberson 2006-08-18, 3:56 am |
| In article <wmzsGguTDN6N-pn2-ZCmVdh0dzqqN@JUPITER1.PC-ROSENAU.DE>,
Herbert Rosenau <os2guy@pc-rosenau.de> wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 16:39:22 UTC, roberson@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca (Walter
>Roberson) wrote:
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
>Why should one try to open spam? Only spammers try to attach something
>like
>"test.c .exe" to force the reader to
>open the worm, virus or other malware.
Well, it isn't only spammers; there are insane people, and there are
sane people who consider it less wrong than whatever they are thinking
of at the time.
But either way, whether it is only spammers or not, the virus/malware
argument doesn't have any bearing on the question of why his
maximum size limit should compel -me-. Who is he to judge what
the size limit should be? Is this or is this not an anarchist
collective, in which each person decides for themselves which
rules they wish to follow?
--
All is vanity. -- Ecclesiastes
| |
| CBFalconer 2006-08-18, 3:56 am |
| Walter Roberson wrote:
>
.... snip ...
>
> But either way, whether it is only spammers or not, the
> virus/malware argument doesn't have any bearing on the question
> of why his maximum size limit should compel -me-. Who is he to
> judge what the size limit should be? Is this or is this not an
> anarchist collective, in which each person decides for themselves
> which rules they wish to follow?
Yes, it is an anarchy, but most participants have the objective of
communicating with others. After all, there is very little
satisfaction in pounding out unending drivel on the keyboard, if
that drivel is totally ignored. And such ignoring will be its fate
if it doesn't conform to some degree with the consensus standard.
Thus: DON'T FEED THE TROLLS.
--
"The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without
formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to
deny him the judgement of his peers, is in the highest degree
odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government
whether Nazi or Communist." -- W. Churchill, Nov 21, 1943
| |
|
| Mikhail Teterin wrote:
<snipped>
>
> You may also start another thread on the subject:
>
> Should everyone be *forced* to post in the same manner?
>
> Because I don't see, how your troubles (or lack thereof) are supposed to
> compell *me*. My postings are on-topic of the news-group, and so are the
> attachements.
>
> I'm at a loss over this desire for uniformity, you are displaying...
>
If, in the words of a longtime clc reg, you had engaged your
brain before posting, you would've realised that KT and the other
regs do not force or ban, they merely encourage for the sake
of keeping clc useful. Uniformity helps keep clc useful.
> While I'm here, let me quickly go over the objections raised so far:
>
> * Various systems will automatically strip attachments from news
> posts, or even totally suppress the post.
>
> That's a problem with those "various systems". A poster, aware of the issue,
> may still attach C-code to postings, hurting no one, but him/herself.
Thus making clc less useful (even if it's only less useful to
the poster).
>
> * It is inconvenient for me to have to download an attachment
>
> That's a reason for *you* not to bother, but not a reason to ban such posts.
Not "ban", "encourage".
<snipped>
>
> * Allowing attachments certainly won't help encourage people to post
>
> Uhh, place a maximum size limit, then. This is silly...
We can't, we can only encourage and it tends to be easier to
encourage posting of minimal code by posting inline code
segments in posts rather than posting code in an attachment.
<snipped>
data point: I use google groups through lynx for reading
and lynx + vim for writing. Code inline is easily taken care
of by pressing "p" and saving to a filename. I haven't come
across any attachments (perhaps they don't show up on google?)
but I suspect that it should be just as easy to save an
attachment, maybe not as easy to merely view.
goose,
| |
| ena8t8si@yahoo.com 2006-08-18, 6:56 pm |
|
Keith Thompson wrote:
> Recently a poster here posted some C code as an attachment.
>
> Should attachments (text only) be considered acceptable in this
> newsgroup?
Out of curiosity I tried looking at a news posting (the
one mentioned) with an attachment on one of the systems
I use regularly.
The attachment was presented as a link, which needed to
be separately downloaded. Then to read the downloaded
attachment file it took starting another application
(I chose my regular editor). For whatever reason some
of the character codes weren't mapped correctly, and
the whole file was shown as a single long line.
I also tried starting a reply in the newsreader to see
what would happen there. The newsreader did include
the attachment in the reply, but also put in the MIME
header lines along with the regular text. Following
usual netnews etiquette would then mean going back and
editing out those lines manually.
I don't really see any upside for postings to have
attachments rather than using just regular message
text. Large files or sets of file shouldn't be
posted directly but given as links instead (again
by conventional netnews etiquette).
Those are my observations. The conclusion seems
obvious.
| |
| Dik T. Winter 2006-08-18, 6:56 pm |
| In article <1155906665.040149.313690@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> "goose" <ruse@webmail.co.za> writes:
....
> data point: I use google groups through lynx for reading
> and lynx + vim for writing. Code inline is easily taken care
> of by pressing "p" and saving to a filename. I haven't come
> across any attachments (perhaps they don't show up on google?)
> but I suspect that it should be just as easy to save an
> attachment, maybe not as easy to merely view.
Google groups shows the attachments as links. It depends on your
browser how those links are handled if you click on them.
--
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/
| |
| Herbert Rosenau 2006-08-19, 3:56 am |
| On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 06:54:50 UTC, roberson@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca (Walter
Roberson) wrote:
> In article <wmzsGguTDN6N-pn2-ZCmVdh0dzqqN@JUPITER1.PC-ROSENAU.DE>,
> Herbert Rosenau <os2guy@pc-rosenau.de> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Well, it isn't only spammers; there are insane people, and there are
> sane people who consider it less wrong than whatever they are thinking
> of at the time.
In text groups I interpret any mail having attachement simply as spam.
Because when the poster has nothing to hide he would include it
directly instead attach it.
In binary groups my newsreader will magically decode mime and store
attachements into a separate folder created only for that. I use 3
different programs to view that folder:
- an intelligent picture viewer to look at pictures ans save from it
into a location created for pictures of that kind
when it is woth to be saved
- a music editor to look at the music, play it and store it into
the right folder when it is worth to save
- a unix like commandline program (rm *) to cleanup the folder.
because anything left is either spam, malware or even not worth to
view it.
Spammers and malware authors likes to attach theyr crap and infect
mashines.
Maybe I'm a bit paranoid as I have never seen any kind of malware able
to run on my OS I give it no chance.
> But either way, whether it is only spammers or not, the virus/malware
> argument doesn't have any bearing on the question of why his
> maximum size limit should compel -me-. Who is he to judge what
> the size limit should be? Is this or is this not an anarchist
> collective, in which each person decides for themselves which
> rules they wish to follow?
Untrue. When you uses windows you gets the malware shown as
"harmless.txt" but it is really
"harmless.txt .exe"
and gets executed magically by clicking on it. It may be or may be not
harmless - but most often it is harmfull.
Anybody who has nothing to hide will include text in its artikle
instead attach it.
This has nothing to do with the size of an attachement. It is
irrelevant if the attachement is only 3KB or 3MB. Any attachement
outside binary groups is crap per definition.
There are many servers around who will not even deliver attachements
in newsgroups, some of them will even kill the whole artikle holding
one.
--
Tschau/Bye
Herbert
Visit http://www.ecomstation.de the home of german eComStation
eComStation 1.2 Deutsch ist da!
| |
| Rod Pemberton 2006-08-19, 3:56 am |
|
"Mark F. Haigh" <mfhaigh@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1155806708.253856.47600@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> I appreciate what you're saying. However, I think a root issue is a
> dichotomy of philosophies. Many see the group as primarily a literary
> medium-- a well-spoken matching of wits followed by a gradual
> devolution into a flamewar, with intellectual proceeds going to charity
> (aka the OP). Attachments are simply more noise in an already faint
> signal. On the other hand, many don't see what all the fuss is about.
>
I personally have no problem writing code for others, or solving problems
labelled as homework. But, many here oppose that. The "group" is serving
some purposes and obliterates others. It needs to be "split" to provide
"appropriate" forums.
comp.lang.c.attachments
comp.lang.c.code
comp.lang.c.homework
comp.lang.c.pedantic
comp.lang.c.lsbc
comp.lang.c.posix
comp.lang.c.knr
comp.lang.c.iso
comp.lang.c.ansi
comp.lang.c.misc
Rod Pemberton
| |
| Rod Pemberton 2006-08-19, 3:56 am |
|
"CBFalconer" <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:44E52497.F065FAF@yahoo.com...
> Keith Thompson wrote:
>
> The same in Netscape or Thunderbird with "ALT-v u".
>
The same in Microsoft Outlook with right-click or alt-enter, properties,
details-tab, message-source-button.
Rod Pemberton
| |
| Rod Pemberton 2006-08-19, 3:56 am |
|
"Keith Thompson" <kst-u@mib.org> wrote in message
news:lnhd0cgolt.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org...
> Recently a poster here posted some C code as an attachment.
>
> Should attachments (text only) be considered acceptable in this
> newsgroup?
>
> I don't recall the subject even coming up until just a few days ago.
> Almost everyone here posts C code as plain inline text.
>
> I think we can agree that binary attachments are inappropriate. But
> what about text-only attachments? It's argued that newsreaders that
> don't handle attachments will display them as plain inline text, and
> those that do will handle them in some convenient manner.
>
> In fact, it appears that a text attachment in a posted article is
> represented as approximately 4 header lines, followed by the content
> of the attachment, followed by 1 trailer line. (I determined this by
> grabbing a copy of the orginal article in question using a small Perl
> script and the NNTP protocol, rather than via a newsreader; I expect
> that a newsreader that doesn't understand attachments would simply
> display the extra lines along with the content.)
>
> Personally, I tend to prefer inline text rather than attachments, even
> for multiple chunks of code. If I want to try compiling a posted
> piece of code, I copy it from the window in which I'm reading news,
> then paste it into a window on the machine where I want to compile it.
> If I had to save the attachment to do this, I'd have to copy the
> resulting file from one machine to another; not impossible, of course,
> but inconvenient enough that I often wouldn't bother. Of course,
> others will have different preferences.
>
> I'll offer one data point. I read news using Gnus, a newsreader that
> runs under GNU Emacs. It handles attachments reasonable well; the
> file name is displayed in bold text, and the attachment is expanded
> inline after I move the cursor on top of it and press <enter>. (Note
> that I'm referring to a text cursor, not a mouse cursor, so moving it
> to the right spot can require several keystrokes.) I presume there's
> command to save the attachment as a file, but I haven't bothered to
> find out. As I said, I prefer inline text to attachments, but I can
> deal with them if there's a consensus that they're acceptable. If
> there are people using newsreaders that make plain-text attachments
> difficult to handle, I suggest that attachments should be discouraged.
>
> This was discussed recently in the "passing a union's field to a
> function" thread, particularly in the "Posting sample C-code as
> attachment" subthread. There was some disagreement about whether any
> conclusion had been reached. I thought it would be useful to have
> this discussion in its own thread.
>
If anyone cares, the only problem I've had with attachments in other
newsgroups is that my newsreader automatically flags certain extensions as
virii and blocks access to them. I then have to manually disable
protections...
Rod Pemberton
| |
| Flash Gordon 2006-08-19, 6:56 pm |
| Mark McIntyre wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 01:03:43 GMT, in comp.lang.c , Keith Thompson
> <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
>
>
> This is a discussion group, not a sources group. If people want to
> post code to be commented on, it should either be short and inline, or
> a link. If tehy want to post code to share, this is the wrong placae.
My news reader displays text attachments inline so reading an article
with attachments is not a problem to me. However, if I want to comment
on the code I would then have to copy and paste code from the
attachments rather than being able to simply hit reply and comment on
the relevant sections. So I would not bother doing detailed critiques of
the code (whether my critiques are of value is for the individual
readers to decide). I suspect others may find they have the same problem.
So I agree with those who say attachments should be discouraged and may
even set my local news feed to drop posts with attachments, and if I do
that it will block a few other people from seeing posts with attachments.
--
Flash Gordon
Still sigless on this computer.
| |
| Mark McIntyre 2006-08-19, 6:56 pm |
| On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 05:08:07 -0400, in comp.lang.c , "Rod Pemberton"
<do_not_have@bitfoad.cmm> wrote:
>The "group" is serving
>some purposes and obliterates others. It needs to be "split" to provide
>"appropriate" forums.
Feel free to formally propose all the groups you want. Myself, I plan
to read & post in CLC.
--
Mark McIntyre
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan
| |
| Al Balmer 2006-08-20, 3:56 am |
| On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 05:08:07 -0400, "Rod Pemberton"
<do_not_have@bitfoad.cmm> wrote:
>
>"Mark F. Haigh" <mfhaigh@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>news:1155806708.253856.47600@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
>I personally have no problem writing code for others, or solving problems
>labelled as homework.
I suggest you post a working email address. I'm sure you'll get lots
of requests ;-)
> But, many here oppose that.
Yep. There's enough bad code in the world - why graduate more CS
students that can't even begin writing a program?
> The "group" is serving
>some purposes and obliterates others. It needs to be "split" to provide
>"appropriate" forums.
>
>comp.lang.c.attachments
>comp.lang.c.code
>comp.lang.c.homework
>comp.lang.c.pedantic
>comp.lang.c.lsbc
>comp.lang.c.posix
>comp.lang.c.knr
>comp.lang.c.iso
>comp.lang.c.ansi
>comp.lang.c.misc
>
>
>Rod Pemberton
>
--
Al Balmer
Sun City, AZ
| |
| Rod Pemberton 2006-08-20, 7:56 am |
|
"Al Balmer" <albalmer@att.net> wrote in message
news:prhee2pm5gsqtvnhvl57nq6ecqoiedseqr@
4ax.com...
> On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 05:08:07 -0400, "Rod Pemberton"
> <do_not_have@bitfoad.cmm> wrote:
>
>
> I suggest you post a working email address. I'm sure you'll get lots
> of requests ;-)
>
I don't have a working email address by choice. And, it couldn't be any
worse than spam was when I had email. At the minimum, it would offer me
something: a challenge, instead of people just asking for my money. ;-)
>
> Yep. There's enough bad code in the world - why graduate more CS
> students that can't even begin writing a program?
>
Well, from "The Prince," Machiavelli, Chapter 22, of course ;-) :
"...there are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself;
another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither
comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most
excellent, the second is good, the third is useless."
"By the showing of others," the second class of intellect, apparently
learns...
Perhaps you're right about email, at least I could weed out the abundant
third class, unlike here...
Besides, if Universities or Corporate America really wanted skilled
programmers, they wouldn't use any programming language created by a PHD,
EE, CS, or HS graduate, etc. They'd hire a bunch chain smoking, drinking,
occasional meth & ectasy users, who flunked out of HS (or MS) by 10th grade,
who enjoy riding motorocycles without a helmet or base jumping, to develop a
programming language. Then, every American and most illegals, could easily
become programmers. And, Corporate America would have what it wants:
"skilled" minimum wage programmers. Of course, that'd have secondary
effects such as killing a major revenue stream: overpriced CS degrees, for
our liberal Universities requiring the termination of employment of many
tenured, overpromoted, and underworked professors. But, all of this
presupposes the necessary condition that Corporate America's managers are
sufficiently smarter than most of the employees they manage to engage such a
plan...
Rod Pemberton
| |
| Richard Bos 2006-08-21, 3:56 am |
| Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
> Recently a poster here posted some C code as an attachment.
>
> Should attachments (text only) be considered acceptable in this
> newsgroup?
That's the wrong question.
Some news servers simply dump (into the bitbucket) _all_ posts with
attachments in text newsgroups, regardless of what's in the attachments.
You might want to ask whether these servers, rather than this newsgroup,
should accept such posts. Since HTML is also plain text, the answer will
probably be "no bloody way".
Richard
| |
| Al Balmer 2006-08-21, 6:56 pm |
| On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 08:27:39 -0400, "Rod Pemberton"
<do_not_have@bitfoad.cmm> wrote:
>
>"Al Balmer" <albalmer@att.net> wrote in message
> news:prhee2pm5gsqtvnhvl57nq6ecqoiedseqr@
4ax.com...
>
>I don't have a working email address by choice. And, it couldn't be any
>worse than spam was when I had email. At the minimum, it would offer me
>something: a challenge, instead of people just asking for my money. ;-)
>
When I was still an independent, I sometimes replied to emails asking
for help with homework by sending my rate chart ;-) Oddly enough, they
didn't usually ask again.
>
>Well, from "The Prince," Machiavelli, Chapter 22, of course ;-) :
>
>"...there are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself;
>another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither
>comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most
>excellent, the second is good, the third is useless."
>
>"By the showing of others," the second class of intellect, apparently
>learns...
The "showing" is what we aspire to here, in a minimalist way, so that
the learner can "appreciate what others comprehend" and perhaps
eventually enter the first class. The doing of homework for the
student perpetuates the third class.
I see two good responses to homework here, depending on the problem
presented. If the homework is such that any reasonably intelligent
person who has paid at least minimal attention to his instruction
could make a stab at it, that's what is recommended. Try it, then come
back. If the problem is more difficult, and the student is having a
hard time getting started, some directional pointers or suggestions
for research are appropriate.
Doing the homework for the student does him no favor in the long run.
In fact, those who jump in with a complete solution to the problem are
often less-than-expert programmers anxious to display their own skill,
and are often wrong. We've seen that demonstrated here many times.
>
>Perhaps you're right about email, at least I could weed out the abundant
>third class, unlike here...
>
>Besides, if Universities or Corporate America really wanted skilled
>programmers, they wouldn't use any programming language created by a PHD,
>EE, CS, or HS graduate, etc. They'd hire a bunch chain smoking, drinking,
>occasional meth & ectasy users, who flunked out of HS (or MS) by 10th grade,
>who enjoy riding motorocycles without a helmet or base jumping, to develop a
>programming language. Then, every American and most illegals, could easily
>become programmers. And, Corporate America would have what it wants:
>"skilled" minimum wage programmers. Of course, that'd have secondary
>effects such as killing a major revenue stream: overpriced CS degrees, for
>our liberal Universities requiring the termination of employment of many
>tenured, overpromoted, and underworked professors.
Heh. You've reminded me of a year when we hired an assistant professor
of CS for the summer. I don't know how good a teacher he was, but he
failed miserably at his first assignment of developing a program to
crossreference variables in a Basic program. He couldn't decide how to
sort the 260 possible variable names.
> But, all of this
>presupposes the necessary condition that Corporate America's managers are
>sufficiently smarter than most of the employees they manage to engage such a
>plan...
>
>
>Rod Pemberton
>
--
Al Balmer
Sun City, AZ
| |
| Al Balmer 2006-08-21, 6:56 pm |
| On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 17:23:10 GMT, Al Balmer <albalmer@att.net> wrote:
>Heh. You've reminded me of a year when we hired an assistant professor
>of CS for the summer. I don't know how good a teacher he was, but he
>failed miserably at his first assignment of developing a program to
>crossreference variables in a Basic program. He couldn't decide how to
>sort the 260 possible variable names.
Oops - make that 286.
--
Al Balmer
Sun City, AZ
| |
| Mabden 2006-08-25, 3:56 am |
| "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@bitfoad.cmm> wrote in message
news:1156077022_1423@dscnews2.dcccd.edu...
>
> Well, from "The Prince," Machiavelli, Chapter 22, of course ;-) :
>
> "...there are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by
itself;
> another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which
neither
> comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most
> excellent, the second is good, the third is useless."
>
My copy has a slightly different version, so I thought I would add it to the
history of the internet:
From "The Prince And the Discourses" Translated by Luigi Ricci & ERP Vincent
"There are three different kinds of brains, the one understands thing
unassisted, the other understands things when shown by others, the third
understands neither alone nor with the explanations of others. The first
kind is most excellent, the second also excellent, but the third useless."
I think this version is a more contemporary usage, better to serve the
purpose of the original manuscript in today's context.
--
Mabden
"Giver of Enlightenment"
| |
| Mabden 2006-08-26, 6:56 pm |
| "There are three different kinds of brains, the one understands things
unassisted, the other understands things when shown by others, the third
understands neither alone nor with the explanations of others. The first
kind is most excellent, the second also excellent, but the third useless."
Niccolo Machiavelli
|
|
|
|
|