MathGroup Archive 2002

[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]

Search the Archive

Re: Encapsulated submissions

  • To: mathgroup at
  • Subject: [mg34745] Re: Encapsulated submissions
  • From: Igor Chudov <ichudov at Algebra.Com>
  • Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 03:42:03 -0400 (EDT)
  • References: <>
  • Reply-to: ichudov at Algebra.Com
  • Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at

stump does recognize encapsulated posts. The heuristic is that they
have no Subject: [mg34745] field, and that the real headers are present in the
body starting on the first line. It works fine, I have not seen
encapsulated submissions in my approval queues in a long time.

I hope that your standard will provide asy means for people to submit
articles via email to submission addresses of mod groups.


On Mon, Jun 03, 2002 at 08:25:47PM +0100, Charles Lindsey wrote:
> It has always been the case that CNews (and some others too, I believe)
> submits an article to a moderator by encapsulating the complete article
> within the body of an email message to the moderator. Most other systems
> seem to send the article to the moderator as an email, simply by
> including a Newsgroups-header in the email, and maybe adding a To-header
> to get it to the moderator.
> Since there are a fair number of CNews systems around (though they are
> clearly in a minority) I haver always assumed that moderators had long
> ago learnt to cope with both formats (certainly I have managed to post
> articles to various newsgroups using CNews).
> What I would like to know is what proportion of articles currently
> arrive encapsulated, and what proportion do not? And do moderators have
> any particular problem with them, and also do robomoderators like Stump
> recognise both formats?
> The Usefor draft will try to shift the balance so that encapulation
> will become the norm (there are agreed technical advantages in doing
> this). It is argued that this is not a change to current practice, since
> current practice already recognises both formats. However, some doubt
> has been expressed about this, and so I am writing to this list to gauge
> what the current practice actually is.
> Note that both practices should still work under the new draft. It
> is just a question of which is to be encouraged and which is to be
> deprecated.
> Please reply directly to me as well as to this list, since I am not sure
> whether my attempt to subscribe to this list has worked yet.
> Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
> Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133   Web:
> Email: chl at      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
> PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
> ==================================================================
> == ascm moderators list,  cybercpa at                  ==
> == Your replies will be automatically sent to the list          ==
> == Send your submissions _to the list_ to ascm-mods at ==
> ==================================================================

  • Prev by Date: RE: RE: Re: Is it possible to access internal variables?
  • Next by Date: TableForm and NumberForm
  • Previous by thread: RE: Help with Select[]
  • Next by thread: TableForm and NumberForm