Ethan Rosenberg, PhD wrote:
> Also, please indicate the errors in my Thunderbird email. I will
> address them.
I don't know how well the box drawing characters will come through but
hopefully they will survive. I will just give it a try and worry
about them being garbled if they are garbled. Here is the structure
of the discussion thread. If the chars don't come through the right
side is using box drawing characters as arrows to indicate the flow of
the discussion.
5496 r Aug09 Ethan Rosenberg (1.2K) Installing mysqldump
5497 Aug09 Gary Roach (1.7K) ├─>
5498 Aug09 To debian-user@ (2.4K) ├─>
5499 Aug10 Lisi Reisz (1.3K) │ ├─>
5500 Aug11 Ethan Rosenberg (2.9K) │ ├─>
5501 Aug11 Lisi Reisz (1.7K) │ │ ├─>
5502 Aug11 Ethan Rosenberg (2.0K) │ │ └─>
5503 Aug11 Ethan Rosenberg (0.8K) │ └─>
5504 Aug12 The_Ace (1.7K) │ ├─>
5505 r Aug12 Ethan Rosenberg (1.1K) │ └─>
5506 Aug12 To debian-user@ (1.6K) │ ├─>
5507 r Aug13 Ethan Rosenberg (2.5K) │ └─>
5508 Aug12 To debian-user@ (3.1K) │ ├─>
5509 N Aug13 Ethan Rosenberg (7.2K) │ └─>
5510 N Aug13 To debian-user@ (5.9K) │ └─>
5511 Aug11 Ethan Rosenberg (2.0K) └─>
All of the message numbers here are unique to my mailbox. But I will
reference them for this discussion anyway. Your numbers will be
different in every other mailbox.
Your message 5509 seemingly replied to my message number 5508 but the
headers are wrong for it. Your message 5509 says it is a reply to
5507 which is your message before it and ignores my message 5508. But
you quoted lines from 5508. Therefore you must have read 5508. But
your mailer did not include any In-Reply-To or References headers from
it. The message id on my message.
Message-ID: <[🔎] 20130813050328.GB12447@dismay.proulx.com>
Your Thunderbird should reference it. It should append it to the
list in the References header. It should create an In-Reply-To header
like this and insert it into your message.
In-Reply-To: <[🔎] 20130813050328.GB12447@dismay.proulx.com>
Your mailer instead included a In-Reply-To header to your own
message, my number 5507 in the above. It included these headers.
References: <[🔎] 52050537.2070005@hygeiabiomedical.com>
<[🔎] 20130809185125.GD4403@hysteria.proulx.com>
<[🔎] 52082C31.8070200@hygeiabiomedical.com>
<[🔎] 52095A1B.9000402@hygeiabiomedical.com>
<[🔎] 5209B77D.9040601@hygeiabiomedical.com>
In-Reply-To: <[🔎] 5209B77D.9040601@hygeiabiomedical.com>
That is just plain broken! That is the wrong header values. Unless
you were replying to your own message. In which case it would be the
right headers then. But if were replying to my message then the
headers should be these:
References: <[🔎] 52050537.2070005@hygeiabiomedical.com>
<[🔎] 20130809185125.GD4403@hysteria.proulx.com>
<[🔎] 52082C31.8070200@hygeiabiomedical.com>
<[🔎] 52095A1B.9000402@hygeiabiomedical.com>
<[🔎] 5209B77D.9040601@hygeiabiomedical.com>
<[🔎] 20130813050328.GB12447@dismay.proulx.com>
In-Reply-To: <[🔎] 20130813050328.GB12447@dismay.proulx.com>
It appears to the rest of us as if you are never replying to our
messages but to the messages previous to it in the mailbox. And then
it appears as if you are cutting and pasting in all of our text.
Bizarre! Message 5500 and 5503 both appear as a reply to my message
5498. But that is also incorrect since 5500 is actually a reply to
Lisi's message 5501 but the headers are wrong for it too and reference
the message before it. Truly goofy.
Also take a look at your reply as the rest of us see it:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2013/08/msg00436.html
Your quoting is horrid. Sorry to say it so harshly. But it is really
awful. Your are keeping all of the original message without any
quoting characters, the '>' char, on the left side. This is explained
in more detail here. Also in a dozen dozen other guides on the net.
If you search a little about how to quote email you should find dozens
of guides on it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet_quoting
Without those quote characters it is difficult to see what you wrote
and what we wrote. And it makes trimmed replies confusing. So please
add a '>' quote character to the front. Thunderbird should do this
automatically. For some reason it is not for you.
And then another problem is that you leave the entire message in its
entirety and bottom post your message after it. Instead please trim
the message to just enough context to make understood to what you are
referring. Brian and Ralf do a good job of this in their replies to
you. Here are two examples:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2013/07/msg01230.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2013/07/msg01249.html
Notice how they trim your reply down to just the relevant parts. Like
I have done on my messages. It makes it much easier to read and to
understand and to respond. And when looking for help making it easy
for others to help you makes it easier for others to help you! :-)
I am sure this sounds critical. Don't take it harshly. I am just
trying to explain the problem precisely. In ham radio (amateur radio)
we can't hear our own signal when we transmit. We count on the signal
reports of other radio operators to tell us when our transmission has
problems. On radio that might be clicks, chirps, warbles, 60Hz noise,
other problems. It is standard operating practice in radio to request
and to give signal reports. In radio the "face" of the other person
is the speaker grill of our radio and how it sounds. Same thing here.
In email the "face" of the other person is the look of their email.
Hope that Helps!
Bob
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature