Little Q for all you experts...

J

Jonathan N. Little

Michael Winter wrote:

The frames at <URL:http://www.breezeinn.ca/> are part of those awful
redirection/URL masking schemes whereby a server generates a frameset
for one domain, but inserts the contents of another into the resulting
frames. As browsers only shown the URL for the frameset itself, it looks
as though you are always browsing within the initial domain.

<snip>

Thanks Mike, I was unaware of such schemes. Just out of curiosity, how
does it work? For each domain that they pseudo-host they only allow one
frameset index file as a ‘wrapper’ with the link to the real hosting
location?
 
J

Jonathan N. Little

G wrote:

When I try to reply in OE, the only choices I see are: 'New Post' - pretty
sure this isn't what I want, 'Reply Group' - can't be right either since
this is what I did to get the "top posting" comments, 'Reply to all' - this
isn't right is it? Or 'Reply or Reply to sender' - which takes me into an
e-mail message. The only time I get actual editable text is when I choose
'Reply Group' and before I post it asks me "Do you want to send this reply
to the entire newsgroup?" What else can I do - this is the only way to post
a reply! That's what I had to do to get this message to post. Although I can
put this reply at the bottom of this text if that's what's meant by bottom
posting...

best solution to your trouble...

http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird/

and while your at it, secure your backdoor with:

http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/

;-)
 
J

JDS

Jonathan, how do I "bottom post" in Outlook Express 6? I'd much prefer to
do this, but can't see how at the moment. And I just realized that you
can't see my HTML because the page is hosted on free webspace for the time
being. Sorry about the "top posting".

Well, for one, even without changing any preferences, you could just move
the cursor to below the quoted text. Arrow key or mouse.
 
N

Neredbojias

With neither quill nor qualm, G quothed
I didn't give the URL because I know you guys
will find it littered with errors and possible improvements. I'm still
trying to find the time to learn CSS! I'll try out your suggestions, the URL
if you're interested is www.breezeinn.ca . Thanks again.

Can I get a bigger image of the broad in the third photo?
 
M

Michael Winter

Michael said:
The frames at <URL:http://www.breezeinn.ca/> are part of those awful
redirection/URL masking schemes [...]
[snip]

Just out of curiosity, how does it work? For each domain that they
pseudo-host they only allow one frameset index file as a ‘wrapper’
with the link to the real hosting location?

From what I've seen, yes.

For instance, I use one of the services from DynDNS to point to my ISP
site address, which about halves an otherwise 33 character host name.
They too offer this kind of 'redirection', the difference being either a
302 Found response (which I use), or a 200 OK and a frameset. The only
information that's required of me is the destination, and optionally a
title for the frameset if I choose to 'cloak' that URL.

It does seem that 'cloaking' services differ, though. For instance, you
can't append a path to the URL at the top of this post, but you can with
DynDNS. The latter must actually generate the frameset, rather than
serve a static file.

Mike
 
G

G

Leonard Blaisdell said:
That's gotta be the one.


Edit your text and do your replies there.


The program is just trying to warn you that you'll be replying to
thousands of people all over the world if it's anything like the one I'm
using.


If you post to "everything" that's been said, you leave all that's been
said above what you comment on. Otherwise you do what I just did. Excise
the parts you don't want to comment on and reply to specific portions
that you do have comments on below what you're commenting on.
My apologies if OE won't do this.
But start with 'Reply Group' and ignore the 'entire newsgroup' question,
scary though it may sound.

leo

Thanks a lot everyone, very helpful. No more top posting for me. I'll work
on my refresh issue in the meantime, thanks again.
 
D

dorayme

From: "G said:
When I try to reply in OE, the only choices I see are: 'New Post' - pretty
sure this isn't what I want, 'Reply Group' - can't be right either since this
is what I did to get the "top posting" comments, 'Reply to all' - this isn't
right is it? Or 'Reply or Reply to sender' - which takes me into an e-mail
message. The only time I get actual editable text is when I choose 'Reply
Group' and before I post it asks me "Do you want to send this reply to the
entire newsgroup?" What else can I do - this is the only way to post a reply!
That's what I had to do to get this message to post. Although I can put this
reply at the bottom of this text if that's what's meant by bottom posting...

OK, I will try to get to an OE 6 on a PC and see what I can see. On my Mac,
there is a specific item on the menu bar, a folder called OptusNet. Inside
are the groups subscribed to by me. Once I click on a group, all the old
messages appear in the right top frame and new messages come down. In the
bottom right frame are the content of any messages. To reply one either hits
a key combination or the "Post reply to newsgroup" (there is also "forward"
and "Reply to sender"). Your "Reply Group" is probably right, why should it
not be? Whether it top posts or not surely has nothing to do with it being
the right or wrong button.

That you are asked if you want to send to the entire newsgroup is a good
thing, you seem puzzled by it. It is basically saying: "OK, you have
composed all this stuff, do you really want for possibly everyone in the
world to read it?" - meaning, "Sure you want to do this, and not send it to
just some particular person?" It is an alert. A warning. A reminder. The Mac
does not have this particular wording, but something a bit milder. There is
a reason for this difference but it would be a bit insensitive to spell it
out and I have promised to be good.

The option to top post or not is elsewhere. In mine it is in a folder called
Preferences. In yours it is probably some option. Take a good look at the
options. If no one has helped by then, I will get to a PC and see.

dorayme
 
D

dorayme

From: Blinky the Shark said:
And yet even with the warning, I see people nearly every day posting
what they think is an email to Aunt Sally to a newsgroup. :)

Dear Aunt Sally,

Exactly! And that is why I do it.

Much love

Dorayme
 
M

Michael Winter

On 03/07/2005 00:57, dorayme wrote:

[snip]
On my Mac, there is a specific item on the menu bar, a folder called
OptusNet. Inside are the groups subscribed to by me.

A list of accounts is displayed in a tree to the left, and each account
lists the groups to which the user subscribes.

[snip]
To reply one either hits a key combination or the "Post reply to
newsgroup" (there is also "forward" and "Reply to sender").

The same, except the previously noted "Reply Group" label. That is the
one the OP should use (and already does, clearly).

[snip]
The option to top post or not is elsewhere.

No, unfortunately it isn't. OE (unmodified) always presents replies in a
way that encourages top-posting. This is why OE-QuoteFix[1] is
recommended: it completely alters how replies are formatted to
correspond with more acceptable forms. See the site itself for details.

[snip]

Mike


[1] <URL:http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/>
 
D

dorayme

From: "G said:
I didn't give the URL because I know you guys
will find it littered with errors and possible improvements. I'm still
trying to find the time to learn CSS! I'll try out your suggestions, the URL
if you're interested is www.breezeinn.ca . Thanks again.

Yes, I know what you mean. Here is one small suggestion at least about your
web pages. Put in the exact dimensions of your pictures in the image tag.
This allows the page to make the proper room for them from the beginning and
not suddenly leap into an arrangement to accommodate them as a
development... Take for example the picture of the trampoline, put in
width="480" and height="360".

(BTW. I noticed this particular picture because a newsgrouper wanted to see
more of - as he put it - the "broad" in it. Neredbojias' purpose was
technical I am sure. Perhaps he wanted to see how well his lonely hours of
trying to image enlarge a small section of a pic compared to a better camera
led shot.)

dorayme
 
D

dorayme

From: Michael Winter said:
On 03/07/2005 00:57, dorayme wrote:
The option to top post or not is elsewhere.

No, unfortunately it isn't. OE (unmodified) always presents replies in a
way that encourages top-posting. This is why OE-QuoteFix[1] is
recommended: it completely alters how replies are formatted to
correspond with more acceptable forms. See the site itself for details.

Ah well, the PC OE 6 is different to the Mac 5 version in this respect
then... It is a bit surprising that they would just leave out such a
feature. Or maybe the team that put the Mac version together put the feature
*in* - while they were at it?

dorayme
 
G

G

Dorayme wrote:
Yes, I know what you mean. Here is one small suggestion at least about
your
web pages. Put in the exact dimensions of your pictures in the image tag.
This allows the page to make the proper room for them from the beginning
and
not suddenly leap into an arrangement to accommodate them as a
development... Take for example the picture of the trampoline, put in
width="480" and height="360".

Thanks for the suggestion, I'll take note of it. Cheers. G.
 
N

Neredbojias

With neither quill nor qualm, dorayme quothed
(BTW. I noticed this particular picture because a newsgrouper wanted to see
more of - as he put it - the "broad" in it. Neredbojias' purpose was
technical I am sure. Perhaps he wanted to see how well his lonely hours of
trying to image enlarge a small section of a pic compared to a better camera
led shot.)

Nah. I just wanted to see if she was good-looking or not. No sense
wasting your time on a bow wow.
 
J

Jonathan N. Little

Michael Winter wrote:
No, unfortunately it isn't. OE (unmodified) always presents replies in a
way that encourages top-posting. This is why OE-QuoteFix[1] is
recommended: it completely alters how replies are formatted to
correspond with more acceptable forms. See the site itself for details.
<snip>

Again simple fix,

http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird/

In Toby's stats we've almost matched the OE users if combine the
Thunderbird and Mozilla entries, essentially the same...I prefer the
suite to the standalones.

Of course just about any other news client is a step up! ;-)
 
G

G

Michael said:
On 02/07/2005 04:29, Jonathan N. Little wrote:

[snip]
To remove the frames, delete the default page on server for
'www.breezeinn.ca' [...]

Though I agree that frames should generally be avoided, and there are
certainly no structural or organisational necessities that mean these
frames should be kept, I do believe you're overlooking one rather
vital point.

The frames at <URL:http://www.breezeinn.ca/> are part of those awful
redirection/URL masking schemes whereby a server generates a frameset
for one domain, but inserts the contents of another into the resulting
frames. As browsers only shown the URL for the frameset itself, it
looks as though you are always browsing within the initial domain.

[snip]

So,
then move other documents, About.html, Spinnaker%20Suite.html, and
other to www.breezeinn.ca and you done the first step...

...that won't be possible without a proper hosting solution.

Mike

Well guys, one or both of you are right. There is no file I can find on the
server that contains this 'frameset' page. The webpage is stored in a folder
called public_html on the the web server. When I try to move it outside of
this folder, all I get is an ftp page in my browser when I try to navigate
to www.breezeinn.ca . Like, Index.html is not where it's supposed to be
anymore or something.

There is a URL forwarding service applied to this domain that points
www.breezeinn.ca to a free webspace account through an ISP. Does this mean
that there is no way for me to get my page out of this silly frameset shell,
so I won't have refresh issues? If so, why is that exactly?

As far as I know - it isn't necessary to use a frame to allow the look of
always browsing within that initial domain. In fact - when I was designing
this site, I was told by the Domain Registrar that if I used frames - their
URL forwarding service would not work with my site. As in, they would not be
able to make it look as though I was staying within the initial breezeinn.ca
domain when navigating through the site. And then I find that someone is
putting it inside a frame anyway? Puzzling.

G.
 
D

dorayme

From: Neredbojias said:
With neither quill nor qualm, dorayme quothed


Nah. I just wanted to see if she was good-looking or not. No sense
wasting your time on a bow wow.
You missed the trap. I suspected you were a bit of an arsehole and wanted to
flush you out...

dorayme
 
D

Daniel R. Tobias

G said:
Well guys, one or both of you are right. There is no file I can find on the
server that contains this 'frameset' page. The webpage is stored in a folder
called public_html on the the web server. When I try to move it outside of
this folder, all I get is an ftp page in my browser when I try to navigate
to www.breezeinn.ca . Like, Index.html is not where it's supposed to be
anymore or something.

There is a URL forwarding service applied to this domain that points
www.breezeinn.ca to a free webspace account through an ISP. Does this mean
that there is no way for me to get my page out of this silly frameset shell,
so I won't have refresh issues? If so, why is that exactly?

I presume the "server" you're referring to in the first paragraph above
is actually the free webspace account server, not the server to which
the domain actually points, since the latter is apparently one that you
don't have direct access to since it's just a forwarding service.

The obvious way to get rid of the frames and put your pages directly in
your domain is to drop the free hosting and redirection services and get
a real web hosting account. They're not really very expensive.
 
M

Michael Winter

The webpage [website?] is stored in a folder called public_html on
the the web server. When I try to move it outside of this folder, all
I get is an ftp page in my browser when I try to navigate to
www.breezeinn.ca .

Apache can be configured to display an index of files within a directory
if it cannot find one of the files listed in the DirectoryIndex
directive (which is usually index.html at the very least).
Like, Index.html is not where it's supposed to be anymore or
something.

The /public_html directory is the DocumentRoot - the start of your site
directory structure. You can put files outside of this directory, but
they cannot be served (but that's usually the point of doing it).
There is a URL forwarding service applied to this domain that points
www.breezeinn.ca to a free webspace account through an ISP. Does
this mean that there is no way for me to get my page out of this
silly frameset shell, so I won't have refresh issues?

If you keep this setup and want your site to always be in terms of
breezeinn.ca, rather than that at first then
www3.telus.net/public/gebrown/ later, then yes you're stuck with it.
If so, why is that exactly?

As you say above, you're using a URL forwarding service. You don't
actually own that domain name, nor is it really associated with your
site. The host name, www.breezeinn.ca, resolves to 204.174.223.28. A
reverse lookup reveals redirect.domainpeople.com. To actually get to
your site, its necessary to send

Host: www.breezeinn.ca

along with the rest of the request headers so the redirection service
knows where someone is trying to go.
As far as I know - it isn't necessary to use a frame to allow the
look of always browsing within that initial domain.

Of course, but in order to achieve that, the domain needs to actually
resolve to your host, not some third party. That host also needs to
recognise your domain name so it knows what files to serve. You'll have
to pay.
In fact - when I was designing this site, I was told by the Domain
Registrar that if I used frames - their URL forwarding service would
not work with my site.

They were probably worried that you might use a frame target like _top.
That would result in you replacing their frame.

[snip]
And then I find that someone is putting it inside a frame anyway?
Puzzling.

As I said elsewhere, using frames allows the illusion that someone is
browsing through a site because the URL displayed at the top of the
browser will be the URL of that frameset - the only file that really
does exist at that domain.

Mike
 
N

Neredbojias

With neither quill nor qualm, dorayme quothed
You missed the trap. I suspected you were a bit of an arsehole and wanted to
flush you out...

No, you missed the trap. I wanted to see how much of a potty-mouth you
were. But don't fret; some of the best sex I've ever had was on the
ol' crapper.
 
D

dorayme

From: Neredbojias said:
With neither quill nor qualm, dorayme quothed


No, you missed the trap. I wanted to see how much of a potty-mouth you
were. But don't fret; some of the best sex I've ever had was on the
ol' crapper.

Don't misunderstand. My language was in the finest Australian tradition. It
was simple enough. How else to describe a person who is foul brained about
women? There are different avenues for help for you. One is to contact
Russell Crowe (an Australian, by the way) and ask him to do an LA
Confidential on you. It will be painful only in the short term. You will be
a better man for it afterwards if you also reflect upon the reasons for the
treatment.

dorayme
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
473,744
Messages
2,569,484
Members
44,903
Latest member
orderPeak8CBDGummies

Latest Threads

Top