 WebGlimpse |
|
| Search: The neighborhood of this page The full archive | |
Greetings Saints in Jesus name!
This is a looooooooooong post. However, if you are at all
interested in making this a *better* forum, I highly expect
you to read the whole thing and catch the concepts contained
herein.....
I'm writing all of you in an effort to try and clean up
the postings a little bit.... I don't mind the effort
given to post the ideas, but I think that much is left to
be desired as far as editing and being mindful of different
aspects of posting....
This workshop will deal with the aspect of *posting to
much* from a previously posted message as well as something
ya'll might not be aware of that the listprocessor will
definitely check and eventually reject.....
The anatomy of a piece of email is that it has several
different parts:
1) email headers
2) email body
3) email signature file (sometimes)
An example message might look something like this in it's
entirety. First of all the email headers will have several
different parts.
There will be the lines that *reflect* the different machines
that actually have handled the piece of email and when and
either from where it's come from or where it's going to.
Those lines are always at the *beginning* of a piece of
email and they always start a line with *Received:*, like
this:
Received: from 192.168.1.50 by gisg.gisg.gi.net with Microsoft
Exchange
(IMC 4.0.837.3) id DBPXTBKN; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 17:23:31 -0600
Received: from centri.gisg.gi.net (centri.gisg.gi.net [192.168.1.1])
by wolf.gisg.gi.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA05749
for <tnally@gisg.gi.net>; Thu, 6 Feb 1997
13:31:01 -0600
Received: by centri.gisg.gi.net; id SAA02461; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 18:12:19
-0500
Received: from beltway.cd.com(204.217.30.66) by centri.gisg.gi.net via
smap
(g3.0.3) id xma002452; Thu, 6 Feb 97 18:11:55 -0500
Received: from bif.cd.com by beltway (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA19186;
Thu, 6 Feb 1997 17:20:28 -0600
Received: by bif.cd.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA13198; Thu, 6 Feb 97
17:32:21 CST
The newest handling of the piece of email is closer to the top (when
delivery happened) compared to when it was first sent out by whom ever
originated it as the last *Received:* line. In this example, Bro.
Richard
sent me a piece of email at about 5:32pm last night from a machine
called
bif.cd.com, bif.cd.com gave it to beltway(.cd.com), beltway.cd.com gave
it to a machine here at the office called centri.gisg.gi.net, registered
the Message-ID with itself, passed it on to wolf.gisg.gi.net, then
handed
off to a Microsoft Exchange client a little later.... you can see all
the
different hops the piece of email took to get here. (Heh, heh, heh....
you can also see how differently each system's clock is set because none
of the systems times are remotely the same) :)
Next we see who the message is from:
From: richardm@cd.com (Richard Masoner)
Next we see the *unique identification mark* placed on this piece
of email by Bro. Masoner's machine that he composed the message on
when he sent it off. If you look closely at the first part of the
Message-ID you see that it's the date and time the message was sent:
Message-Id: <9702062332.AA13198@bif.cd.com>
97 year, 02 Feb, 06 day, 2332 (not sure)
AA13198 (original message-id code assigned by bif.cd.com)
So... in a way, you can see that this message is *unique* just like
a person's email address is. That makes it easy for investigators
to track a particular message around to find out it's origin in
case someone is doing email bomb kinda stuff.
Then the subject line that's contained in the headers, obviously,
this example shows a REply message:
Subject: Re: Office tomorrow
Who it's going to:
To: tnally@gisg.gi.net (Tyler Nally)
The system type of bif.cd.com when Bro Richard pressed the
SEND button:
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 17:32:21 -0600 (CST)
Reply-to lines that show the previous references of the messages
that are being replied about and from whom....
In-Reply-To:
<c=US%a=_%p=Global_Internet_%l=GISG-970206222551Z-336@gisg.gisg.gi.net>
from "Tyler Nally" at Feb 6, 97 04:25:51 pm
What kind of email program is being used:
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22]
Mime (Multi-part Internet Mail Extensions - I think) compliancy:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Mime compliant header telling the content of the email to expect:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
And the kind of transfer encoding.
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
All of the preceding stuff is the *OVERHEAD* of the piece of email.
You might think you're only sending in an AMEN post (which I hope
you don't do), but there's a whole bunch of other stuff that gets
added to it. A single line piece of email might blossom into twenty
or so lines of headers (overhead) before it's finally distributed
before the reader even get's a chance to see it.
Then there's the body of the message:
Yo, Bro!
Hey! Big fella! I'm not going to be in the
office either. What should we do about the
hooligans on H-F?
The skinny owner of H-F.
Then sometimes you see a signature file tagged onto the
end of the message. You set it up once with your email
program and then it just merges it into the piece of email
at the very bottom. Almost always, the signature file is
preceded by a double-hyphen "--" on a line by itself like this:
--
Richard Q Masoner richardm@cd.com http://www.cd.com
Really Skinny Co-Owner of Higher-Fire
An Apostolic Emailing list for one-god apostolic tongue-talking holy
rollers
born in the liberating power of Jesus name that's been washed by the
blood
sanctified by the lamb and is hoping you do the same.
Those are the basic elements of just about any piece of email
sent out on the internet. O.k.? Got it now? In case you were
ever wondering what all that gobbledegook meant at the top of
the email when the email software shows it, that's what it all
means.
Now that we know the anatomy of a piece of email, let me say this:
Higher-Fire postings have no need to echo a previous
postings:
1) email headers
2) signature file
To include them, is just sloppy. Sorry to say that, it's just sloppy
and probably lazy as well. I don't think we need to show any sloppiness
or laziness to the world in an archive where everything is searchable on
the WWW do we? There are potential problems especially when email
headers are included and it just wastes space (though convenient) to
include the previous signature file.
With all that said, I'm going to pick on a post by Bro Jerry Moon.
He posted the *classic* post that you may or may not see, depending
on how the listprocessor reacts to it. I'm not picking on him, and
I sent him email regarding it, but it's just a good posting to pick
on that has different elements to correct.
Everybody with me say, "God bless Bro. Jerry Moon for being the H-F
posting guinea pig." And then, say to yourself outloud: "I'll make
a conscious effort not to do the same thing because I don't want to
incur the wrath of either of the listowners."
There! Did you say it? If not, go back a paragraph and do so...
I'll wait here why you say it out loud.... <whistling while you
repeat the last sentence to yourself>.... There! Verrrry goood!
Let's continue.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bro Jerry Moon wrote a total of 5 new lines:
>Bro. Blume
>
>This is a very interesting thought. Thanks so much for having the
>courage to
>post it. You've got my mind to thinking, because I've questioned many
>of the
>prophesy teachings. This has been very interesting. Thanks....
His email software gave him an additional line:
>On Thu, 06 Feb 1997, MF Blume <mfblume@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
Then he allowd 100 % of a previous post to go through.
72 lines in all.
First thing that I'll say is that this is incredibly *unbalanced*.
6 lines to 72 lines. A 1 to 12 ratio. He probably should have
snipped out all of the mail headers <snip> and then show maybe
the first paragraph of what Bro. Blume was saying and then
showed a <snip> to show he snipped the rest. This post (previous
elements) could have been dramatically reduced to just a few lines
or so.
The listproc looks at those email headers as an additional checksum
of sorts to guard against duplicate postings.
Here's the first occurance of a signature file that Bro. Jerry
didn't <snip> out of the post:
>>--
>>In Christ,
>>Mike Blume
>>mfblume@ns.sympatico.ca
>>http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/mfblume/mblume.htm
Then here's the mail headers that could have been deleted:
>>X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
Also .... another reason to get rid of the email headers is because
the "Message-ID:" line is remembered by the lisptroc. It'll see that
coming thru (because it's not checked it yet) and then say to itself
"Hey! I've already posted that message with a Message-ID of XXXXXXXXX.
I'm going to send it back."
>>Message-ID: <xxkwuwqlsjsja@ns.sympatico.ca>
>>Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 18:50:46 -0800
>>From: MF Blume <mfblume@ns.sympatico.ca>
>>X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02E-SYMPA (Win16; I)
>>MIME-Version: 1.0
>>To: "Tarik L. Carey" <tlcarey@uwimona.edu.jm>
>>Subject: Re: nail on the head
>>References:
>><Pine.SUN.3.95.970206093214.26203A-100000@minotaur.uwimona.edu.jm>
>>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Let me ask ya'll..... are email headers so *gooooooood* that you
really like to read them in different postings..... I kinda don't
think so....
Then Bro Jerry went on to allow the entire previous posting of
Bro Blume's to be echoed once again in his piece of email:
>>
>>Tarik L. Carey wrote:
>>
>>> DEar MF what are you trying to say that the anti christ is our self and
>>> not a literal hyuman being?Please clarify
>>
>>I am saying that the only cross reference to 2 Thess 2 (Mention of the
>>"son of perdition" defiling the temple as God, whom God shall destroy)
>>in the New testament which deals with the TEMPLE and God destroying someone
>>who DEFILES it is found in 1 Cor, and refers to our bodies as the temple.
>>And it alos mentions God destroys those who defile His temple.
>>
>>Rather than ask me if I am saying there is no personal antichrist to come,
>>you should examine the verses I cross-referenced and see error in my
>>reasoning.
>>
>>To be sure, fallen self is antichrist.
>>
>>The number of the beast is a number of "a man". When people will worship
>>themselves by refusing to do God's will, they are antichrist. Man worship.
>>Perhaps an individual will arise who will lead all humanity to worship
>>self (many such "religious" leaders exist NOW). But nevertheless, I was
>>pointing out that 2 Thess. 2's reference to the holy place is NOT a
>>reference to a literal temple, since God nor the apostles would ever
>>refer to a literal building as the temple after the age of foreshadowing
>>expired, and the TRUE temple, from then on, is the Church and the body
>>of Christ.
>>
>>To sum it up quickly: Any reference to a temple, holy place or sanctuary
>>in the New Testament, besides the obvious references made by passers-by
>>of the
>>literal temple that stood and fell in 70 AD (Matt 24:1), that is involved
>>in teaching the church about things to come or spiritual realities will
>>NOT be references to a literal temple.
>>
>>This is especially evident when comparing the two accounts written by Paul
>>which are 2 Thess 2:4,8 and 1 Cor 3:17.
>>
>>Paul would not call a literal temple the "temple of God" since God
>>has nothing to do with physical temples of buildings any longer.
>>
>>So, if there is a single man to come called Antichrist (when nothing
>>in the New testament refers to The "Antichrist" as if it was a single
>>individual), 2 Thess 2 is not a reference to it. Saying "The Antichrist"
>>in the sense that we refer to single human to come, is speaking an
>>unbiblical term. Only John writes of "antichrist", and he implies there
>>are many, not just one to come.
>>
And then farther down here, there was signature file stuff
from the previous post that needed to be <snip>ed from the
content of the post....
>>
>>
>>--
>>In Christ,
>>Mike Blume
>>mfblume@ns.sympatico.ca
>>http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/mfblume/mblume.htm
>>
Then it's ended with Bro Jerry's signature file
(which is o.k.)...
>Deut 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:
>http://www.netjava.com/~moon
>Fax (806)274-9650 Regards
>E-Mail moon@netjava.com Jerry Moon
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Probably the biggest errors were:
1) inclusion of the mail headers
2) way too much message text from a previous post
> 3) inclusion of previous post signature file
Now.... I expect everybody to be a little more mindful of
how to post properly to the list. Everybody, please send
Bro Jerry (see e-address above) a thank you note for the
good job he did in striking at the heart of one of Bro.
Tyler's pet peeves.... he did a fine job.
Sorry to be so long-winded.... but for those that need
the instructions again on how to "Cut-n-Paste" text from
previous messages... it'll follow this message on the other
side of the line of hyphens....
Thank you much.
Bro "much calmer now" Tyler
-------------------------------------------------------------
A saint on the list asked me these different questions that I
thought would benefit the entire list if I posted it for all to
see. I think they are good questions. And since it's not really
intuitive (unless you've done it time-after-time) I thought that
many would benefit since it's pretty easy to accomplish. But the
technique isn't necessarily just handed out to anybody.
>How do I go about "selecting" what I want to
>reply to from someone else message?
I probably ought to have a general workshop about this kind
of stuff. It's really good to know this so that not every little
jot-and-tiddle from the previous post makes it to the next post.
If there's one thing that'll prompt me to send a message to a
subscriber is the inability to trim the pre-posted text down
(like someones signature file - which is always and at least
4 to 6 lines long).
>Someone said you can cut and paste
>but of course I don't know how to do that. Are you familar to Windows
>95?
This is how you cut-n-paste. First of all they are two distinct
operations:
1) CUT
2) PASTE
There's a variation of CUT called COPY that's highly useful as well
and it's like CUT but a little more.
To CUT text from your email (or in about any word processor type
piece of software) you place your mouse pointer with a *click*
immediately before the word (or phrase, or paragraph, etc) that
you want to start cutting. By clicking the mouse pointer, you've
anchored the text cursor to one particular spot in the text. If
that's not close enough to where you really want it, you should
be able to use normal cursor keys (arrows) to move it up, down,
left, or right. Or you could always click the mouse again. When
you *click* the mouse don't release the *left* mouse button,
you continue to hold it down. You now are starting to to do what
we in the business call "dragging". With the mouse pointer held
down (in a clicked position) you drag the mouse pointer down in the
text to the point where you *highlight* the text that the mouse pointer
covers as it travels down the page. By dragging the mouse pointer,
you are *marking* the text for another operation. When you have
*marked* all that it is that you want to CUT by stopping the marking
after the last word you'd like to get rid of, release the mouse button
and the marked text will stay highlighted. Across the top of the
window, probably in this order are two menu items.... File and Edit.
Underneath the Edit (almost always the 2nd column in the menu bar)
by clicking on EDIT, you'll see functions like, Undo, Cut, Copy, Paste,
Paste Special, etc. All of these perform separate functions on text that
has been marked. Next click on the CUT option (in the drop-down menu
underneath EDIT) and you'll see the previously highlighted text
disappear!
The COPY work just like CUT except that the text highlighted isn't
removed
but a *duplicate* of it is placed into the Windows Clipboard so that you
can place it's contents into another place (in the same document, or a
different document even). Remember CUT removes it from the current
document and puts it into the clipboard (think of it as a scratchpad of
sorts) and COPY just does a little xerox-like operation of what's being
highlighted by the mouse pointer into the clipboard but doesn't remove
the text from the document.
So depending on whether you want to re-use what's highlighted (whether
it's disposable or not) is up to the operator to decide whether to CUT
or COPY. If you do CUT and the text disappears and you wanted to COPY
instead.... go back up to EDIT, then click on Undo and the last
operation
that you did will be UNDONE as if you never did it.
TO PASTE (after text has been COPY'ed):
click the mouse pointer immediately before the spot in the text
where you want the text to go. Then go up to EDIT and click and
then select the PASTE option on the drop-down menu. Then that text
that you CUT'ted or COPY'ed will magically appear where the mouse
pointer was anchored in the text.
CUT/COPY-n-PASTE. A short tutorial.
|
WebGlimpse |
|
| Search: The neighborhood of this page The full archive | |