| 1 |
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Jonas de Buhr <jonas.de.buhr@×××.net> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Am Tue, 11 Oct 2011 08:54:37 -0400 |
| 3 |
> schrieb Michael Mol <mikemol@×××××.com>: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 7:03 AM, Jonas de Buhr |
| 6 |
>> <jonas.de.buhr@×××.net> wrote: |
| 7 |
>> > hey guys, |
| 8 |
>> > |
| 9 |
>> > please don't get me wrong on this one, i mean no offense. |
| 10 |
>> > can anyone explain to me what this is? are these lavender threads |
| 11 |
>> > some kind of trolling i don't get? |
| 12 |
>> > |
| 13 |
>> > it (apparently on purpose, since hints in that direction are |
| 14 |
>> > ignored) combines loads of annoying qualities: |
| 15 |
>> > |
| 16 |
>> > - nondescriptive titles |
| 17 |
>> > - doing everything to rip apart threads: no In-Reply-To and even |
| 18 |
>> > subject changes |
| 19 |
>> > - no line-breaks |
| 20 |
>> > - difficult to read incorrect punctuation (plenk) |
| 21 |
>> > - problem details are kept nebulous and info requests are ignored |
| 22 |
>> > - none of the proposed solutions are ever tried or commented |
| 23 |
>> |
| 24 |
>> To me, the "Lavender's" messages read like someone is going through an |
| 25 |
>> automated translation tool to get between English and their native |
| 26 |
>> language. (In this case, Chinese) |
| 27 |
>> |
| 28 |
>> "Anyone can afford ... ?" sounds like bad forced translation between |
| 29 |
>> semantic idioms. |
| 30 |
>> |
| 31 |
>> "Anyone can afford information about build kernel" |
| 32 |
>> "Can anyone afford information about build kernel" |
| 33 |
>> "Can anyone spend time helping about build kernel" |
| 34 |
>> "Can anyone spend time helping me build my kernel" |
| 35 |
>> |
| 36 |
>> That explains the punctuation (poor translation tool(!)) and nebulous |
| 37 |
>> requests. |
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
>> His responses indicated he was reading what had been sent in |
| 40 |
>> reply. |
| 41 |
>> His first reply and his second reply were closely related, and |
| 42 |
>> when commands were offered that allowed him to find the exact |
| 43 |
>> information he needed, he gave his third reply indicating he had what |
| 44 |
>> he needed. |
| 45 |
>> |
| 46 |
>> I'm using GMail as my email client, and threading and subject lines |
| 47 |
>> showed intact for me until your "this is spam" message following the |
| 48 |
>> one I'm replying to. |
| 49 |
> |
| 50 |
> interesting, so gmail is aware of the chinese equivalent of "Re" (回复) |
| 51 |
> but doesn't use the In-Reply-To: header correctly? |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
The two replies I saw from him have these lines in their original headers: |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Anyone can afford information about build kernel? |
| 56 |
Subject: [gentoo-user] =?gbk?B?u9i4tKO6IFtnZW50b28tdXNlcl0gQW55b25lIGNh?= |
| 57 |
=?gbk?B?biBhZmZvcmQgaW5mb3JtYXRpb24gYWJvdXQgYnVp?= |
| 58 |
=?gbk?B?bGQga2VybmVsPw==?= |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
So the second one definitely came through worse than the first, but |
| 61 |
(for whatever reason), GMail didn't signal a topic change. (Usually, |
| 62 |
it's pretty good about that) |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
Maybe GMail was clever enough to pick up on something like |
| 65 |
X-Reply-Hash and tie it to a thread. Dunno. |
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
-- |
| 68 |
:wq |
Archives