Help, I need your feedback!

In article <300120071308591360%ken@glass-stones.com>,
Ken Lucke <ken.RemoveThis@glass-stones.com> wrote:


>
> One thing we would want to see is for you to post using a usenet
> capable piece of software that doesn't use all sorts of illegal
> characters.

I've been scratching my head over this one; what do you mean by illegal
characters? Thanks!
 >> Stay informed about: Help, I need your feedback! 

Richard DeLuca wrote:
> In article <300120071308591360%ken@glass-stones.com>,
> Ken Lucke <ken.TakeThisOut@glass-stones.com> wrote:
>
>
>> One thing we would want to see is for you to post using a usenet
>> capable piece of software that doesn't use all sorts of illegal
>> characters.
>
> I've been scratching my head over this one; what do you mean by illegal
> characters? Thanks!

Perhaps the "we’re" in the OP
 >> Stay informed about: Help, I need your feedback! 

In article <1170192293.181280@ftpsrv1>, frederick <lost.DeleteThis@sea.com> wrote:

> Richard DeLuca wrote:
> > In article <300120071308591360%ken@glass-stones.com>,
> > Ken Lucke <ken.DeleteThis@glass-stones.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> One thing we would want to see is for you to post using a usenet
> >> capable piece of software that doesn't use all sorts of illegal
> >> characters.
> >
> > I've been scratching my head over this one; what do you mean by illegal
> > characters? Thanks!
>
> Perhaps the "we’re" in the OP

No, that's just a misformed html-rendering of a high-bit character. I
was referring to all the empty square boxes that are disoplayed instead
of the non-legal 7 bit characters for which all newsservers by
convention are required to process - yes, many (most) do 8-bit
characters, but not all, and they can get stripped en route.

The original article (and my reply) had many illegal characters (which
showed up as the "empty box" character that many fonts use for an
unrecongnized charater, and that appeared at places that one would
expect a <LF> character or a <CR><LF> combination.

I can't copy-paste them here, because my software is smart enough to
not accept them as legal characters that can be entered by typing or
pasting, but it DID copy them in the quoted text when I did a "Reply".
Perhaps yours is stripping them out on your end. Here's what it looked
like: <http://www.nwconcessions.com/characters.jpg>

--
You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
independence.
-- Charles A. Beard
 >> Stay informed about: Help, I need your feedback! 

In article <300120071539444067%ken@glass-stones.com>,
Ken Lucke <ken DeleteThis @glass-stones.com> wrote:

> In article <1170192293.181280@ftpsrv1>, frederick <lost DeleteThis @sea.com> wrote:
>
> > Richard DeLuca wrote:
> > > In article <300120071308591360%ken@glass-stones.com>,
> > > Ken Lucke <ken DeleteThis @glass-stones.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >> One thing we would want to see is for you to post using a usenet
> > >> capable piece of software that doesn't use all sorts of illegal
> > >> characters.
> > >
> > > I've been scratching my head over this one; what do you mean by illegal
> > > characters? Thanks!
> >
> > Perhaps the "we’re" in the OP
>
> No, that's just a misformed html-rendering of a high-bit character. I
> was referring to all the empty square boxes that are disoplayed instead
> of the non-legal 7 bit characters for which all newsservers by
> convention are required to process - yes, many (most) do 8-bit
> characters, but not all, and they can get stripped en route.
>
> The original article (and my reply) had many illegal characters (which
> showed up as the "empty box" character that many fonts use for an
> unrecongnized charater, and that appeared at places that one would
> expect a <LF> character or a <CR><LF> combination.
>
> I can't copy-paste them here, because my software is smart enough to
> not accept them as legal characters that can be entered by typing or
> pasting, but it DID copy them in the quoted text when I did a "Reply".
> Perhaps yours is stripping them out on your end. Here's what it looked
> like: <http://www.nwconcessions.com/characters.jpg>


Yes, except for the previously mentioned <we’re> the post appears
perfectly normal on my computer. For what it's worth. <shrug>
 >> Stay informed about: Help, I need your feedback! 

Ken Lucke <ken DeleteThis @glass-stones.com> wrote:
>In article <1170192293.181280@ftpsrv1>, frederick <lost DeleteThis @sea.com> wrote:
>
>> Richard DeLuca wrote:
>> > In article <300120071308591360%ken@glass-stones.com>,
>> > Ken Lucke <ken DeleteThis @glass-stones.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> One thing we would want to see is for you to post using a usenet
>> >> capable piece of software that doesn't use all sorts of illegal
>> >> characters.
>> >
>> > I've been scratching my head over this one; what do you mean by illegal
>> > characters? Thanks!
>>
>> Perhaps the "we’re" in the OP
>
>No, that's just a misformed html-rendering of a high-bit character. I

And that was embedded in the file, rather than being an artifact of
font/display issues with a newsreader.

>was referring to all the empty square boxes that are disoplayed instead
>of the non-legal 7 bit characters for which all newsservers by
>convention are required to process - yes, many (most) do 8-bit
>characters, but not all, and they can get stripped en route.

Empty squares are indicative that the font being used does not have
a character defined for the numerical code.

>The original article (and my reply) had many illegal characters (which
>showed up as the "empty box" character that many fonts use for an
>unrecongnized charater, and that appeared at places that one would
>expect a <LF> character or a <CR><LF> combination.

This is interesting... I've downloaded the body of that article
from both news.newsguy.com and news.supernews (directly, using
telnet to access the NNTP server, not through a news reader),
and what I get has no high bit characters.

But... the headers for that article says the article has *1*
line. Clearly it has more...

I note that your Line: header also does not match the line count
in the article.

This suggests that the article began life with something wrong
(which would appear to be having high bits set on at least NL
characters), and that at least one server is filtering those
before passing it on.

It is possible that both Newsguy and Supernews are filtering,
but more likely that they get it from a common server that has
done that. The Path: headers show that they both got the
article from "postnews.google.com", and a quick check on google
seems to indicate no high bit characters (I'm not sure I can
really tell, using google groups though).

What does the Path: header for that article look like from your
NNTP server?

Here is what Newsguy shows:

Path: news1.newsguy.com!extra.newsguy.com!postnews.google.com!
news4.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!
local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.newsgroupbanter.com!
news.newsgroupbanter.com.POSTED!not-for-mail

Do you have either google or giganews in the path to your server?

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd DeleteThis @apaflo.com
 >> Stay informed about: Help, I need your feedback! 

In article <878xfjhewe.fld DeleteThis @apaflo.com>, Floyd L. Davidson
<floyd DeleteThis @apaflo.com> wrote:

> Ken Lucke <ken DeleteThis @glass-stones.com> wrote:
> >In article <1170192293.181280@ftpsrv1>, frederick <lost DeleteThis @sea.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Richard DeLuca wrote:
> >> > In article <300120071308591360%ken@glass-stones.com>,
> >> > Ken Lucke <ken DeleteThis @glass-stones.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> One thing we would want to see is for you to post using a usenet
> >> >> capable piece of software that doesn't use all sorts of illegal
> >> >> characters.
> >> >
> >> > I've been scratching my head over this one; what do you mean by illegal
> >> > characters? Thanks!
> >>
> >> Perhaps the "we’re" in the OP
> >
> >No, that's just a misformed html-rendering of a high-bit character. I
>
> And that was embedded in the file, rather than being an artifact of
> font/display issues with a newsreader.

Right.

>
> >was referring to all the empty square boxes that are disoplayed instead
> >of the non-legal 7 bit characters for which all newsservers by
> >convention are required to process - yes, many (most) do 8-bit
> >characters, but not all, and they can get stripped en route.
>
> Empty squares are indicative that the font being used does not have
> a character defined for the numerical code.

As I noted after a followup question.

>
> >The original article (and my reply) had many illegal characters (which
> >showed up as the "empty box" character that many fonts use for an
> >unrecongnized charater, and that appeared at places that one would
> >expect a <LF> character or a <CR><LF> combination.
>
> This is interesting... I've downloaded the body of that article
> from both news.newsguy.com and news.supernews (directly, using
> telnet to access the NNTP server, not through a news reader),
> and what I get has no high bit characters.

See <http://www.nwconcessions.com/characters.jpg> for a screenshot of
what it looked like on my end.

>
> But... the headers for that article says the article has *1*
> line. Clearly it has more...
>
> I note that your Line: header also does not match the line count
> in the article.
>
> This suggests that the article began life with something wrong
> (which would appear to be having high bits set on at least NL
> characters), and that at least one server is filtering those
> before passing it on.

That's what it looks like - high bit filtering, and the patterning
makes it look like it's either on <LF> or <CR> or both - neither of
which should EVER be sent with the high-bit on. At least not for news.

>
> It is possible that both Newsguy and Supernews are filtering,
> but more likely that they get it from a common server that has
> done that.

I agree - both of them DO pass 8-bit characters just fine, as do _most_
news servers - but not all.

> The Path: headers show that they both got the
> article from "postnews.google.com", and a quick check on google
> seems to indicate no high bit characters (I'm not sure I can
> really tell, using google groups though).
>
> What does the Path: header for that article look like from your
> NNTP server?

It appears to originate with newsgroupbanter.com, which I am not
familiar with:

Path:
border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganew
s.com!nntp.newsgroupbanter.com!news.newsgroupbanter.com.POSTED!not-for-m
ail

> Here is what Newsguy shows:
>
> Path: news1.newsguy.com!extra.newsguy.com!postnews.google.com!
> news4.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!
> local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.newsgroupbanter.com!
> news.newsgroupbanter.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
>
> Do you have either google or giganews in the path to your server?

Yeah, I use giganews, so it's definitely going to be there. :^)

As I get it from giganews, and it's next in line after
newsgroupbanter.com's machines, it would appear that it must be in
newsgroupbanter's machines that the bits are being stripped, but that
still overlooks the fact that the poster's news software is posting
high-bit characters like that in the first place, which it shouldn't
be.

High bits are generally OK, but the news transmision protocol
specifications don't require them to be recognized, so any news
reader/poster should always _post_ with lowest common denominator, no
matter what it will accept to _view_ with. Remember, there's still a
lot of people out there using shells, text-based, and non-graphical
interfaces to read news.

--
You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
independence.
-- Charles A. Beard
 >> Stay informed about: Help, I need your feedback! 

Ken Lucke <ken DeleteThis @glass-stones.com> wrote:
>In article <878xfjhewe.fld DeleteThis @apaflo.com>, Floyd L. Davidson
><floyd DeleteThis @apaflo.com> wrote:
>>
>> What does the Path: header for that article look like from your
>> NNTP server?
>
>It appears to originate with newsgroupbanter.com, which I am not
>familiar with:
>
>Path:
>border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganew
>s.com!nntp.newsgroupbanter.com!news.newsgroupbanter.com.POSTED!not-for-m
>ail

Well, that pretty much means that Google is filtering it. You
are getting the original file, with the high bit set characters,
from giganews.com, and I don't see the high bit characters on
any of Supernews, Newsguy or Google. Google of course is the
common link.

>> Here is what Newsguy shows:
>>
>> Path: news1.newsguy.com!extra.newsguy.com!postnews.google.com!
>> news4.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!
>> local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.newsgroupbanter.com!
>> news.newsgroupbanter.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
>>
>> Do you have either google or giganews in the path to your server?
>
>Yeah, I use giganews, so it's definitely going to be there. :^)
>
>As I get it from giganews, and it's next in line after
>newsgroupbanter.com's machines, it would appear that it must be in
>newsgroupbanter's machines that the bits are being stripped, but that

If gnewsgroupbanter was stripping them, you wouldn't see them.
But you do...

>still overlooks the fact that the poster's news software is posting
>high-bit characters like that in the first place, which it shouldn't
>be.

Yes. That is far more disgusting than having Google strip them.

>High bits are generally OK, but the news transmision protocol
>specifications don't require them to be recognized, so any news
>reader/poster should always _post_ with lowest common denominator, no
>matter what it will accept to _view_ with. Remember, there's still a
>lot of people out there using shells, text-based, and non-graphical
>interfaces to read news.

And the newsreaders that are graphical can all be different too.
There just is no *standard* that will work for everything,
except 7-bit ASCII. Unfortunately a lot of folks that have
written news reading software don't have a great deal of
experience with Usenet, or with the Internet for that matter.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd DeleteThis @apaflo.com
 >> Stay informed about: Help, I need your feedback! 

In article <87d54vfoit.fld.TakeThisOut@apaflo.com>, Floyd L. Davidson
<floyd.TakeThisOut@apaflo.com> wrote:

> Ken Lucke <ken.TakeThisOut@glass-stones.com> wrote:

<snip of repetitious parts>

> >As I get it from giganews, and it's next in line after
> >newsgroupbanter.com's machines, it would appear that it must be in
> >newsgroupbanter's machines that the bits are being stripped, but that
>
> If gnewsgroupbanter was stripping them, you wouldn't see them.
> But you do...

You're right of course, I was not thinking clearly on that one. I was
(for some reason) considering the source news spool, not the stripper.

> >still overlooks the fact that the poster's news software is posting
> >high-bit characters like that in the first place, which it shouldn't
> >be.
>
> Yes. That is far more disgusting than having Google strip them.

Agreed. Which is why I made the original comment that started this
all, as in "One thing we would want to see is for you to post using a
usenet capable piece of software that doesn't use all sorts of illegal
characters."

> >High bits are generally OK, but the news transmision protocol
> >specifications don't require them to be recognized, so any news
> >reader/poster should always _post_ with lowest common denominator, no
> >matter what it will accept to _view_ with. Remember, there's still a
> >lot of people out there using shells, text-based, and non-graphical
> >interfaces to read news.
>
> And the newsreaders that are graphical can all be different too.
> There just is no *standard* that will work for everything,
> except 7-bit ASCII. Unfortunately a lot of folks that have
> written news reading software don't have a great deal of
> experience with Usenet, or with the Internet for that matter.

Again, agreed - 100%.

Many of them don't even understand even the very basics of usenet
posting conventions, and merely take the bare "ability" to post to and
read from usenet as some sort of achievement - hell, I can do that "on
the metal" direct to a server using NNTP commands and my keyboard, that
doesn't make *me* a newsreader. :^)

Conventions like not defaulting to top posting, etc., or knowing that
words surrounded by "*" characters means *boldface*, words surrounded
by "_" characters means _underlined_, and words surrounded by "/"
characters means that the word is meant to be /italicized/ in emphasis
by thhe original poster, all of which make subtle differences in
communication. They're more worried about translating little graphical
smileys from text ones. Good newsreaders detect those things and
actually do to the text what was intended in the first place, and you
never see the actual "code" characters - kind of like the old embedded
"dot" commands for printers.

And so a whole generation of users of those softwares have no clue what
those "silly characters" surrounding words mean when they see it, if
their reader doesn't actually boldface, underline, or italicize the
words... all they see is *some* _sort_ of /emphasis/, but they lose the
nuances, nor do they know how to use those situations when they'd be
useful from their end.

--
You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
independence.
-- Charles A. Beard
 >> Stay informed about: Help, I need your feedback!