«

On Friday, December 31, 2010 1:49:29 AM UTC+5:30, wrote:
> gvkalra <gvk...@gmail.com> writes:
> > I meant - what made him/her use the old style ... ?
>
> What are you talking about?
>
> When you post a followup, you need to quote some context from the
> article you're replying to. Google Groups should handle this for you
> (at one time it didn't, but the bug was corrected several years ago.)
>
> Don't assume that anyone reading your followup can easily see the
> article to which you're replying.
>
> Also, you should remove any quoted material that's not relevant to
> your followup. In particular, you shouldn't quote signatures (the
> text following the "-- " line) unless you're actually commenting
> on them.
>
> For good examples of this, see most of the articles in this
> newsgroup.

Am sorry for *bad* posting. I assumed Google Groups was handling it for me.

Infact it was.

But I just changed to the "new" Google groups and by default it didn't handle quoting the message.

gvkalra <> writes:
> On Friday, December 31, 2010 1:49:29 AM UTC+5:30, wrote:
[...]
>> When you post a followup, you need to quote some context from the
>> article you're replying to. Google Groups should handle this for you
>> (at one time it didn't, but the bug was corrected several years ago.)
[...]
>
> Am sorry for *bad* posting. I assumed Google Groups was handling it for me.
>
> Infact it was.
>
> But I just changed to the "new" Google groups and by default it didn't
> handle quoting the message.

Oh, no!

I just tried the "new" Google Groups interface. By default, it now
*doesn't* quote the parent article when you post a followup. You have
to click the "Quote original" link explicitly.

It's not as bad as the old buggy Google Groups, but I can see this is
going to cause serious problems.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst- <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

Keith Thompson <kst-> writes:
> gvkalra <> writes:
>> On Friday, December 31, 2010 1:49:29 AM UTC+5:30, wrote:
> [...]
>>> When you post a followup, you need to quote some context from the
>>> article you're replying to. Google Groups should handle this for you
>>> (at one time it didn't, but the bug was corrected several years ago.)
> [...]
>>
>> Am sorry for *bad* posting. I assumed Google Groups was handling it for me.
>>
>> Infact it was.
>>
>> But I just changed to the "new" Google groups and by default it didn't
>> handle quoting the message.
>
> Oh, no!
>
> I just tried the "new" Google Groups interface. By default, it now
> *doesn't* quote the parent article when you post a followup. You have
> to click the "Quote original" link explicitly.
>
> It's not as bad as the old buggy Google Groups, but I can see this is
> going to cause serious problems.

If you visit groups.google.com, you can post suggestions for the new
interface. I've just done so. (You might need a Google/gmail account
to do so.)

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst- <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

On 12/31/10 09:34 AM, Keith Thompson wrote:
> gvkalra<> writes:
>> On Friday, December 31, 2010 1:49:29 AM UTC+5:30, wrote:
> [...]
>>> When you post a followup, you need to quote some context from the
>>> article you're replying to. Google Groups should handle this for you
>>> (at one time it didn't, but the bug was corrected several years ago.)
> [...]
>>
>> Am sorry for *bad* posting. I assumed Google Groups was handling it for me.
>>
>> Infact it was.
>>
>> But I just changed to the "new" Google groups and by default it didn't
>> handle quoting the message.
>
> Oh, no!
>
> I just tried the "new" Google Groups interface. By default, it now
> *doesn't* quote the parent article when you post a followup. You have
> to click the "Quote original" link explicitly.

It also appears to detach the reply from the parent thread (references
header line gone) and add a Reply-To: header, which I didn't think was
valid for NNTP.

--
Ian Collins