I was using Microsoft Outlook Express, which does not support
format=flowed.
Turns out this is not entirely true.
Outlook Express *does* have some support for format=flowed, but not as much
as Thunderbird.
Using the default setting of Encode Text Using = None (as opposed to
quoted-printable),
-Original Message-
From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of William Blunn
Sent: 13 December 2004 15:11
I was using Microsoft Outlook Express, which does not support
format=flowed.
Turns out this is not entirely true.
Outlook Express *does* have some support for format=flowed,
I have been doing some reading today, and have come across RFC3676
(which supersedes RFC2646) which describes format=flowed.
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3676.html
A bit of a revelation.
format=flowed wasn't what I thought it might be, but it turned out to be
much better.
It doesn't look that
[snip]
I am now using Thunderbird 1.0, which does support format=flowed.
So *this* message should come out nicely for everyone, both
in e-mail and in the archive, *and* with no extra effort
required on my part.
Hmmm, sehr intressant. Flows fine in Outlook 2003, but I don't know if
At 02:34 PM 7/17/2004, you wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 13:08:15 -0400, Larry Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 07:54 AM 7/13/2004, you wrote:
Whilst this is not an issue with Cygwin per se, the nature of Cygwin
means that this issue will tend to arise commonly with Cygwin, and tend
not to
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 13:08:15 -0400, Larry Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 07:54 AM 7/13/2004, you wrote:
Whilst this is not an issue with Cygwin per se, the nature of Cygwin
means that this issue will tend to arise commonly with Cygwin, and tend
not to arise under traditional unixes.
At 08:47 PM 7/11/2004, you wrote:
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 09:54:05AM -0500, Eduardo Chappa wrote:
That was CGF himself, he volunteered to not to volunteer.
He brought
this topic onto himself.
This statement is disingenuous. For shame.
Perhaps, perhaps not. I'm still waiting
On 2004-07-08, Larry Hall wrote:
At 10:02 AM 7/8/2004, you wrote:
I have been using *ixy-type systems on and off for what must now be
16 years, including using find.
I was using find today on an UDF/ISO format DVD-R, and was
perplexed by it seemingly missing out large chunks of the
At 07:54 AM 7/13/2004, you wrote:
On 2004-07-08, Larry Hall wrote:
At 10:02 AM 7/8/2004, you wrote:
snip
My point is this:
Whilst this is not an issue with Cygwin per se, the nature of Cygwin
means that this issue will tend to arise commonly with Cygwin, and tend
not to arise under
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 09:54:05AM -0500, Eduardo Chappa wrote:
That was CGF himself, he volunteered to not to volunteer. He brought this
topic onto himself.
This statement is disingenuous. For shame.
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 09:54:05AM -0500, Eduardo Chappa wrote:
That was CGF himself, he volunteered to not to volunteer. He brought
this topic onto himself.
This statement is disingenuous. For shame.
Perhaps, perhaps not. I'm still waiting for somebody, other than you
Chris[1], to
At 08:47 PM 7/11/2004, you wrote:
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 09:54:05AM -0500, Eduardo Chappa wrote:
That was CGF himself, he volunteered to not to volunteer. He brought
this topic onto himself.
This statement is disingenuous. For shame.
Perhaps, perhaps not. I'm still waiting for
On Fri, 9 Jul 2004, Brian E. Gallew wrote:
:) On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 11:37:10AM -0700, Eduardo Chappa wrote:
:) [random, pointless verbiage deleted]
:)
:) Chris, can we just *plonk* this idiot already?
Is this what you call meanness of this list?, you have a lot to learn
about being mean.
In
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004, Eduardo Chappa wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jul 2004, Brian E. Gallew wrote:
:) On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 11:37:10AM -0700, Eduardo Chappa wrote:
:) [random, pointless verbiage deleted]
:)
:) Chris, can we just *plonk* this idiot already?
Is this what you call meanness of this
On Fri, 9 Jul 2004, GARY VANSICKLE wrote:
:) I never used the word fix, please do not misunderstand me. I refer
:) to this as enhance. Yes, it is broken, by the way.
:)
:) So, it's broken and you want me to enhance it so that it won't be
:) broken anymore but you were not suggesting a fix.
On Fri, 9 Jul 2004, Brian E. Gallew wrote:
:) On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 11:37:10AM -0700, Eduardo Chappa wrote:
:) [random, pointless verbiage deleted]
:)
:) Chris, can we just *plonk* this idiot already?
Is this what you call meanness of this list?, you have a lot to learn
about being mean.
In
Eduardo Chappa wrote:
I happened to look at this message in Lynx and did not see anything
bad about it, then it ocurred to me that you were referring to a GUI
browser. This is the case when you are complaining about how it looks
in your browser (probably most people browser), but it's not a
On Jul 8 18:26, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 03:56:49PM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
I've already explained why I don't think format=flowed is appropriate
for this list (in particular, long command lines will also be wrapped
if it ever were to be accepted). In any
Brian Dessent wrote:
RFC2822 (which obsoletes the old RFC822) states in section 2.2.1:
There are two limits that this standard places on the number of
characters in a line. Each line of characters MUST be no more than 998
characters, and SHOULD be no more than 78 characters, excluding the
My mail reader is no modern mail reader and I'm not interested to use
one since I'm old-fashioned enough to dislike the mouse. So my mail reader
is running in an 80 column window.
Unwrapped mails and weird line breaks drop my attention span to read
the whole posting to a minimum.
How can
On Jul 9 10:36, William Blunn wrote:
My mail reader is no modern mail reader and I'm not interested to use
one since I'm old-fashioned enough to dislike the mouse. So my mail reader
is running in an 80 column window.
Unwrapped mails and weird line breaks drop my attention span to read
Christopher Faylor quoted Igor Pechtchanski:
On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 03:56:49PM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
I've already explained why I don't think format=flowed is appropriate
for this list (in particular, long command lines will also be wrapped
if it ever were to be accepted).
Long
On Jul 9 10:36, William Blunn wrote:
My mail reader is no modern mail reader and I'm not interested to use
one since I'm old-fashioned enough to dislike the mouse. So my mail reader
is running in an 80 column window.
Unwrapped mails and weird line breaks drop my attention span to
On Jul 9 11:03, William Blunn wrote:
I think not. I think the counter argument would be Yes we know it
makes the occasional command-line appear line-wrapped, but that is a
nano-issue compared to the downside which is that it will mess up the
display for all the flowed messages, which is a
This seems like a reasonable discussion that can hopefully resolve this
issue once and for all, and so, IMO, belongs on the list rather than in
private e-mail.
There is a phrase that goes:
Be permissive in what you accept, and strict in what you send
Now this is just a phrase, and by
William Blunn wrote:
I believe that at this point they are talking about the byte stream that
represents the encoded form of the message.
If you are using quoted-printable encoding, then all encoded lines will
be 78 characters or less, and so will be fitting in with the SHOULD
On Jul 9 11:03, William Blunn wrote:
I think not. I think the counter argument would be Yes we know it
makes the occasional command-line appear line-wrapped, but that is a
nano-issue compared to the downside which is that it will mess up the
display for all the flowed messages, which is
-Original Message-
From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of William Blunn
Sent: 09 July 2004 11:28
This seems like a reasonable discussion that can hopefully
resolve this
issue once and for all,
LOL, you haven't been on the internet long have you?
There is a phrase that goes:
William Blunn wrote:
I only wish that I could go back in time and show the inventor of PRE
the havoc they have wreaked by making it turn off wrapping by default.
I'm pretty sure you were joking here but if not...
That's the whole point of PRE, that it *doesn't* wrap. It's for text
that's
-Original Message-
From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Brian Dessent
Sent: 09 July 2004 12:02
William Blunn wrote:
I only wish that I could go back in time and show the
inventor of PRE
the havoc they have wreaked by making it turn off wrapping
by default.
I'm pretty sure you
If you're archiving people's posts for all time, there is a moral
obligation on you to archive them absolutely *verbatim* and not tamper
with, edit, reformat, or otherwise alter them.
I wasn't suggesting tampering with them.
Information should be preserved where possible.
My contention
On Jul 9 11:46, William Blunn wrote:
It does appear though that these rules are arbitrary, without benefit,
yet have identifiable problems, and their current sole purpose appears
to be to identify members of a club.
If you want to see it that way, fine with me.
Fact is, I dislike when people
Dave Korn wrote:
What really needs to be improved is mhonarc or whatever app is used to
make the web archives. It should detect when the message contains no
linebreaks and not use PRE but rather let the browser render it as
normal text, so that it will be wrapped to the width of the
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 10:34:01AM +0100, William Blunn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brian Dessent wrote:
RFC2822 (which obsoletes the old RFC822) states in section 2.2.1:
There are two limits that this standard places on the number of
characters in a line. Each line of characters MUST be no
I only wish that I could go back in time and show the inventor of PRE
the havoc they have wreaked by making it turn off wrapping by default.
I'm pretty sure you were joking here but if not...
Actually I was serious.
That's the whole point of PRE, that it *doesn't* wrap.
I don't think
William Blunn wrote:
There is a phrase that goes:
Be permissive in what you accept, and strict in what you send
Now this is just a phrase, and by itself does not have significance.
Yeah it appears in RFC1885 as Be conservative in what you send
and liberal in what you receive., just a
Jon A. Lambert wrote:
Yeah it appears in RFC1885
Sorry that's RFC 1855
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
What really needs to be improved is mhonarc or whatever app is used to
make the web archives. It should detect when the message contains no
linebreaks and not use PRE but rather let the browser render it as
normal text, so that it will be wrapped to the width of the screen as
intended.
William Blunn wrote:
That's the whole point of PRE, that it *doesn't* wrap.
I don't think that is the whole point of PRE.
I think the whole point of PRE is that newlines and other whitespace in
the HTML source are interpreted literally.
It appears that the design committee took it a
Yeah it appears in ... [RFC1855] as Be conservative in what you send
and liberal in what you receive., just a few paragraphs above where
it recommends:
Limit line length to fewer than 65 characters and end a line with a
carriage return.
Limiting line length to fewer than 65 characters
-Original Message-
From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of William Blunn
Sent: 09 July 2004 12:30
That's the whole point of PRE, that it *doesn't* wrap.
I don't think that is the whole point of PRE.
I think the whole point of PRE is that newlines and other
whitespace in
the HTML
On Fri, 9 Jul 2004, William Blunn wrote:
Christopher Faylor quoted Igor Pechtchanski:
On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 03:56:49PM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
I've already explained why I don't think format=flowed is appropriate
for this list (in particular, long command lines will also be
Brian Dessent wrote:
My main problem with it is that it breaks quoting. When I reply to a
message with no line breaks, my mail program has to either A) pick an
arbitrary margin and reflow the entire message to that margin, adding
to the first column of each line, or B) Insert a at the
Dave Korn wrote:
There's another phrase that goes:
If you're archiving people's posts for all time, there is a moral
obligation on you to archive them absolutely *verbatim* and not tamper
with, edit, reformat, or otherwise alter them.
Never heard that one. Got a reference?
--
Jack Kevorkian for
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Fact is, I dislike when people don't give a damn for existing common
rules which have turned out to work fine for all other people.
You are ascribing malintent where either ignorance or disagreement may
be present. You are assuming they don't give a damn instead of the
-Original Message-
From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Andrew DeFaria
Sent: 09 July 2004 16:03
Dave Korn wrote:
There's another phrase that goes:
If you're archiving people's posts for all time, there is a moral
obligation on you to archive them absolutely *verbatim* and
not
Brian Dessent wrote:
William Blunn wrote:
I only wish that I could go back in time and show the inventor of
PRE the havoc they have wreaked by making it turn off wrapping by
default.
I'm pretty sure you were joking here but if not...
That's the whole point of PRE, that it *doesn't* wrap. It's
Dave Korn wrote:
-Original Message-
From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Andrew DeFaria
Sent: 09 July 2004 16:03
Dave Korn wrote:
There's another phrase that goes:
If you're archiving people's posts for all time, there is a moral
obligation on you to archive them absolutely *verbatim* and
not
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 11:27:55AM +0100, William Blunn wrote:
I have set up several web-based systems which do this, and it wasn't
hard.
On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 06:26:27PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
Finally, you (Igor) are right that we are not going to change the
sourceware.org software
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 11:03:00AM +0100, William Blunn wrote:
Think of it this way: If we had already accepted that the web archive
system wrapped flowed text, and someone came up arguing that it should
not because it breaks long command lines, would they be given the time
of day?
Let's see.
This is a top post, sorry about that, I normally do not do this, but in
order to show my point I will have to do it.
Corinna,
I agree with you 99.%, however, there's a consequence to your words
that you are not seeing, which is this.
Imagine that I were to read your post on a PDA, the
On Friday, July 09, 2004 10:39 AM, Christopher Faylor wrote
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 11:27:55AM +0100, William Blunn wrote:
I have set up several web-based systems which do this, and it wasn't
hard.
On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 06:26:27PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
Finally, you (Igor) are
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 09:18:30AM -0700, Eduardo Chappa wrote:
*** Christopher Faylor ([EMAIL PROTECTED])...:
:) On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 11:27:55AM +0100, William Blunn wrote:
:) I have set up several web-based systems which do this, and it wasn't
:) hard.
:)
:) On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 11:38:11AM -0500, DePriest, Jason R. wrote:
On Friday, July 09, 2004 10:39 AM, Christopher Faylor wrote
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 11:27:55AM +0100, William Blunn wrote:
I have set up several web-based systems which do this, and it wasn't
hard.
On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at
*** Christopher Faylor ([EMAIL PROTECTED])...:
:) On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 09:18:30AM -0700, Eduardo Chappa wrote:
:) *** Christopher Faylor
:) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])...:
:)
:) :) On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 11:27:55AM +0100, William Blunn wrote:
:) :) I have set up several web-based systems which do
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 10:24:22AM -0700, Eduardo Chappa wrote:
*** Christopher Faylor ...:
Maybe you're being purposely obtuse. I don't know. My point was that
if I send specially formatted text in my messages to a technical
mailing list I don't want the archiving software to unformat it for
*** Christopher Faylor ([EMAIL PROTECTED])...:
:) On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 10:24:22AM -0700, Eduardo Chappa wrote:
:) *** Christopher Faylor ...:
:) Maybe you're being purposely obtuse. I don't know. My point was
:) that if I send specially formatted text in my messages to a technical
:)
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 11:37:10AM -0700, Eduardo Chappa wrote:
*** Christopher Faylor ([EMAIL PROTECTED])...:
If I make this research, you do the change in the way the archives are
generated, so that all people in this thread be happy. Do we have a
deal?
Here's how it works: You do the
Responding before I read the whole thread, as I'm sure this gets a whole lot
uglier:
On Jul 9 11:03, William Blunn wrote:
I think not. I think the counter argument would be Yes we know it
makes the occasional command-line appear line-wrapped, but
that is a
nano-issue compared to
As a person who regularly uses HTML style email and posting
(much to many peoples chargrin and complaints) I rarely
fester them with all
sorts of colors and fonts. Other HTML emails and posts I
receive are also rarely festered with all sorts of colors
and fonts. Why? Because doing so
Nobody's trying to force you to read. You shouldn't try to
force them to write in a particular style. In the end
communication, at least civil communication and I'd say any
communication that is, in the long term, successsful, always
requires *compromise* on both parties. Your stated
] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
GARY VANSICKLE
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 8:55 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Wrapping long lines (Was Re: FAQ update suggestion for I'm
having basic problems with find. Why?)
Nobody's trying to force you to read. You shouldn't try to
force them to write
I never used the word fix, please do not misunderstand me.
I refer to
this as enhance. Yes, it is broken, by the way.
So, it's broken and you want me to enhance it so that it
won't be broken anymore but you were not suggesting a
fix. Got it.
Can somebody show me where anybody made
On Fri, 9 Jul 2004, Robert McNulty Junior wrote:
[snip]
I'm trying, however, to catch up on my cygwin updating.
Trying to figure out why GTK is telling me cygX11-6.dll (or something like
that) is missing. I hope we get a new X11 mainatainer soon.
We do have an X11 maintainer. However, he's
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 11:37:10AM -0700, Eduardo Chappa wrote:
[random, pointless verbiage deleted]
Chris, can we just *plonk* this idiot already?
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:
GARY VANSICKLE wrote:
Nobody's trying to force you to read. You shouldn't try to force them
to write in a particular style. In the end
communication, at least civil communication and I'd say any
communication that is, in the long term, successsful, always requires
*compromise* on both parties.
I have been using *ixy-type systems on and off for what must now be 16 years,
including using find.
I was using find today on an UDF/ISO format DVD-R, and was perplexed by it seemingly
missing out large chunks of the hierarchy at random.
It seems that find has an optimisation relating to the
At 10:02 AM 7/8/2004, you wrote:
I have been using *ixy-type systems on and off for what must now be 16 years,
including using find.
I was using find today on an UDF/ISO format DVD-R, and was perplexed by it
seemingly missing out large chunks of the hierarchy at random.
It seems that find has
Bill,
While you can do nothing about the legal disclaimer (except, maybe,
precede it with sigdashes [-- ] so that it gets automatically cut off on
replies by smarter mailers), http://cygwin.com/acronyms/#PCYMTWLL.
Thanks. More below.
On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, William Blunn wrote:
I have been using
Bill,
This seems like a reasonable discussion that can hopefully resolve this
issue once and for all, and so, IMO, belongs on the list rather than in
private e-mail.
More below.
On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, William Blunn wrote:
While you can do nothing about the legal disclaimer (except, maybe,
On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
:) Any long lines coming into my mail reader are nicely wrapped
:) according to whatever window width I configure.
:)
:) They are in mine too. But look at the web archive of your message:
:) http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2004-07/msg00178.html.
Igor,
On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, Eduardo Chappa wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
:) Any long lines coming into my mail reader are nicely wrapped
:) according to whatever window width I configure.
:)
:) They are in mine too. But look at the web archive of your message:
:)
On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
:) We're using the same mailer. :-) Aside from that, most mailers can be
:) configured to insert newlines automatically, and it's much easier to
:) configure the mailer than to get a GUI browser to wrap lines in
:) PRE-formatted documents.
I agree
On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 03:56:49PM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
I've already explained why I don't think format=flowed is appropriate
for this list (in particular, long command lines will also be wrapped
if it ever were to be accepted). In any case, the definitive opinion
will be that of CGF,
Eduardo Chappa wrote:
We may agree or disagree about format=flowed sent to this
list, but we have to agree that what was sent was an e-mail message,
perfectly valid e-mail message to a mailing list and not a web page to a
web site.
RFC2822 (which obsoletes the old RFC822) states in section
On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, Brian Dessent wrote:
:) We may agree or disagree about format=flowed sent to this list, but
:) we have to agree that what was sent was an e-mail message, perfectly
:) valid e-mail message to a mailing list and not a web page to a web
:) site.
:)
:) RFC2822 (which obsoletes
Eduardo Chappa wrote:
:) It's just like HTML email - can I read it? Yes. Do I want it in my
:) inbox? Heck no. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you
:) should.
Yes, you should read the definition of SHOULD in an RFC, did you do it,
no. Next time look for a better argument
*** Brian Dessent ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote in the cygwin list today:
:) Nowhere did I claim that SHOULD was equivalent to MUST. And yes I know
:) the difference.
:)
:) My point was simply that if a RFC describes a normative procedure then
:) that lends weight to the argument that if at all
78 matches
Mail list logo
