1 |
Am Tue, 11 Oct 2011 08:54:37 -0400
|
2 |
schrieb Michael Mol <mikemol@×××××.com>:
|
3 |
|
4 |
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 7:03 AM, Jonas de Buhr |
5 |
> <jonas.de.buhr@×××.net> wrote: |
6 |
> > hey guys, |
7 |
> > |
8 |
> > please don't get me wrong on this one, i mean no offense. |
9 |
> > can anyone explain to me what this is? are these lavender threads |
10 |
> > some kind of trolling i don't get? |
11 |
> > |
12 |
> > it (apparently on purpose, since hints in that direction are |
13 |
> > ignored) combines loads of annoying qualities: |
14 |
> > |
15 |
> > - nondescriptive titles |
16 |
> > - doing everything to rip apart threads: no In-Reply-To and even |
17 |
> > subject changes |
18 |
> > - no line-breaks |
19 |
> > - difficult to read incorrect punctuation (plenk) |
20 |
> > - problem details are kept nebulous and info requests are ignored |
21 |
> > - none of the proposed solutions are ever tried or commented |
22 |
> |
23 |
> To me, the "Lavender's" messages read like someone is going through an |
24 |
> automated translation tool to get between English and their native |
25 |
> language. (In this case, Chinese) |
26 |
> |
27 |
> "Anyone can afford ... ?" sounds like bad forced translation between |
28 |
> semantic idioms. |
29 |
> |
30 |
> "Anyone can afford information about build kernel" |
31 |
> "Can anyone afford information about build kernel" |
32 |
> "Can anyone spend time helping about build kernel" |
33 |
> "Can anyone spend time helping me build my kernel" |
34 |
> |
35 |
> That explains the punctuation (poor translation tool(!)) and nebulous |
36 |
> requests. |
37 |
|
38 |
> His responses indicated he was reading what had been sent in |
39 |
> reply. |
40 |
> His first reply and his second reply were closely related, and |
41 |
> when commands were offered that allowed him to find the exact |
42 |
> information he needed, he gave his third reply indicating he had what |
43 |
> he needed. |
44 |
> |
45 |
> I'm using GMail as my email client, and threading and subject lines |
46 |
> showed intact for me until your "this is spam" message following the |
47 |
> one I'm replying to. |
48 |
|
49 |
interesting, so gmail is aware of the chinese equivalent of "Re" (回复)
|
50 |
but doesn't use the In-Reply-To: header correctly?
|
51 |
|
52 |
> As for line endings, I can think of two possible reasons. The first |
53 |
> (and, I suspect, more likely) would be that Lavender is using an email |
54 |
> gateway that automatically translates between English and Chinese, and |
55 |
> the email gateway did not implement line wrapping (or did so poorly). |
56 |
> The second might be that Chinese email clients, frequently operating |
57 |
> with an ideogram langauge, don't need to line-wrap so frequently, so |
58 |
> Lavender's email client might be buggy in that regard. |
59 |
> |
60 |
> > |
61 |
> > it's nice how much many people on this this list are willing to |
62 |
> > help in spite of all this. but am i really the only one who finds |
63 |
> > the behavior described above at least confusing? |
64 |
> > anyway, i'm quite convinced it is fake. |
65 |
> |
66 |
> I have no reason to believe it's fake. I'm reasonably sure it was |
67 |
> machine-processed, but I expect there was a human at the far end. |
68 |
|
69 |
i agree that there is definitely a human at the other end.
|
70 |
you raise some good points. the automated translation might even
|
71 |
trigger automated entries in the spam database.
|
72 |
|
73 |
but why use three names at the same time? still there might be an
|
74 |
explanation for it.
|
75 |
|
76 |
as said before i meant no offense. im not 100% convinced, but your
|
77 |
explanation sounds reasonable, let's not make a lengthy discussion out
|
78 |
of it :)
|
79 |
|
80 |
thx for your insightful reply! |