[SpamCop-List] Re: OT, but ...

[Ant]

"Mike Easter" wrote:

> My mind had shifted over to wondering whether or not the hard
> returns created a different kind of EOL than OE does, which it
> doesn't.

Whatever kind of EOL is used in the client, it must be translated
when sent into a CR-LF in order to conform with NNTP.

> But that hard returns is a very heavy price to pay to prevent the
> broken quoted lines, to have to 'retrain' yourself to make those
> hard returns at the end of every line, when 'we' try to train
> everyone to not make such returns and to let everything wrap itself.

Those people who aren't prepared to put much effort into how
their posts look ought not to use OE "in the raw", as it were.

> I think I would edit in something else and paste it into OE rather
> than having to enter my own returns.

Which is what I always do. I don't want my text automatically
reformatted, so I set OE to the max line length and keep mine
within about 60 to 70 chars. If I need to post a long line (e.g.
a URL) I can do so knowing that it won't be wrapped. I will also
tidy up broken quoted material, and/or reformat it if I think a
responder is likely to maul it in re-citing.

> I'm sure I would rather use QF than making returns even tho' it QF
> isn't entirely healthy.

I post regularly to Usenet, but not in great volume. If I did, I
would likely use a different news client.

> Of course, if you have this kind of conversation someplace like
> news.software.readers you will be laughed out of the newsgroup for
> not using a 'real' newsreader.

There are things about OE which I like, and I've become very
comfortable with it. other newsreaders also have peculiarities.
I'm aware of all OE's shortcomings and can easily work around
them. Even the "line too long" error on the references header is
no real trouble - and I can still attach my post to the correct
place in the thread.