Vigorous Dragon - J10-01.jpg (1/2) [262K]

[Netko]

[Gary R. Schmidt]

Netko wrote:
This is a malformed message, to whit:
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> User-Agent: Hogwasher/4.3
> Content-Type: message/partial; number=1; total=2;
"
> X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.110.210.17
> X-Trace:
sv3-EmZdFxGGEIRgqiolQwKsyTgGXdiFyea9mhgAyZbWThXfvP7Xz9 X+lKySeNW8W8Mt6fvQhTO86NgCKg4!Y/bTbVbOUiLFmZfA/OQahUfSRyfipcgz99DtRapcMjklxU18+CWXP042G8+BKlukzs3 v9xQbicNb!M2anjaBLSgobJbfIcox7SEf7Qal3Jr6pOckG
> X-Complaints-To:
> X-DMCA-Complaints-To:
> X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
> X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your
complaint properly
> X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
> Xref: paranoia.mcleod-schmidt.id.au
alt.binaries.pictures.military:871 alt.binaries.pictures.aviation:48226
>
> Message-ID: >
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Subject: Vigorous Dragon

See that blank line up there, 'tween the Xref and Message-ID headers?
It's an error.

I've reported it to the "Hogwasher" developers, let's see what, if
anything, happens.

Cheers,
Gary B-)

[Netko]

On Thu, 1 Oct 2009 15:49:12 +0100, Gary R. Schmidt wrote
(in article >):

> See that blank line up there, 'tween the Xref and Message-ID headers?
> It's an error.

Interesting, even though I have no idea of its significance or practical
effect. Curiously, Hogwasher's headers for that message contain no blank
line, nor is it present on the newsreader function in Entourage.

Does it mess up your ability to view the text and/or picture?

> I've reported it to the "Hogwasher" developers, let's see what, if
> anything, happens.

In my experience, Asar are exceedingly prompt at responding. I once reported
a very rare problem with Hogwasher and they diagnosed it and replied to me
within 24 hours. Mind you, my experience is limited as normally Hogwasher
just works.

[Gary R. Schmidt]

Netko wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Oct 2009 15:49:12 +0100, Gary R. Schmidt wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> See that blank line up there, 'tween the Xref and Message-ID headers?
>> It's an error.
>
> Interesting, even though I have no idea of its significance or practical
> effect. Curiously, Hogwasher's headers for that message contain no blank
> line, nor is it present on the newsreader function in Entourage.
Well, the RFCs say that a message header is terminated by a line that is
empty _or_ consists of only whitespace (i.e. logically empty), so
software written to that stops thinking and just tries to display what
follows, but as the "Content-Type" header appears in the body of the
message it is not parsed so the message is not displayed correctly.

> Does it mess up your ability to view the text and/or picture?
Yes, the messages are malformed, Thunderbird just sees as a
"message/partial" attachment.

It looks like it only appears in the *first* part of a multi-part
posting, single-part postings do *not* show the problem.

Hmm, I'll rephrase that to "two part posts", I wonder what happens with
three?

>> I've reported it to the "Hogwasher" developers, let's see what, if
>> anything, happens.
>
> In my experience, Asar are exceedingly prompt at responding. I once reported
> a very rare problem with Hogwasher and they diagnosed it and replied to me
> within 24 hours. Mind you, my experience is limited as normally Hogwasher
> just works.
Hopefully they will respond to a message from a non-user. (No response
as yet.)

Cheers,
Gary B-)

[Netko]

On Fri, 2 Oct 2009 14:05:27 +0100, Gary R. Schmidt wrote
(in article >):

> It looks like it only appears in the *first* part of a multi-part
> posting, single-part postings do *not* show the problem.
>
> Hmm, I'll rephrase that to "two part posts", I wonder what happens with
> three?

I'll post a picture in a moment which has a reduced part size, my intention
being to force it into three parts. Then we'll know for sure.

[Netko]

[Netko]

[Netko]

[Gary R. Schmidt]

Netko wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Oct 2009 14:05:27 +0100, Gary R. Schmidt wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> It looks like it only appears in the *first* part of a multi-part
>> posting, single-part postings do *not* show the problem.
>>
>> Hmm, I'll rephrase that to "two part posts", I wonder what happens with
>> three?
>
> I'll post a picture in a moment which has a reduced part size, my intention
> being to force it into three parts. Then we'll know for sure.
>
Amusing - the *first* post has the blank line in the header, the second
and third posts do *not* have the blank line in the headers.

So, by extrapolation, only the _first_ post in a multi-part post is
malformed.

Cheers,
Gary B-)

[Indrek Aavisto]

These are excellent pictures.

I'm wondering why you post many of them in multiple parts, though. The file
sizes look as though they would be OK without the need to break them up.

Cheers,

Indrek Aavisto


--
Criticism is easy; achievement is difficult. W.S. Churchill

[Lee[_10_]]

"Indrek Aavisto" > wrote in
:

> These are excellent pictures.
>
> I'm wondering why you post many of them in multiple parts, though. The
> file sizes look as though they would be OK without the need to break
> them up.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Indrek Aavisto
>
>


I'm not knocking Netko's efforts!!

But that is a seriously BAD photoshopping.

There's only TWO in the picture for one thing...
(Compare 1 and 3)

They look like a *literal* cut n' paste job.


OK, I'm through... guess I need another coffee!

[Netko]

On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 14:53:16 +0100, Indrek Aavisto wrote
(in article >):

> These are excellent pictures.

Glad you like them. All credit, of course, goes to the original, anonymous
photographers and the web sites I scavenged them from.

> I'm wondering why you post many of them in multiple parts, though. The file
> sizes look as though they would be OK without the need to break them up.

The 3-parter J-11 wallpaper test was just that - a test of a three part post.
The others used my newsreader's (larger) default part size for posting
attachments (with some odd-looking results, I notice).

I'll up the size of each part and post another Chinese wallpaper of similar
size to this, hopefully in one part. However, my understanding is that some
servers may reject messages with attachments over a certain size.

[Indrek Aavisto]

N> On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 14:53:16 +0100, Indrek Aavisto wrote
N> (in article >):

>> These are excellent pictures.

N> Glad you like them. All credit, of course, goes to the original,
N> anonymous
N> photographers and the web sites I scavenged them from.

>> I'm wondering why you post many of them in multiple parts, though. The
>> file
>> sizes look as though they would be OK without the need to break them
>> up.

N> The 3-parter J-11 wallpaper test was just that - a test of a three
N> part post.
N> The others used my newsreader's (larger) default part size for
N> posting
N> attachments (with some odd-looking results, I notice).

N> I'll up the size of each part and post another Chinese wallpaper of
N> similar
N> size to this, hopefully in one part. However, my understanding is
N> that some
N> servers may reject messages with attachments over a certain size.

Thanks for the response. Yes, some servers don't like very large files, but
I think you will be OK if you stay under 500K for an image.

Cheers,

Indrek Aavisto


--
Criticism is easy; achievement is difficult. W.S. Churchill

[Mike Mackenzie]

"Indrek Aavisto" > wrote (in part):

>These are excellent pictures.
>
>I'm wondering why you post many of them in multiple parts, though. The file
>sizes look as though they would be OK without the need to break them up.

I don't know why, but each of Indrek's photos appeared on my server as
single part - even though some were annotated (*/2) or (*/3). The
biggest one was only 242 KB, which is small enough to be accepted by
any server I know of.

Nice pics.

--
Mike Mackenzie (AVCOM Services)
Brisbane, AUSTRALIA
Remove "XYZ" from the "Reply to" address when responding by email.

[RustY ©]

"Mike Mackenzie" > wrote in message
...
>
> I don't know why, but each of Indrek's photos appeared on my server as
> single part - even though some were annotated (*/2) or (*/3). The
> biggest one was only 242 KB, which is small enough to be accepted by
> any server I know of.


This highlights the main problem with multi-part files, some servers loose
bits of the photo. Much better to post as one part even if you have to
reduce the quality to get under the magical 1Mb size barrier.

[Indrek Aavisto]

>>These are excellent pictures.

>>I'm wondering why you post many of them in multiple parts, though. The
>>file
>>sizes look as though they would be OK without the need to break them
>>up.

MM> I don't know why, but each of Indrek's photos appeared on my server
MM> as
MM> single part - even though some were annotated (*/2) or (*/3). The
MM> biggest one was only 242 KB, which is small enough to be accepted by
MM> any server I know of.

MM> Nice pics.

Thanks for the comments.

I use Power Post to post batches of pictures to the group. The software
labels each image with the batch title and the number in the sequence so
that people will know if they have received all the pictures in the batch. I
agree that this convention may cause some confusion, but opening 1/* will
quickly demonstrate that the posts do not need to be combined.

Cheers,

Indrek Aavisto


--
Criticism is easy; achievement is difficult. W.S. Churchill

[Garrapata]

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 08:50:58 GMT, Mike Mackenzie > wrote:

>
>I don't know why, but each of Indrek's photos appeared on my server as
>single part - even though some were annotated (*/2) or (*/3)........................

Agent is smart enough to join multi-part posts
--

09=ix

[Mike Mackenzie]

Garrapata > wrote (in part):

>On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 08:50:58 GMT, Mike Mackenzie > wrote:
>
>>
>>I don't know why, but each of Indrek's photos appeared on my server as
>>single part - even though some were annotated (*/2) or (*/3)........................
>
>Agent is smart enough to join multi-part posts

Yes, I know. But even Agent can't join parts when all I have
downloaded is the headers ;-)

--
Mike Mackenzie (AVCOM Services)
Brisbane, AUSTRALIA
Remove "XYZ" from the "Reply to" address when responding by email.

[RustY ©]

"Mike Mackenzie" > wrote in message
...
>
>...............even Agent can't join parts when all I have
> downloaded is the headers ;-)
>

And some of the headers are missing too.