Prev: FAQ Topic - What does the future hold for ECMAScript? (2010-05-19)
Next: A function that tells itself
From: nick on 18 May 2010 20:43
I expect the question may have many different answers.

If I were to go through a bunch of threads and change the titles so
that they were all the same (for example, "[spam]"), would your
newsreader lump the threads into one thread so they did not clutter up
your display? Or would it just make more of a mess?

I know it's not a js-related question, but the end result will be a js-
based solution if renaming the threads would be useful.
From: Stefan Weiss on 18 May 2010 21:50
On 19/05/10 02:43, nick wrote:
> I expect the question may have many different answers.
>
> If I were to go through a bunch of threads and change the titles so
> that they were all the same (for example, "[spam]"), would your
> newsreader lump the threads into one thread so they did not clutter up
> your display? Or would it just make more of a mess?
>
> I know it's not a js-related question, but the end result will be a js-
> based solution if renaming the threads would be useful.

Grouping threads by their subject can be a last resort, but it's often
incorrect. I know that Outlook Express did it (a long time ago), with
sometimes hilarious results. The way to create threads is to look at the
"References" header in the messages.

BTW, I would really suggest you try a real newsreader instead of Google
Groups. I see so many regulars posting via Google, and for the life of
me I can't understand it. A dedicated program, or even a combination
like Thunderbird, gives you so much more performance and a much better
overview. Not to speak of the other usual features like scoring,
killfiles, etc.


--
stefan
From: Scott Sauyet on 18 May 2010 23:22
Stefan Weiss wrote:
> On 19/05/10 02:43, nick wrote:
> BTW, I would really suggest you try a real newsreader instead of Google
> Groups. I see so many regulars posting via Google, and for the life of
> me I can't understand it. A dedicated program, or even a combination
> like Thunderbird, gives you so much more performance and a much better
> overview. Not to speak of the other usual features like scoring,
> killfiles, etc.

Nick might well be in a similar situation to me. I could easily use a
newsreader at home (and I do use Thunderbird for some NNTP servers)
but I do a lot of my posting from work, and I have not found any way
to use a newsreader through the filters, whereas I can easily use GG
there. Often that simply spills over to home. I have an eternal-
september account, and could use it at home, but then that's two
different interfaces to the same content, which gets confusing.

It's a shame, because the benefits you describe for newreaders over GG
are, if anything, understated. But there doesn't seem to be much for
me to do.

-- Scott
From: Scott Sauyet on 19 May 2010 08:02
On May 19, 7:56 am, Jukka Lahtinen <jtfjd...(a)hotmail.com.invalid>
wrote:
> Scott Sauyet <scott.sau...(a)gmail.com> writes:
>> Nick might well be in a similar situation to me.  I could easily use a
>> newsreader at home (and I do use Thunderbird for some NNTP servers)
>> but I do a lot of my posting from work, and I have not found any way
>> to use a newsreader through the filters, whereas I can easily use GG
>
> Whenever I want to check the newsgroups at work (like now), I just take
> an ssh connection to my home computer and start the same newsreader I
> use at home, using the same .newsrc file and all the same
> configurations.

That's an interesting possibility I never considered. I don't like
the idea of leaving my home machine running all the time, but I will
certainly think about it.


> Ever since the late 1980's when I found out usenet, I used to take the
> ssh or telnet connection to my isp's shell computer for newsreading both
> from home and from office, but they shut down the shell computer on
> January with no replacement, so I had to start running the newsreader at
> home.

That's another approach I never considered. I have several servers I
can ssh into that might work. I'll have to see if any of them work.

Thanks for the ideas,

--
Scott
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: FAQ Topic - What does the future hold for ECMAScript? (2010-05-19)
Next: A function that tells itself