evan@pedsgo.UUCP (02/13/87)
I'm not entirely sure this is where to post this, but I will anyway.
It seems to me that 2.11 has a problem with reading cross-posted messages;
I get the same message in different groups over and over, whether I say 'y'
or 'n' at the end of it. Did something change, or did my administrator do
something wrong, or what?
Also, when reading, if I post a followup to a message, that message does
not get marked as read until I go back and reread it. This is annoying.
--
WHO: Evan L. Marcus || "All my life I wanted to be
WHAT: Concurrent Computer Corporation, || someone; I guess I should
WHERE: Tinton Falls, NJ || have been more specific."
HOW: {topaz|hjuxa|vax135}!petsd!pedsgo!evan || -- Jane Wagnerbrown@nicmad.UUCP (02/17/87)
In article <646@pedsgo.UUCP> evan@pedsgo.UUCP writes:
<It seems to me that 2.11 has a problem with reading cross-posted messages;
<I get the same message in different groups over and over, whether I say 'y'
<or 'n' at the end of it. Did something change, or did my administrator do
<something wrong, or what?
You don't say what program you are using to read the news. So I can only
speak from experience with rn.
When 2.11 is installed, the DOXREFS line must be defined. Edit the
localize.sh script file so that it will remove the comment leader.
If using rn, install all patches (40) and rerun from scratch, ie, answer
the questionaire again. The make it again.
After all that is done, you should start seeing a Xrefs line in each
news article that is cross posted. At that point, rn should only show
it to you once.
<Also, when reading, if I post a followup to a message, that message does
<not get marked as read until I go back and reread it. This is annoying.
Ya, I have noticed that too. Maybe Larry should consider this a bug and
send out a patch for it. For now we are just going to have to look
at it again to get it marked.
--
harvard-\ ihnp4--\
Mr. Video seismo!uwvax.......!nicmad!brown (How I hate 4 line .sigs!)
rutgers-/ decvax--/
terminus-/jbuck@epimass.UUCP (02/17/87)
Discussion concerning rn: In article <1523@nicmad.UUCP< brown@nicmad.UUCP (Mr. Video) writes: <In article <646@pedsgo.UUCP< evan@pedsgo.UUCP writes: <<Also, when reading, if I post a followup to a message, that message does <<not get marked as read until I go back and reread it. This is annoying. < <Ya, I have noticed that too. Maybe Larry should consider this a bug and <send out a patch for it. For now we are just going to have to look <at it again to get it marked. I don't think it's a bug at all. It gives you the chance to use the C (cancel) command if you really screwed up; something you might not realize until you read the article again. -- - Joe Buck {hplabs,ihnp4,sun,ames}!oliveb!epimass!jbuck Entropic Processing, Inc., Cupertino, California
lwall@sdcrdcf.UUCP (02/18/87)
> In article <646@pedsgo.UUCP> evan@pedsgo.UUCP writes: > <Also, when reading, if I post a followup to a message, that message does > <not get marked as read until I go back and reread it. This is annoying. In article <1523@nicmad.UUCP> brown@nicmad.UUCP (Mr. Video) replies: > Ya, I have noticed that too. Maybe Larry should consider this a bug and > send out a patch for it. For now we are just going to have to look > at it again to get it marked. This has been considered before. The conventional wisdom seems to be that you don't have any business posting a followup to an article you haven't read. !!!! Nevertheless, it's easy to get the semantics you want. Just add the following lines to your .rnmac file: f jf F jF (Note: adding these lines to your .rnmac file won't help if you aren't running rn.) I still heartily recommend reading the article you're responding to, however. In fact, if it's something that someone else may have already responded to, you should probably use 'M' to stash the article off to the side, and then respond to it after reading the rest of the newsgroup. Larry Wall {allegra,burdvax,cbosgd,hplabs,ihnp4,sdcsvax}!sdcrdcf!lwall
evan@pedsgo.UUCP (02/19/87)
In article <4164@sdcrdcf.UUCP> lwall@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Larry Wall) writes: ->> In article <646@pedsgo.UUCP> evan@pedsgo.UUCP writes: ->> <Also, when reading, if I post a followup to a message, that message does ->> <not get marked as read until I go back and reread it. This is annoying. ->In article <1523@nicmad.UUCP> brown@nicmad.UUCP (Mr. Video) replies: ->> Ya, I have noticed that too. Maybe Larry should consider this a bug and ->> send out a patch for it. For now we are just going to have to look ->> at it again to get it marked. ->This has been considered before. The conventional wisdom seems to be that ->you don't have any business posting a followup to an article you haven't read. Huh? If I followup to an article, it's because I read it (of course!). The problem I have is that after I do, and then Followup to it, the article is still marked unread! (I posted the original question.) I agree, you don't have any business followingup to an article you haven't read; why would anybody want to do this????? And, what has that got to do with my question? -- WHO: Evan L. Marcus || "All my life I wanted to be WHAT: Concurrent Computer Corporation, || someone; I guess I should WHERE: Tinton Falls, NJ || have been more specific." HOW: {topaz|hjuxa|vax135}!petsd!pedsgo!evan || -- Jane Wagner
lwall@sdcrdcf.UUCP (02/23/87)
In article <646@pedsgo.UUCP> evan@pedsgo.UUCP wrote: < Also, when reading, if I post a followup to a message, that message does < not get marked as read until I go back and reread it. This is annoying. In article <1523@nicmad.UUCP> brown@nicmad.UUCP (Mr. Video) concurred: > Ya, I have noticed that too. Maybe Larry should consider this a bug and > send out a patch for it. For now we are just going to have to look > at it again to get it marked. In article <4164@sdcrdcf.UUCP> I (Larry Wall) said: > This has been considered before. The conventional wisdom seems to be that > you don't have any business posting a followup to an article you haven't read. In article <658@pedsgo.UUCP> evan@pedsgo.UUCP (Evan Marcus) writes: > Huh? If I followup to an article, it's because I read it (of course!). > The problem I have is that after I do, and then Followup to it, the article > is still marked unread! (I posted the original question.) I agree, you > don't have any business followingup to an article you haven't read; why > would anybody want to do this????? And, what has that got to do with my > question? It's just that most of the people who have complained to me over the years about followup not marking articles read have not really read the whole article. Attribute my remarks to a lousy past life. :-) I didn't interpret your use of the word "reread" as meaning you'd read the *entire* article before. Sorry. I'll explain how it supposedly works currently, and then we'll see if we have a real bug. We might well have a bug--I'm going into detail here not because I think you folks are incompetent, but because I want to avoid the possibility of misunderstanding, and lay things out straight for those who are listening in and may also be running into this problem. First of all, the followup command itself does not currently mark an article as either read or unread, but relies instead on the normal marking mechanism, as follows. The article is marked as read just after the last line of the article has been displayed, but just before the "End of article" line. If the last line is not displayed, then the article is at the mercy of whatever command took it to the "End of article" prompt to do the appropropriate marking. Since 'f' does not mark articles as read, typing 'f' to the MORE prompt *never* marks as read, even if you are in the signature, or stopped at the "-- " line before the signature because you have the PAGESTOP variable set. If you are reading the last line, then you are definitely getting the article marked as read, or rn wouldn't be working for you at all. Rn can't foretell the future, and doesn't know you are going to be typing an 'f'. Therefore the bug, assuming that there is one, would have to involve the followup command actively marking the article as unread, or at least somehow causing rn to forget that it just marked it as read. I must confess I'm at a loss to see how that could happen, unless perhaps you already had a macro bound to the followup command. Other than that it would have to be something kinda freaky. Maybe I'm not seeing something obvious... How many of you can reproduce this? (Actually, this article is a test to see if I can reproduce it!) Does the reply command or any other command have the same problem? What kind of a system are you on? If the 'f' command is somehow marking your old article as unread, then the f jf F jF macros I mentioned shouldn't work right either. Oh, by the way, some people are also concerned about seeing the article you just posted. The only solution (currently) to that is to put yourself in your own KILL file. Larry Wall {allegra,burdvax,cbosgd,hplabs,ihnp4,sdcsvax}!sdcrdcf!lwall