I see, still suffering from the ID10t syndrome.

Whatever. Consider yourself blocked - I don't have time for your foibles.

--
Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]

Post all replies to the group to keep the discussion intact.

After furious head scratching, VanguardLH asked:

| "Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]" wrote in message
| ...
|
|
| And I will keep calling you on usenet *rule* rather than usenet
| *suggestions* - see your precious RFCs for a hint.
|
|
| --- REPLY SEPARATOR ---
| Only required because above poster used QUOTED-PRINTABLE format.
| When posting to newsgroups, do NOT use quoted-printable format.
| * Not all NNTP clients handle quoted-printable format.
| - Some users still use console-mode (non-GUI) NNTP clients.
| - The long lines may not wrap properly.
| - Scrolling is needed if the long line does not get wrapped.
| - The long line may get truncated at the window's width.
| - Quoted-printable format uses special character sequences for
| logical formatting. View the raw source of your post. Text-
| only clients may show that encoding when viewing your post.
| * Quoting levels get mangled, especially for multiple replies.
| * In replies, there is no clear delineation of content.
| - Cannot tell what content is from the original poster and
| what is from the respondent.
| - Makes impossible to determine who said what when a reply
| inserts comments inline with the quoted content.
| ---[end of comments]---
|
|
| And as long as you use quoted-printable format, I will have to
| continue using a reply delimiter line to differentiate your content
| from mine in my reply. Otherwise, how do YOU suggest differentiating
| between the original content in quoted-printable format from someone
| replies? Guess maybe? My reply delimiter also includes the reasons
| why quoted-printable format is stupid and inconsiderate for Usenet
| posting.
|
| Regarding the RFCs, quoted-printable is defined how to use it when
| composing a message. There is no RFC regarding how newsreaders will
| handle it when replying to posts that use it.
|
| So why aren't you violating other Usenet standards (whether de facto,
| like a sigdash line for a signature which is NOT specified by RFC, or
| by RFC)? I see you aren't posting in HTML format. Why is that, huh?
|
| I can see that we will pretty much agree to disagree. However, when
| replying to quoted-printable formatted posts, some means most be used
| to differentiate between original and reply content. I use a reply
| separator line. Of course, that doesn't help when trying to insert
| the reply inline with the original content, so sometimes I have to add
| the quoting character that you and others like you, especially Google
| Groupers, omit because of using quoted-printable format. You really
| want to lump yourself in with the [lack of] netiquette exhibited by
| Google Groupers?