Re[2]: MicroEditor (was Re[2]: Bat Alternatives)
RG Auto-format though still does NOT wrap pasted in lines AM I explained that in my last message. Use the paste formatted option to AM wrap pasted text. Instead of pasting with CTRL+V, paste with AM CTRL+Shift+Ins. As I pointed out that you cut from the reply... Invoking insertion of canned text via a QT with CTRL-SPACE STILL will not wrap. -- Rich Current version is 2.01.3 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: MicroEditor (was Re[2]: Bat Alternatives)
AM Auto-format's wrapping is in fact somewhat different to Alt-L. This sort AM of thing occurs without Autoformat enabled. With autoformat enabled, as AM soon as you type a character, the text block is reflowed. Auto-format though still does NOT wrap pasted in lines == even if they come in from canned QTs! == -- Rich Current version is 2.01.3 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: MicroEditor (was Re[2]: Bat Alternatives)
Hello Allie, On Saturday, November 15, 2003, 5:30:22 AM, you wrote: Rich Gregory, [RG] wrote: RG I was not referring to quoted text. Would that setting affect RG fresh text I am inputting? Smartwrapping will wrap quoted material when the reply is generated. With auto-format enabled, fresh text will be wrapped as you type. Ensure that autoformat is enabled by looking for the check mark beside it in the Utilities menu of the editor. Auto-format can be of, just tack auto-wrap. I use the Micro editor in plain text and it works fine. -- Cheers, Edgar Communicating with TB! v2.01.3, Windows XP 5.1.2600 Service Pack 1 You never have time to do it right the first time, but you always have time to do it over. pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 2.01.3 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: MicroEditor (was Re[2]: Bat Alternatives)
Rich Gregory, [RG] wrote: RG Auto-format though still does NOT wrap pasted in lines I explained that in my last message. Use the paste formatted option to wrap pasted text. Instead of pasting with CTRL+V, paste with CTRL+Shift+Ins. -- -= allie_M =- | List Moderator PGPKeys: http://www.ac-martin.com/pgpkeys.html Using TB! v2.01.26 on WinXP Pro (SP1) pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 2.01.3 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
MicroEditor (was Re[2]: Bat Alternatives)
RG Is there any way to make MicroEd default to that ALT-L more? RA Do you mean AutoFormat (Shift+Ctrl+F)? Hi gang! I was just editing an email (not this one!) and saw that I'd again have to press ALT-L to get the paragraph to wrap for me and not run off the edge of the screen. At this point I invoked the above key-stroke combination but it didn't do anything! I DO have autoformat turned ON in the preferences and yet I STILL have to press ALT-L on each and every paragraph in any email I am composing that does not wrap by itself! Anyone? -- Rich Current version is 2.01.3 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: MicroEditor (was Re[2]: Bat Alternatives)
Rich Gregory, [RG] wrote: RG I DO have autoformat turned ON in the preferences and yet I STILL RG have to press ALT-L on each and every paragraph in any email I am RG composing that does not wrap by itself! Try the 'smart wrapping of quoted text' option in the editor preferences. -- -= allie_M =- | List Moderator PGPKeys: http://www.ac-martin.com/pgpkeys.html Using TB! v2.01.26 on WinXP Pro (SP1) pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 2.01.3 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Bat Alternatives
Hi Marck I'm top posting because I'd rather not reply to every single statement with the same sentence. You're being ridiculous here in claiming what you do. When you can see and predict what happens on every single installation of TB on the planet, come to me and we'll talk. And then I'll accept that TB doesn't mess things up here. You of all people should realize that software is not perfect. Until then, stick to moderation and stop trying to act clairvoyant. And mind your accusations about my making false claims. I see a problem and state it. If it upsets your world where TB is perfect, that's your problem. Deal with it. I'm not misleading everyone - why would I? I like TB, but neither am I as blind as you are to the possbility that things can go wrong with it. Thursday, November 13, 2003, 9:01:00 PM, you wrote: MDP @13-Nov-2003, 20:29 -0500 (14-Nov 01:29 UK time) Vishal said to MDP Marck: We could go on debating this forever. MDP Only as long as you keep getting it wrong. The fact remains, MDP ??? not a fact. A fallacy. You are mistaken. TB is not as infallible as you make it out to be. MDP Not in question. My only statement (and a *clear* fact) is that TB MDP doesn't wrap on send. I have seen many instances where what you claim does not happen. MDP No. You just think you have. I can 100% guarantee you haven't. What MDP you have seen was not down to TB. Please stop misleading other users MDP in this forum about your mistaken assumption. Let's just drop it. MDP No. You are making a false claim about TB functionality in public. I MDP can't let that stand. MDP TB does not wrap on send. MDP That is a fact. MDP PGP can introduce wrapping like you are talking about. TB cannot. MDP Please concede that you are misinformed about the source of the MDP formatting errors you are witnessing. TB won't do it, not without MDP outside interference. Cheers, -- Vishal Current version is 2.01.3 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Bat Alternatives
Hi Marck Thursday, November 13, 2003, 10:23:58 PM, you wrote: MDP Okay - please understand me when I inform you that when it happens MDP for you, then there is a specific reason for it. Obviously. TB does mangle some replies to messages. MDP Not on its own. Sorry, but it does. MDP Only if you have implemented some kind of wrapping macro in your reply MDP template. I haven't. MDP Maybe if you use the new Windows editor then you may *see* mangled MDP replies, but then that's not what TB is going to send, is it? (Damn that MDP new editor!) I don't. I use MicroEd. MDP Maybe if you use auto-format I don't. MDP TB's native quoting algorithm does nothing more than put a quote MDP prefix on every line being quoted. Nothing else. Nothing in that MDP action is ever going to mess with line wrapping. I perfectly understand. Somehow it still happens though. And I've wasted way more time on this thread than I planned to. I don't care enough to fix the problem. MDP Now, I understand that the issue may be moot for you, but as long as MDP you insist on informing other users (reading in this list) that TB MDP is incurably capable of messing up reply wrapping, I have a duty to MDP state that it is an incorrect assessment and that if it's happening MDP then something else is wrong. It's not an incorrect assessment. I do not use the options you outlined as possible causes. I do not use powerpro. I'm not talking about antiviruses or anything else interfering, since I haven't sent the message yet. I click reply and sometimes things are messed up. Not often enough for me to try to fix it. But it happens, and if you have a duty to say that it doesn't happen, I have an interest in correcting that. That said, I'm finished with this thread. One of your other messages was extremely insulting and I replied in kind. If you like, you can continue. You will not receive a reply. But I don't have the time to waste on trying to work out little niggling problems with all the tools I use if I will not save time by doing it. Cheers, -- Vishal Current version is 2.01.3 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Bat Alternatives
Hi Tony Friday, November 14, 2003, 7:37:04 AM, you wrote: TB So all we need to do now is to tune Vishal to the same place on the TB dial. We're already there Tony. We're talking about the same thing, only that Marck says that what I see cannot happen. Unfortunately it does. Or maybe not so unfortunate, since it doesn't happen often. Regardless, I don't really care as long as I can fix it the way I do currently. Cheers, -- Vishal Current version is 2.01.3 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: MicroEditor (was Re[2]: Bat Alternatives)
Hello rich gregory, on Fri, 14 Nov 2003 20:54:31 -0500 (2003-11-15 02:54:31 in .nl) in the message with reference mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote (at least in part): RG Is there any way to make MicroEd default to that ALT-L more? RA Do you mean AutoFormat (Shift+Ctrl+F)? rg Hi gang! I was just editing an email (not this one!) and saw that I'd again rg have to press ALT-L to get the paragraph to wrap for me and not run off the rg edge of the screen. At this point I invoked the above key-stroke combination rg but it didn't do anything! rg I DO have autoformat turned ON in the preferences and yet I STILL have to rg press ALT-L on each and every paragraph in any email I am composing that does rg not wrap by itself! Well, I haven't checked the exact settings on my TB (I use MicroEd), but what I seem to notice: - MicroEd wraps when the _cursor_ goes beyond the 'wrap-point'. - MicroEd won't wrap when you insert text on a line and the cursor doesn't go beyond the 'wrap-point' Hence, just my opinion: - MicroEd doensn't wrap as an average user would expect, wrap whole words of which anything goes beyong the 'wrap-point', and unwrap when space allows - too long lines may be sent by TB!, as Marck says: TB! won't change what you see / what MicroEd creates -- Kind regards, Peter Ouwehand E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - Created the above using A program which insists to be : The Bat! V2.01.26 An OS which insists to be : Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.01.3 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: MicroEditor (was Re[2]: Bat Alternatives)
RG I have autoformat turned ON in the preferences and yet I STILL RG have to press ALT-L on each and every paragraph in any email I am RG composing that does not wrap by itself! AM Try the 'smart wrapping of quoted text' option in the editor AM preferences. I was not referring to quoted text. Would that setting affect fresh text I am inputting? -- Rich Current version is 2.01.3 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: MicroEditor (was Re[2]: Bat Alternatives)
Rich Gregory, [RG] wrote: RG I was not referring to quoted text. Would that setting affect RG fresh text I am inputting? Smartwrapping will wrap quoted material when the reply is generated. With auto-format enabled, fresh text will be wrapped as you type. Ensure that autoformat is enabled by looking for the check mark beside it in the Utilities menu of the editor. -- -= allie_M =- | List Moderator PGPKeys: http://www.ac-martin.com/pgpkeys.html Using TB! v2.01.26 on WinXP Pro (SP1) pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 2.01.3 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: MicroEditor (was Re[2]: Bat Alternatives)
AM auto-format enabled, fresh text will be wrapped as you type. Ensure that AM autoformat is enabled by looking for the check mark beside it in the AM Utilities menu of the editor. Auto-format IS checked. Sometimes the editor wraps 1 way, sometimes another, and sometimes not at all. If I just type it wraps, if I paste text into a paragraph it doesn't. When I do type, it does wrap but even then it wraps differently than the line length it snaps to on invoking ALT-L. Editing the paragraph (inserting and deleting text here and there throughout) causes the lines to grow and shrink depending on what I do. (Then, of course, I have to hit ALT-L before I send so that the lines are sent wrapping correctly. This is why I am asking for a setting that will be like having an ALT-L function performed on the whole email message as it is edited. THX -- Rich Current version is 2.01.3 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: MicroEditor (was Re[2]: Bat Alternatives)
Rich Gregory, [RG] wrote: RG Auto-format IS checked. Sometimes the editor wraps 1 way, sometimes RG another, and sometimes not at all. If I just type it wraps, if I RG paste text into a paragraph it doesn't. MicroEd doesn't soft wrap. When you paste text in an editor that behaves as you're familiar with, it soft wraps the pasted text. It will not hard wrap it. Same for MicroEd. If you wish the pasted text to be wrapped, then use the 'paste formatted' option, i.e., Shift+Ctrl+Ins. RG When I do type, it does wrap but even then it wraps differently than RG the line length it snaps to on invoking ALT-L. Auto-format's wrapping is in fact somewhat different to Alt-L. Autoformat will not remove extra spaces between words. As a result, it will not remove an initial paragraph indentation and it will not remove the extra-space that so many like to put after 'periods'. RG Editing the paragraph (inserting and deleting text here and there RG throughout) causes the lines to grow and shrink depending on what I RG do. This sort of thing occurs without Autoformat enabled. With autoformat enabled, as soon as you type a character, the text block is reflowed. -- -= allie_M =- | List Moderator PGPKeys: http://www.ac-martin.com/pgpkeys.html Using TB! v2.01.26 on WinXP Pro (SP1) pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 2.01.3 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Bat Alternatives
Hi Marck Saturday, November 8, 2003, 8:03:37 PM, you wrote: MDP I was and I was 100% correct: MDP TB does not wrap quoted text. MDP TB does not wrap on send. MDP This means that TB will not produce that orphaned quoted word MDP phenomenon seen with other software. You wish. TB messes up replies all the time, especially from Yahoo. If I had a sample handy I'd show you. But like I said, Alt+L fixes things so that I don't worry too much about it. Plus, I kind of like seeing text get reflowed in front of my eyes :) Cheers, -- Vishal Current version is 2.01.3 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Bat Alternatives
Hi Marck Saturday, November 8, 2003, 8:09:46 PM, you wrote: V Not true. It does, all the time. MDP (This is not correct). It is correct. We could go on debating this forever. The fact remains, TB is not as infallible as you make it out to be. I have seen many instances where what you claim does not happen. Let's just drop it. Cheers, -- Vishal Current version is 2.01.3 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Bat Alternatives
Hello Marck D Pearlstone, on Fri, 14 Nov 2003 02:01:00 + (2003-11-14 03:01:00 in .nl) in the message with reference mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote (at least in part): MDP Hi Vishal, MDP @13-Nov-2003, 20:29 -0500 (14-Nov 01:29 UK time) Vishal said to MDP Marck: snip MDP PGP can introduce wrapping like you are talking about. TB cannot. snip Create a TBPGP list perhaps? -- With kind regards, Peter Ouwehand E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - Created the above using A program which insists to be : The Bat! V2.01.26 An OS which insists to be : Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.01.3 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Bat Alternatives
Hi Marck Thursday, November 13, 2003, 8:51:53 PM, you wrote: MDP No. I know. Let me try to explain it more clearly so that you MDP can catch up with the issue actually being discussed in this branch MDP of the (long dead) thread. I know what issue was being discussed. And I just checked my email after some time, so I'm replying to this (who cares if it is) long dead thread. MDP No, it doesn't. It does no reformatting on send. It does no MDP reformatting on reply. Ergo, TB can't be messing up the formatting, MDP can it? Theoretically, no. I understand the point you have been making. I don't see how it should happen either. But this does not bear out my experiences. MDP If something else messes it up before you see it, that's not MDP completely TB's fault, is it? No it isn't. But I wasn't talking about things happening before I see them. I'm talking about replies. MDP Or are you on about the extra line feeds Yahoo adds on some base 64 MDP encoded messages? No. MDP Either way, none of this has anything to do with the *subject at MDP hand*. It certainly does. See above. MDP Example: Here is a longer line of reply that has been badly wrapped by a client that does not know how to not wrap on send. MDP TB won't do that to text. *Please* stop saying it does! Why? I don't understand how you can claim certain behavior on its part when you DO NOT SEE what I see! Have you seen how messages look when I reply to them?? I don't know how it happens. I don't care how it happens. TB does mangle some replies to messages. And I fix it in a second. End of issue. Cheers, -- Vishal Current version is 2.01.3 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Bat Alternatives
RG Highlighting, deleting, and inserting characters don't work as they RG should either in the MicroEd editor. MDP The cursor will move using the arrow and page keys exactly as it MDP should and in just the same way as it does in every other editor I've MDP used on Windows. Home and End take you to the beginning and end of MDP line respectively and the Shift modifier make the editor select text MDP as it moves the cursor. That's all *exactly* as it should be. Where's MDP your problem? I never did find out what the problem with my MicroEd editor was BUT I did fix it! I saw a tip o' the day that mentioned CTRL-O_C and CTRL-O_K. Not knowing what these keystrokes did I tried them. It is obvious how they cause the editor to block differently. The important thing is that after simply trying them out NOW my MicroEd editor works as I would have supposed it to all along! CRTL-left CRTL-right now block correctly. Inserting works, deleting works. NONE of these basic functions were working before trying CTRL-O_C and CTRL-O_K! I would highlight something and press delete and only the last highlighted character would delete; forget pasting, which NEVER worked. The remaining keystroke oddities are not in the message editor (thankfully) but do still exist when editing fields (TO, CC, BCC, SUBJECT, etc) in the header. There is something I do need to ask about now that (it seems) the editor is working correctly... Why does it automatically move lines of text up to the end of the previous line now? Example: --[space] Rich something becomes: --[space] Rich something If I type almost ANYTHING on those lines! Put a space in, it all becomes one line. Add a line beneath, it all becomes one line. I wish I could find out what was wrong in the first place, but I do not know how to recreate the strangeness I experienced. Thank you all for you gracious patience. -- Rich using MicroEd and learning Current version is 2.01.3 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Bat Alternatives
RG It seems the other way around here! MicroEd goes off the edge of RG the screen, Windows compatible is comfortable! MR How large/small is the size you have your composition window set at? MR If it's at least a few characters greater than your line wrap setting MR (and providing that you use the recommended auto-wrap option in the MR MicroED editor), then you'll see your text wrap as you type. It will MR look to your recipients just as it looks to you as you compos My composition window is set to FULL SCREEN, baby! RG I will try here to use MicroEd (and ALT-L) as a test but the editing RG keys seem not to follow convention. MR As Allie mentioned...you only need to use Alt-L if you want to MR re-format a paragraph to your wrap setting. The keyboard editing command incompatabilities go WAY, WAY beyond TB! having allocated a keyboard command for a particular function! In fact, almost ALL of the arrow-key commands do not work as they are supposed to. Highlighting, deleting, and inserting characters don't work as they should either in the MicroEd editor. No wonder I've resisted using it so (to the great consternation of many of you, who I love anyway). This, in fact is another topic: The Bat! does not corretly use STANDARD editing keystrokes. Watch your in-boxes! Try cutting and pasting (esp between the body, the TO:, FROM:, SUBJECT, etc)! Try highlighting ANY of the hedaer fields when creating a message (to, say delete one or 2 names from a list of addressees or to shorten the subject line)! MR Here's an example of Alt+L's usefulness. I've copied and pasted AM and the optimum wrapping point is at 72 to 76 characters. MR Now isn't that nice? :-) Nothing looked different to me between in either of your 2 examples! MR Another option you have, Auto-format MR can be very useful if you want your paragraphs to be dynamically MR need Alt-L to re-format the text as you would if you had used only MR However, if you ever want to make a list of items (often with each MR line being shorter than your line wrap setting), one after the other MR with no blank spaces between the lines, you can toggle on/off MR auto-format with Shift+Ctrl+F ...unless some other application MR uses the shortcut, and in that case, you can edit the default shortcut MR to something else (edit shortcuts in View/Edit Shortcuts or get MR there by using Alt-F12). OH MY GOD. Too many things to have to consider for a simpleton like me to have to worry about if I just want to write a letter! I am a user, damn it, not a programmer! -- Rich Current version is 2.01.3 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Bat Alternatives
TB Your lines don't wrap here either. Is there no way then to set the reader client to wrap extra long lines? Wouldn't that solve everything? -- Rich Current version is 2.01.3 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Bat Alternatives
... heavily edited for brevity's sake ... S Sorry, Microsoft client users do irritate me entirely ;-D And I am S certain that they are all out to get at me, personally ;-) S ... If ever I mentioned Netiquette and standards S ... sometimes they'd get all bolshy and insist it was S their right to compose mail 'any bloody way they wanted to'. S RFC288 says [line wrap] MUST be less S than 78 characters and Netiquette between 70 and 76. Anything less S than 78 characters is acceptable then. S ... properly formatted messages would be nice, yes. rg let our email clients wrap text so it fits on the screen. S I totally disagree. To me that is an ugly and 'hard' way of presenting S information for reading. S Nothing to fix IMO With nothing to fix then you are doomed to read crummy, poorly formatted emails. Even If I found a way to both A) send messages you found easy on the eyes B) use the editor that I prefer there would still be millions of other folks sending you email inconsiderately formatted. I'm sure we all know this is in the end like arguing religion. We may end up actually getting emotional about it even thought there's nothing we can do to convert everybody else to do what's right. -- Rich Current version is 2.01.3 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Bat Alternatives
S You've been given good advice, told what is the expected norm (which S the majority adhere to without a fuss) but if you choose not to listen S to the advice, or abide by Netiquette, well no one can do anything S about it really, so enjoy yourself. You completely misunderstand me in this. I have asked several times how force my mail to wrap as youse guys want to read it and still use the editor I am comfortable with. I suppose you can just ignore that. I have also pointed out that for you to get mad at an individual will not help you fix the way so many millions of idiots will continue to send email to you. I agreed (with another list member) that if you don't like the way your received emails look then perhaps there can be a way to fix THAT. It would server you better than trying to change the world! -- Rich Current version is 2.01.3 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Bat Alternatives
[ edited for brevity sent using MicroED! ] MR ... with all the various text formatting options available across MR several OS platforms, the only reliable *standard* remains *Simple MR Plain Text*. Agreed. Completely and without reservation. MR ... using the Windows compatible editor, and a proportional MR font during composition is no guarantee that your recipient will MR see it as you intended... MR I recommend using the MicroED with TB!, and using editor utility MR options like auto-wrap and auto-format so *all* your recipients MR have a decent chance of reading neatly formatted, easy to read text. MR ... is the only reliably courteous thing to do (and it MR really doesn't seem much of a bother to accomplish either). Is the reason then that Plain text - Windows wraps badly due to the font chosen, as you suggest it may be? THAT would be a simple way to put this entire discussion to bed! Knowing I don't speak solely for myself and that I am not responding solely to Melissa ... I chose the Plain Text (Windows) option for the following reasons: * Number ONE answer: It is (or says it is) Plain text I agree this is the option I would choose 90% of the time in creating email messages. (I would like to send HTML email rarely and to a very select, specific audience.) * Number 2: I am intimately familiar with Windows editors so there is ZERO learning curve. I have quite often (way more times than you'd think from my emails!) tried to use the MicroEd editor but if is so completely foreign to me that I ended up having to constantly switch back and forth between the 2 plain text editors available to me that creating an email takes me MANY minutes instead of just a few seconds. At well over 100 emails a day (in addition to a real job and a life) that becomes quite unacceptable. BTW Another issue I have with the MicroEd editor is that the lines do not wrap at all (!) forcing me to ALT_L every paragraph in every message. Why does THAT happen? My answer FOR MY EMAILS TO THIS MAIL LIST is that I now create messages in Plain text - Windows than send with the Plain text - MicroEd option selected. It is another step, but since I am concerned that recipients are comfortable with my email (believe it or not) I do it. The rest of my messages I must (for the time being) continue to use (and send as) Plain text - Windows for no other reason than I needn't learn (yet) another set of keyboard conventions and editing procedures. I've been completely unable to edit in the MicroEd format. I can't get a bloody thing done. Once I figure out how to make Plain text - Windows editor send emails wrapped at X lines then the point is moot (unless folks simply WANT to argue!) As I've said before, this kind of thing borders on arguing religion. Some people care WAY TOO MUCH what other people think or do. -- Rich Current version is 2.01.3 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Bat Alternatives
How can I know how to set my word wrap? My fear Just set the wrap to 76 characters (or lower). All clients should S support this. There won't be incorrect wrapping at that line S length. I will try this (at 70 characters). I sure am spectacle that this won't sooner or later cause text lines with only one word on them to appear wrapping. Especially after a few s get inserted in the front of each line. Those wrapped lines with only 1 word on them are a real pet peeve! -- Rich Current version is 2.01.3 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Bat Alternatives
Hi Marck Saturday, November 8, 2003, 4:10:53 AM, you wrote: I will try this (at 70 characters). I sure am spectacle that this won't sooner or later cause text lines with only one word on them to appear wrapping. MDP It doesn't happen with TB. Not true. It does, all the time. Especially when replying to mails sent from Yahoo. I haven't bothered to analyze the particular situations in which it does occur, because I usually just hit Alt-L to fix it immediately. It isn't much of a problem for me that way. But it happens often. Cheers, -- Vishal Current version is 2.01.3 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Bat Alternatives
Hi Edgar Saturday, November 8, 2003, 12:22:15 PM, you wrote: E Marck was refering to typed text. Some lines below it he says: E Since you're not typing quotes, they are allowed to get longer E than your wrap limit. I saw that, but his mail seemed to imply that he was referring to replies too. Cheers, -- Vishal Current version is 2.01.3 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Bat Alternatives
Hello Marck D Pearlstone, on Sat, 8 Nov 2003 09:10:53 + (2003-11-08 10:10:53 in .nl) in the message with reference mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote (at least in part): MDP TB also knows how to re-flow quoted text if you wanted to manually MDP reflow (Alt-L) wrapped paragraphs. Works fine here. Now try this: - reply to a msg - use Ctrl-A to select all the text, or select more than one (quoted) paragraph - use Alt-L - is the result supposed to be? In my opinion: - reflow (or wrap) should fit long lines into a certain width. - reflow shall not remove CRLFs which were meant to be there by the person who put them there for some reason. - a new paragraph does not start after a CRLF, a new paragraph starts after a CRLF plus a blank line. - appearantly TB seems to understand the CRLF plus blank line paragraph seperator, but it still removes intentional CRLFs within a paragraph. PS: I'm using the MicroEd setting -- Kind regards, Peter Ouwehand E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - Created the above using A program which insists to be : The Bat! V2.01.26 An OS which insists to be : Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.01.3 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Bat Alternatives
MR Very long lines force our eyes to make longer jumps back and forth MR from the end of one line back to the beginning of the next. This can MR be especially inconvenient if there are more than just a few lines. MR Personally, I prefer a line length of 70 characters, and so that's how MR I send all my email (you know...do unto others as I wish they would do MR unto me :-)). EXACTLY! I was hoping to find a wrap setting that I would like MY mail to come in as! This is why I also selected 70 characters. I have no idea why under windows compatable it doesn't listen to that setting. I can't stand the way lines are full justified and all the keybopard shortcut editing keys do not work in MicroEd. MR If it is your preference to send such unwrapped lines, could you MR please explain to me your reasoning? In any event, please don't worry MR about wasting *my* screen real estate by wrapping your lines before MR the end of the window...I won't mind in the least (and I'm sure my MR computer doesn't care either). :-) It is not at all a preference to ask anyone to try to read unwrapped lines. I am still struggling with the transition to TB! from Eudora that handles wrapping perfectly no matter how a message was created. With TB! it is now a manual chore to try to make sure the 20 settings are right. And why do paragraphs now FULL justify? Aaarghhh. -- Rich Current version is 2.01.3 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Bat Alternatives
Hello Melissa Reese, on Sat, 8 Nov 2003 16:35:04 -0800 (2003-11-09 01:35:04 in .nl) in the message with reference mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote (at least in part): MR Hi Rich, MR On Saturday, November 08, 2003, at 4:08:56 PM PST, you wrote: THAT is EXACTLY how (in my feeble little mind) it SHOULD work If you see things that way then I hope others do too, never wrapping prematurely, never too long to be viewed (horizontally) on one screen. I agree, the user/reader should decide what the optimum reading width is. MR Eek! :-) I've found that in reading email, a wrap setting of between MR 70-76 is *very comfortable to read*. Lines much longer than that are MR less comfortable...for this reason... I can imagine you have your own preferred 'reading width', everyone has. MR Very long lines force our eyes to make longer jumps back and forth MR from the end of one line back to the beginning of the next. This can MR be especially inconvenient if there are more than just a few lines. MR Personally, I prefer a line length of 70 characters, and so that's how MR I send all my email (you know...do unto others as I wish they would do MR unto me :-)). The preferred width comes from some RFC, as someone else mentioned. Now what if I would like to read a meaasage in a width which doesn't match yours? You (or the RFC) are now forcing me to use a width which you may like, but I may not like. Hence, do not hard-wrap lines. Let the end-user decide what s/he likes. Ya, this means not being compliant to RFCs, create a new RFC, and let the end user decide how s/he wants to see it, depending on the user-agant setting like: wrap at xx, soft wrap at window width, as it has been created, ...something else.. In HTML-lingo it's called liquid design. Wrapping adjusts to the end users' browser width. MR If it is your preference to send such unwrapped lines, could you MR please explain to me your reasoning? In any event, please don't worry MR about wasting *my* screen real estate by wrapping your lines before MR the end of the window...I won't mind in the least (and I'm sure my MR computer doesn't care either). :-) See above. It will be up to you to set your preferences. What else can you wish for? -- Kind regards, Peter Ouwehand E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - Created the above using A program which insists to be : The Bat! V2.01.26 An OS which insists to be : Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.01.3 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Bat Alternatives
Hello Allie Martin, on Sat, 8 Nov 2003 20:47:18 -0500 (2003-11-09 02:47:18 in .nl) in the message with reference mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote (at least in part): AM Peter Ouwehand, [PO] wrote: PO The preferred width comes from some RFC, as someone else mentioned. PO Now what if I would like to read a meaasage in a width which doesn't PO match yours? You (or the RFC) are now forcing me to use a width PO which you may like, but I may not like. AM I don't know if you're hypothesizing or it is that you really have a AM problem or do not like reading text wrapped to 76 characters. I simply say: let the end-use decide. AM Be that as it may, one can never hope to please everyone. True, but you might try. Let the end-user decide through settings in their email client. Anything wrong with that ?? AM When you're writing to a single individual and you do know their AM preference, then fine, post to them the way they like. So, what if the end-user changed his/her mind? AM When posting to a discussion list or when sending e-mail to those whose AM preference you aren't familiar with, you're far less likely to create AM problems by sending the text wrapped, and an optimum limit has been AM defined. All of that is a user-interface question. Either for the sender or receiver. Create options/settings: - send 'long lines' / hard wrap at xx - display 'long lines' / (soft-)wrap at xx/ display as received You should look into the ISO structure, like there is (for instance): - transport - presentation Hence: presentation is up to the user-agant. Ya, this won't adhere to current RFC. Repeating myself: create (a) new one(s). Or: stop discussions about wrapping interpretations, they are subjective. AM I've just given a VERY practical reason why I don't size the window I AM read messages from, according to the text wrap limit I prefer. I size it AM according to the message list above which needs a wide window to display AM all columns. Guess you use a 'full account list at the left side', like I do. Now thats a lame excuse. The message list representation has absolutely nothing to do with how the preview of messages below it are presented! Example: try Forte-Agent (news reader) PO Hence, do not hard-wrap lines. AM Bad idea unless you specifically know your other party's preference. Naw, using my approach, you send text, long lines, no hard-wrap. Then let the end-user client setting decide how to display it. PO Let the end-user decide what s/he likes. Ya, this means not being PO compliant to RFCs, create a new RFC, and let the end user decide how PO s/he wants to see it, depending on the user-agant setting like: wrap PO at xx, soft wrap at window width, as it has been created, PO ...something else.. AM You need to see how others work and configure their window widths. AM Then run a survey to see which method creates less problems. What for? (see below) AM I'm one of those who intensely dislikes unwrapped lines in e-mail. AM Melissa is another. Marck is another. I'm sure there are many AM others. Like I mentioned before: let the end-user client decide. Wrapped at xx, soft-wrap at window width, as it has been sent, ...other... It's up to the user-agent programmers to make that available. It's that simple. PO In HTML-lingo it's called liquid design. Wrapping adjusts to the end PO users' browser width. AM Many web pages depart from that liquid design. Only the simply put AM together ones still do that. Many, if not most, well developed sites AM hardwrap text at a reasonable width for comfortable reading. Uh?? Most problems I see coming along are about: my page looks good in x by y, but gets a horizontal slider when viewed on lower resolution (or smaller browser width). I don't agree with your statement. -- Kind regards, Peter Ouwehand E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - Created the above using A program which insists to be : The Bat! V2.01.26 An OS which insists to be : Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.01.3 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Bat Alternatives
Hello Marck D Pearlstone, on Sun, 9 Nov 2003 02:35:31 + (2003-11-09 03:35:31 in .nl) in the message with reference mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote (at least in part): MDP Hi Peter, MDP @9-Nov-2003, 03:30 +0100 (09-Nov 02:30 UK time) Peter Ouwehand [PO] MDP in mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said to Allie: PO Wrapped at xx, soft-wrap at window width, as it has been sent, PO ...other... It's up to the user-agent programmers to make that PO available. It's that simple. MDP Let's make it simpler. Be a pro-active part of the solution. Wrap MDP your own messages on composition. It's a common courtesy and will MDP work for *all* possible readers, whatever MUA they may have chosen. I'm doing that, I think. If not please inform me. I'm using the MicroEd settings, the TB default setting. Which wraps at 72. But what's wrong starting a discussion on how things could be presented as the end-user would want to see it? -- Kind regards, Peter Ouwehand E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - Created the above using A program which insists to be : The Bat! V2.01.26 An OS which insists to be : Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.01.3 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Bat Alternatives
Hello Marck, Saturday, November 8, 2003, 7:54:33 PM, you wrote: MDP Hi Kitty, MDP @4-Nov-2003, 15:13 -0600 (04-Nov 21:13 UK time) Kitty said: What reasonable alternatives with similar filtering capabilities exist. For my list mail messages, I move each message into a list mail folder then also copy the message to another folder that I maintain as a permanent archive. MDP From what I hear, the software that comes closest to TB in terms of MDP all round capability is Becky! MDP Some say it even offers more than TB. Hmmm...I couldn't find a way to do a filter that does more than one thing in Becky. That is, I have filters that move a message to a folder, and also put a copy of the message in another folder and mark it read. I couldn't find that option in Becky although perhaps it is there and just not obvious. FWIW, I can do that in Pocomail and, to date, that is the program that has let me do the most (you can even add random taglines). -- Best regards, Kittymailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Current version is 2.01.3 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Bat Alternatives
Hello Simon, On 6 November 2003, at 10:26 + you wrote: S Just set the wrap to 76 characters (or lower). All clients should S support this. There won't be incorrect wrapping at that line length. You know, before I set WW to 76 characters. But once I saw my received mail by recipient upon his Yahoo Web-Mailer and I was wondered because my mail was deformed like following: = Privet, Tanja. Byl rad (opjat') poluchit' ot tebja pis'mo. To chto ty ne srazu otvetila, kak ja, ehto ne ochen' strashno. Konechno, ja proverjal pochtu na protjazhenii vsego dnja cherez kazhdye 0,5-1 chasa v nadezhde, no vsjo zhe mogu ponjat', chto ehto u menja poka est' vozmozhnost' tak delat', a u kogo-to takoj vozmozhnosti mozhet i ne byt'. Verno govorju, Fedja? Vot vidish', kakoj ja ponimajushchij i chuvstvennyj molodoj chelovek :) = Something like that. I don't know why, but I guess the cause in Word Wraping so I decided to change my WW to 70. -- Best regards, Vasiliymailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Using: * The Bat! 2.01.26 * Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 * PGP 8.0.3 Winamp playing now: Rammstein - Ich Will - Mutter - 2001 pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 2.01.3 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Bat Alternatives
Hello Simon, On 6 November 2003, at 14:27 + you wrote: S Yes, I've seen that as well. I guess it happens when yahoo headers are S applied to the messages...but I really don't know. It shouldn't S though, as 76 characters is 2 characters below the recommendation in S RFC822. So, I guess this is a Yahoo peccadillo :) S That's why I stopped using PGP wrap setting and just let TB! do it. I also set off PGP wrapping and set on TB! wrapping as 70. Thus I hope that most of my recipients should do not have broken mails. -- Best regards, Vasiliymailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Using: * The Bat! 2.01.26 * Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 * PGP 8.0.3 pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 2.01.3 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Bat Alternatives
MDP Use the old MicroEd editor, not the Windows editor. You are MDP sending horrendously long lines and you really ought not do RG On TB! v 2.00.6 it seems to be the other way around! I use the RG Window$ editor as the lines created by the MicroEd editor are RG too long! MDP Only if you forget to set the wrap at margin. At least MicroEd MDP *can* wrap. Your lines are *also* too long :-(. OK education time for me again...! Since every single piece of email I read with TB! 2 looks OK on my screen I assumed everything (including the things I've sent to and seen again on this list, for example) was OK! So far not one email I have read in TB! has gone off the side of the screen. That includes all the 19,000 or so email messages I imported from Eudora!) The ONLY time I've seen text in one long line that goes off the screen it is when I am creating a new message and I choose MicroEd. How can I know how to set my word wrap? My fear is that I'll end up sending messages to people that wrap in unexpected places. I HATE having to waste a ton of paper by setting my wrap set- tings too narrow! -- Rich Current version is 2.01.3 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Bat Alternatives
MDP Use the old MicroEd editor, not the Windows editor. You are MDP sending horrendously long lines and you really ought not do that MDP if you're writing to mailing lists. On TB! v 2.00.6 it seems to be the other way around! I use the Window$ editor as the lines created by the MicroEd editor are too long! -- Rich Current version is 2.01.3 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Bat Alternatives
Hello Marck, MDP 1) On your Account properties | Mail management, set 8 bit MDPcharacters are treated to Quoted printable. MDPThis is the *only* way to stop TB sending Base64 encoding. You don't understand. I've done that. I did that *ages* ago. I understand that should solve the problem. The problem is that it hasn't solved it. MDP 2) Use the old MicroEd editor, not the Windows editor. You are MDPsending horrendously long lines and you really ought not do MDP that if you're writing to mailing lists. You know, I didn't have any problem with that until I upgraded to version 2. It isn't like I went in and changed anything deliberately. Frankly, I am getting fed up with the whole thing which I've been trying to solve for a couple of weeks now with no real feedback except your first suggestion, which would be nice if it worked, but it hasn't. -- Best regards, Kittymailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Current version is 2.01.3 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Bat Alternatives
Hello Marck, Tuesday, November 4, 2003, 9:06:38 PM, you wrote: MDP Well, your message to *this* list was not base64 encoded. It was MDP actually 7 bit according to the headers. I understand. It is on messages to some other lists, hosted by two very different servers. Unfortunatley, one of them is St Johns and I belong to several lists. The other is home to 3 lists that I am on. So, it is a huge problem for me. MDP 2) Use the old MicroEd editor, not the Windows editor. You MDP aresending horrendously long lines and you really ought MDP not do MDP that if you're writing to mailing lists. You know, I didn't have any problem with that until I upgraded to version 2. MDP Well, the new editor didn't exist before v2. Check your editor MDP preferences. Maybe a routing server is taking exception to your long MDP lines and is encoding your message because of them. Plain text MDP messages should wrap at around column 70. Yours have no wrapping at MDP all. This is not a good thing to do. Check your editor preferences. I did check my editor preferences. It is set to wrap lines at 70! I did, however, change to the MicroEd editor to see if that would make a difference. FWIW, on the lists I am on (which are on another e-mail address of mine) I've tried using both viewers and neither made a difference. It isn't like I went in and changed anything deliberately. MDP Are you certain you didn't try to switch to the alternate editor for its greater familiarity (like notepad in use)? Yes, I am certain. -- Best regards, Kittymailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Current version is 2.01.3 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
