Re: [OT] No References header = post is NOT a reply

I had no idea that all of this speculation was occurring.

Thanks for going to the trouble of posting your little tutorial,
and linking to the Newsbin user guide, but "Reply" was
used. It's hard to get them confused, since "Reply to Group"
is only available when you right-click a post. To "Post to
Group" one must go to the "Groups" tab and right-click on
the group. There is no question of which was used, and used
again to reply to this post.

Using 5.35 b8142. Clean binaries are widely available if you'd like
to do some testing to prove/disprove to yourself my assertion that
I used "Reply to Post".

I'm not snipping any content, Newsbin always strips it. I did
expect that my reply would be found as usually all of my replies
to posts are answered without an issue.

I understand that Newsbin is not the best reader for conversing
on usenet. I usually don't converse on usenet, but my question
has gone unanswered in the usual channels and I thought I'd
see if someone here might help, on the off chance. I saw a
question that I could answer so I did so, with "Reply to Post".

Jeff, you are correct sir, and I'd be honored to be in an IT foxhole
with you anytime. Intuitive sleuthing is a gem of a skill and talent.

"thomas" <> wrote in message
news:95OdndMD6NNxt-...
>
> I had no idea that all of this speculation was occurring.
>
> Thanks for going to the trouble of posting your little tutorial,
> and linking to the Newsbin user guide, but "Reply" was
> used. It's hard to get them confused, since "Reply to Group"
> is only available when you right-click a post. To "Post to
> Group" one must go to the "Groups" tab and right-click on
> the group. There is no question of which was used, and used
> again to reply to this post.
>
> Using 5.35 b8142. Clean binaries are widely available if you'd like
> to do some testing to prove/disprove to yourself my assertion that
> I used "Reply to Post".
>
> I'm not snipping any content, Newsbin always strips it. I did
> expect that my reply would be found as usually all of my replies
> to posts are answered without an issue.
>
> I understand that Newsbin is not the best reader for conversing
> on usenet. I usually don't converse on usenet, but my question
> has gone unanswered in the usual channels and I thought I'd
> see if someone here might help, on the off chance. I saw a
> question that I could answer so I did so, with "Reply to Post".
>
> Jeff, you are correct sir, and I'd be honored to be in an IT foxhole
> with you anytime. Intuitive sleuthing is a gem of a skill and talent.
>
>


You need to switch from whatever newsreader you are using to one that is
actually good at reading news. Your postings are all hosed up.

I hate to recommend googlegroups for your news experience, but it is vastly
better than the crap that you're using now.

If you are posting with a Windows machine, Windows Live Mail or Outlook
Express are both better options than the program you are using. You can also
post with Thunderbird -- an e-mail app from the makers of FireFox, which is
a browser.

In Outlook Express, and I assume most other applications. the options are
New Post (makes a new posting), Reply Group (makes a reply that others will
also see), and Reply (makes an e-mail message to the person you are replying
to that only that person will see).

You are obviously using Reply Group, but any reference header that should
exist is being stripped out, which makes your posts appear to be stand-alone
postings to some observers.

thomas wrote:

> I had no idea that all of this speculation was occurring.
>
> Thanks for going to the trouble of posting your little tutorial,
> and linking to the Newsbin user guide, but "Reply" was
> used. It's hard to get them confused, since "Reply to Group"
> is only available when you right-click a post. To "Post to
> Group" one must go to the "Groups" tab and right-click on
> the group. There is no question of which was used, and used
> again to reply to this post.
>
> Using 5.35 b8142. Clean binaries are widely available if you'd like
> to do some testing to prove/disprove to yourself my assertion that
> I used "Reply to Post".

Per your description, Newsbin is severely screwed up. I went by what I
saw as a quick perusal of the manual for Newsbin rather than the actual
actions needed to perform the functions. Replies should include the
References header to provide the means to trace through the posts to
thread them together. So, also per your description, you are using the
wrong function within Newsbin when replying to newsgroups regardless of
the label on the toolbar button. Stick to using Newsbin for only
*reading* from newsgroups to yank the binaries. Use something better
that is suited for threading of discussions. Many (in fact, perhaps
most) newsreaders are free and there are many good ones.

Since you use Newsbin then you are using some version of Windows. If it
is a version earlier than Windows 7 then an NNTP client is already
included in Windows (Windows Mail in Windows Vista, Outlook Express in
earlier versions) and is a better choice than Newsbin. Except for
Windows 7, you already have available a better newsreader for threading
of discussions.

"VanguardLH" <> wrote in message
news:ildi4a$8ml$...
> thomas wrote:
>
>> I had no idea that all of this speculation was occurring.
>>
>> Thanks for going to the trouble of posting your little tutorial,
>> and linking to the Newsbin user guide, but "Reply" was
>> used. It's hard to get them confused, since "Reply to Group"
>> is only available when you right-click a post. To "Post to
>> Group" one must go to the "Groups" tab and right-click on
>> the group. There is no question of which was used, and used
>> again to reply to this post.
>>
>> Using 5.35 b8142. Clean binaries are widely available if you'd like
>> to do some testing to prove/disprove to yourself my assertion that
>> I used "Reply to Post".
>
> Per your description, Newsbin is severely screwed up. I went by what I
> saw as a quick perusal of the manual for Newsbin rather than the actual
> actions needed to perform the functions. Replies should include the
> References header to provide the means to trace through the posts to
> thread them together. So, also per your description, you are using the
> wrong function within Newsbin when replying to newsgroups regardless of
> the label on the toolbar button. Stick to using Newsbin for only
> *reading* from newsgroups to yank the binaries. Use something better
> that is suited for threading of discussions. Many (in fact, perhaps
> most) newsreaders are free and there are many good ones.
>
> Since you use Newsbin then you are using some version of Windows. If it
> is a version earlier than Windows 7 then an NNTP client is already
> included in Windows (Windows Mail in Windows Vista, Outlook Express in
> earlier versions) and is a better choice than Newsbin. Except for
> Windows 7, you already have available a better newsreader for threading
> of discussions.


Win7 doesn't have an e-mail/news client?

How come? Do they think that their customers will go out and get one by
theirself?

Jeff Strickland wrote:

> Win7 doesn't have an e-mail/news client?

This is a pretty old issue, as old as the Windows 7 release itself back
in October 2009 (and probably back further into its beta versions but I
never waste my time with beta stuff). This is news to you?

Microsoft stopped development of OE6 back in 2002 and its dev team got
disbanded in 2006 (why the delay I don't know but there were only
security updates since 2002 with just one registry hack to modify the
positioning of cursor and signature in the WinXP SP-2). OE always came
bundled with IE, and IE6 was the last bundling of OE and why OE6 was the
last version. In Vista, they had the Windows Mail client (but it
doesn't seem a very good client considering the complaints with it).
For free stuff, Microsoft is pushing their Live initiative but they
didn't seem willing to dump the Windows Live Essentials crapware on
users in Windows 7. Just as with XP Mode that is available with some
editions of Windows 7 but as a download, Microsoft expects their users
to go download the Live stuff (which includes that e-mail client).

With Microsoft continually getting burned for including software that
competes with other software vendors, maybe they assume they can dodge
the bullet but making the stuff available via optional downloads. I'm
not privy to Microsoft's decision making processes so it's just
conjecture why they choose to do what they do. I don't really care why
Microsoft didn't dump Windows Live Essentials into Windows 7 (I don't
care about either of those products) but I'm sure they had their reasons
for not including an e-mail client in Windows 7. As far as not
including an NNTP client, well, you do know by now that Microsoft
scrambled away from Usenet, right?

"VanguardLH" <> wrote in message
news:ilh9r1$a0r$...
> Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
>> Win7 doesn't have an e-mail/news client?
>
> This is a pretty old issue, as old as the Windows 7 release itself back
> in October 2009 (and probably back further into its beta versions but I
> never waste my time with beta stuff). This is news to you?
>

I don't do Win7. I suppose I'll have to sooner or later, but I did DOS for
as long as I could hold out. I'll do the same with XP Pro. I have a Vista
machine that I try not to use...



> Microsoft stopped development of OE6 back in 2002 and its dev team got
> disbanded in 2006 (why the delay I don't know but there were only
> security updates since 2002 with just one registry hack to modify the
> positioning of cursor and signature in the WinXP SP-2). OE always came
> bundled with IE, and IE6 was the last bundling of OE and why OE6 was the
> last version. In Vista, they had the Windows Mail client (but it
> doesn't seem a very good client considering the complaints with it).
> For free stuff, Microsoft is pushing their Live initiative but they
> didn't seem willing to dump the Windows Live Essentials crapware on
> users in Windows 7. Just as with XP Mode that is available with some
> editions of Windows 7 but as a download, Microsoft expects their users
> to go download the Live stuff (which includes that e-mail client).
>
> With Microsoft continually getting burned for including software that
> competes with other software vendors, maybe they assume they can dodge
> the bullet but making the stuff available via optional downloads. I'm
> not privy to Microsoft's decision making processes so it's just
> conjecture why they choose to do what they do. I don't really care why
> Microsoft didn't dump Windows Live Essentials into Windows 7 (I don't
> care about either of those products) but I'm sure they had their reasons
> for not including an e-mail client in Windows 7. As far as not
> including an NNTP client, well, you do know by now that Microsoft
> scrambled away from Usenet, right?


Yeah, I know that MSoft moved away from Usenet, but you and I are are MSoft
customers and we still do Usenet.

Seems that people that make stuff should make what their customers might
want, not what they want. I suppose that if one has figured out how to
access Usenet, one could muddle through installing the software so they
could access it.