Re: [ql-users] Parcelfarce
Bill Waugh wrote: Erm... I use Mozilla these days. It strips off the '>' marks... ... and replaces them with neat, continuous vertical bars. I wonder. I can't be bothered to check, but does LookOut offer a similar function - replace '>' with neat, continous nothing. Yes The choice is '>'':' or '|' or you can untick the box and get nowt. my setting is '>' and my box is firmly ticked - ( did I really say that ) BTW how is this mail Bill Well, firstly, your signature seems to be missing the requisite "-- " line that would stop it becoming quoted in a reply. Secondly, you have missed the point. Mozilla is quite happily handling all the ">" quoting back and forth in a highly intelligent way. They are exactly what comes in/goes out in the text of the emails. However, it is being pretty and displays the messages with (blue!) vertical bars for my enjoyment. I've just had a look throuh Mozilla's options and I can't seem to find anywhere that says anything about what format quoted replies should take. I know LookOut (and Turnpike?) gives you options. Is it that Mozilla sticks to some RFC that says it shoud be just a single ">"? I've been very impressed by Mozilla. There are a huge number of really useful things it does for you. E.g. when in the browser, you can ask for View/Page Info and you get to see things like every link off a page, all the images that are being loaded, all the fields and forms on the page, etc, etc. I'm amused that it converts smilies to graphics. :-) -> pretty yellow smiley face :-) . Other than flattening/simplifying my address book, it imported all the other junk from IE and BackOut(sorry) to perfection. I won't be going back.
[ql-users] e-mail plain protocols [was Parcelfarce]
Note: In I/E 6: There does not *seem* to be the offer of the - '>' etc as a prefix but a standardisation on ':' Sorry Bill, my mistake. The selection *is* offered via 'plain text settings' John in Wales
[ql-users] e-mail plain protocols [was Parcelfarce]
Re Tony's: Bill is still pretty unsure as to what is happening. I am pretty sure he must be sending it without indents (>) but I don't think he is convinced. I cannot see how _any_ mailer can strip off '>' - it just doesn't seem logical. = In I/E v 6.00 tools options send tab select: include message in reply - Note: In I/E 6: There does not *seem* to be the offer of the - '>' etc as a prefix but a standardisation on ':' See example below reply to original - Original Message - From: " A N other .. To: "AN A N Other Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 10:25 PM Subject: Test for ' include message in reply' - original : Test for ' include message in reply' - original : $$ However, I/E 6.0 'help' has - --- To watch a conversation In both e-mail and newsgroups, you can watch a conversation that is of particular interest you. A conversation is an original message and all its replies. In your Inbox or newsgroup message list, select the conversation you want to watch, and on the Message menu, click Watch Conversation. If your message list's Watch/Ignore column is turned on, the watch icon will appear next to all the messages of a watched conversation. Note You can customize the color of your watched messages to make them stand out. On the Tools menu, click Options. On the Read tab, at the end of the Highlight watched messages with the color line, select the color you want, and then click OK. -- hth! John in Wales
Re: [ql-users] Parcelfarce
- Original Message -
From: "Laurence Reeves" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 9:52 PM
Subject: Re: [ql-users] Parcelfarce
>
> Tony Firshman wrote:
> > On Fri, 27 Sep 2002 at 09:23:47, Norman Dunbar wrote:
> > (ref:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
> >
> >
> >>Sorry guys, I may have led you up the garden path.
> >>
> >>When I mentioned 'quotes' I was referring to 'quoting of previous
text to
> >>which I am now replying' - basically, what has been said before. I
was not
> >>referring to quote marks (" or ') in Bill's text - as far as I know,
these
> >>are fine.
> >>
> >>When Bill replies to an email, the whole reply has no '>'
indents/quotes
> >>before the lines in the original message to which Bill is replying.
> >>
> >>The example below, shows my original text indented/quoted by '>' at
the
> >>start of the line. In this case, Bill's reply has come through
correctly -
> >>no misunderstanding of who said what. However, in a number of his
previous
> >>replies, there were no indent/quotes - whcih made it difficult to
follw what
> >>was original text and what was Bill's reply.
> >
> > Yep - that is what I find exactly.
> >
> > Bill is still pretty unsure as to what is happening.
> > I am pretty sure he must be sending it without indents (>) but I
don't
> > think he is convinced.
> >
> > I cannot see how _any_ mailer can strip off '>' - it just doesn't
seem
> > logical.
> >
>
>
> Erm... I use Mozilla these days. It strips off the '>' marks...
>
> ... and replaces them with neat, continuous vertical bars.
>
> I wonder. I can't be bothered to check, but does LookOut offer a
similar
> function - replace '>' with neat, continous nothing.
Yes
The choice is '>'':' or '|' or you can untick the box and get
nowt.
my setting is '>' and my box is firmly ticked - ( did I really say
that )
BTW how is this mail
Bill
Re: [ql-users] Parcelfarce
Tony Firshman wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Sep 2002 at 09:23:47, Norman Dunbar wrote:
> (ref: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
>
>
>>Sorry guys, I may have led you up the garden path.
>>
>>When I mentioned 'quotes' I was referring to 'quoting of previous text to
>>which I am now replying' - basically, what has been said before. I was not
>>referring to quote marks (" or ') in Bill's text - as far as I know, these
>>are fine.
>>
>>When Bill replies to an email, the whole reply has no '>' indents/quotes
>>before the lines in the original message to which Bill is replying.
>>
>>The example below, shows my original text indented/quoted by '>' at the
>>start of the line. In this case, Bill's reply has come through correctly -
>>no misunderstanding of who said what. However, in a number of his previous
>>replies, there were no indent/quotes - whcih made it difficult to follw what
>>was original text and what was Bill's reply.
>
> Yep - that is what I find exactly.
>
> Bill is still pretty unsure as to what is happening.
> I am pretty sure he must be sending it without indents (>) but I don't
> think he is convinced.
>
> I cannot see how _any_ mailer can strip off '>' - it just doesn't seem
> logical.
>
Erm... I use Mozilla these days. It strips off the '>' marks...
... and replaces them with neat, continuous vertical bars.
I wonder. I can't be bothered to check, but does LookOut offer a similar
function - replace '>' with neat, continous nothing.
--
Lau
http://www.bergbland.info
Get a domain from http://oneandone.co.uk/xml/init?k_id=5165217 and I'll
get the commission!
Re: [ql-users] Parcelfarce
On Fri, 27 Sep 2002 at 09:23:47, Norman Dunbar wrote:
(ref: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
>
>Sorry guys, I may have led you up the garden path.
>
>When I mentioned 'quotes' I was referring to 'quoting of previous text to
>which I am now replying' - basically, what has been said before. I was not
>referring to quote marks (" or ') in Bill's text - as far as I know, these
>are fine.
>
>When Bill replies to an email, the whole reply has no '>' indents/quotes
>before the lines in the original message to which Bill is replying.
>
>The example below, shows my original text indented/quoted by '>' at the
>start of the line. In this case, Bill's reply has come through correctly -
>no misunderstanding of who said what. However, in a number of his previous
>replies, there were no indent/quotes - whcih made it difficult to follw what
>was original text and what was Bill's reply.
Yep - that is what I find exactly.
Bill is still pretty unsure as to what is happening.
I am pretty sure he must be sending it without indents (>) but I don't
think he is convinced.
I cannot see how _any_ mailer can strip off '>' - it just doesn't seem
logical.
--
QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255
tony@.demon.co.uk http://www.firshman.demon.co.uk
Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255
TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG
Re: [ql-users] Parcelfarce
There seems to be a lot of discussion on how e-mailers are formatting the messages. Have you considered that your e-mail readers may be presenting the e-mail as you have instructed them. If you are sending and receiving plain text the receiver should receive plain text, unless the email reader program alters it. Lafe Tony Firshman wrote: >On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 at 21:35:35, Bill Waugh wrote: >(ref: <008301c2659c$6533eac0$862c073e@famwaugh>) > > > >>- Original Message - >>From: "Tony Firshman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 2:07 PM >>Subject: Re: [ql-users] Parcelfarce >> >> > > > >>when I send them they are correctly formatted, if you recieve them wrongly >>formmated then when you send them back they reformat correctly before I >>recieve them, or are you suggesting that OE sends them wrong and then when >>it recieve replies corrects them before it displays them. >> >> >I have no idea. >I see the original with absolutely no '>' indents at all, and I am not >the only one it seems. >My quoted text, and your reply are all with no indents. > >When I reply they are still wrongly formatted with one '>', and when you >reply to me with the second level '>>' they are _still wrongly >formatted. >I really cannot see how they can possibly arrive to you correctly >formatted. >Have a look again - I think you are simply not seeing the bad >formatting. > > >>>I agree - it makes his emails very difficult to understand. >>> >>> >>Norman was speaking of Quote marks he did'nt mention indenting >> >> >What are quote marks then - that is a new one on me. >You have snipped Norman's comment. >I have always thought quote marks in email ocntext were the '>' at the >beginning of line. > > > >>We need to ascertain what we both mean by 'Indented and 'formatted' I am >>assuming you mean the placing of an > against text, one > for every level of >>reply >> >> >Yes indeed. > > > >
RE: [ql-users] Parcelfarce
Sorry guys, I may have led you up the garden path.
When I mentioned 'quotes' I was referring to 'quoting of previous text to
which I am now replying' - basically, what has been said before. I was not
referring to quote marks (" or ') in Bill's text - as far as I know, these
are fine.
When Bill replies to an email, the whole reply has no '>' indents/quotes
before the lines in the original message to which Bill is replying.
The example below, shows my original text indented/quoted by '>' at the
start of the line. In this case, Bill's reply has come through correctly -
no misunderstanding of who said what. However, in a number of his previous
replies, there were no indent/quotes - whcih made it difficult to follw what
was original text and what was Bill's reply.
HTH
Cheers,
Norman.
-
Norman Dunbar
Database/Unix administrator
Lynx Financial Systems Ltd.
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tel: 0113 289 6265
Fax: 0113 289 3146
URL: http://www.Lynx-FS.com
-
- Original Message -
From: "Norman Dunbar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 2:49 PM
Subject: RE: [ql-users] Parcelfarce
>
> Bill,
>
> tools
> options
> send tab
> mail sending = plain text
> press plain text options button
> auto wrap at column 76
> tick indent box and set character to > when replying or forwarding.
>
> That is what I have on lookuot excess version 6.
>
> HTH
>
> Norman.
Just checked and these are my settings exactly
This email is intended only for the use of the addressees named above and
may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not an addressee you
must not read it and must not use any information contained in it, nor copy
it, nor inform any person other than Lynx Financial Systems or the
addressees of its existence or contents. If you have received this email
and are not a named addressee, please delete it and notify the Lynx
Financial Systems IT Department on 0113 2892990.
