Re: MicroEd vs Plain text
Hi, ,- - [ Le mercredi 22 mars 2006 vers 22:50 Alexander S. Kunz écrivait: ] - - | OK, does this suit you better. I've temporarily switched to MicroEd to see how things go for a few days. I've no doubt that you'll notice if I switch back. How does it look at your end now I've switched? Much better - the text is nicely wrapped now. That's only a matter of taste, for me, your text is wrapped too small, your message only use 1/4 of the width of my screen, leaving 75% of unused white space (in fact gray, i do not like white background to read emails, especialy when 75% of the width is unused and filled by the background :))... It's something i never understood : why the width of the display should be defined by the writer of a mail and not by the recipient ? the writer cannot know wich screen the recipient would use, resulting most of the time in a wrongly defined wrap width... When a mail is not hardwrapped, as the reader, if i want to read the mail with 76 columns, i just ask it to my mail reader program, but if i want to use a bigger or a smaller width i still can... when the mail is hard wrapped i cannot, the writer choosed for me the width i *must* use. Much more : try to read a hardwrapped mail (76 columns) on a 70 columns screen, it's a real pain (yes : i read sometimes my emails on a pda, with less than 76 columns width). I respect the rules of the list, thus i've also hardwrapped this mail, but can someone tell me if it's possible with TheBat to use a different wrapping settings depending of the folder or the recipient ? I would like when i compose a mail for some lists to use a fixed wrapping at 76 with microed, and for other lists allowing softwrap the windows editor without hardwrap ? | `- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Best regards... _ (_' L'informatique est ma passion, vous la simplifier, mon métier ! ,_)téphane Bouvard [antarex AT freenet DOT be] http://www.antarex.be Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Copying addressbook from non-OTFE to OTFE
Hi, ,- - [ Le jeudi 23 mars 2006 vers 14:01 Thomas Fernandez écrivait: ] - - | Aha? I thought that my windows positions are being remembered across computers. Not a real good idea... open your voyager on my computer, i have two screens, and the main one on the right side, your windows position will probably be outside of the screen when you go to another computer with only one screen... | `- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Best regards... _ (_' L'informatique est ma passion, vous la simplifier, mon métier ! ,_)téphane Bouvard [antarex AT freenet DOT be] http://www.antarex.be Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Copying addressbook from non-OTFE to OTFE
Hello Stephane, On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 11:02:37 +0100 GMT (25/03/2006, 17:02 +0700 GMT), Stephane Bouvard [ML] wrote: Aha? I thought that my windows positions are being remembered across computers. SBM Not a real good idea... open your voyager on my computer, i have two SBM screens, and the main one on the right side, your windows position will SBM probably be outside of the screen when you go to another computer with SBM only one screen... Yes, I saw that the ticker seemed to be somewhere else in a computer with another resolution. But on computers with the same resolution as mine, all seems to be where I moved it to. Not really important, as I have no problem. I was just curious. -- Cheers, Thomas. FLATULANCE: Emergency vehicle that picks you up when you've been run over by a steam roller http://thomas.fernandez.hat-gar-keine-homepage.de/ Message reply created with The Bat! 3.71.03 under Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2 Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: MicroEd vs Plain text
Hello Stephane Bouvard [ML] everyone else, on 25-Mrz-2006 at 10:50 you (Stephane Bouvard [ML]) wrote: That's only a matter of taste, for me, your text is wrapped too small, your message only use 1/4 of the width of my screen, leaving 75% of unused white space (in fact gray, i do not like white background to read emails, especialy when 75% of the width is unused and filled by the background :))... Well, it is commonly acknowledged that articles are easier to read and comprehend if the text is not too wide. Thats why text in technical and scientific magazines is divided into multiple columns per page. It's something i never understood : why the width of the display should be defined by the writer of a mail and not by the recipient ? I couldn't agree with you more, but as long as there's no complete conception and intergration of... Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes ...throughout the world, we're not going to see that any time soon. Besides that, how would one keep apart when and if a hard wrap is intended, and when it was only auto-inserted by the client? In plain text, a CR/LF combination is a CR/LF combination is a CR/LF combination. This would require the wordprocessor style of paragraph formatting, but you can't preserve compatibility with older/other clients that way. In plain text, paragraphs are divided by two CR/LFs. A single CR/LF is just a linebreak. In a word processor, there are no linebreaks. Paragraphs are divided by a single CR/LF. Now, it shouldn't be hard to implement a tiny little conversion routing to remove single CR/LFs so that text can be reflowed, and convert double CR/LFs so that they become paragraph dividers, but still... I could intently add a linebreak here because I want to format some text, a list, whatever, and I certainly wouldn't expect the CR/LF to be removed by a reading program... ...because the whole idea of this formatting may get lost. And there will always be people why format message just how they want to. They're free to do so, and thats a good thing. When a mail is not hardwrapped, as the reader, if i want to read the mail with 76 columns, i just ask it to my mail reader program, but if i want to use a bigger or a smaller width i still can... when the mail is hard wrapped i cannot, the writer choosed for me the width i *must* use. You can use Microsoft Outlook and configure it to remove extra linebreaks and spaces from plaintext messages. Et voila, the message is just as wide as you wish. ;-) Much more : try to read a hardwrapped mail (76 columns) on a 70 columns screen, it's a real pain (yes : i read sometimes my emails on a pda, with less than 76 columns width). And the PDA mailreader does not have the simple mechanism to remove single CR/LF combinations and re-flow the message text for you? Poorly programmed, I'd say. :-P I respect the rules of the list, thus i've also hardwrapped this mail, but can someone tell me if it's possible with TheBat to use a different wrapping settings depending of the folder or the recipient ? I would like when i compose a mail for some lists to use a fixed wrapping at 76 with microed, and for other lists allowing softwrap the windows editor without hardwrap ? You could change the editor from MicroEd to WinEd within templates for a specific group/recipient/etc. %SETEDITOR=1 for MicroEd editor %SETEDITOR=2 for Windows editor %SETEDITOR=3 for HTML and Plaintext %SETEDITOR=4 for HTML only -- Best regards, Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.de - ICQ 238153981) I don't believe in God, because I don't believe in Mother Goose. -- Clarence Darrow Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Reply-To problem
I wish to have the reply-to field blank. If that's not possible, I want it set, in a specific folder for an email list, to be the email list address. No matter what I've tried, in the specific list's folder, the reply to, upon checking again, has reverted to the From information. And the reason I wish this would be that there is a certain list I am on that sends List replies to me rather than the mentioned list. They can't fix that problem so I am trying to do the make-shift repairs on my end. -- Regards, Robert D. :flag-us-ky: _ The Bat! Version: 3.72.04 (Beta) Windows ME FireFox Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: MicroEd vs Plain text
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
***^\ ._)~~
~( __ _o Was another beautiful day, Sat, 25 Mar 2006,
@ @ at 10:50:33 +0100, when Stephane Bouvard [ML] wrote:
Much better - the text is nicely wrapped now.
That's only a matter of taste, for me, your text is wrapped too small,
your message only use 1/4 of the width of my screen, leaving 75% of
unused white space (in fact gray, i do not like white background to
read emails, especialy when 75% of the width is unused and filled by
the background :))...
It's very easy to overcome this agoraphobic feeling simply by filling up
the unused space with something else, or using a large, or extra large,
fonts.
It also might be a matter of just a taste, yes, exactly this. I, for
instance, prefer very few pieces of furniture in rooms, for I love to
feel the space, and to use it myself. Aside that I love, sometimes, to
ride my roller-skates. And so...if I'd had all this space loaded from
wall to wall, I could only rip my shirt and possibly the rest if any up
and scream. For me it would be an experience of an ultimate
distastefulness, and this would be my usual, aesthetic and kinesthetic,
reaction.
It's something i never understood : why the width of the display
should be defined by the writer of a mail and not by the recipient ?
the writer cannot know wich screen the recipient would use, resulting
most of the time in a wrongly defined wrap width...
If Shakespeare would hang around live, he would, I recon, give you a
better answer. I, though, can offer just this one: The writer _never_
knows what kind of a mind his work will encounter and enter.[1] If he
would know this in advance he would only rip his shirt and possibly the
rest if any up and scream.
That's why people have invented margins.
When a mail is not hardwrapped, as the reader, if i want to read the
mail with 76 columns, i just ask it to my mail reader program, but if
i want to use a bigger or a smaller width i still can... when the mail
is hard wrapped i cannot, the writer choosed for me the width i *must*
use.
Yes. He does so because the matter of formatting is not always just a
matter of taste, be it good or bad.
Much more : try to read a hardwrapped mail (76 columns) on a 70
columns screen, it's a real pain (yes : i read sometimes my emails on
a pda, with less than 76 columns width).
Pain is sometimes good, for it's teaching us what we need to learn, if
we otherwise are {not prone|prune} to. (-;
[1] Monsieur Comte Donatien Alphonse Francois de Sade explains it
excellently somewhere in Quills.
- --
Mica
PGP keys nestled at: http://blueness.port5.com/pgpkeys/
[Earth LOG: 570 day(s) since v3.0 unleashing]
OSs: Windows 98 SE Micro Lite Professional IVa Enterprise Millennium
Windows XP(ee) Micro Lite Professional 1.6, and, for TB sometimes,
Gentoo and Vector Linuxes via Wine...
~~~ For personal mail please use my address as it is *exactly* given
in my From|Reply To field(s). ~~~
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
iQEVAwUBRCVQC7SpHvHEUtv8AQN0lgf/Z8fUko4RQTEHI98XAlhGiVSqKzjk++8h
QH6qgIItmRe0ug8a2xG/tj1bhbDftt1MXClhyCOiPDx0XT0D20i54HmelZWehQxo
+XCTP/sbqT+ak5BYmqv0V6GdSQoghIQjgs57WJq5rh4tWl5lRr34y24LrN4y62ys
61BM0CR0LQO0hGu4U/QFY/eTJ7JX7/1HnMPe28KkusWnWcdqV6M3D6M0c3ezUman
Jg26qDec62J/3Zuhfv3Tm2jIaaH6MOUHAKQn6Q3E4RlMnpa05P5XzDLP86kRyL6n
JNRtmpvnLcjLuuKYHdR33q5dqDRIJqLqACzJ1OpouRu3VYGHjDSfuA==
=7R2G
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Reply-To problem
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 ***^\ ._)~~ ~( __ _o Was another beautiful day, Sat, 25 Mar 2006, @ @ at 08:55:33 -0500, when Robert D. wrote: I wish to have the reply-to field blank. If that's not possible, I want it set, in a specific folder for an email list, to be the email list address.-¸ | No matter what I've tried, in the specific| list's folder, the reply to, upon checking again, has reverted to t|he From information. | And the reason I wish this would be that t|here is a certain list I am on that sends List replies to me rather th|an the mentioned list. They can't fix that problem so I am trying to d|o the make-shift repairs on my end. | | A line like... --° %REPLYTO=Robert D. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ...placed in your folder's reply template should fix it. - -- Mica PGP keys nestled at: http://blueness.port5.com/pgpkeys/ [Earth LOG: 570 day(s) since v3.0 unleashing] OSs: Windows 98 SE Micro Lite Professional IVa Enterprise Millennium Windows XP(ee) Micro Lite Professional 1.6, and, for TB sometimes, Gentoo and Vector Linuxes via Wine... ~~~ For personal mail please use my address as it is *exactly* given in my From|Reply To field(s). ~~~ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQEVAwUBRCVbk7SpHvHEUtv8AQMVrwf/YQkiP8k6/Y9i4wUX0/XdNSWhGTEOWe4/ FENm3cDV7P90EscNsVYZlUwVY/5QQAwLNNUhDYfqRjU51Gf7jiBDvioarQzau/wj Cktnd6PD3/osCDE4zIQQ2KiCoGUKKAb4gYm5DU8K6g8ovXW42DoLtnnLSJcT+Pky fPgHWLHD+M86OK4TkIR4+1wTWhuUMb0+OJQ2rXgl72ih1kIZmcc7eEUr8AzI45Lo mO2x4kxkiIx7uXjIpNytyboLUCTxdNrIAoLaTVxV0VQiLC1mXpBhBX9MDGdy5o6O WASiZ7g2YsYx48dLaY6bhKLY5T8P/xfrxtAZIwBoHKf6ma7U5kkcFQ== =Bjb9 -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Reply-To problem
Hello Robert, No matter what I've tried, in the specific list's folder, the reply to, upon checking again, has reverted to the From information. Have you set the Reply-To in the Identity of the folder properties? -- Best regards, Miguel A. Urech (El Escorial - Spain) Using The Bat! v3.72.04 (Beta) Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Reply-To problem
Recently, MAU opined : Have you set the Reply-To in the Identity of the folder properties? Yes, I did but it **seemed** to ALWAYS track what the Account's Reply-To was. As it turn out, I copied what Mica just suggested and oddly it worked this time. For, that was what I thought I was trying and every single time, all I had in the reply was my account's Reply-To *** inserted *** .If I removed the Reply-To ///blanked it out/// in the ACCOUNT portion, then all was OK in the individual Email-List Folder. Alas, quite clearly I was erring somehow because it now works. Thanks to thee and Mica -- Regards, Robert D. :flag-us-ky: _ The Bat! Version: 3.72.04 (Beta) Windows ME FireFox Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Reply-To problem
Hello Robert, On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 08:55:33 -0500 GMT (25/03/2006, 20:55 +0700 GMT), Robert D. wrote: RD I wish to have the reply-to field blank. Account / Properties / General. Take the entries at Reply-To Information out. In fact, they should be blank by default. RD If that's not possible, I want it set, in a specific folder for an RD email list, to be the email list address. Check out the macro %Replyto=Address in the Help file. RD And the reason I wish this would be that there is a certain list I RD am on that sends List replies to me rather than the mentioned RD list. They can't fix that problem so I am trying to do the RD make-shift repairs on my end. Hm. On all lists I post, the list software will overwrite the reply-to address with the list address. I wonder what is wrong at that list you mention. -- Cheers, Thomas. Hilfe mein Nachbar wohnt neben mir! * http://thomas.fernandez.hat-gar-keine-homepage.de/ Message reply created with The Bat! 3.71.03 under Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2 Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Reply-To problem
Thomas Fernandez waved a wand then said : In fact, they should be blank by default. OK ... I shall ... but could you enlighten me as to why it should be blank? Hm. On all lists I post, the list software will overwrite dunno laddie , however, there are a couple of them, one being: Analog-Help analog-help@lists.meer.net where this ALWAYS happens to me. -- Regards, Robert D. :flag-us-ky: _ The Bat! Version: 3.72.04 (Beta) Windows ME FireFox Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Reply-To problem
Who would have guessed that Thomas Fernandez would have said : Account / Properties / General. Take the entries at Reply-To Information out. In fact, they should be blank by default. Actually, I remember now. A couple of years ago, there was a list to which I belonged, that categorically refused to allow my emails through the inbound filters if it didn't see a valid reply-to . And thus, I went and added it up in the accounts. QED -- Regards, Robert D. :flag-us-ky: _ The Bat! Version: 3.72.04 (Beta) Windows ME FireFox Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Reply-To problem
Hello Robert, On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 10:29:35 -0500 GMT (25/03/2006, 22:29 +0700 GMT), Robert D. wrote: In fact, they should be blank by default. RD OK ... I shall ... but could you enlighten me as to why it should be RD blank? It's not your fault, the default is set by Ritlabs. It should be blank by default because it is only necessary if the Reply-To address and the From-address differ. In that case you have to set it anyway; but the default causes problems with some mailing lists (as you have encountered). Hm. On all lists I post, the list software will overwrite RD dunno laddie , however, there are a couple of them, one being: RD Analog-Help analog-help@lists.meer.net where this ALWAYS happens RD to me. I won't subscribe to that list to find out. ;-) Depending on what list software they use, I am pretty sure that there is an option for the required overwrite. -- Cheers, Thomas. There are plenty of fish in the sea¡K well that¡Šs great for the fish. But I date humans. http://thomas.fernandez.hat-gar-keine-homepage.de/ Message reply created with The Bat! 3.71.03 under Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2 Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Reply-To problem
Hello Robert D. everyone else, on 25-Mrz-2006 at 14:55 you (Robert D.) wrote: And the reason I wish this would be that there is a certain list I am on that sends List replies to me rather than the mentioned list. They can't fix that problem so I am trying to do the make-shift repairs on my end. This may very well be intentional... I am on such a list, too. It is a public discussion list using the MailMan software, but the list owners still refuse to set the reply-to to the list address. Thats odd, but I had to accept it. When I tried the very thing you want to try, all kinds of weird things happened, some of the list members where upset. I deal with it using templates now. -- Best regards, Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.de - ICQ 238153981) We are in the early morning of understanding our place in the universe, and our spectacular latent powers. -- Marylin Fergenson Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: MicroEd vs Plain text
Hi, ,- - [ Le samedi 25 mars 2006 vers 13:43 Alexander S. Kunz écrivait: ] - - | Well, it is commonly acknowledged that articles are easier to read and comprehend if the text is not too wide. Thats why text in technical and scientific magazines is divided into multiple columns per page. Technical and scientific (and many other) magazines is divided into multiple columns first because you can insert more text on the same page (you loose less surface between paragraphs,...), and thus cost less to print :) Some people find it easier to read when the text is not too wide, that's why when there is no hardwrap the reader have always the choice to display the mail in a small width... i like when people have the choice to do how they want... But some people prefer have a look of the whole mail on only one screen, with as much information as possible on the same screen, and thus with wider lines, it's my case... unfortunately, when the writer used hardwrap, the reader *cannot* choose anything else and cannot read the mail how they want... I understand of course that sometime the writer *want* that the reader cannot choose another formating that the one the writer choosed, but honnestly, most of the time the writer just writed text with no particular formatting and just hope that someone will read it, did'nt you think they have more chance to be read if the reader is able to use a formatting they like ? Besides that, how would one keep apart when and if a hard wrap is intended, and when it was only auto-inserted by the client? In plain text, a CR/LF combination is a CR/LF combination is a CR/LF combination. This would require the wordprocessor style of paragraph formatting, but you can't preserve compatibility with older/other clients that way. No, i do not want a wordprocessor paragraph formatting : emails are just text, and does not contain any special formatting like space between paragraphs,... When the writer of a mail *want* to begin text on another line, they insert one CR/LF, when they want to separate two paragraphs, they insert two CR/LF (or more), but when they do not want specificaly to continue on another line, they do insert nothing... In plain text, paragraphs are divided by two CR/LFs. A single CR/LF is just a linebreak. I do not want to change that... i want to remove hardwrap, not linebreak But you point exactly the problem : hardwrap and linebreak use the same CR/LF sequence, that's why i do not like hardwrap. In a word processor, there are no linebreaks. You also have linebreaks in a word processor (msword = CTRL-ENTER). But i do not want a wordprocessor behavior, i do not want to just use one CR/LF between two paragraphs, in a mail for me there is always two CR/LF for that purpose, and one CR/LF for a linebreak... the only thing i do not like is to impose a CR/LF every 76 chars even when there is no linebreak... Paragraphs are divided by a single CR/LF. Now, it shouldn't be hard to implement a tiny little conversion routing to remove single CR/LFs so that text can be reflowed, and convert double CR/LFs so that they become paragraph dividers, but still... Again, i do not want this behavior... I could intently add a linebreak here because I want to format some text, a list, whatever, and I Exactly, and you still can, even with no hardwrap. wrap is not equal to linebreak ! And there will always be people why format message just how they want to. They're free to do so, and thats a good thing. Absolutly, it's exactly what i want : that people remains free to format their mail how they want when they compose it, and that when the writer do not want a specific formatting that the reader remain free also to read the mail with their own formatting. It's exactly what happen when you do not use hardwrapping... When a mail is not hardwrapped, as the reader, if i want to read the mail with 76 columns, i just ask it to my mail reader program, but if i want to use a bigger or a smaller width i still can... when the mail is hard wrapped i cannot, the writer choosed for me the width i *must* use. You can use Microsoft Outlook and configure it to remove extra linebreaks and spaces from plaintext messages. Et voila, the message is just as wide as you wish. ;-) No, as you said, that will mess any linebreak, it's technicaly not possible to disting hardwrap CR/LF from linebreak CR/LF. And the PDA mailreader does not have the simple mechanism to remove single CR/LF combinations and re-flow the message text for you? Poorly programmed, I'd say. :-P Again, it's technicaly not possible to disting linebreak from hardwrap... I respect the rules of the list, thus i've also hardwrapped this mail, but can someone tell me if it's possible with TheBat to use a different wrapping settings depending of the folder or the recipient ? I would like when i compose a mail for some lists to use a fixed wrapping at 76 with microed, and for
Re: MicroEd vs Plain text
Hello Stephane Bouvard [ML] everyone else, on 25-Mrz-2006 at 17:38 you (Stephane Bouvard [ML]) wrote: Well, it is commonly acknowledged that articles are easier to read and comprehend if the text is not too wide. Thats why text in technical and scientific magazines is divided into multiple columns per page. Technical and scientific (and many other) magazines is divided into multiple columns first because you can insert more text on the same page (you loose less surface between paragraphs,...), and thus cost less to print :) http://www.webaim.org/techniques/textlayout/ http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/72/columns.htm Depends on what significant is in this context, but I found it quite interesting. that's why when there is no hardwrap the reader have always the choice to display the mail in a small width... i like when people have the choice to do how they want... I do not disagree with you. However, this would require that every email client only inserts CR/LF when the user explicitely says so - otherwise you don't have a choice. You can't force all the world to do that for you. Talking about TheBat, only a small fraction of its users is using WinEd (which would do what you want, but its miserable handling quotes for example). And if the client on the receiving side should fix this for you, it'll fail, because, as I already said, a CR/LF is a CR/LF is... No, i do not want a wordprocessor paragraph formatting : emails are just text, and does not contain any special formatting like space between paragraphs,... When the writer of a mail *want* to begin text on another line, they insert one CR/LF, when they want to separate two paragraphs, they insert two CR/LF (or more), but when they do not want specificaly to continue on another line, they do insert nothing... Thats what TBs WinEd does, so go ahead and use it! ;-) Exactly, and you still can, even with no hardwrap. wrap is not equal to linebreak ! Reality bites. In plain text email messages, it is: No, as you said, that will mess any linebreak, it's technicaly not possible to disting hardwrap CR/LF from linebreak CR/LF. And the PDA mailreader does not have the simple mechanism to remove single CR/LF combinations and re-flow the message text for you? Poorly programmed, I'd say. :-P Again, it's technicaly not possible to disting linebreak from hardwrap... For a small screen device like a PDA, I could live with that limitation. It depends on the situation. But how can you change the Wrap text at settings within template ? You don't need to. Switch to WinEd. It wraps only on screen, not in the actual message that is sent. -- Best regards, Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.de - ICQ 238153981) A cookie store is a bad idea. Besides, the market research reports say America likes crispy cookies, not soft and chewy cookies like you make. -- Response to Debbi Fields' idea of starting Mrs. Fields' Cookies. Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: MicroEd vs Plain text
Hi, ,- - [ Le samedi 25 mars 2006 vers 18:53 Alexander S. Kunz écrivait: ] - - | that's why when there is no hardwrap the reader have always the choice to display the mail in a small width... i like when people have the choice to do how they want... I do not disagree with you. However, this would require that every email client only inserts CR/LF when the user explicitely says so - otherwise you don't have a choice. The fact that some email client automaticaly insert CR/LF to linewrap (=hardwrap) does not force other email client to do the same, email clients able to read mails without hardwrap are also able to read emails with, the only thing important is to know if every email client is able to read emails without hardwrap, and if yes, why is it encouraged to use hardwrap. You can't force all the world to do that for you. Talking about TheBat, only a small fraction of its users is using WinEd (which would do what you want, but its miserable handling quotes for example). The fact that some people cannot write messages without hardwrap does not mean that everyone should, the only point is to know if there is people who cannot read messages without hardwrap... No, i do not want a wordprocessor paragraph formatting : emails are just text, and does not contain any special formatting like space between paragraphs,... When the writer of a mail *want* to begin text on another line, they insert one CR/LF, when they want to separate two paragraphs, they insert two CR/LF (or more), but when they do not want specificaly to continue on another line, they do insert nothing... Thats what TBs WinEd does, so go ahead and use it! ;-) I use it, my question is : why is it forbidded on some lists and sometimes even discouraged ? And the PDA mailreader does not have the simple mechanism to remove single CR/LF combinations and re-flow the message text for you? Poorly programmed, I'd say. :-P Again, it's technicaly not possible to disting linebreak from hardwrap... For a small screen device like a PDA, I could live with that limitation. It depends on the situation. I can live with it if i need to, i just do not understand why it's the recommended way to do when there are another way much more compatible with every screen and user wish... But how can you change the Wrap text at settings within template ? You don't need to. Switch to WinEd. It wraps only on screen, not in the actual message that is sent. Yes i need to because i do not want to wrap on screen nope, i like to write like i read : using the whole size of my screen. If i set Wrap text at to 76, WinEd do wrap my text on my screen (even if it do not add CR/LF) at the 76th chars, to avoid that and use the whole size of the editor window, i must set the wrap text at to a really big value (the maximum, 32000). To use WinEd like i want, i must set Wrap text at 32000, but to respect the rules of some list, i need to use MicroEd with Wrap text at 76, it would be great to define that in the template, so i can use my prefered settings most of the time, but enable hardwrap when i write to a list requesting it... | `- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Best regards... _ (_' L'informatique est ma passion, vous la simplifier, mon métier ! ,_)téphane Bouvard [antarex AT freenet DOT be] http://www.antarex.be Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: MicroEd vs Plain text
Hello Stephane Bouvard (ML) everyone else, on 25-Mrz-2006 at 19:26 you (Stephane Bouvard (ML)) wrote: Thats what TBs WinEd does, so go ahead and use it! ;-) I use it, my question is : why is it forbidded on some lists and sometimes even discouraged ? Forbidden: I don't know, I don't know any list that forbids it (or did I miss that in the TBUDL list). Discouraged: readability, we've been thru that already. :-) I can live with it if i need to, i just do not understand why it's the recommended way to do when there are another way much more compatible with every screen and user wish... I dare say that it is very much a compatibility issue, even today... :-( But how can you change the Wrap text at settings within template ? You don't need to. Switch to WinEd. It wraps only on screen, not in the actual message that is sent. Yes i need to because i do not want to wrap on screen nope, i like to write like i read : using the whole size of my screen. I understand now. I don't know a way around this, sorry. -- Best regards, Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.de - ICQ 238153981) It is better to have tried and failed than to have failed to try, but the result's the same. -- Mike Dennison Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: MicroEd vs Plain text
On 25/3/2006 at 11:38:55 AM [GMT -0500], Stephane Bouvard [Ml] wrote: Technical and scientific (and many other) magazines is divided into multiple columns first because you can insert more text on the same page (you loose less surface between paragraphs,...), and thus cost less to print :) Are you sure about this? AFAIK, there's evidence based on observational studies that wrapped text at about 72-76 characters are more easily read and understood by most. I guess there will be the exceptions. -- -= Curtis =- The Bat! v3.72.04 (Beta) / http://specs.aimlink.name PGPKey: http://rsakey.aimlink.name ...Pentiums melt in your PC, not in your hand. pgp4vku0yv7bD.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
