pete@ecrcvax.UUCP (Pete Delaney) (04/30/85)
We are currently using a version of news from the French research center (INRIA) where the LIBDIR for news is in a local subdir: /usr/local/lib/news/... Things seem to be ok with news, however when installing rn the configure command tried to establish it in /usr/lib. I also changed the BINDIR to /usr/local/bin. Now the 'rn' command seems to read news ok, but when you do a followup or respond it tries to do a shell script that looks in /bin. I thought perhaps someone out there in net-land might be able to comment on these conventions of using /usr/local for the BIN and LIB subdirs. -- Pete Delaney - Rockey Mnt UNIX Consultant Phone: (49) 89 9269-139 European Computer-Industry Research Center UUCP: mcvax!unido!ecrcvax!pete ArabellaStrasse 17 UUCP Domain: pete@ecrcvax.UUCP D-8000 Muenchen 81, West Germany X25: (262)-45890040262 CSNET:pete%ecrcvax.UUCP@Germany.CSNET Login: <to be provided?>
gam@amdahl.UUCP (G A Moffett) (01/20/86)
I have found the follow-up format that rn
uses for formating included articles rather messy looking.
A heading line is followed directly by the included text,
and the ">"'s at the beginnings of lines are inserted with
no following space! It looks very crowded.
There are two easy simple things you can do to fix this for
your postings:
[1] Include a newline in the ATTRIBUTION envirionment variable.
The "corrected" default would be:
ATTRIBUTION="In article %i %f writes:\n"
(This is what I use).
[2] Include the following line in your .rninit file:
-F"> "
This redefines the indenting pattern to include a space
after the '>'. (The same text can be included on
the rn command line).
This will make reading included articles in followups easier
by making the text more airly, less crowded. (And, of course,
include only needed text in the followup).
A better solution would be to change the defaults in common.h
(for "indstr" and "ATTRIBUTION") if you have access to it,
but these instructions at least allows concerned users to change it
for themselves. (amdahl readers: rn has been changed here)
--
Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,cbosgd,hplabs}!amdahl!gamphil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (01/20/86)
In article <2604@amdahl.UUCP> gam@amdahl.UUCP (G A Moffett) writes: >I have found the follow-up format that rn >uses for formating included articles rather messy looking. >A heading line is followed directly by the included text, >and the ">"'s at the beginnings of lines are inserted with >no following space! It looks very crowded. This is a matter of taste. Would you rather see >> junk junk junk or > > junk junk? I'd rather see the former. What I hate is people who put in blank lines between paragraphs, disabling my ability to skip included material with TAB in rn. Please keep the > in! -- (C) 1986 Joe Random is not a valid copyright. Copyright 1986 Joe Random is. Phil Ngai +1 408 749 5720 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.dec.com
gam@amdahl.UUCP (G A Moffett) (01/22/86)
In article <8480@amdcad.UUCP> phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) writes: > In article <2604@amdahl.UUCP> gam@amdahl.UUCP (G A Moffett) writes: > >A heading line is followed directly by the included text, > >and the ">"'s at the beginnings of lines are inserted with > >no following space! It looks very crowded. > > This is a matter of taste. Would you rather see > > >> junk junk junk > > or > > > > junk junk? I agree with Phil's comments about "> > >"; I didn't think of that at first. I will make a point of editing those leading "> > > " to ">>> " before posting (hey, aren't editors wonderful?). I am not doing that in this article, of course, for purposes of example. By the way, in purely esthetic terms, doesn't this followup look better than the format Phil's originally used? -- Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,cbosgd,hplabs}!amdahl!gam ~ Deine Zauber binden wieder, ~ ~ Was die Mode streng geteilt; ~ ~ Alle Menschen werden Brueder, ~ ~ Wo dein sanfter Fluegel weilt. ~