 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <407d8785@news.povray.org> , Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
>> Nope, Darren is wrong.
>
> Trust me. See my long rambling rant. "I tested it and it works" doesn't
> mean "it's right".
It does. You need to first understand Usenet message formats to understand
why "I tested it and it works" *does* mean "it's right". The important
thing is that "it's right" does *not* mean "everybody can parse it". And
that is the only problem.
>> Still, if many people here use odd newsreaders rather than the mainstream
>> ones, there will probably be little choice but to generate full MIME
>> messages <sigh>
>
> If you're generating the base-64 already, it's a trivial fix. All you
> have to do is put "Content-type: image/whatever" instead of
> "text/plain", and get rid of the "begin" line, and you're golden.
Believe me, I know better what is trivial to fix and what not! And your fix
it complete wrong, btw: It would make posting text together with images
impossible...
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <c5k3mg$9a8$3@chho.imagico.de> , Christoph Hormann
<chr### [at] gmxde> wrote:
> uuencoded would be just fine.
It currently is uuencoded, really! Try your Linux uudecode: Start with the
begin up to the and including the ==== and pass that file to uudecode. It
will decode it without problems. And it will also encode in the same
format!
What you want is the classic uuencoding. Unfortunetly, that is more
difficult to generate and has a set of problems. Base 64 is the way to go,
but apparently to be compatiblke with the majority of newsreaders I need to
put base 64 into a MIME multipart message. This however is non-trivial and
I hoped I could avoid this work...
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <c5k3ki$9a8$2@chho.imagico.de> , Christoph Hormann
<chr### [at] gmxde> wrote:
>> The one I am posting with is one of those I tried with. Works just fine -
>> well, except that it doesn't support PNG images, so I get a PNG attachment
>> to view with an external viewer. It displays JPEGs just fine, however.
>
> That's surely one of the most used newsreaders here... ;-)
Well, I had the strange idea that the Mac version would have less features
than their Windos version and not more features. Apparently I was mistaken.
Funny how M$ software still surprises me after so many years ;-)
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Brian" <cscibriATyahooDOTcom> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> This is my first post to this group....
> What do you think?
>
It's very nice. Lighting is very simple but effective.
You might think about using photons.
--
Bill Hails
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill Hails <bil### [at] europeyahoo-inccom> wrote:
> It's very nice. Lighting is very simple but effective.
> You might think about using photons.
>
> --
> Bill Hails
Thanks :) I took your advice and tried the photons...
The effect was subtle, but it added a lot.
To everyone else... I'm sorry for starting a massive
argument. :-(
--Brian
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
> Guess what, that is what one really has to do. If you find a header you
> don't know, you have little choice but to ignore it.
I didn't see any headers I didn't know about. Which header are you
talking about, that my mail client wouldn't know?
>>Trying to compensate for people who say "Hey, this is an image" and then
>>attaching an .exe is where you get many of your viruses.
>
> No, users opening executable attachments from unknown sources on the
> internet will eventually have to learn more about Darwinism ;-)
So what's executable about a jpeg file?
> There is no standard for Usenet attachments.
Fine.
> Remember that MIME standards
> for Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions.
Yes, and that's why HTTP uses them too, right? ;-)
If this is the case, then you shouldn't be putting MIME headers in news
posts. But of course this will be a go-around.
> BTW, this is not unique to the newsreaders you have. Google needs to apply
> even more tricks to decode ever more uncommon plain content formats and to
> filter out attachments of all kinds correctly.
Sure. And if web clients showed you broken content instead of silently
trying to correct it, a system like Google wouldn't have to incorporate
every known trick just to work, because the first time the designer
looked at it they'd see it's broken.
Note, btw, that the guy who said "be generous in what you accept" later
said "oops, that doesn't work too well." ;-)
> Of course, as I said, if too many newsreaders don't support the current
> format the web view uses to post attachments, I will switch to MIME
> multipart messages. However, those are much more work to encode is you need
> to support a preview and edit of such messages (which the webview does).
I haven't looked at the web view. Does it allow for mixed text and
images? If so, then yes, you need to do a bit more work. Not a lot, but
a bit. I'm happy to help answer questions if I can, as I've done this
sort of thing myself way too much.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA USA (PST)
I am in geosynchronous orbit, supported by
a quantum photon exchange drive....
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
> It does. You need to first understand Usenet message formats to understand
> why "I tested it and it works" *does* mean "it's right".
Alright. If you're going to say "I'll generate MIME headers and put them
on the posts, but you should be smart enough to ignore them because I'm
delivering the message over NNTP instead of SMTP", then I'll grant you
that. But in that case, why put the headers on at all?
> Believe me, I know better what is trivial to fix and what not! And your fix
> it complete wrong, btw: It would make posting text together with images
> impossible...
OK. Didn't know you were doing that. It still isn't difficult, altho
I'll grant it's no longer trivial.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA USA (PST)
I am in geosynchronous orbit, supported by
a quantum photon exchange drive....
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
<snip />
> However, if there are too many (current versions of) newsreaders that do not
> support this format, which I do know to be on the slightly less frequently
> used group of the many messages formats in use, it will be possible to
> change it. After all, the web news view posting is only in a testing state.
I use Mozilla 1.6 and it cannot read said post.
--
Respectfully,
Dan P
http://<broken link>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Brian wrote:
> Bill Hails <bil### [at] europeyahoo-inccom> wrote:
<snip />
> Thanks :) I took your advice and tried the photons...
> The effect was subtle, but it added a lot.
>
> To everyone else... I'm sorry for starting a massive
> argument. :-(
Don't worry; you didn't start an argument, it is just that certain
minority of people are disposed toward arguing. This is a friendly
group, generally, and we're really glad you are here!
--
Respectfully,
Dan P
http://<broken link>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Dan P wrote:
> I use Mozilla 1.6 and it cannot read said post.
I tried it taking off the MIME headers and Mozilla still doesn't
recognise it as an encoded object.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA USA (PST)
I am in geosynchronous orbit, supported by
a quantum photon exchange drive....
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
