Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <Jcq*j8Adz@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 15:11:51 on Wed,
> 12 Apr 2023, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
> >
> >The latter. The common quoting algorithm seems to naively prefix every line
> >with "> ", irrespective of whether that line has a URL. It effectively
> >terminates-short that URL, so that somebody clicking that URL gets only the
> >first part.
>
> That's user-error, they should only expect to be clicking on a wrapped
> url in the original posting, not a follow-up to it.

Or maybe that wrapping URLs is the culprit here, and if they were just left
as a long line everything would work fine?

Theo

On 12/04/2023 09:18, Marland wrote:
> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <u139u6$2k09v$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:40:22 on Tue, 11 Apr
>>> 2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> <https://www.lancs.live/news/uk-world-news/dramatic-pictures-show-
>>>>> double-decker-26669426>
>>>>>
>>>>> No pax aboard, so it probably the usual ECS-shortcut gone wrong.
>>>>> Upstairs has chairs, not seats, it seems.
>>>>>
>>>>> I like trains which have chairs rather than seats, very luxurious.
>>>>
>>>> Interesting. I know the area well, or used to many years ago - we used to
>>>> pass the end of Barton Lane on the way to my grandparents’ for the weekend
>>>> every couple of weeks. I’ve also been over the bridge on the narrow boat
>>>> ‘Francis”.
>>>
>>> Been over it a few times, also across the nearby Swing-Aqueduct, as well
>>> as *along* the main ship canal in a narrowboat (don't try that at home).
>>
>> Ditto for the swing aqueduct, once in each direction; it would be difficult
>> to cross the Barton Lane bridge and not cross the aqueduct.
>>
>> I’ve been around Salford Docks in a tour boat - that would have been in the
>> mid-60s - and crossed the Ship Canal in a decommissioned ship’s lifeboad -
>> Procter and Gamble used to have a car park on the north bank and run a
>> shuttle - but I’ve never had occasion to cruise on it. You’ve mentioned
>> that exploit before and I’m envious.
>>
>> Sam
>>
>
> I was going to recommend that taking one of the trips from Liverpool
> /Birkenhead to Salford or the other way operated by one of the Mersey
> Ferries as an interesting day out, but I see they only do a shorter trip
> now as far as Latchford Locks and return which misses much of the
> interesting bits.
> Shame, they used to offer the full length with return to origin by bus .
> The ferry ran to Salford and spent the night there and then offered a
> cruise back down for people from that end, I assume that
> the passenger numbers going that way must have been too low to make it
> viable*.
> For years the missus when in company of friends who were getting a bit
> gushing over their latest trip around the Med would stall the conversation
> with “He took me on a surprise cruise and it turned out to be a trip on
> the MSC”. In truth she likes interesting industrial things as much me and
> enjoyed it.
> I don’t think either of us are attracted to the idea of an actual cruise in
> the company of several thousand others although we did enjoy a crossing
> from Soton to NewYork on the QM2 as a means to get there a little
> differently, but that isn’t a cruise though a bit snobbish to say the
> clientele from both sides of the pond more interesting to hold conversation
> with than someone doing a Butlins at sea.
> Returning to the MSC trip I hadn’t considered till the onboard commentator
> pointed it out was the amount of alterations to railways the canal
> construction required where to cross on bridges high enough to pass
> shipping lines at a couple of points had to have long new embankments
> constructed
> each side to gain height. In a couple of places the older level route
> survived as a short stub branch
> to serve freight customers.
>
> GH

I have only cruised at the Liverpool end, approximately as far as
Eastham. More interesting, however, was a railtour along the MSC railway
- in open wagons, almost reaching the M62 overbridge near Lymm (the
continuation of the railway to the edge of Warrington was disused at the
time of the railtour.)

On 12/04/2023 16:42, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <Jcq*j8Adz@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 15:11:51 on Wed,
> 12 Apr 2023, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <Gcq*qdAdz@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 11:09:04 on Wed,
>>> 12 Apr 2023, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>>> >
>>> >Two problems.  One is the trailing angle bracket may get picked up
>>> as part
>>> >of the URL, ie:
>>> >
>>> ><https://example." rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://example.com/ " rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://example.com/>  opens https://example.com/> when clicked
>>> >
>>> >(which is arguably incorrect)
>>>
>>> Here, the close-delimiter is correctly identified.
>>
>> That's what Konsole here does too.  I don't remember the exact
>> circumstances
>> it happens.
>>
>>> >The other is that split URLs get quoted, ie:
>>> >
>>> >He said:
>>> >> She said:
>>> >> > <https://example.
>>> >> > com/>
>>> >
>>> >and the quoting disrupts the URL parsing.  eg in Konsole that link
>>> becomes
>>> >just https://example
>>>
>>> The {Newline >> >} after {example.} isn't white space.
>>
>> Indeed, and so the wrapped URL is terminated.
>>
>>> >While it might be fair to berate newsreaders for not continuing URLs
>>> over
>>> >line breaks, I'm not sure that URLs get special treatment when handling
>>> >quoting.
>>>
>>> What do you mean by "quoting". The *delimiters* in the original posting,
>>> or later-added ">",">>" etc at the start of lines?
>>
>> The latter.  The common quoting algorithm seems to naively prefix
>> every line
>> with "> ", irrespective of whether that line has a URL.  It effectively
>> terminates-short that URL, so that somebody clicking that URL gets
>> only the
>> first part.
>
> That's user-error, they should only expect to be clicking on a wrapped
> url in the original posting, not a follow-up to it.

Do you mean that the standard protocol is for follow-up posts to contain
broken URLs, and for everyone reading them to hunt back in the thread's
history for the post where that URL was introduced?

In message <Gcq*MqCdz@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 21:12:08 on Wed,
12 Apr 2023, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <Jcq*j8Adz@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 15:11:51 on Wed,
>> 12 Apr 2023, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>> >
>> >The latter. The common quoting algorithm seems to naively prefix every line
>> >with "> ", irrespective of whether that line has a URL. It effectively
>> >terminates-short that URL, so that somebody clicking that URL gets only the
>> >first part.
>>
>> That's user-error, they should only expect to be clicking on a wrapped
>> url in the original posting, not a follow-up to it.
>
>Or maybe that wrapping URLs is the culprit here, and if they were just left
>as a long line everything would work fine?

Unfortunately many newsreaders (or their users by failing to care
about that newsreader's wrapping parameters) perpetrate the sort of
fragmentation pictured below. It's not exclusively the fault of the
person who originally posted the url.

>>>> >> She said:
>>>> >> > <https://example.
>>>> >> > com/>
--
Roland Perry

In message <u16m6t$33b6d$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:28:13 on Wed, 12 Apr
2023, Certes <Certes@example.org> remarked:
>On 12/04/2023 16:42, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <Jcq*j8Adz@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 15:11:51 on
>>Wed, 12 Apr 2023, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <Gcq*qdAdz@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 11:09:04 on Wed,
>>>> 12 Apr 2023, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>>>> >
>>>> >Two problems.  One is the trailing angle bracket may get picked up
>>>> as part
>>>> >of the URL, ie:
>>>> >
>>>> ><https://example." rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://example.com/ " rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://example.com/>  opens https://example.com/> when clicked
>>>> >
>>>> >(which is arguably incorrect)
>>>>
>>>> Here, the close-delimiter is correctly identified.
>>>
>>> That's what Konsole here does too.  I don't remember the exact
>>>circumstances it happens.
>>>
>>>> >The other is that split URLs get quoted, ie:
>>>> >
>>>> >He said:
>>>> >> She said:
>>>> >> > <https://example.
>>>> >> > com/>
>>>> >
>>>> >and the quoting disrupts the URL parsing.  eg in Konsole that link
>>>> >becomes just https://example
>>>>
>>>> The {Newline >> >} after {example.} isn't white space.
>>>
>>> Indeed, and so the wrapped URL is terminated.
>>>
>>>> >While it might be fair to berate newsreaders for not continuing
>>>> > over line breaks, I'm not sure that URLs get special treatment
>>>> >when handling
>>>> >quoting.
>>>>
>>>> What do you mean by "quoting". The *delimiters* in the original posting,
>>>> or later-added ">",">>" etc at the start of lines?
>>>
>>> The latter.  The common quoting algorithm seems to naively prefix
>>>every line with "> ", irrespective of whether that line has a URL. 
>>>It effectively terminates-short that URL, so that somebody clicking
>>>that URL gets only the first part.

>> That's user-error, they should only expect to be clicking on a
>>wrapped url in the original posting, not a follow-up to it.
>
>Do you mean that the standard protocol is for follow-up posts to contain
>broken URLs, and for everyone reading them to hunt back in the thread's
>history for the post where that URL was introduced?

What I mean is that if someone has posted a follow-up which has broken a
url, as exemplified earlier:

>>>> >> She said:
>>>> >> > <https://example.
>>>> >> > com/>

It's up to the user to either

glue it back together by hand (numerous trivial tools available to do
that), or

press "up-thread" (assuming their newsreader implements this handy
feature) until they get to the original posting, and then click on
the link there.

I don't think they should rely on their newsreader to glue it back
together automatically, especially if it's patently obvious from
experience, that their newsreader does not implement this functionality.

ps. Very occasionally, as a courtesy, I'll glue a url back together
that's been broken by an earlier follower-upper, but I rarely see
anyone else doing the same.
--
Roland Perry

In message <UmLENzYzJkNkFASJ@perry.uk>, at 06:32:35 on Wed, 12 Apr 2023,
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> remarked:
>In message <u13vmk$2ls0j$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:51:48 on Tue, 11 Apr
>2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <u139u6$2k09v$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:40:22 on Tue, 11 Apr
>>> 2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> <https://www.lancs.live/news/uk-world-news/dramatic-pictures-show-
>>>>> double-decker-26669426>
>>>>>
>>>>> No pax aboard, so it probably the usual ECS-shortcut gone wrong.
>>>>> Upstairs has chairs, not seats, it seems.
>>>>>
>>>>> I like trains which have chairs rather than seats, very luxurious.
>>>>
>>>> Interesting. I know the area well, or used to many years ago - we used to
>>>> pass the end of Barton Lane on the way to my grandparents’ for
>>>>the weekend
>>>> every couple of weeks. I’ve also been over the bridge on the narrow boat
>>>> ‘Francis”.
>>>
>>> Been over it a few times, also across the nearby Swing-Aqueduct, as well
>>> as *along* the main ship canal in a narrowboat (don't try that at home).
>>
>>Ditto for the swing aqueduct, once in each direction; it would be difficult
>>to cross the Barton Lane bridge and not cross the aqueduct.
>>
>>I’ve been around Salford Docks in a tour boat - that would have been in the
>>mid-60s - and crossed the Ship Canal in a decommissioned ship’s lifeboad -
>>Procter and Gamble used to have a car park on the north bank and run a
>>shuttle - but I’ve never had occasion to cruise on it. You’ve mentioned
>>that exploit before and I’m envious.
>
>Lots of photos, of what was a long trip; these two the most relevant:
>
>http://www.perry.co.uk/images/June-75-Ship_Canal.jpg (Stanlow Point)
>
>http://www.perry.co.uk/images/June-75-Barton.jpg
>
>And the other way on Streetview, canal bridge swung:
>https://goo.gl/maps/bYCrFoF7BkZAZeABA

And I've rummaged up these from a friend on our 1973 trip, where we
crossed it both ways a few days apart (Skipton to Liverpool, and back):

http://www.perry.co.uk/images/swing-aqueduct/

Like the 1975 trip we also went as far as we could on the Bridgewater
Canal into central Manchester, but back then the Rochdale was
un-navigable (even if not formally closed). The Castlefield junction was
adjacent to the Manchester Ship Canal Company warehouses.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/53.47411/-2.25768
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <UmLENzYzJkNkFASJ@perry.uk>, at 06:32:35 on Wed, 12 Apr 2023,
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> remarked:
>> In message <u13vmk$2ls0j$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:51:48 on Tue, 11 Apr
>> 2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <u139u6$2k09v$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:40:22 on Tue, 11 Apr
>>>> 2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> <https://www.lancs.live/news/uk-world-news/dramatic-pictures-show-
>>>>>> double-decker-26669426>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No pax aboard, so it probably the usual ECS-shortcut gone wrong.
>>>>>> Upstairs has chairs, not seats, it seems.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I like trains which have chairs rather than seats, very luxurious.
>>>>>
>>>>> Interesting. I know the area well, or used to many years ago - we used to
>>>>> pass the end of Barton Lane on the way to my grandparents’ for
>>>>> the weekend
>>>>> every couple of weeks. I’ve also been over the bridge on the narrow boat
>>>>> ‘Francis”.
>>>>
>>>> Been over it a few times, also across the nearby Swing-Aqueduct, as well
>>>> as *along* the main ship canal in a narrowboat (don't try that at home).
>>>
>>> Ditto for the swing aqueduct, once in each direction; it would be difficult
>>> to cross the Barton Lane bridge and not cross the aqueduct.
>>>
>>> I’ve been around Salford Docks in a tour boat - that would have been in the
>>> mid-60s - and crossed the Ship Canal in a decommissioned ship’s lifeboad -
>>> Procter and Gamble used to have a car park on the north bank and run a
>>> shuttle - but I’ve never had occasion to cruise on it. You’ve mentioned
>>> that exploit before and I’m envious.
>>
>> Lots of photos, of what was a long trip; these two the most relevant:
>>
>> http://www.perry.co.uk/images/June-75-Ship_Canal.jpg (Stanlow Point)
>>
>> http://www.perry.co.uk/images/June-75-Barton.jpg
>>
>> And the other way on Streetview, canal bridge swung:
>> https://goo.gl/maps/bYCrFoF7BkZAZeABA
>
> And I've rummaged up these from a friend on our 1973 trip, where we
> crossed it both ways a few days apart (Skipton to Liverpool, and back):
>
> http://www.perry.co.uk/images/swing-aqueduct/

Thank you. The image of Barton power station is particularly evocative of
a former life!

> Like the 1975 trip we also went as far as we could on the Bridgewater
> Canal into central Manchester, but back then the Rochdale was
> un-navigable (even if not formally closed). The Castlefield junction was
> adjacent to the Manchester Ship Canal Company warehouses.
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/53.47411/-2.25768

We did the Cheshire Ring in 1979 or thereabouts, starting from Worsley. We
moored the first night at the foot of the Rochdale Canal and that arm to
the south, an expanse of black water surrounded by derelict warehouses, was
particularly menacing and Satanic.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/04/2023 09:18, Marland wrote:
>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <u139u6$2k09v$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:40:22 on Tue, 11 Apr
>>>> 2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> <https://www.lancs.live/news/uk-world-news/dramatic-pictures-show-
>>>>>> double-decker-26669426>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No pax aboard, so it probably the usual ECS-shortcut gone wrong.
>>>>>> Upstairs has chairs, not seats, it seems.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I like trains which have chairs rather than seats, very luxurious.
>>>>>
>>>>> Interesting. I know the area well, or used to many years ago - we used to
>>>>> pass the end of Barton Lane on the way to my grandparents’ for the weekend
>>>>> every couple of weeks. I’ve also been over the bridge on the narrow boat
>>>>> ‘Francis”.
>>>>
>>>> Been over it a few times, also across the nearby Swing-Aqueduct, as well
>>>> as *along* the main ship canal in a narrowboat (don't try that at home).
>>>
>>> Ditto for the swing aqueduct, once in each direction; it would be difficult
>>> to cross the Barton Lane bridge and not cross the aqueduct.
>>>
>>> I’ve been around Salford Docks in a tour boat - that would have been in the
>>> mid-60s - and crossed the Ship Canal in a decommissioned ship’s lifeboad -
>>> Procter and Gamble used to have a car park on the north bank and run a
>>> shuttle - but I’ve never had occasion to cruise on it. You’ve mentioned
>>> that exploit before and I’m envious.
>>>
>>> Sam
>>>
>>
>> I was going to recommend that taking one of the trips from Liverpool
>> /Birkenhead to Salford or the other way operated by one of the Mersey
>> Ferries as an interesting day out, but I see they only do a shorter trip
>> now as far as Latchford Locks and return which misses much of the
>> interesting bits.
>> Shame, they used to offer the full length with return to origin by bus .
>> The ferry ran to Salford and spent the night there and then offered a
>> cruise back down for people from that end, I assume that
>> the passenger numbers going that way must have been too low to make it
>> viable*.
>> For years the missus when in company of friends who were getting a bit
>> gushing over their latest trip around the Med would stall the conversation
>> with “He took me on a surprise cruise and it turned out to be a trip on
>> the MSC”. In truth she likes interesting industrial things as much me and
>> enjoyed it.
>> I don’t think either of us are attracted to the idea of an actual cruise in
>> the company of several thousand others although we did enjoy a crossing
>> from Soton to NewYork on the QM2 as a means to get there a little
>> differently, but that isn’t a cruise though a bit snobbish to say the
>> clientele from both sides of the pond more interesting to hold conversation
>> with than someone doing a Butlins at sea.
>> Returning to the MSC trip I hadn’t considered till the onboard commentator
>> pointed it out was the amount of alterations to railways the canal
>> construction required where to cross on bridges high enough to pass
>> shipping lines at a couple of points had to have long new embankments
>> constructed
>> each side to gain height. In a couple of places the older level route
>> survived as a short stub branch
>> to serve freight customers.
>>
>> GH
>
> I have only cruised at the Liverpool end, approximately as far as
> Eastham. More interesting, however, was a railtour along the MSC railway
> - in open wagons, almost reaching the M62 overbridge near Lymm (the
> continuation of the railway to the edge of Warrington was disused at the
> time of the railtour.)

As a child I recall seeing lots of MSC open wagons on the sidings alongside
Barton Dock Road at the edge of Trafford Park. There were tracks along
both sides from the Kelloggs end. The rails still cross the road by the
big red K but don’t seem to lead anywhere on either side. The Warrington
Central line still runs a few hundred yards further south.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

>
>
> Like the 1975 trip we also went as far as we could on the Bridgewater
> Canal into central Manchester.

Two recollections of when we did that, some blokes on the towpath looking
sheepish as we came a
upon them investigating some obnoxious fatty substance getting into the
canal then further away
seeing a bloke running away then realising a young Alsatian was clinging to
a brick wall rising sheer from the water with a bag of stones around its
neck.
We pulled it out but had heck of a job passing to it someone, Police, call
the RSPCA, RSPCA , can’t you take it home with you. Eventually where the
nightclub created on the old coastal pleasure Westward HO! was moored on
the Ship Canal we spotted a Policeman with a transit van
who reluctantly after we explained the circumstances took it away.
Oh and somehow while looking for an information office we found our way
completely unchallenged in and out of the rather splendid council chamber.

GH

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <Gcq*MqCdz@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 21:12:08 on Wed,
> 12 Apr 2023, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
> >Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> >> In message <Jcq*j8Adz@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 15:11:51 on Wed,
> >> 12 Apr 2023, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
> >> >
> >> >The latter. The common quoting algorithm seems to naively prefix every line
> >> >with "> ", irrespective of whether that line has a URL. It effectively
> >> >terminates-short that URL, so that somebody clicking that URL gets only the
> >> >first part.
> >>
> >> That's user-error, they should only expect to be clicking on a wrapped
> >> url in the original posting, not a follow-up to it.
> >
> >Or maybe that wrapping URLs is the culprit here, and if they were just left
> >as a long line everything would work fine?
>
> Unfortunately many newsreaders (or their users by failing to care
> about that newsreader's wrapping parameters) perpetrate the sort of
> fragmentation pictured below. It's not exclusively the fault of the
> person who originally posted the url.

Agreed, I'm not blaming the user. The newsreader hard wrapping everything
including URLs to 80 char width is the cause of the problem, and the < >
delimiters are a sticking plaster which don't work in all cases.

Theo

In message <Gcq*DpFdz@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 10:46:28 on Thu,
13 Apr 2023, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <Gcq*MqCdz@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 21:12:08 on Wed,
>> 12 Apr 2023, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>> >Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> >> In message <Jcq*j8Adz@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 15:11:51 on Wed,
>> >> 12 Apr 2023, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>> >> >
>> >> >The latter. The common quoting algorithm seems to naively prefix
>> >> >every line with "> ", irrespective of whether that line has a
>> >> >URL. It effectively terminates-short that URL, so that somebody
>> >> >clicking that URL gets only the first part.
>> >>
>> >> That's user-error, they should only expect to be clicking on a wrapped
>> >> url in the original posting, not a follow-up to it.
>> >
>> >Or maybe that wrapping URLs is the culprit here, and if they were just left
>> >as a long line everything would work fine?
>>
>> Unfortunately many newsreaders (or their users by failing to care
>> about that newsreader's wrapping parameters) perpetrate the sort of
>> fragmentation pictured below. It's not exclusively the fault of the
>> person who originally posted the url.
>
>Agreed, I'm not blaming the user.

I'm blaming the user's expectations.

>The newsreader hard wrapping everything including URLs to 80 char width
>is the cause of the problem, and the < > delimiters are a sticking
>plaster which don't work in all cases.

Delimiters aren't supposed to rescue the situation where URLs from an
earlier posting appear in a follow-up.
--
Roland Perry