Re: MicroEd vs Plain text
Hi, ,- - [ Le samedi 25 mars 2006 vers 20:55 Alexander S. Kunz écrivait: ] - - | Discouraged: readability, we've been thru that already. :-) Avoiding hardwrap does not limit the readability as the reader remain able to display the message with a 76 chars width... and a message without hardwrap is much more readable on some devices than a message with (PDA, cellular,...)... thus you told that hardwrapping is encouraged to lower the readability of the mails ? :p 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... :-( I still do not see the compatibility problem : is there some systems unable to read correctly messages without hardwrapping ? That question remain open for me : is there a compatibility problem with mails using no hardwrapping ? Is someone unable to read this mail because their reader cannot wrap itself ? I've used emails for really long time, even before using Internet i was Fidonet node (2:291/713), i've used Golded for years, even golded under MSDos was able to wrap messages without the need of hardwrap in it... in that time already i was sometimes using a console with 132 columns and not the standard 80 :) | `- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- 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[2]: Shortcuts not saved
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: since I upgraded to 3.71.03, it seems some of my shortcuts are not saved. [...] Before this last upgrade I had no problems with such shortcuts. Did anyone experienced a similar behavior? Yes, I lost all of my shortcuts when I upgraded to my current TB! version, from another recent 3.x version. Next time, just manually back up the drive:\Documents and Settings\You\Application Data\The Bat!\tbuser.DEF file prior to upgrading, to avoid trouble in having to re-create some or all of your keyboard shortcuts. Thanks for the reply, but I did backup my tbuser.DEF, and this was not the problem. I'll try to explain the phenomenon more in detail: * go to the Customise dialog * pick up a menu item without a shortcut (in my setup: Main Menu / Main Form - Message / Park) * you can verify that no shortcut is defined on this item (nothing is selectable) * assign Alt-\ as shortcut, and close the Customise dialog * in the main menu (Message / Park) you can check that the shortcut is correctly assigned (and it works) * shutdown and restart The Bat! * in the main menu (Message / Park) the shortcut no longer appears * in the Customise dialog, if you select the Park item you can see that an *empty* shortcut exists, you can remove it, but it is no longer working as Alt-\ I have the impression that the issue is with the backslash. I could use another key as shortcut of course, but on my keyboard it is really handy, and I've been using it for a lot of time... Can any of you confirm this? Is this a bug that should be reported? Thanks. -- Best regards, Philippe. Using The Bat! 3.71.03 Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: MicroEd vs Plain text
Hi, ,- - [ Le dimanche 26 mars 2006 vers 12:39 Alexander S. Kunz écrivait: ] - - | the square brakets in your realname are getting pretty annoying, the listmailer again rejected the message as containing to many recipients. :-[ It allow me to disting different accounts, i will change it to use ( ) in place I find your messages are pretty hard to read when you use WinEd. Because TB doesn't wrap incoming messages for me. Really strange, i use TB also of course, i've tried with the two differents reader options available in TB (Plain Text viewer Rich Text/HTML), the two readers correctly wrap my previous mail to the width i've defined for my reader pane, i never see any horizontal scroll bar, the text never flow outside of the right margin... When i change the width of the reader pane, TB automatically rewrap the text to feed the new width. Wich reader settings did you use in your TB ? Just like it doesn't un-wrap them for you. So, I could take just the opposite position and say why doesn't everyone wrap their mails at column 73, it would help me so much. Normaly your TB should wrap the mail i've sent previously automaticaly, i do not understand why it does'nt for you, i've never seen such a behavior... | `- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- 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 26-Mrz-2006 at 14:23 you (Stephane Bouvard (ML)) wrote: I find your messages are pretty hard to read when you use WinEd. Because TB doesn't wrap incoming messages for me. Really strange, i use TB also of course, i've tried with the two differents reader options available in TB (Plain Text viewer Rich Text/HTML), the two readers correctly wrap my previous mail to the width i've defined for my reader pane Yeah, to the window border of the reader pane, dude. Thats far to wide for my taste, and not a very custom wrapping of incoming messages. TB does NOT wrap incoming messages anywhere else but at the window border. It never has. If I'd be using a full-width preview pane that would hardly be what I want. -- Best regards, Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.de - ICQ 238153981) Deliplayer2 is playing: Circuits Of The Imagination (3:12) by Shpongle from the album 'Nothing Lasts' Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: MicroEd vs Plain text
Hello Alexander, On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 you wrote in mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ASK Yeah, to the window border of the reader pane, dude. Thats far to wide ASK for my taste, and not a very custom wrapping of incoming messages. I have to agree with you 100% on that one. I have my message pane quite wide and scanning eyes across about 130 character wide text is far harder than a pleasant 72ish wide text setting. -- Regards, Richard | The Bat! 3.72.04 (Beta) with SpamPal POP3 account and no Plug-ins | Windows XP (build 2600), version 5. 1 Service Pack 2 | F-Prot AV, Outpost Firewall Pro 3.0, Spysweeper, Adaware, SpyBot Holiday in France: http://perso.wanadoo.fr/lazyhomes/holiday.html Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: MicroEd vs Plain text
On 26/3/2006 at 4:57:10 AM [GMT -0500], Stephane Bouvard [Ml] wrote: I still do not see the compatibility problem : is there some systems unable to read correctly messages without hardwrapping ? That question remain open for me : is there a compatibility problem with mails using no hardwrapping ? Is someone unable to read this mail because their reader cannot wrap itself ? Consider a widescreen format display ... 17. The user decides on a full height account tree layout for TB!. The user also wishes to make use of his screen and show the message list nicely with a few informative columns not all crunched up and chopped off. After-all, he has the screen real estate for it. The preview window is below the message list pane, nice and wide as the message list. At the users font size, text in the preview pane, window wraps at 160 characters. Not very comfortable to read, now is it? So though the wrapping occurs, it's still a problem. So I leave you and that user to argue/discuss about the virtues of hard-wrapping e-mail text. :) This may not be resolved on an individual basis and I like your wish to be able to choose editor via a template macro. However, it's not there ... not yet. :) -- -= Curtis =- The Bat! v3.72.04 (Beta) / http://specs.aimlink.name PGPKey: http://rsakey.aimlink.name ...Suicide is the most sincere form of self criticism. pgpr5xbzDQf8A.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: MicroEd vs Plain text
Who would have guessed that Curtis would have said : Consider a widescreen format display ... 17. full height account tree layout show the message list nicely with a few informative columns The preview window is below the message list pane, nice and wide All as above. Though I agree with Wakeford that after about 72ish chars, my eyes just beg for a wrap so they don't begin to skip lines as I move to the right. If one (sort of) speed reads, the angle difference from 70(ish) to 140-160 means that, at the latter, I'd have to keep moving my head/eyes to clasp the groups. At 60-70, once can scan vertically quite comfortably. -- 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
Hi, ,- - [ Le dimanche 26 mars 2006 vers 14:43 Alexander S. Kunz écrivait: ] - - | Really strange, i use TB also of course, i've tried with the two differents reader options available in TB (Plain Text viewer Rich Text/HTML), the two readers correctly wrap my previous mail to the width i've defined for my reader pane Yeah, to the window border of the reader pane, dude. Thats far to wide for my taste, and not a very custom wrapping of incoming messages. Because you request your TB to display the messages wide. It's *your* choice, if you prefer a smaller preview pane, just reduce their size... You cannot tell that *my* message is wrong because *you* requested to read it wide and that you do not like that :) TB does NOT wrap incoming messages anywhere else but at the window border. And it's the much logical way to do : the window size is the size you want to read your messages, if you define this size it's because you want to read with this size, i think it's nice that TB display the message how you want to, at least when there is no hardwrap... It never has. If I'd be using a full-width preview pane that would hardly be what I want. If you do not want to read your messages full width, do not configure your preview pane to display full width, that's your choice, not the choice of the one who send the mail. If you do not want to decrease the size of the preview pane, you can increase the size of your font. - - [ Le dimanche 26 mars 2006 vers 15:27 Richard Wakeford écrivait: ] - - I have to agree with you 100% on that one. I have my message pane quite wide and scanning eyes across about 130 character wide text is far harder than a pleasant 72ish wide text setting. If you do not like to preview your messages wide, why did you keep your preview pane wide ? I understand that peoples prefer read lines of 80 characters, they can define the width of their preview pane for that, it's the purpose of a not fixed width window... But why requesting that the sender must use hardwrap because you've requested your mail reader to display 130 characters per line and that you prefer 80... it's not the fault of the sender if your mail reader is wrongly configured... For me, the sender must use the most standard format to allow a maximum of people to read the message, the width, the font, the color of the text, the color of the background,... must be choosed by the recipient, not by the sender. It's a mail, not a webpage : there should not be formatting in the mail, hardwrapping is a form of formatting, the peoples who do not want to see html in a mail (as i), should also refuse hardwrapping... | `- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- 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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 ***^\ ._)~~ ~( __ _o Was another beautiful day, Sun, 26 Mar 2006, @ @ at 11:57:10 +0200, when Stephane Bouvard [ML] wrote: Is someone unable to read this mail because their reader cannot wrap itself ? All the letters are present, although the punctuation marks (: and ? for instance) illiterately used, as to orthographic rules, which decompose consistency of the shape of sentence and thus of the paragraph(s), along with the lines spreading across the whole screen, makes them quite hard for reading, let us put aside the aesthetic moment which is, objectively, emphatically ugly. I've used emails for really long time, Usually enough to understand the reasons of existence of some, quite elementary and simple, rules and standards. Including orthography. - -- Mica PGP keys nestled at: http://blueness.port5.com/pgpkeys/ [Earth LOG: 571 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- iQEVAwUBRCajwbSpHvHEUtv8AQOAcQgAnb7LINfJnl8jphGjOHOgKmjbCgZwT6Uf BPcNYMg6bhFkE70zEr2oaS6VRhXfjm8ffjrdM9NsTWmgIy7Mq4q83Pb/kCdu8GNp VeEHpF73RypEzoz7Cs1oWu42qRcV7acIJBbqOVSFMGWDLKO0BE+Tcab1K5cKvnJ2 39f4pOcDggnIrBmB67+pUKOMM9APiajTvX2ig6ERA3f5gE5jbpFx943zs2LlV3/D UgCdLLt7zUvdMvvPygty0CjopRPI+km/DOSzQx04y0+BUnFI9bO5aXxNZ6BJ4ueh z/VoGr06v1OCBq+JrMLL3C2j1BF6MBZyVtU6PXkkvUsTeha3pjcoNQ== =JQjy -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: MicroEd vs Plain text
Hello Stephane, On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 you wrote in mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] SBM If you do not like to preview your messages wide, why did you keep your SBM preview pane wide ? Because I have a three pane setting. Folders list full length on the left then Message list at the top and Message pane below that. I like the Message list wide so that I can see the full thread history of the topic under discussion but still like me messages at about 72 Characters wide, which they are with most posters ;-) SBM But why requesting that the sender must use hardwrap because you've SBM requested your mail reader to display 130 characters per line and SBM that you prefer 80... You can't request a person to alter the width of their sent mail but it's just that a narrower mail width is far easier to read. SBM it's not the fault of the sender if your mail reader is wrongly SBM configured... It's maybe an option that should be asked for in TB! then, that incoming mail, if longer than the stipulated length chosen by the recipient (in my case 72 characters) that the mail has a sort of automatic ALT + L performed on it (as you can do when quoting long lines in a reply with MicroEd) to set the mail to the desired width, whatever the width of the preview pane? SBM the peoples who do not want to see html in a mail (as i) and me SBM , should also refuse hardwrapping... I don't see the logic of that exactly because hardwrapping is just making the message (for some) easier to read and is a personal preference that affects no one but themselves. -- Regards, Richard | The Bat! 3.72.04 (Beta) with SpamPal POP3 account and no Plug-ins | Windows XP (build 2600), version 5. 1 Service Pack 2 | F-Prot AV, Outpost Firewall Pro 3.0, Spysweeper, Adaware, SpyBot Holiday in France: http://perso.wanadoo.fr/lazyhomes/holiday.html Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: MicroEd vs Plain text
Stephane, this is getting boring and a bit ridiculous, I beg your pardon. The fact that you can't have it your way doesn't mean that you must convince everyone else to want to have it your way. Not that you would be successful, anyway. EOD for me, sorry. -- Best regards, Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.de - ICQ 238153981) For every action, there is an equal and opposite criticism. Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: MicroEd vs Plain text
On 26/3/2006 at 9:55:15 AM [GMT -0500], Stephane Bouvard (Ml) wrote: Because you request your TB to display the messages wide. If my or anyone else's TB! window size preference was determined by the size we'd want our preview panes to be, then there would be no problem. It would seem that this has been the case since whenever, hence the convention of wrapping text to a reasonable limit. All clients support this ability. Richard's suggestion that TB! should be able to wrap received text to a user defined limit in the viewer, independent of the preview pane would be the nice thing to have. However, Pegasus Mail is the only client with a viewer I've encountered that will do this. I think Becky! is capable of this as well. But alas, most viewers will not do so. With clients the way they currently are, it's unlikely that your preference will gain popularity. Format=flowed is an interesting system introduced in the RFC to help tackle this problem. However, it will work only if all clients followed suite. -- -= Curtis =- The Bat! v3.72.04 (Beta) / http://specs.aimlink.name PGPKey: http://rsakey.aimlink.name ...A clean desk is a sign of a cluttered desk drawer. pgpftMsVqMlls.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: MicroEd vs Plain text
Hello Curtis everyone else, on 26-Mrz-2006 at 19:23 you (Curtis) wrote: Format=flowed is an interesting system introduced in the RFC to help tackle this problem. However, it will work only if all clients followed suite. I assume you only mean that the reflowing will work only if the client supports it? :-) I really like the idea of format=flowed and feel like it needs some advocacy. :-) This system works on *all* clients because the text is still hard wrapped. Whenever a line should be flowed, a client aware of the system will determine this by a trailing space (before the CR/LF), remove the space/CR/LF combination and reflow the text. An unaware client will simply show the hard wrapped text, the trailing space will do no harm. -- Best regards, Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.de - ICQ 238153981) Deliplayer2 is playing: Space Walk (6:12) by Celestus from the 2001 album 'Goa 2001 (CD2)' Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Windows not remembering where they should be
I have recently set up my laptop (which runs TB) to huse an external monitor as a dual monitor. Unfortunately, when I open new message windows, or reply to windows, they open up off the screen. I can retrieve them using Task Bar Move but every other application that has this problem remembers the new position for next time. TB doesn't it seems. AM I missing a setting somewhere or is there some arcane method of getting TB to remember window positions? -- Marten Gallagher Annery Kiln Web Design www.annerykiln.co.uk Using The Bat! 3.71.03 with POPFile 0.22.4 on Windows XP 5.1 tbudl@thebat.dutaint.com Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: MicroEd vs Plain text
Hi, ,- - [ Le dimanche 26 mars 2006 vers 19:23 Curtis écrivait: ] - - | Richard's suggestion that TB! should be able to wrap received text to a user defined limit in the viewer, independent of the preview pane would be the nice thing to have. However, Pegasus Mail is the only client with a viewer I've encountered that will do this. I think Becky! is capable of this as well. But alas, most viewers will not do so. It seems that the only thing needed is the following : be able to resize the preview pane independently of the others panes, technicaly, just adding a fake pane on the right side of the preview pane must do it, resizing this fake empty pane will automaticaly resize the preview pane also, allowing to automaticaly wrap the mails the way anyone want... it seems logical that the width of the preview pane is the width the user want to preview their mails, the only actual problem is that TB does not allow to resize it independently. Maybe an idea for ritlabs : i think this option should really not be difficult to implement, and will offer a great solution for people who want to preview their mails on a smaller width... Format=flowed is an interesting system introduced in the RFC to help tackle this problem. However, it will work only if all clients followed suite. Format=flowed did not help with existing email clients wich use a smaller width, like PDA, cellular,... those softwares work perfectly well when there is no hardwrap... but we can hope that those softwares will be able someday to remove the space/CR/LF then reformat the mail... | `- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- 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, On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 you wrote in mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] SBM It seems that the only thing needed is the following : be able to SBM resize the preview pane independently of the others panes...it SBM seems logical that the width of the preview pane is the width the SBM user want to preview their mails, the only actual problem is that SBM TB does not allow to resize it independently. Ye gods. Complicated or what. -- Regards, Richard | The Bat! 3.72.04 (Beta) with SpamPal POP3 account and no Plug-ins | Windows XP (build 2600), version 5. 1 Service Pack 2 | F-Prot AV, Outpost Firewall Pro 3.0, Spysweeper, Adaware, SpyBot Holiday in France: http://perso.wanadoo.fr/lazyhomes/holiday.html 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 26-Mrz-2006 at 23:03 you (Stephane Bouvard (ML)) wrote: Maybe an idea for ritlabs : i think this option should really not be difficult to implement , and will offer a great solution for people who want to preview their mails on a smaller width... You expect anyone to support that? After all you are one of the very few persons who wants to view their mail wider than it was originally sent. It would be more useful instead to have a general reflow incoming messages feature (a bit like the Outlook feature remove unnecessary linebreaks on incoming plain text messages) instead of hilarious fake panels to adjust the view width... -- Best regards, Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.de - ICQ 238153981) The real art of conversation is not only to say the right thing at the right time, but also to leave unsaid the wrong thing at the tempting moment. Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Sorting background color
In my header list the column that the header info is sorted on has the background in a color and I'd like to change the color (or not have the color at all) but can't figure out how to make the changes. Thanks, Larry -- WinXP Pro SP2 TheBat 3.71.03 Working in total confusion Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
word wrap problem with Windows editor
Batfolk, With all the discussion about the Windows compatible and the MicroEd editors, I thought I would have a look at the windows editor again. However I have discovered a problem with the line length displayed in the editor. I have text wrapping set at 76 characters, but the text in my editor is wrapping at 51 characters instead. The MicroEd editor works as expected and wraps at 76 characters (or of course, the word break prior), but for some reason the value of 76 seems to be misinterpreted in the windows editor. Now, I realise this is just a soft wrap, and that it is simply a display issue in the editor, but does anyone else experience this? Or can anyone suggest why the Windows compatible editor wraps at 51 characters instead of 76? Robin -- Robin Using The Bat! v3.0.1.33 Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2 Popfile v0.22.3 Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
