Am Tue, 11 Oct 2011 08:54:37 -0400 schrieb Michael Mol <mike...@gmail.com>:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 7:03 AM, Jonas de Buhr > <jonas.de.b...@gmx.net> wrote: > > 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 > > subject 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. interesting, so gmail is aware of the chinese equivalent of "Re" (回复) but doesn't use the In-Reply-To: header correctly? > 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. i agree that there is definitely a human at the other end. you raise some good points. the automated translation might even trigger automated entries in the spam database. but why use three names at the same time? still there might be an explanation for it. as said before i meant no offense. im not 100% convinced, but your explanation sounds reasonable, let's not make a lengthy discussion out of it :) thx for your insightful reply!
