As Greg Earle said Rob, it's not a HTML issue. It's to do with MIME (I think.)
Most of us can't adjust that element. I'm not even sure I even know what it is. Ken >-----Original Message----- >From: Robert Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 11:08 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Org >Subject: RE: (313) small polite request > > >??? I don't understand why my posts might get mangled - I use >Plain Text in Outlook > >-----Original Message----- >From: F.Wooff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 11:04 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Org >Subject: (313) small polite request > > >OK so much for my first experiment (see below) - my post didn't post! This >is me trying again. Only since I composed the below (on Friday) I've had >another thought - I too receive some people's posts as unintelligible (to >me) code, Greg I missed your explanation (maybe before I joined the list?) >for this which you referred to when replying to someone (?Ken?) on this >subject. If the people who's posts get mangled like this (Ian Cheshire, >Robert Taylor et al) aren't able to change the way they send to stop it >happening is there something I can do at my end to receive them >intact? (I'm >not a PC whizz). It seems some of you do as I think people reply to them - >plus it would be a feat of remarkable (if admirable) perversity to keep on >sending incomprehensible posts that no one understood!. > > >Francis > >################################################################### >################## >Note: > >Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not >necessarily represent >those of Channel Four Television Corporation unless specifically >stated. This email >and any files transmitted are confidential and intended solely for >the use of the >individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you have >received this email in >error, please notify [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Thank You. >################################################################### >################## > >
