Re: Checking for internet connection.

Hi Bob Bob McConnell wrote on 23/12/2009 14:35:

From: Andy Shellam

And I was pointing out that this would not be a valid test when there is a caching DNS on the LAN.

I also pointed out how to avoid caching issues - the comment was aimed at the author of the message before mine.

Too much of the conversation and most of the attribution was stripped too early for this to be coherent.

Why the negativity? A question was asked and several possible solutions were provided based on that original question. All the "conversation" was relevant IMO.

But long before it was done it was impossible to tell who had asked which questions, who had provided which answers and who had countered those answers. In several instances, replies appeared to be directed to the wrong individuals.

Leaving the above for a reason. I find your answer to Andy rude and offensive! Remind me not to try to help you next time.

Some people here tend to go way too far when trimming context from replies. Yes, I know it gets difficult to read when there are more than ten or twelve levels of attribution, but stripping all but the last layer is even worse.

No, that's called netetiquette, have a look at: http://www.the-eggman.com/writings/etiquitte_1.html Quote: "When responding to E-Mail, don't quote the entire original message in your reply. Only quote the relevant parts, and only to the extent that they will help orient the recipient on your reply." (and this mail is not to start a flame war)

Removing the participants names from the top should be a hanging offense. I don't keep copies of every message in any of the dozens of mailing lists and news groups I follow, so there is no simple way to go back through the conversation to figure out where it all came from.

Well, because _you_ don't wanna follow proper netetiquette doesn't mean everyone else should violate those rules, does it? :-) And a merry christmas to you. -- Kind regards Kim Emax - masterminds.dk