BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

BAR[_2_]

wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 10:20:29 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 10:09:47 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 09:56:01 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 06:48:33 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:13:53 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:52:12 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 13:49:46 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:42:14 -0400, wrote:

Can you read headers?

Does the bear **** in the woods?

--Vic
If that's where he is when the mood strikes. Can you read headers?

Not sure if you're serious, since you were talking about pre 2.0 as if
you knew it. All 1.93 and previous Agent versions I've used use
header-based retrievals.
Options allow for message body retrieval upon header retrieval but
mine are set for headers only. I pull message bodies separately to
avoid pulling in spam.
Parsing the server side message ID's to match the Agent counters
when retrieving "latest" seems to be "slow" part of Agent.
Message body retrieval is normally very fast.

--Vic

I diodn't ask if Agent could read headers. I asked if YOU could read headers.
You can't even answer that simple question. It's more and more obvious that YOU
don't know how, or you would have read mine and known what newsreader I use.

The header of a post does not reveal the newsreader used unless one has
turned on 'Show All Header Fields'. I don't normally wish to see all the
header fields because then I must scroll down to read the message. Do you
keep the header fields shown all the time?
No, but Vic posted as if he knew what reader I was using, when he is
obviously clueless. This was a case where an intelligent person would
have looked at the headers before posting. He also can't seem to
directly answer simple and completely unambiguous questions.

The 'un-ambiguity' may be in the eyes of the beholder. Headers, at least in
Agent, are not the same as 'Header Fields'.

You asked Vic if he could read headers. He answered that he could. You
responded with a less than flattering comment, because you were referring
to headers when you meant header fields.

Sure, Harry. Whatever you say.

Harry is way out of his depth of knowledge when speaking about all
things USENET. I proved that a couple of years ago when I outed him.