468,133 Members | 1,156 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 468,133 developers. It's quick & easy.

Session or browser problem??

sw
Hi all,

I have a news website tat is developed on joomla 1.5.Login facility is
done thru a login component.On each page,ther s a 'Log In' link that
redirects them to a login page.On successful login,user details are
set in session as well as cookies and then redirected back to d
referring page.The 'Log In' section changes to 'Welcome user',along
wid a 'Log Out' link.All this works d same in IE 6 as well as in FF
2.The difference comes durin log out action.

In FF,on clickin 'Log Out',the required session vars are set '' as
well as cookies in d component and then redirected back to referring
page.The login bar changes back to 'Log in'.But in IE,once redirected
from the component,the page still shows the login bar as 'Welcome
user'.Only if i manually click the refresh button (of IE), the page
gets refreshed and the login bar shows logged out status.

Any help wud be highly appreciated...

Oct 28 '07 #1
105 5102
sw@bglore wrote:
Hi all,

I have a news website tat is developed on joomla 1.5.Login facility is
done thru a login component.On each page,ther s a 'Log In' link that
redirects them to a login page.On successful login,user details are
set in session as well as cookies and then redirected back to d
referring page.The 'Log In' section changes to 'Welcome user',along
wid a 'Log Out' link.All this works d same in IE 6 as well as in FF
2.The difference comes durin log out action.

In FF,on clickin 'Log Out',the required session vars are set '' as
well as cookies in d component and then redirected back to referring
page.The login bar changes back to 'Log in'.But in IE,once redirected
from the component,the page still shows the login bar as 'Welcome
user'.Only if i manually click the refresh button (of IE), the page
gets refreshed and the login bar shows logged out status.

Any help wud be highly appreciated...

And your PHP programming question is?

Try the Joomla support groups.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================

Oct 28 '07 #2
Hi,

Try using session_cache_limiter('nocache') before session_start. This
will tell the browser not to cache the page.

Regards,
John Peters

On Oct 28, 5:21 am, "sw@bglore" <pranav.k...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi all,

I have a news website tat is developed on joomla 1.5.Login facility is
done thru a login component.On each page,ther s a 'Log In' link that
redirects them to a login page.On successful login,user details are
set in session as well as cookies and then redirected back to d
referring page.The 'Log In' section changes to 'Welcome user',along
wid a 'Log Out' link.All this works d same in IE 6 as well as in FF
2.The difference comes durin log out action.

In FF,on clickin 'Log Out',the required session vars are set '' as
well as cookies in d component and then redirected back to referring
page.The login bar changes back to 'Log in'.But in IE,once redirected
from the component,the page still shows the login bar as 'Welcome
user'.Only if i manually click the refresh button (of IE), the page
gets refreshed and the login bar shows logged out status.

Any help wud be highly appreciated...

Oct 29 '07 #3
sw
Thanks 4 d help..but tat dint help.
I found tis particulr code in the application wher d sessions wher
restartd.
session_cache_limiter('none');
session_start();

// Send modified header for IE 6.0 Security Policy
header('P3P: CP="NOI ADM DEV PSAi COM NAV OUR OTRo STP IND DEM"');

I tried commentin out d header..but dint help.I wud like to know
whethr the abov header s correct.

Oct 29 '07 #4
petersprc wrote:
On Oct 28, 5:21 am, "sw@bglore" <pranav.k...@gmail.comwrote:
>Hi all,

I have a news website tat is developed on joomla 1.5.Login facility is
done thru a login component.On each page,ther s a 'Log In' link that
redirects them to a login page.On successful login,user details are
set in session as well as cookies and then redirected back to d
referring page.The 'Log In' section changes to 'Welcome user',along
wid a 'Log Out' link.All this works d same in IE 6 as well as in FF
2.The difference comes durin log out action.

In FF,on clickin 'Log Out',the required session vars are set '' as
well as cookies in d component and then redirected back to referring
page.The login bar changes back to 'Log in'.But in IE,once redirected
from the component,the page still shows the login bar as 'Welcome
user'.Only if i manually click the refresh button (of IE), the page
gets refreshed and the login bar shows logged out status.

Any help wud be highly appreciated...

Hi,

Try using session_cache_limiter('nocache') before session_start. This
will tell the browser not to cache the page.

Regards,
John Peters
(Top posting fixed)

Which the browser can ignore, unfortunately. And even if the browser
doesn't ignore the cache, any of the systems between the client and the
server could cache it.

How I wish it did work properly.

P.S. Please don't top post.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================

Oct 29 '07 #5
Try using 'nocache' instead of 'none'. This will set the Cache-
Control, Expires, and Pragma headers as below. The 'none' value won't
define any additional cache headers.

Expires: Thu, 19 Nov 1981 08:52:00 GMT
Cache-Control: no-store, no-cache, must-revalidate, post-check=0,
pre-check=0
Pragma: no-cache

On Oct 29, 5:29 am, "sw@bglore" <pranav.k...@gmail.comwrote:
Thanks 4 d help..but tat dint help.
I found tis particulr code in the application wher d sessions wher
restartd.

session_cache_limiter('none');
session_start();

// Send modified header for IE 6.0 Security Policy
header('P3P: CP="NOI ADM DEV PSAi COM NAV OUR OTRo STP IND DEM"');

I tried commentin out d header..but dint help.I wud like to know
whethr the abov header s correct.


Oct 29 '07 #6
sw
On Oct 29, 9:58 pm, petersprc <peters...@gmail.comwrote:
Try using 'nocache' instead of 'none'. This will set the Cache-
Control, Expires, and Pragma headers as below. The 'none' value won't
define any additional cache headers.

Expires: Thu, 19 Nov 1981 08:52:00 GMT
Cache-Control: no-store, no-cache, must-revalidate, post-check=0,
pre-check=0
Pragma: no-cache

On Oct 29, 5:29 am, "sw@bglore" <pranav.k...@gmail.comwrote:
Thanks 4 d help..but tat dint help.
I found tis particulr code in the application wher d sessions wher
restartd.
session_cache_limiter('none');
session_start();
// Send modified header for IE 6.0 Security Policy
header('P3P: CP="NOI ADM DEV PSAi COM NAV OUR OTRo STP IND DEM"');
I tried commentin out d header..but dint help.I wud like to know
whethr the abov header s correct.
I am not kind of sure as to whethr it is a cache problem.Because wen a
user clicks on 'Log In',he s redirected to login page.If he has
successfully logged in,requird sessions 'n cookies r set and then
redirected back to referring page.At this point,the referrin page
shows the correct user name from session/cookie.
Wen clickin 'Log Out',the control goes to login function,sessions 'n
cookies r reset and then redirectd back to referrin page.At this
point,the referrin page still shows the username 'n not d logged out
status.Y does d cache comes in2 picture durin log out action 'n not
durin login action?

Oct 30 '07 #7
The login request is submitting a form.

On Oct 30, 12:41 am, "sw@bglore" <pranav.k...@gmail.comwrote:
On Oct 29, 9:58 pm, petersprc <peters...@gmail.comwrote:
Try using 'nocache' instead of 'none'. This will set the Cache-
Control, Expires, and Pragma headers as below. The 'none' value won't
define any additional cache headers.
Expires: Thu, 19 Nov 1981 08:52:00 GMT
Cache-Control: no-store, no-cache, must-revalidate, post-check=0,
pre-check=0
Pragma: no-cache
On Oct 29, 5:29 am, "sw@bglore" <pranav.k...@gmail.comwrote:
Thanks 4 d help..but tat dint help.
I found tis particulr code in the application wher d sessions wher
restartd.
session_cache_limiter('none');
session_start();
// Send modified header for IE 6.0 Security Policy
header('P3P: CP="NOI ADM DEV PSAi COM NAV OUR OTRo STP IND DEM"');
I tried commentin out d header..but dint help.I wud like to know
whethr the abov header s correct.

I am not kind of sure as to whethr it is a cache problem.Because wen a
user clicks on 'Log In',he s redirected to login page.If he has
successfully logged in,requird sessions 'n cookies r set and then
redirected back to referring page.At this point,the referrin page
shows the correct user name from session/cookie.
Wen clickin 'Log Out',the control goes to login function,sessions 'n
cookies r reset and then redirectd back to referrin page.At this
point,the referrin page still shows the username 'n not d logged out
status.Y does d cache comes in2 picture durin log out action 'n not
durin login action?

Oct 30 '07 #8
This combination of headers will be honored by most hosts/proxies. In
a situation where it's not, you can try using URL-based sessions or
putting your site under https.

On Oct 29, 6:24 am, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.netwrote:
petersprc wrote:
On Oct 28, 5:21 am, "sw@bglore" <pranav.k...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi all,
I have a news website tat is developed on joomla 1.5.Login facility is
done thru a login component.On each page,ther s a 'Log In' link that
redirects them to a login page.On successful login,user details are
set in session as well as cookies and then redirected back to d
referring page.The 'Log In' section changes to 'Welcome user',along
wid a 'Log Out' link.All this works d same in IE 6 as well as in FF
2.The difference comes durin log out action.
In FF,on clickin 'Log Out',the required session vars are set '' as
well as cookies in d component and then redirected back to referring
page.The login bar changes back to 'Log in'.But in IE,once redirected
from the component,the page still shows the login bar as 'Welcome
user'.Only if i manually click the refresh button (of IE), the page
gets refreshed and the login bar shows logged out status.
Any help wud be highly appreciated...
Hi,
>
Try using session_cache_limiter('nocache') before session_start. This
will tell the browser not to cache the page.
>
Regards,
John Peters
>

(Top posting fixed)

Which the browser can ignore, unfortunately. And even if the browser
doesn't ignore the cache, any of the systems between the client and the
server could cache it.

How I wish it did work properly.

P.S. Please don't top post.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstuck...@attglobal.net
==================

Oct 30 '07 #9
petersprc wrote:
On Oct 29, 6:24 am, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.netwrote:
>petersprc wrote:
> >
Try using session_cache_limiter('nocache') before session_start. This
will tell the browser not to cache the page.

Regards,
John Peters

(Top posting fixed)

Which the browser can ignore, unfortunately. And even if the browser
doesn't ignore the cache, any of the systems between the client and the
server could cache it.

How I wish it did work properly.

P.S. Please don't top post.
This combination of headers will be honored by most hosts/proxies. In
a situation where it's not, you can try using URL-based sessions or
putting your site under https.
(Top posting fixed - again).

Not necessarily. Some do, some don't. And in some cases it depends on
the browser settings. The same is true with https:.

But this should be discussed in alt.html - this is not a PHP problem.

And again - please don't top post. This group uses bottom posting or
interwoven posting.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================

Oct 30 '07 #10
There are no clients in widespread use that behave the way you
describe. This is an http issue, not html.

On Oct 30, 8:32 am, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.netwrote:
petersprc wrote:
On Oct 29, 6:24 am, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.netwrote:
petersprc wrote:
Try using session_cache_limiter('nocache') before session_start. This
will tell the browser not to cache the page.
Regards,
John Peters
(Top posting fixed)
Which the browser can ignore, unfortunately. And even if the browser
doesn't ignore the cache, any of the systems between the client and the
server could cache it.
How I wish it did work properly.
P.S. Please don't top post.
This combination of headers will be honored by most hosts/proxies. In
a situation where it's not, you can try using URL-based sessions or
putting your site under https.
>

(Top posting fixed - again).

Not necessarily. Some do, some don't. And in some cases it depends on
the browser settings. The same is true with https:.

But this should be discussed in alt.html - this is not a PHP problem.

And again - please don't top post. This group uses bottom posting or
interwoven posting.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstuck...@attglobal.net
==================

Oct 30 '07 #11
petersprc wrote:
On Oct 30, 8:32 am, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.netwrote:
>petersprc wrote:
>>On Oct 29, 6:24 am, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.netwrote:
petersprc wrote:
Try using session_cache_limiter('nocache') before session_start. This
will tell the browser not to cache the page.
Regards,
John Peters
(Top posting fixed)
Which the browser can ignore, unfortunately. And even if the browser
doesn't ignore the cache, any of the systems between the client and the
server could cache it.
How I wish it did work properly.
P.S. Please don't top post.
This combination of headers will be honored by most hosts/proxies. In
a situation where it's not, you can try using URL-based sessions or
putting your site under https.

(Top posting fixed - again).

Not necessarily. Some do, some don't. And in some cases it depends on
the browser settings. The same is true with https:.

But this should be discussed in alt.html - this is not a PHP problem.

And again - please don't top post. This group uses bottom posting or
interwoven posting.
There are no clients in widespread use that behave the way you
describe. This is an http issue, not html.
From someone who can't learn not to top post.

You're right, http is involved. But the nocache command is an html tag
and governs how the browser and hosts operate.

And you really should learn about clients and hosts.

A. Maybe because they're too lazy to go to the end of the message before
posting.
Q. So why do they do it?
A. Because it upsets the flow of the conversation
Q. Why is top posting bad?
A. People who top post.
Q. Who are the most annoying people on usenet?
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================

Oct 30 '07 #12
This is incorrect. The no-cache keyword is an http directive not an
html tag. See the spec:

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/...html#sec14.9.1
http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.0/spec.html#Pragma

You may be thinking of the meta tag which can be used to accomplish
roughly the same thing but is not as reliable.
You're right, http is involved. But the nocache command is an html tag
and governs how the browser and hosts operate.

And you really should learn about clients and hosts.

A. Maybe because they're too lazy to go to the end of the message before
posting.
Q. So why do they do it?
A. Because it upsets the flow of the conversation
Q. Why is top posting bad?
A. People who top post.
Q. Who are the most annoying people on usenet?

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstuck...@attglobal.net
==================

Oct 30 '07 #13
petersprc wrote:
>You're right, http is involved. But the nocache command is an html tag
and governs how the browser and hosts operate.

And you really should learn about clients and hosts.

A. Maybe because they're too lazy to go to the end of the message before
posting.
Q. So why do they do it?
A. Because it upsets the flow of the conversation
Q. Why is top posting bad?
A. People who top post.
Q. Who are the most annoying people on usenet?
This is incorrect. The no-cache keyword is an http directive not an
html tag. See the spec:

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/...html#sec14.9.1
http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.0/spec.html#Pragma

You may be thinking of the meta tag which can be used to accomplish
roughly the same thing but is not as reliable.

If you can't learn not to top post, I'm not going to discuss this with
you any further.

As I said before. The standard for this newsgroup is bottom or
interwoven posting. You will get few people to talk to you here if you
continue to top post.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================

Oct 30 '07 #14
there is no "standard" posting style as long as it's clear and
understandable! top-posting is fine. bottom-posting is good too. it's a
matter of individual preference.... your whining is way off-topic. this has
nothing to do with the OP's question.

--Jackie S

"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attglobal.netwrote
As I said before. The standard for this newsgroup is bottom or interwoven
posting. You will get few people to talk to you here if you continue to
top post.

Oct 31 '07 #15
On 31/10/2007 in message <13*************@news.supernews.comJackie Silva
wrote:
>there is no "standard" posting style as long as it's clear and
understandable! top-posting is fine. bottom-posting is good too. it's a
matter of individual preference.... your whining is way off-topic. this
has nothing to do with the OP's question.
It would be more accurate to say that relative newcomers are unaware of
the conventions, or the reasons for them.

Try a Google for 'netiquette'.

>--Jackie S
There's also a standard for signature separators, you don't meet that
either.

--
Jeff Gaines Damerham Hampshire UK
This is as bad as it can get, but don't bet on it
Oct 31 '07 #16
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 07:55:43 +0100, Jackie Silva <ma*********@yahoo.com>
wrote:
"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attglobal.netwrote
>As I said before. The standard for this newsgroup is bottom or
interwoven
posting. You will get few people to talk to you here if you continue to
top post.
there is no "standard" posting style as long as it's clear and
understandable! top-posting is fine. bottom-posting is good too. it's a
matter of individual preference.... your whining is way off-topic. this
has
nothing to do with the OP's question.
Argument has been done over and over again. Do you use OE Quotefix? If
not: install that thingy, it will whip MSOE in shape, acting more like a
standard newsreader, and a lot will become clear.
--
Rik Wasmus
Oct 31 '07 #17
Jackie Silva wrote:
"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attglobal.netwrote
>As I said before. The standard for this newsgroup is bottom or interwoven
posting. You will get few people to talk to you here if you continue to
top post.

there is no "standard" posting style as long as it's clear and
understandable! top-posting is fine. bottom-posting is good too. it's a
matter of individual preference.... your whining is way off-topic.
this has
nothing to do with the OP's question.

--Jackie S
(Top posting fixed)

Yes, there is, and you have to look at each newsgroup. The standard in
this newsgroup is bottom or interwoven posting.

It's a matter of *group* preference, not *individual* preference.

But continue top posting - you won't get a lot of response.

And your comment added absolutely nothing to the conversation - except
to show you don't understand what you're doing.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================

Oct 31 '07 #18
sw
On Oct 31, 2:17 pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.netwrote:
Jackie Silva wrote:
"Jerry Stuckle" <jstuck...@attglobal.netwrote
As I said before. The standard for this newsgroup is bottom or interwoven
posting. You will get few people to talk to you here if you continue to
top post.
there is no "standard" posting style as long as it's clear and
understandable! top-posting is fine. bottom-posting is good too. it's a
matter of individual preference.... your whining is way off-topic.
this has
nothing to do with the OP's question.
>
--Jackie S
>

(Top posting fixed)

Yes, there is, and you have to look at each newsgroup. The standard in
this newsgroup is bottom or interwoven posting.

It's a matter of *group* preference, not *individual* preference.

But continue top posting - you won't get a lot of response.

And your comment added absolutely nothing to the conversation - except
to show you don't understand what you're doing.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstuck...@attglobal.net
==================
I think tat my problem has gone way out of d picture here.

Anyways, somehow got the problem solved just by including few lines of
code at the point of logout.The IE browser was always takin the copy
of d referrin page frm the cache after logout and not frm the
server.Hence,to bypass d cache,i always appended a parameter to the
referring URL tat has a random values.Tis tuk care tat the browser
always sends a new request to the server for the referring page and ll
display the logged out status.

References : http://www.rgagnon.com/jsdetails/js-0014.html
http://www.crackajax.net/cachebust.php






Oct 31 '07 #19
there are multiple posting conventions used on usenet. read up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style

your arguments against one posting style are based on the original techical
limitations of usenet.

"Jeff Gaines" <jg************@yahoo.co.ukwrote in message
news:xn****************@news.individual.net...
On 31/10/2007 in message <13*************@news.supernews.comJackie Silva
wrote:
>>there is no "standard" posting style as long as it's clear and
understandable! top-posting is fine. bottom-posting is good too. it's a
matter of individual preference.... your whining is way off-topic. this
has nothing to do with the OP's question.

It would be more accurate to say that relative newcomers are unaware of
the conventions, or the reasons for them.

Try a Google for 'netiquette'.

>>--Jackie S

There's also a standard for signature separators, you don't meet that
either.

--
Jeff Gaines Damerham Hampshire UK
This is as bad as it can get, but don't bet on it

Oct 31 '07 #20
"Rik Wasmus" <lu************@hotmail.comwrote
Argument has been done over and over again.
true, it is a favorite flamewar topic. like emacs vs. vi, or 2 spaces vs. 4
spaces indentation.
Oct 31 '07 #21
you mis-quoted me in your response! a professional editor would cry at the
amateurish way you cut-and-paste quotes together.

there are plenty of posters who use top style in this ng. do you really
think you can convince anyone to use your personal preference, especially
when you can't even quote properly yourself?

--Jackie S

"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attglobal.netwrote
Yes, there is, and you have to look at each newsgroup. The standard in
this newsgroup is bottom or interwoven posting.

Oct 31 '07 #22
On 31 Oct, 15:56, "Jackie Silva" <maritanl...@yahoo.comwrote:
there are plenty of posters who use top style in this ng.
No there are only a few others as ignorant as you who do his. The vast
majority of posters here are sensible.

Oct 31 '07 #23
Greetings, Jackie Silva.
In reply to Your message dated Wednesday, October 31, 2007, 18:48:30,
there are multiple posting conventions used on usenet. read up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
your arguments against one posting style are based on the original techical
limitations of usenet.
Please don't top-post.
It is hard to read and understand.
Period.
--
Sincerely Yours, AnrDaemon <an*******@freemail.ru>

Oct 31 '07 #24
what kind of reading problems are you having?

"AnrDaemon" <an*******@freemail.ruwrote
Please don't top-post.
It is hard to read and understand.
Period.


Oct 31 '07 #25
you misspelled "this" and should have a comma after "No". do you spell check
your posts?

"Captain Paralytic" <pa**********@yahoo.comwrote
No there are only a few others as ignorant as you who do his. The vast
majority of posters here are sensible.


Oct 31 '07 #26
Jackie Silva wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jg************@yahoo.co.ukwrote in message
news:xn****************@news.individual.net...
>On 31/10/2007 in message <13*************@news.supernews.comJackie Silva
wrote:
>>there is no "standard" posting style as long as it's clear and
understandable! top-posting is fine. bottom-posting is good too. it's a
matter of individual preference.... your whining is way off-topic. this
has nothing to do with the OP's question.
It would be more accurate to say that relative newcomers are unaware of
the conventions, or the reasons for them.

Try a Google for 'netiquette'.

>>--Jackie S
There's also a standard for signature separators, you don't meet that
either.

--
Jeff Gaines Damerham Hampshire UK
This is as bad as it can get, but don't bet on it

there are multiple posting conventions used on usenet. read up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style

your arguments against one posting style are based on the original
techical
limitations of usenet.
(Top posting fixed)

No, my arguments are based on the STANDARDS OF THIS GROUP.

And idiots who refuse to follow standards don't get many responses in
this group.

Your arguments for top posting are based on being too lazy to scroll to
the bottom of the page before you start posting.

A. Because they're arrogant jerks.
Q. Why do they continue doing it?
A. Because it upsets the normal flow of the conversation.
Q. Why is top posting bad?
A. People who top post.
Q. Why are the most annoying people on usenet?
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================

Oct 31 '07 #27
Jackie Silva wrote:
"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attglobal.netwrote
>Yes, there is, and you have to look at each newsgroup. The standard in
this newsgroup is bottom or interwoven posting.


you mis-quoted me in your response! a professional editor would cry
at the
amateurish way you cut-and-paste quotes together.

there are plenty of posters who use top style in this ng. do you really
think you can convince anyone to use your personal preference,
especially
when you can't even quote properly yourself?

--Jackie S
Read again. There are very few top posters in this newsgroup. Most
people follow the newsgroup standards.

Right now we have two. And guess who's one of them?
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================

Oct 31 '07 #28
Captain Paralytic wrote:
On 31 Oct, 15:56, "Jackie Silva" <maritanl...@yahoo.comwrote:
>there are plenty of posters who use top style in this ng.
No there are only a few others as ignorant as you who do his. The vast
majority of posters here are sensible.

Paul, I have now come to the conclusion he's a troll.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================

Oct 31 '07 #29
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 10:09:26 +0100, Jeff Gaines
<jg************@yahoo.co.ukwrote:
On 31/10/2007 in message <13*************@news.supernews.comJackie
Silva wrote:
>there is no "standard" posting style as long as it's clear and
understandable! top-posting is fine. bottom-posting is good too. it's a
matter of individual preference.... your whining is way off-topic. this
has nothing to do with the OP's question.

It would be more accurate to say that relative newcomers are unaware of
the conventions, or the reasons for them.

Try a Google for 'netiquette'.

>--Jackie S

There's also a standard for signature separators, you don't meet that
either.
Actually, by the grace of his broken sig seperator I can still easily
quote his quotes. If it wouldn't be for that I'd have to jump through some
hoops, as his whole quote qould be considered one big signature :)
--
Rik Wasmus
Oct 31 '07 #30
Top posting is preferable in many instances. However, the top posting vs. bottom posting debate is as old as Usenet itself and to this day continues to incite religious wars with each side claiming ultimate supremacy. A better question is why is this debate taking place in a php group?

--
JamesCX DiPietro (cdgzone at gmail.com)

Jeff Gaines <jg************@yahoo.co.ukwrote:
On 31/10/2007 in message <13*************@news.supernews.comJackie Silva
wrote:
>>there is no "standard" posting style as long as it's clear and
understandable! top-posting is fine. bottom-posting is good too. it's a
matter of individual preference.... your whining is way off-topic. this
has nothing to do with the OP's question.

It would be more accurate to say that relative newcomers are unaware of
the conventions, or the reasons for them.

Try a Google for 'netiquette'.

>>--Jackie S

There's also a standard for signature separators, you don't meet that
either.
Oct 31 '07 #31
why do you insist on misquoting people when you respond?

"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attglobal.netwrote in message
news:ap******************************@comcast.com. ..
Jackie Silva wrote:
>"Jeff Gaines" <jg************@yahoo.co.ukwrote in message
news:xn****************@news.individual.net...
>>On 31/10/2007 in message <13*************@news.supernews.comJackie
Silva wrote:

there is no "standard" posting style as long as it's clear and
understandable! top-posting is fine. bottom-posting is good too. it's a
matter of individual preference.... your whining is way off-topic. this
has nothing to do with the OP's question.
It would be more accurate to say that relative newcomers are unaware of
the conventions, or the reasons for them.

Try a Google for 'netiquette'.
--Jackie S
There's also a standard for signature separators, you don't meet that
either.

--
Jeff Gaines Damerham Hampshire UK
This is as bad as it can get, but don't bet on it


there are multiple posting conventions used on usenet. read up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style

your arguments against one posting style are based on the original
techical
limitations of usenet.

(Top posting fixed)

No, my arguments are based on the STANDARDS OF THIS GROUP.

And idiots who refuse to follow standards don't get many responses in this
group.

Your arguments for top posting are based on being too lazy to scroll to
the bottom of the page before you start posting.

A. Because they're arrogant jerks.
Q. Why do they continue doing it?
A. Because it upsets the normal flow of the conversation.
Q. Why is top posting bad?
A. People who top post.
Q. Why are the most annoying people on usenet?
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================

Oct 31 '07 #32
try a quick google for stuckle, you might find it interesting.

"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attglobal.netwrote in message
news:ap******************************@comcast.com. ..
Captain Paralytic wrote:
>On 31 Oct, 15:56, "Jackie Silva" <maritanl...@yahoo.comwrote:
>>there are plenty of posters who use top style in this ng.
No there are only a few others as ignorant as you who do his. The vast
majority of posters here are sensible.


Paul, I have now come to the conclusion he's a troll.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================

Oct 31 '07 #33
Rik Wasmus wrote:
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 10:09:26 +0100, Jeff Gaines
<jg************@yahoo.co.ukwrote:
>On 31/10/2007 in message <13*************@news.supernews.comJackie
Silva wrote:
>>--Jackie S

There's also a standard for signature separators, you don't meet that
either.

Actually, by the grace of his broken sig seperator I can still easily
quote his quotes. If it wouldn't be for that I'd have to jump through
some hoops, as his whole quote qould be considered one big signature
:)
Rik, I tried doing the "right" sig for a while but it didn't do work. I'll
do it now and tell me if it works.

--
Shelly
Oct 31 '07 #34
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:33:08 +0100, Shelly
<sh************@asap-consult.comwrote:
Rik Wasmus wrote:
>On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 10:09:26 +0100, Jeff Gaines
<jg************@yahoo.co.ukwrote:
>>On 31/10/2007 in message <13*************@news.supernews.comJackie
Silva wrote:
--Jackie S

There's also a standard for signature separators, you don't meet that
either.

Actually, by the grace of his broken sig seperator I can still easily
quote his quotes. If it wouldn't be for that I'd have to jump through
some hoops, as his whole quote qould be considered one big signature
:)

Rik, I tried doing the "right" sig for a while but it didn't do work.
I'll
do it now and tell me if it works.
Works perfectly, at least in Opera, dash-dash-space-newline in the source,
so a decent reader should recognize it without any trouble.
--
Rik Wasmus
Oct 31 '07 #35
Actually, some popular newsreaders will hide the quotes in certain cases.

--
JamesCX DiPietro (cdgzone at gmail.com)

Rik Wasmus <lu************@hotmail.comwrote:
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 07:55:43 +0100, Jackie Silva <ma*********@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attglobal.netwrote
>>As I said before. The standard for this newsgroup is bottom or
interwoven
posting. You will get few people to talk to you here if you continue to
top post.
there is no "standard" posting style as long as it's clear and
understandable! top-posting is fine. bottom-posting is good too. it's a
matter of individual preference.... your whining is way off-topic. this
has
nothing to do with the OP's question.

Argument has been done over and over again. Do you use OE Quotefix? If
not: install that thingy, it will whip MSOE in shape, acting more like a
standard newsreader, and a lot will become clear.
Oct 31 '07 #36
Rik Wasmus wrote:
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:33:08 +0100, Shelly
<sh************@asap-consult.comwrote:
>Rik Wasmus wrote:
>>On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 10:09:26 +0100, Jeff Gaines
<jg************@yahoo.co.ukwrote:

On 31/10/2007 in message <13*************@news.supernews.com>
Jackie Silva wrote:
--Jackie S

There's also a standard for signature separators, you don't meet
that either.

Actually, by the grace of his broken sig seperator I can still
easily quote his quotes. If it wouldn't be for that I'd have to
jump through some hoops, as his whole quote qould be considered one
big signature :)

Rik, I tried doing the "right" sig for a while but it didn't do work.
I'll
do it now and tell me if it works.

Works perfectly, at least in Opera, dash-dash-space-newline in the
source, so a decent reader should recognize it without any trouble.
One last question. Did you cut my sig, or was it done automatically? Yours
was done automatically when I hit "Reply Group".

--
Shelly
Oct 31 '07 #37
JamesCX DiPietro <cd*****@gmail.comwrote in news:5ortjoFo9u6fU1
@mid.individual.net:
Actually, some popular newsreaders will hide the quotes in certain cases.
if only they'd fix top-posting
Oct 31 '07 #38
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:56:30 +0100, Shelly
<sh************@asap-consult.comwrote:
Rik Wasmus wrote:
>On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:33:08 +0100, Shelly
<sh************@asap-consult.comwrote:
>>Rik Wasmus wrote:
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 10:09:26 +0100, Jeff Gaines
<jg************@yahoo.co.ukwrote:

On 31/10/2007 in message <13*************@news.supernews.com>
Jackie Silva wrote:
>--Jackie S
>
There's also a standard for signature separators, you don't meet
that either.

Actually, by the grace of his broken sig seperator I can still
easily quote his quotes. If it wouldn't be for that I'd have to
jump through some hoops, as his whole quote qould be considered one
big signature :)

Rik, I tried doing the "right" sig for a while but it didn't do work.
I'll
do it now and tell me if it works.

Works perfectly, at least in Opera, dash-dash-space-newline in the
source, so a decent reader should recognize it without any trouble.

One last question. Did you cut my sig, or was it done automatically?
Yours
was done automatically when I hit "Reply Group".
Yup, one of the advantages. (Which makes it a pain to quote topposters
with correct sig seperators, fortunately a rare combination)
--
Rik Wasmus
Oct 31 '07 #39
Jerry, you don't speak for this newsgroup. I'm not surprised you've trashed another thread with one of your off-topic flamefests. It's a fruitless exercise that has no place here.

--
JamesCX DiPietro (cdgzone at gmail.com)

Jerry Stuckle <js*******@attglobal.netwrote:
Jackie Silva wrote:
>"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attglobal.netwrote
>>As I said before. The standard for this newsgroup is bottom or interwoven
posting. You will get few people to talk to you here if you continue to
top post.

there is no "standard" posting style as long as it's clear and
understandable! top-posting is fine. bottom-posting is good too. it's a
matter of individual preference.... your whining is way off-topic.
this has
nothing to do with the OP's question.

--Jackie S

(Top posting fixed)

Yes, there is, and you have to look at each newsgroup. The standard in
this newsgroup is bottom or interwoven posting.

It's a matter of *group* preference, not *individual* preference.

But continue top posting - you won't get a lot of response.

And your comment added absolutely nothing to the conversation - except
to show you don't understand what you're doing.
Oct 31 '07 #40
there is no automatic way to trim posts. and there are times when you may
want to quote the sig.

"Rik Wasmus" <lu************@hotmail.comwrote in message
news:op***************@metallium.lan...
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:56:30 +0100, Shelly
<sh************@asap-consult.comwrote:
>Rik Wasmus wrote:
>>On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:33:08 +0100, Shelly
<sh************@asap-consult.comwrote:
Rik Wasmus wrote:
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 10:09:26 +0100, Jeff Gaines
<jg************@yahoo.co.ukwrote:
>
>On 31/10/2007 in message <13*************@news.supernews.com>
>Jackie Silva wrote:
>>--Jackie S
>>
>There's also a standard for signature separators, you don't meet
>that either.
>
Actually, by the grace of his broken sig seperator I can still
easily quote his quotes. If it wouldn't be for that I'd have to
jump through some hoops, as his whole quote qould be considered one
big signature :)

Rik, I tried doing the "right" sig for a while but it didn't do work.
I'll
do it now and tell me if it works.

Works perfectly, at least in Opera, dash-dash-space-newline in the
source, so a decent reader should recognize it without any trouble.

One last question. Did you cut my sig, or was it done automatically?
Yours
was done automatically when I hit "Reply Group".

Yup, one of the advantages. (Which makes it a pain to quote topposters
with correct sig seperators, fortunately a rare combination)
--
Rik Wasmus

Oct 31 '07 #41
This is one potential pitfall of interwoven posting. The process of trimming can lead to misquoting or questionable editorializing, which reduces clarity.

--
JamesCX DiPietro (cdgzone at gmail.com)

Jackie Silva <ma*********@yahoo.comwrote:
you mis-quoted me in your response! a professional editor would cry at the
amateurish way you cut-and-paste quotes together.

there are plenty of posters who use top style in this ng. do you really
think you can convince anyone to use your personal preference, especially
when you can't even quote properly yourself?

--Jackie S

"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attglobal.netwrote
>Yes, there is, and you have to look at each newsgroup. The standard in
this newsgroup is bottom or interwoven posting.

Oct 31 '07 #42
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 19:14:00 +0100, Jackie Silva <ma*********@yahoo.com>
wrote:
there is no automatic way to trim posts.
True for most newsreaders, some of them have settings to strip certain
'levels', some of them let you select (multiple or singel portions of)
text which will be the only quotes on a reply, etc. One should always try
to trim done quotes to the essentials. Quoting everything is almost as bad
is no quote at all
and there are times when you may
want to quote the sig.
O sure, I've done that once or twice in my entire usenet usage. Let's trim
signatures automatically for the other 99,999% where they are NOT needed
in the quote.
--
Rik Wasmus
Oct 31 '07 #43
Stuckle is an old hand at the troll business. You may as well add him to your killfile.

--
JamesCX DiPietro (cdgzone at gmail.com)

Jackie Silva <ma*********@yahoo.comwrote:
try a quick google for stuckle, you might find it interesting.

"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attglobal.netwrote in message
news:ap******************************@comcast.com. ..
>Captain Paralytic wrote:
>>On 31 Oct, 15:56, "Jackie Silva" <maritanl...@yahoo.comwrote:
there are plenty of posters who use top style in this ng.
No there are only a few others as ignorant as you who do his. The vast
majority of posters here are sensible.


Paul, I have now come to the conclusion he's a troll.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================

Oct 31 '07 #44
..oO(Jackie Silva)
>there is no automatic way to trim posts.
Good newsreaders are able to automatically remove a properly delimited
sig in the response.
>and there are times when you may
want to quote the sig.
Nothing easier than that.

Micha
Oct 31 '07 #45
..oO(Jackie Silva)
>what kind of reading problems are you having?
None anymore. I don't have to read you.

If you offend the regulars in a newsgroup, you shouldn't expect much
help if you should ever need it. We want nothing from you - you want
something from us.

Micha
Oct 31 '07 #46
Shelly wrote:
Rik Wasmus wrote:
>On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 10:09:26 +0100, Jeff Gaines
<jg************@yahoo.co.ukwrote:
>>On 31/10/2007 in message <13*************@news.supernews.comJackie
Silva wrote:
--Jackie S
There's also a standard for signature separators, you don't meet that
either.
Actually, by the grace of his broken sig seperator I can still easily
quote his quotes. If it wouldn't be for that I'd have to jump through
some hoops, as his whole quote qould be considered one big signature
:)

Rik, I tried doing the "right" sig for a while but it didn't do work. I'll
do it now and tell me if it works.
Looks good here, Shelly.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================

Oct 31 '07 #47
Jackie Silva wrote:
"Jerry Stuckle" <js*******@attglobal.netwrote in message
news:ap******************************@comcast.com. ..
>Jackie Silva wrote:
>>"Jeff Gaines" <jg************@yahoo.co.ukwrote in message
news:xn****************@news.individual.net...
On 31/10/2007 in message <13*************@news.supernews.comJackie
Silva wrote:

there is no "standard" posting style as long as it's clear and
understandable! top-posting is fine. bottom-posting is good too. it's a
matter of individual preference.... your whining is way off-topic. this
has nothing to do with the OP's question.
It would be more accurate to say that relative newcomers are unaware of
the conventions, or the reasons for them.

Try a Google for 'netiquette'.
--Jackie S
There's also a standard for signature separators, you don't meet that
either.

--
Jeff Gaines Damerham Hampshire UK
This is as bad as it can get, but don't bet on it

there are multiple posting conventions used on usenet. read up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style

your arguments against one posting style are based on the original
techical
>>limitations of usenet.
(Top posting fixed)

No, my arguments are based on the STANDARDS OF THIS GROUP.

And idiots who refuse to follow standards don't get many responses in this
group.

Your arguments for top posting are based on being too lazy to scroll to
the bottom of the page before you start posting.

A. Because they're arrogant jerks.
Q. Why do they continue doing it?
A. Because it upsets the normal flow of the conversation.
Q. Why is top posting bad?
A. People who top post.
Q. Why are the most annoying people on usenet?

why do you insist on misquoting people when you respond?
(Top posting fixed)

And exactly where did I misquote you? My quotes of you are *exactly* as
entered.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================

Oct 31 '07 #48
JamesCX DiPietro wrote:
Top posting is preferable in many instances. However, the top posting vs. bottom posting debate is as old as Usenet itself and to this day continues to incite religious wars with each side claiming ultimate supremacy. A better question is why is this debate taking place in a php group?
Simple. Because some people refuse to follow established standards for
this newsgroup.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================

Oct 31 '07 #49
bottom-posters often quote everything.

"Rik Wasmus" <lu************@hotmail.comwrote in message
news:op***************@metallium.lan...
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 19:14:00 +0100, Jackie Silva <ma*********@yahoo.com>
Quoting everything is almost as bad is no quote at all

Oct 31 '07 #50

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

Similar topics

27 posts views Thread by mrbog | last post: by
4 posts views Thread by Igor | last post: by
1 post views Thread by Werner | last post: by
4 posts views Thread by Chris | last post: by
4 posts views Thread by T Ralya | last post: by
5 posts views Thread by ┼×enol Akbulak | last post: by
8 posts views Thread by Nacho | last post: by
11 posts views Thread by Glenn | last post: by
27 posts views Thread by didacticone | last post: by
1 post views Thread by gcdp | last post: by
By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.