From: Fred N. van Kempen <Fred.van.Kempen(a)microwalt.nl>
To: Glen Goodwin <acme(a)ao.net>
Subject: OT/Admin: tags
Date: 02/04/2003 12:10 AM
> Given the volume of the list, and the many off-topic (lets not discuss
> what is and is not on-topic here) talk, I would like to propose [again]
> that we do like other lists do: insert a tag [cctalk] in the Subject:
> line of the postings, so it's easy to distinguis the postings from
> other, perhaps more pressing e-mail.
[snip]
> I don't want to start Yet Another Discussion, a mere vote would do, as
> we're all techies who know what this is about.
My vote, FWIW: the list works fine the way it is.
Later --
Glen
0/0
"Fred N. van Kempen" <Fred.van.Kempen(a)microwalt.nl> wrote:
> See how fucked-up that comment is? Right. Same goes for another comment
> stating that "every decent mail client can do processing". It's simply
> not true. Like my statement above. People use all sorts of clients, and
> they all have different capabilities.
If your mail software doesn't do what you need it to do, maybe you
need to complain to whoever sells and supports it, or find other mail
software that does do what you need done. Asking the rest of the net
to change so that you can keep using losing software is not nice.
> I still vote for a small [cc] tag. In front of the subject.
Here's how that works out here: I set up my mail software to strip the
tag so I don't have to see it. (Clearly, my mail software wins: it
doesn't just do what I need, but also what I want.) Then, when I
reply to the list, my reply's subject does not have the tag. So
messages in the thread can have at least three different subjects:
[cc] foo
Re: [cc] foo
[cc] Re: foo
I'd bet that there's a fourth possibility based on phase of the moon:
[cc] Re: [cc] foo
Do you begin to understand why I think subject tags are not a good
idea?
> > Just accept it already and SHUT UP!
> No.
Yep, that's the problem. The way your message came across out here
in Sillycon Valley was: "I know we've been over this before, so there's
no need to discuss it, just vote to do this and then us folks who cling
to our losing software will stop bringing it up." This is not the way
to win friends and influence people, not that there's much hope of
influencing me on this point.
-Frank McConnell, filtering his incoming e-mail since 1994
>But another problem with prepending something to the subject line could be
>the recursing going on...
>
>Notice subject line...
That's why I vote for no prepending.
I am on some lists that do this, and long discussions (like this list is
notorious for) end up quickly becoming nothing more than a subject line
of "Re: [cc]" repeated over and over.
And no, a smart list server that can handle tags (and thus not insert
them on messages that already have them, or insert them after the Re:)
doesn't always help. Some mail clients/services munge them. And all it
takes is one person in the discussion with an effected client, and the
whole thing gets thrown out of whack.
-chris
<http://www.mythtech.net>
> John wrote"
> > Yes, please... *every* other maillist I subscribe to has [mailistname]
> > prepended to the "Subject" field...except for Classiccmp, which
> > generates three times the message traffic the others do combined...
>
> Please DON'T do this. Only about 5% of the mailing lists I subscribe
> to have this, and it annoys the heck out of me because it just keeps
> me from seeing that many characters of the subject line in the summary
> view.
I'd like to agree with Eric, and also to remind people that this has been
tried on the CLASSICCMP mailing lists, and it annoyed the H*** out of so
many of us that it was stopped.
One major problem I have with it is that it prevents the email software I
use from being able todproperly sort the messages!
Zane
Hi everyone,
A number of people have complained to me about not being able to unpack the
tarball with Ultrix V4.20 sources that has been on my FTP site since May 2001.
I have finally found the time to look into the problem and indeed the file was
corrupt. Fortunately, I was able to read my old backup tapes (from Cleveland,
OH, 1999-07-15) without any problems, and discovered to my great joy that this
file was good on my Cleveland machine. (It apparently got corrupted in one of
the turbulent moves from Cleveland to Dallas, TX and then to Orange County, CA.
I don't have any idea how.)
ivan.Harhan.ORG:/pub/UNIX/thirdparty/Ultrix-32/sources now contains *good*
Ultrix V2.00 and V4.20 sources. (Be warned, though, that this machine resides
in my cave which is connected to the outside world through a modem which
usually connects at 31200 BPS, sometimes 28800. Feel free to set up a mirror.)
For what it's worth, I have also put up my Ultrix V4.20 distribution tape
images in /pub/UNIX/thirdparty/Ultrix-32/ult420vaxdist-tk50. They are quite
incomplete, however, as when I had the tape in my hand (at CWRU in spring 1998)
I was unable to read it entirely without errors. Therefore, the V4.00 tape
images in /pub/UNIX/thirdparty/Ultrix-32/ult400vaxdist-tk50 will probably be
more useful for most people. If you have the guts, install V4.00 and then
recompile V4.20 from the sources!
--
Michael Sokolov
Programletarian Freedom Fighter
International Free Computing Task Force
Let the Source be with you
Programletarians of the world, unite!
"Jay West" <jwest(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
> Nope, this was graphical, not character based. The computer booted into the
> gui, and when you clicked on like "program manager" it gave you a gui list
> of programs configured (you could add & modify). If you clicked on those
> with the mouse, the computer switched to character mode and ran the
> character based application.
So tell us, Jay, how do you feel about PAM on an HP Vectra? As near
as I can tell the only difference is how fancy they get with the video
controller.
-Frank McConnell
Hello, all:
I bought a STDBUS instrumentation computer off of eBay last week for
$9, and it has some interesting boards in it. Unfortunately, the boards are
mostly older Pro-Log models and information is sparse. I've made contact
with the "legacy" manufacturer who wants $50 per manual for two of the
boards. I found information for two of them on VersaLogic's Web site.
So, here's the list of boards. If any one has original Pro-Log
manuals for these that they can copy and send me, please contact me
off-list.
Pro-Log# Description
7303 DSKY (Display/keyboard module)
7502 Relay output module (8 relays)
7605 Programmable I/O
7806-1 Z80 CPU card (I have copy of VersaLogic's manual)
Other P-L boards from another system I have:
Pro-Log# Description
7805-1 8085 CPU card
7604A 64-bit digital I/O (I have copy of VersaLogic's
manual)
Thanks again for any help.
Rich
Hi everybody:
> Space Shuttle issues other than the computers are off-topic.
Having in mind Eric's recommendation, I do this change of subject to
difference this thread from others more, ehh... "off-topic".
> Does anyone have the manuals for HAL/S, the language used for the
> AP-101 software? There's some info on it at:
> http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/computer
Some time ago appeared one manual on eBay. I couldn't obtain it.
But my interest is still active.
Greetings
Sergio
Anyone in the south or east bay have a spare Apple IIe with disk controller or
just a spare disk controller they would part with cheap or free?
I'm finally getting through a couple of higher-priority projects and have time
to start on my "Get a ddial up and running again" project.
Thanks!
Does anyone know where I could find documentation for a *rackmount*
DEC7000? HPaq has plenty for the cabinet model, but I need to get into
a rackmount unit and I'd like to RTFM *before* I take wrenches to it.
I know that's heresy, but that's the way I am....
Doc
