From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1RDbtk-0006rV-QA for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 12:57:33 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9EDF221C4AC; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 12:57:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-bw0-f53.google.com (mail-bw0-f53.google.com [209.85.214.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 734FD21C1B7 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 12:54:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: by bkbzt12 with SMTP id zt12so12705794bkb.40 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 05:54:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=8xOOd4bHGUk6k6rYml8UcYzG1yFapDV34vXQLn/+rUI=; b=C86Dbe2zO3FZ4BJWcw5xwRGH09Tr8IK8MWsYIMIQDsxHMo+1cR0s4PmtTKXWYv55tC Okivwwupex/IuqoyZm0QhVcj3J3uldPtvsvDBItrpT/W2+px+W4WZpRI3lVfov1L/tw9 IucNUZ0pQQ/Wo68VmwrQ2IhLnT7HZ6hiYWpLU= Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.151.217 with SMTP id d25mr9455781bkw.88.1318337677519; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 05:54:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.177.199 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 05:54:37 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20111011130327.3bcf7ecd@toxic.dbnet> References: <20111011130327.3bcf7ecd@toxic.dbnet> Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 08:54:37 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: [gentoo-user] =?UTF-8?B?UmU6IFtnZW50b28tdXNlcl0g5Zue5aSN77yaIFtnZW50b28tdXNlcl0gQW55b25lIGNhbg==?= =?UTF-8?B?IGFmZm9yZCBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiBhYm91dCBidWlsZCBrZXJuZWw/?= From: Michael Mol To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: a3f03043e22b78f5873e7409d95a084e On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 7:03 AM, Jonas de Buhr wrot= e: > hey guys, > > please don't get me wrong on this one, i mean no offense. > can anyone explain to me what this is? are these lavender threads some > kind of trolling i don't get? > > it (apparently on purpose, since hints in that direction are ignored) > combines loads of annoying qualities: > > - nondescriptive titles > - doing everything to rip apart threads: no In-Reply-To and even > =C2=A0subject changes > - no line-breaks > - difficult to read incorrect punctuation (plenk) > - problem details are kept nebulous and info requests are ignored > - none of the proposed solutions are ever tried or commented To me, the "Lavender's" messages read like someone is going through an automated translation tool to get between English and their native language. (In this case, Chinese) "Anyone can afford ... ?" sounds like bad forced translation between semantic idioms. "Anyone can afford information about build kernel" "Can anyone afford information about build kernel" "Can anyone spend time helping about build kernel" "Can anyone spend time helping me build my kernel" That explains the punctuation (poor translation tool(!)) and nebulous requests. His responses indicated he was reading what had been sent in reply. His first reply and his second reply were closely related, and when commands were offered that allowed him to find the exact information he needed, he gave his third reply indicating he had what he needed. I'm using GMail as my email client, and threading and subject lines showed intact for me until your "this is spam" message following the one I'm replying to. As for line endings, I can think of two possible reasons. The first (and, I suspect, more likely) would be that Lavender is using an email gateway that automatically translates between English and Chinese, and the email gateway did not implement line wrapping (or did so poorly). The second might be that Chinese email clients, frequently operating with an ideogram langauge, don't need to line-wrap so frequently, so Lavender's email client might be buggy in that regard. > > it's nice how much many people on this this list are willing to help in > spite of all this. but am i really the only one who finds the behavior > described above at least confusing? > anyway, i'm quite convinced it is fake. I have no reason to believe it's fake. I'm reasonably sure it was machine-processed, but I expect there was a human at the far end. --=20 :wq