| email@example.com wrote:
|> |> In alt.engineering.electrical Michael A. Terrell
|> |> |>
|> |> |> Do not put spaces in the list of newsgroups in your posting. Your
|> |> |> program apparently has a defect (a bug).
|> |> |
|> |> |
|> |> | He isn't using a newsreader, he's using the Google portal.
|> |> |
|> |> | There are spaces between the newsgroups in every message posted by
|> |> | Google roups, but I don't see any spaces between the newsgroup names in
|> |> | his messages with Netscape 4.78, so the 'bug' is your problem.
|> |> The spaces are non-compliant with the standards. It's a bug and it's not
|> |> my problem (my newsreader, TIN, simply warned about it, and continued to
|> |> work).
|> | If it bothers you, it IS your problem. You can't force everyone else
|> | to change how they access USENET so you can either learn to live with
|> | it, or switch to software that works properly with other NTTP or HTML
|> | Portal software.
|> It's not about bothering me; it's about being incompatible. I'm not the
|> one who needs to change anything to work with something that's incompatible.
|> In fact, I already do have something that is robust enough to work with the
|> incompatible software. And my news provider server software apparently is
|> as well. But at least my software warns about the protocol error that the
|> other software caused or allows. My software already works properly. If
|> any change is needed, it's his software that needs changing. That's the
|> whole point. His postings may not be reaching everyone. There may well
|> other software that dumps the non-compliant posts. That would be software
|> that does not follow the "be conservative in what you produce and liberal
|> in what you accept" principle. But the people using such software would
|> not know they are missing something.
| It IS bothering you, and bitching to me isn't going to do a damn
| thing. Complain to Google Groups about their software, and see how long
| it takes them to either tell you to go to hell, or to completely ignore
| you, and your complaint.
No. You are making an assumption that is false. I'm not bitching to you
about the original issue. I am responding to the errors in your post.
| Instead of your software reporting a 'supposed problem' it should be
| able to handle it, without comment.
That would be misleading behaviour. Errors in input data should always be
reported. In this case, the input data is the headers of an NNTP posting.
If errors are not reported, then this would allows errors to continue and
possibly grow until they reach the boundary where they cannot be handled
even with clever programming. With reports, it provides a transition so
that the errors can be known (and fixed) before things utterly fail. How
else is a source of errors to ever be corrected? Or do you believe that
protocols should be de facto modified by erronous practice by any comers?
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
Click to see the full signature.