Re: IE* View Source Broken

Go to Internet Options and click the "Programs" tab.

Under "HTML Editing" there should be an entry with a drop-down
box that will allow you to choose the default editor (Notepad by
default).

thomas wrote:

> Subject: Re: IE* View Source Broken

Despite the use of "Re:" in the Subject header, you are NOT replying to
anyone's post. The lack of a References header in your post shows you
started a NEW thread.

> X-Newsreader: Newsbin Pro 5.0

This was designed primarily for reading posts from binary newsgroups and
yanking their attachments to save a local copy, like for videos or
music. It isn't a good choice for *discussions* in Usenet.

> Go to Internet Options and click the "Programs" tab.
>
> Under "HTML Editing" there should be an entry with a drop-down
> box that will allow you to choose the default editor (Notepad by
> default).

So, since you started a *new* thread, just who did you think to whom you
were replying? To reply then use "Reply [to group]". The "Post [to
group]" starts a new thread.

http://help.newsbin.com/index.php/V550-UserGuide
Section "Posting to Usenet".

"VanguardLH" <> wrote in message
news:il6s90$dcq$...
> thomas wrote:
>
>> Subject: Re: IE* View Source Broken
>
> Despite the use of "Re:" in the Subject header, you are NOT replying to
> anyone's post. The lack of a References header in your post shows you
> started a NEW thread.
>
>> X-Newsreader: Newsbin Pro 5.0
>
> This was designed primarily for reading posts from binary newsgroups and
> yanking their attachments to save a local copy, like for videos or
> music. It isn't a good choice for *discussions* in Usenet.
>
>> Go to Internet Options and click the "Programs" tab.
>>
>> Under "HTML Editing" there should be an entry with a drop-down
>> box that will allow you to choose the default editor (Notepad by
>> default).
>
> So, since you started a *new* thread, just who did you think to whom you
> were replying? To reply then use "Reply [to group]". The "Post [to
> group]" starts a new thread.
>
> http://help.newsbin.com/index.php/V550-UserGuide
> Section "Posting to Usenet".


Here is the original post that Thomas was replying to...

<quote>
Hi Everyone,

When I right click a web page and select View Source from the
flyout menu IE does not display the source. Anyone have an idea how I
may correct this?

Thank you,
Aeden
</quote>


His (Thomas') reader must be doing something to strip out the original
header, and he appears to have snipped the content of the post. On any case,
he did Reply Group, and did create a new post.

Jeff Strickland wrote:

> VanguardLH wrote ...
>
>> thomas wrote:
>>
>>> Subject: Re: IE* View Source Broken
>>
>> Despite the use of "Re:" in the Subject header, you are NOT replying to
>> anyone's post. The lack of a References header in your post shows you
>> started a NEW thread.
>
> His (Thomas') reader must be doing something to strip out the original
> header, and he appears to have snipped the content of the post. On any case,
> he did Reply Group, and did create a new post.

You sure? Looks like he click "Post to Group", not "Reply to Group".
That would explain the lack of a References header. Note that using
either always creates a "new post". Whether or not it is chained to
other posts using the References header determines if it was a reply.

The References header was defined back in November 1977 (RFC 733,
"Standard for the Format of ARPA Network Text Messages"). The OP's
newsreader (Newsbin) is nowhere near that old. It should support use of
the References header. If not, it should NEVER be used to start or
participate in discussion and only used for its intended purpose of
reading posts to extract and combine binary attachments in newsgroup
posts.

GrabIt is another NNTP client whose intended purpose is similar to
Newsbin's. Neither should be used for discussions.

"VanguardLH" <> wrote in message
news:il8ch1$h5i$...
> Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
>> VanguardLH wrote ...
>>
>>> thomas wrote:
>>>
>>>> Subject: Re: IE* View Source Broken
>>>
>>> Despite the use of "Re:" in the Subject header, you are NOT replying to
>>> anyone's post. The lack of a References header in your post shows you
>>> started a NEW thread.
>>
>> His (Thomas') reader must be doing something to strip out the original
>> header, and he appears to have snipped the content of the post. On any
>> case,
>> he did Reply Group, and did create a new post.
>
> You sure? Looks like he click "Post to Group", not "Reply to Group".
> That would explain the lack of a References header. Note that using
> either always creates a "new post". Whether or not it is chained to
> other posts using the References header determines if it was a reply.
>

Yes, I'm sure. I have an original post, and Thomas was the first reply. He
did not create a response to nothing, or originate a post that is a reply to
an unasked question.

You must be missing the original post.

Reply Group does not create a new post. I use Reply Group to reply to you...

"VanguardLH" <> wrote in message
news:il8ch1$h5i$...
> Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
>> VanguardLH wrote ...
>>
>>> thomas wrote:
>>>
>>>> Subject: Re: IE* View Source Broken
>>>
>>> Despite the use of "Re:" in the Subject header, you are NOT replying to
>>> anyone's post. The lack of a References header in your post shows you
>>> started a NEW thread.
>>
>> His (Thomas') reader must be doing something to strip out the original
>> header, and he appears to have snipped the content of the post. On any
>> case,
>> he did Reply Group, and did create a new post.
>
> You sure? Looks like he click "Post to Group", not "Reply to Group".
> That would explain the lack of a References header. Note that using
> either always creates a "new post". Whether or not it is chained to
> other posts using the References header determines if it was a reply.
>


The Original Poster originates from Google Groups, and he posted through
Gmail. I have considerable problems with some googlegroups postings, most of
the problems arise through proper attribution. I don't know that it is a
setting in my reader, or settings within googlegroups or the browser-based
environment that Google visitors use.

Jeff Strickland wrote:

> Yes, I'm sure. I have an original post, and Thomas was the first reply. He
> did not create a response to nothing, or originate a post that is a reply to
> an unasked question.
>
> You must be missing the original post.

Irrevelant. thomas' client did not add the References header. thomas'
client can add the References header. Click "Post to group" and the
References header is not added because you are starting a new thread.
Click "Reply to Group" and the References header gets added because you
are continuing an existing thread in a reply. thomas clicked the wrong
button.

Even if I still had Aeden's original post, thomas' post was not a reply
although he might've intended such. Every post you submit to an NNTP
server is a new post; otherwise, please show the NNTP command that has
the server submit to itself an old post versus your NNTP client
composing a new post and submitting it. There was no References header
in thomas' new post so it isn't threaded to another post.

Don't expect any newsreader to properly thread a discussion based on the
Subject header (after omitting any "Re:" prefix). The Subject header
was never intended nor does it properly function for threading. This is
why Google Groups, for example, gets so screwed up in its fake threading
based on the Subject header despite the References header has been
defined by RFC for 34 years. Someone changes the Subject header (beyond
prefixing "Re:") and the thread gets broken into separate and
disconnected multiple threads. Someone has a separate thread with a
Subject value and another person starts a separate but uses the same
Subject value which results in an incorrect merging of multiple threads
that were supposed to remain separate. The Subject header is not a
valid value on which to base threading and why the References header
(showing a hierarchy of Message-IDs which are required to be unique) is
what gets used to show the threading of posts.

With multiple posts with "[Re:] Need help" posts, Subject threading
would merge together what should've remained distinct threads. They all
get lumped together despite they were started by different posters.
Someone replies with Subject of "Need help - SPAM" or "SPAM (was: Need
help" and now a new thread gets started. Threading on References would
keep the posts properly grouped together. Grouping based on the Subject
header is invalid as it often will fail to properly keep a thread
together and prevent intermingling of other threads.

Although RFC 733 defines the References header, RFC 822 first mentions
the "mach-id" as the "msg-id" which is better known to users as the
value of the Message-ID header. RFC 5322 is the last in the series of
RFCs (that obsoleted earlier ones) regarding Internet Message Format.
See section 3.6.4. Threading is based on the References header, NOT the
Subject header.

It is possible that RFC 5322 dated 2008 is after when a newsreader
version got released but it is highly unlikely that any newsreader now
in use is older than 1977 when RFC 733 defined the References header.

> Reply Group does not create a new post. I use Reply Group to reply to you...

For Newsbin:
"Post to Group": Submit a NEW post, do NOT add the References header.
New post is not threaded. New post is not a reply.
"Reply to Group": Submit a NEW post, add the References header.
New post is threaded. New post is a reply.

For OE:
"Write Message": Submit a NEW post, do NOT add the References header.
New post is not threaded. New post is not a reply.
"Reply to Group": Submit a NEW post, add the References header.
New post is threaded. New post is a reply.

OE *is* adding the References header when you reply because you clicked
on "Reply to Group". Select your reply here and hit Ctrl+F3 to see the
raw source of your post. Notice it has the References header. If you
had instead clicked on "Write Message" when posting to the newsgroup
then the References header would be missing and your new post would not
be threaded to another post. Clicking "Write Message" would start a NEW
thread rather than reply to an existing one. Similarly, clicking on
"Post to Group" in Newsbin starts a NEW thread rather than reply to an
existing one.

You clicked the "Reply to Group" in OE to submit a new post as a reply.
thomas clicked "Post to Group" in Newsbin to submit a new post that was
NOT a reply. Could be thomas accidentally clicked the wrong button.
Could be thomas doesn't know how to use Newsbin when participating in
discussions since Newsbin's primary purpose is to retrieve binaries, not
discussions.

No References header = no threading = post was NOT a reply.

Look carefully at my reply to you here. Notice I changed the Subject
header - because we've gotten way off track of the OP's quandry and
thomas' response. Despite changing the Subject header (which should NOT
be used for threading), a proper newsreader will still thread my reply
to the prior posts because of its inclusion of the References header.
The Google Groups copy of this thread might get screwed up because of
its invalid use of the Subject header to thread the posts (sometimes
used as a backup threading scheme if References is missing) but a real
newsreader released within the last couple of decades knows to use the
References header for proper threading.

"VanguardLH" <> wrote in message
news:ilbutr$5h4$...
> Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
>> Yes, I'm sure. I have an original post, and Thomas was the first reply.
>> He
>> did not create a response to nothing, or originate a post that is a reply
>> to
>> an unasked question.
>>
>> You must be missing the original post.
>
> Irrevelant.

The facts are that there is a post that he replied to.

Without regard to any reference material that is or is not present, Thomas'
post is a reply. I have the original post, and I provided it to you. The
original poster posted via googlegroups with a gmail account.