"Neil Durant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Garth Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
> >> In particular, if you send a multipart message of the form:
> >>
> >>Paragraph of text
> >>
> >>## (this is some attachment)
> >>
> >>Paragra
Garth Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>> In particular, if you send a multipart message of the form:
>>
>>Paragraph of text
>>
>>## (this is some attachment)
>>
>>Paragraph of text
>>
>> ..then the 2nd paragraph of text should appear in exactly the same form
>> in the message (in r
"Neil Durant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Garth Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
> >> By all means force outgoing attachments to be put at the end by the
> >> software, if preferred, but mail/news clients should be able to
> >> interleave b
Garth Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>> By all means force outgoing attachments to be put at the end by the
>> software, if preferred, but mail/news clients should be able to
>> interleave body text and attachments for incoming messages if they are
>> to comply with the RFCs.
>
>It's called an
"Neil Durant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Jacek Piskozub <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
> >Peter Lairo wrote:
> >
> >> Gervase Markham wrote:
> >
> >>> b) A signature appears at the end of a document, by analogy with paper
> >>> documents. Everyo
as described that's not an attachement.
What you are describing is embedding. Communicator 4.7.x is capable of such but
am unsure if embeddig is available in N6/Moz.
Neil Durant wrote:
>
> Jacek Piskozub <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
> >Peter Lairo wrote:
> >
> >> Gervase Markham wrote:
> >
> >>>
Jacek Piskozub <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>Peter Lairo wrote:
>
>> Gervase Markham wrote:
>
>>> b) A signature appears at the end of a document, by analogy with paper
>>> documents. Everyone knows that.
>>No, in all of our reports, the signature comes after the report
>>text, THEN come the s
Peter Lairo wrote:
> Gervase Markham wrote:
>> b) A signature appears at the end of a document, by analogy with paper
>> documents. Everyone knows that.
>
>
>
> No, in all of our reports, the signature comes after the report text,
> THEN come the supporting documents (tables, lab analyses, c
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter Lairo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That is why i am suggesting to change the RFC. You gotta start
> somewhere. How do standards eveolve? Surely not by staying with the
> lowest common denominator. I doubt adding two plusses (++) will brake
> anything :)
D
Gervase Markham wrote:
>>Then the RFC is bad. Software should work the way the user wants it to
>>work (within reason, of course). If a mail client needs to know where a
>>sig is, then why not define it as:
>>
>>-- = sig beginning
>>
>>++ = sig end
>>
>>That way the sig could be anywhere. Simple,
> Then the RFC is bad. Software should work the way the user wants it to
> work (within reason, of course). If a mail client needs to know where a
> sig is, then why not define it as:
>
> -- = sig beginning
>
> ++ = sig end
>
> That way the sig could be anywhere. Simple, elegant, make everybody
Peter Lairo wrote:
>
> The dropdown is an OK solution IF you have an account for every type of
> signature you want (BTW, that's ass-backwards). I only have one mail
> account, but would really like to be able to choose from various
> signatures on a mail-by-mail basis.
I can see how peopl
Peter Lairo wrote:
> Neil Durant wrote:
>
>> Peter Lairo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>>
> This should work no matter where the sig block is placed. That's
> just a
> hacked solution. Better would be a dropdown selection where you can
> choose from various signatures (e.g., home/w
Neil Durant wrote:
> Peter Lairo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>
This should work no matter where the sig block is placed. That's just a
hacked solution. Better would be a dropdown selection where you can
choose from various signatures (e.g., home/work, Text/HTML).
>>>
>>> Yeah, bu
Peter Lairo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>>> This should work no matter where the sig block is placed. That's just a
>>> hacked solution. Better would be a dropdown selection where you can
>>> choose from various signatures (e.g., home/work, Text/HTML).
>> Yeah, but again, that's the point - it *d
>> This should work no matter where the sig block is placed. That's just a
>> hacked solution. Better would be a dropdown selection where you can
>> choose from various signatures (e.g., home/work, Text/HTML).
>
>
> Yeah, but again, that's the point - it *does* work no matter where you
> .sig c
Peter Lairo wrote:
>
> This should work no matter where the sig is.
>
Yeah, but I think the point is Moz needs to keep track of the .sig block
somehow, and so they've decided to use a pre or a div or whatever it is
with a special class, which seems like a reasonable way of doing it, IMHO.
Michael Gratton wrote:
>
>
> Peter Lairo wrote:
>
>> if the sig were just plain text (body) and not some weird preformat
>> (whatever that is), then nothing would disappear. Why do wec
>> need this silly and buggy preformat anyhow?
>
>
>
> I always though it was to support the .sig-
Peter Lairo wrote:
> if the sig were just plain text (body) and not some weird preformat
> (whatever that is), then nothing would disappear. Why do wec need this
> silly and buggy preformat anyhow?
I always though it was to support the .sig-account-swapping thing. IIRC,
the sig block has a
On 09 Jul 2001 00:53:21 +0200, Peter Lairo wrote:
> >You are comparing apples to oranges. When you send a fax, in the manner
> >meantioned above, you also don't cut out the dialog you're not referring
> >to (as I have done here) and write your responses following the other
> >writer's statements
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On 08 Jul 2001 23:16:24 +0200, Peter Lairo wrote:
>
>>That's silly, when I send a fax and attach another document for
>>reference, I don't put my signature at the end of the last atachment, I
>>put it at the end of my own fax document (THEN come the attachments). So
>
And it came to pass that Peter Lairo wrote:
> Christopher Jahn wrote:
>
>> And it came to pass that Peter Lairo wrote:
>>
>>
>>>J.B. Moreno wrote:
>>>
>>>
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter Lairo
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Just create a new mail and make sure th
On 08 Jul 2001 23:16:24 +0200, Peter Lairo wrote:
> That's silly, when I send a fax and attach another document for
> reference, I don't put my signature at the end of the last atachment, I
> put it at the end of my own fax document (THEN come the attachments). So
> whether i'm forwarding/reply
Christopher Jahn wrote:
> And it came to pass that Peter Lairo wrote:
>
>
>>J.B. Moreno wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter Lairo
>>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
Just create a new mail and make sure the formatting bar is
visible (font, bold, underline, add t
And it came to pass that Peter Lairo wrote:
> J.B. Moreno wrote:
>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter Lairo
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Just create a new mail and make sure the formatting bar is
>>>visible (font, bold, underline, add table, etc.). I you
>>>place the curser in
J.B. Moreno wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter Lairo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>Just create a new mail and make sure the formatting bar is visible
>>(font, bold, underline, add table, etc.). I you place the curser in the
>>body of your message, the little button on the left
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter Lairo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just create a new mail and make sure the formatting bar is visible
> (font, bold, underline, add table, etc.). I you place the curser in the
> body of your message, the little button on the left will say "body", if
> the
Just create a new mail and make sure the formatting bar is visible
(font, bold, underline, add table, etc.). I you place the curser in the
body of your message, the little button on the left will say "body", if
the curser is in your signature, trhe button says "preformat".
It is similar when s
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What is this preformat you refer to?
> Is it the sigdash.
I think it was the word "preformat" which threw everyone off, including me.
"Preformat" tends to make people think of "preliminary formatting".
I'd use the words "signature delimiter",
What is this preformat you refer to?
Is it the sigdash.
example:
--
P.jones.
IF the preformat is that then its required by USENET.
what's it for. Its purpose is to let server software know a siganture file is below.
And if the server software is set properly (set to do so) it can clip the s
On Fri, 06 Jul 2001 19:10:37 +0200, Peter Lairo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> if the sig were just plain text (body) and not some weird preformat
> (whatever that is), then nothing would disappear. Why do wec need this
> silly and buggy preformat anyhow? It seems to serve no purpose more
> impor
if the sig were just plain text (body) and not some weird preformat
(whatever that is), then nothing would disappear. Why do wec need this
silly and buggy preformat anyhow? It seems to serve no purpose more
important than the damage it is causing (editing forwarded mails in the
preformat part
On Thu, 05 Jul 2001 16:19:35 -0400, J.B. Moreno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It has the same problem in both places -- when replying the quoted text
> "disappears" and inexperienced RECIPIENTS don't know why or what to do
> about it.
You are right. I didn't think this through. Concerning the disa
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Holger Metzger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jul 2001 09:33:51 +0200, Peter Lairo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > *Blocking* posters from having their sigs under their mails is not that
> > important (i.e., not necessary). Having the option to choose wh
On Thu, 05 Jul 2001 09:33:51 +0200, Peter Lairo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> *Blocking* posters from having their sigs under their mails is not that
> important (i.e., not necessary). Having the option to choose where your
> sig goes IS important - but you knew that, you were just chosing to be
Nick Ambrose wrote:
> Peter Lairo wrote:
>
>> THe whole idea of the sig being preformat (whatever that is) is
>> stupid. It has messed up my mails more than once. If replying on top
>> (which you consider to be wrong, but is done frequently anyhow), then
>> the user should be allowed to decid
"Ashant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I think there is a better way out to solve this:
>
> Just as in forwarding, there could be two ways to quoting text in a
> reply - either reply inline or put the quoted text as an attachment.
> Now the rep
On Sun, 1 Jul 2001, Brian Z Jones wrote:
>
> Ian Hickson wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 1 Jul 2001, Brian Z Jones wrote:
>>
>>> I disagree. I figure, you know what you sent me, you want to see what
>>> I'm saying in reply first.
>>>
>>
>> This fails on three counts.
>>
>> 1. I have no idea what I sent you. I
Peter Lairo wrote:
> THe whole idea of the sig being preformat (whatever that is) is stupid.
> It has messed up my mails more than once. If replying on top (which you
> consider to be wrong, but is done frequently anyhow), then the user
> should be allowed to decide where his sig goes too - it
Peter,
Afraid your going to lose on this one. I think Topposting is more logical and because
I read a lot of emails anews post its a time saver to me to see the reply first at
next thread. USENET Rules since back in the 60's and UNiX Days have an absolutely
strict rule about here the signature is
Brian Z Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If you are using a mail client which highlights text based on the ">"
>> nesting level, you won't miss a thing.
>
>
>PINE doesn't do this, and was my main reader for a long time [until
>about six months ago]. I've noticed Outlook do this occasionally,
I think there is a better way out to solve this:
Just as in forwarding, there could be two ways to quoting text in a
reply - either reply inline or put the quoted text as an attachment.
Now the reply inline feature is meant for people who would like to
interleave their matter with the original, i
On Sun, 01 Jul 2001 23:29:09 -0700, Brian Z Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
somehow managed to type:
>1) That is what the SUBJECT line is for, to refresh you seemingly
>limited memory with regard to our conversation.
On newsgroups and mailing lists, a single subject line can encompass a
hundred
Brian Z Jones wrote:
>> 3. On mailing lists, I usually didn't write the original message, and so
>>there is no way I can remember "what I wrote".
I run my own mailing list for me and my friends. Just a place for
people to spill their thoughts and for us to plan stuff and such. It
gets a
Peter Lairo wrote:
> consider to be wrong, but is done frequently anyhow), then the user
> should be allowed to decide where his sig goes too - it's that simple,
> because it doesn't break anything, it is only considered bad form by
> some. So should we top posters be dictated where our signat
Brian Z Jones wrote:
> I disagree. I figure, you know what you sent me, you want to see what
> I'm saying in reply first. I've only left your part quoted to refresh
Your own message is a perfect counter example. Until I scrolled down, I
didn't even know you were replying to my post, much les
Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Jul 2001, Brian Z Jones wrote:
>
>>I disagree. I figure, you know what you sent me, you want to see what
>>I'm saying in reply first.
>>
>
> This fails on three counts.
>
> 1. I have no idea what I sent you. I send dozens and dozens of e-mails
>each day. Ther
Peter Lairo wrote:
> THe whole idea of the sig being preformat (whatever that is) is stupid.
> It has messed up my mails more than once. If replying on top (which you
> consider to be wrong, but is done frequently anyhow), then the user
> should be allowed to decide where his sig goes too - it
And it came to pass that Peter Lairo wrote:
> THe whole idea of the sig being preformat (whatever that is)
> is stupid. It has messed up my mails more than once. If
> replying on top (which you consider to be wrong, but is done
> frequently anyhow), then the user should be allowed to
> decide whe
THe whole idea of the sig being preformat (whatever that is) is stupid.
It has messed up my mails more than once. If replying on top (which you
consider to be wrong, but is done frequently anyhow), then the user
should be allowed to decide where his sig goes too - it's that simple,
because it
And it came to pass that Brian Z Jones wrote:
> I disagree. I figure, you know what you sent me, you want to
> see what I'm saying in reply first. I've only left your part
> quoted to refresh you of any possible specifics, to save you
> the time of looking in your 'sent' folder.
You illustrate
On Sun, 1 Jul 2001, Brian Z Jones wrote:
>
> I disagree. I figure, you know what you sent me, you want to see what
> I'm saying in reply first.
This fails on three counts.
1. I have no idea what I sent you. I send dozens and dozens of e-mails
each day. There is no way I can remember what I s
I disagree. I figure, you know what you sent me, you want to see what
I'm saying in reply first. I've only left your part quoted to refresh
you of any possible specifics, to save you the time of looking in your
'sent' folder. Of course, the jargon file states that you should break
reply to eac
Ashant wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Lairo) wrote:
>
>
>>I *disagree* that having sigs *always* at the bottom is better.
>>
>>Most business communications *require* that the original text be quoted,
>>no matter how long it is (I've had communications where a mail went back
>>and forth abo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Lairo) wrote:
>I *disagree* that having sigs *always* at the bottom is better.
>
>Most business communications *require* that the original text be quoted,
>no matter how long it is (I've had communications where a mail went back
>and forth about 20 times and the quoted
55 matches
Mail list logo
