Dear Janus - Get a newsreader

[Spanky]

Please stop creating a new thread for each time you reply to a message.
I think this might have to do with the crummy way that google handles
newsgroups, though I'm sure that there must be an option to fix it
somewhere. Perhaps an actual newsreader would be a better option if you
plan to continue to read and comment in newsgroups. Many thanks,

Me.

 

[James Kuyper]

Please stop creating a new thread for each time you reply to a message.
I think this might have to do with the crummy way that google handles
newsgroups, though I'm sure that there must be an option to fix it
somewhere.

I think you're giving Google too much credit there. As far as I can
tell, Google Groups provides no such option. If you locate that option,
please let us know.

 

[Ian Collins]

I think you're giving Google too much credit there. As far as I can
tell, Google Groups provides no such option. If you locate that option,
please let us know.

Don't use the even more sociopathic "new" interface.

 

[Keith Thompson]

I think you're giving Google too much credit there. As far as I can
tell, Google Groups provides no such option. If you locate that option,
please let us know.

Just go back to the "old" interface. It still strips the trailing
blank from "-- " signature delimiters and mangles any e-mail
addresses that appear in the body of the message (including in
attribution lines), but at least it quotes properly and sets the
References: header.

 

[Paul N]

Just go back to the "old" interface.  It still strips the trailing
blank from "-- " signature delimiters and mangles any e-mail
addresses that appear in the body of the message (including in
attribution lines), but at least it quotes properly and sets the
References: header.

There's one slight oddity with the quoting - if it sees a } on a line
by itself, it seems to insert a blank line just before it. Which, if
it is the end of a function, looks odd.

Mangling the email addresses is deliberate; by default (ie if you
haven't gone through a Captcha) it will do this so bad people can't
use the interface to get loads of email addresses. But, as it (or at
least it used to, not sure if it still does) posts your own email
address in clear, it makes it fully available to any bad people who
are extracting email addresses from other USENET readers. I presume
this is the reason I get spam on my home address. Thanks a lot.

I've not tried the new interface yet - apologies in advance if it
misbehaves on me.

 

[Ian Collins]

There's one slight oddity with the quoting - if it sees a } on a line
by itself, it seems to insert a blank line just before it. Which, if
it is the end of a function, looks odd.

Mangling the email addresses is deliberate; by default (ie if you
haven't gone through a Captcha) it will do this so bad people can't
use the interface to get loads of email addresses. But, as it (or at
least it used to, not sure if it still does) posts your own email
address in clear, it makes it fully available to any bad people who
are extracting email addresses from other USENET readers. I presume
this is the reason I get spam on my home address. Thanks a lot.

I've not tried the new interface yet - apologies in advance if it
misbehaves on me.

It will, it is designed to!

 

[Default User]

Just go back to the "old" interface. It still strips the trailing
blank from "-- " signature delimiters and mangles any e-mail
addresses that appear in the body of the message (including in
attribution lines), but at least it quotes properly and sets the
References: header.

I still maintain that there are only two requirements for working on the
Google Groups project:

1. Be an incompetent software engineer
2. Be completely ignorant of usenet

It's not like it's some cutting edge technology with no prior art. Dozens
(probably hundreds) of newsreaders have been written over the years, some
with functioning web interfaces. Why GG can't get basic things right is a
mystery.



Brian

 

[Ian Collins]

I still maintain that there are only two requirements for working on the
Google Groups project:

1. Be an incompetent software engineer
2. Be completely ignorant of usenet

It's not like it's some cutting edge technology with no prior art. Dozens
(probably hundreds) of newsreaders have been written over the years, some
with functioning web interfaces. Why GG can't get basic things right is a
mystery.

Not really a mystery.

Those of us who choose to use a conventional service don't generate any
revenue opportunities for Google. So they have no interest in us and
would probably prefer we give up and use their sociopathic interface.