In message <31ef1ff0f8d057348bf4f9b1bfc00...@mwinf5c65.me-wanadoo.net>
netsurf-users-requ...@netsurf-browser.org wrote:
> Send netsurf-users mailing list submissions to
> netsurf-users@netsurf-browser.org
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 04:41:24PM +0100, Allan Bennett wrote:
> In message <31ef1ff0f8d057348bf4f9b1bfc00...@mwinf5c65.me-wanadoo.net>
> netsurf-users-requ...@netsurf-browser.org wrote:
> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> > than "Re: Contents of n
On 25 Mar 2012 Rob Kendrick wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 04:41:24PM +0100, Allan Bennett wrote:
>> In message <31ef1ff0f8d057348bf4f9b1bfc00...@mwinf5c65.me-wanadoo.net>
>> netsurf-users-requ...@netsurf-browser.org wrote:
>
>>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it i
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 06:16:14PM +0100, Richard Porter wrote:
> > Please don't do this. In fact, I'm tempted to disable digest support on
> > the mailing list, because nobody ever gets this right.
>
> Could you just bounce any messages with a subject starting "Re:
> netsurf-users Digest"?
No
In article <20120325172209.gg5...@pepperfish.net>, Rob Kendrick
wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 06:16:14PM +0100, Richard Porter wrote:
> > > Please don't do this. In fact, I'm tempted to disable digest
> > > support on the mailing list, because nobody ever gets this right.
Why's it there? Are
Am Montag, den 26.03.2012, 00:37 +0200 schrieb Tim Hill
:
Why's it there? Are there still people on dialup who need it?
Generally this feature is offered by the Mail list managers to provide
users an
option limit the amount of mails they get. This has nothing to do
with dialup. It's just le
On 25 Mar at 18:08, Rob Kendrick wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 04:41:24PM +0100, Allan Bennett wrote:
> > In message
> > <31ef1ff0f8d057348bf4f9b1bfc00...@mwinf5c65.me-wanadoo.net>
> > netsurf-users-requ...@netsurf-browser.org wrote:
>
>
>
> > > When replying, please edit your Sub
On 26 Mar, in article
<8f18b3c749ca5517d1f25a4db079e5d1-EhVcX1lFRQVaRwYcDTpQCEFddQZLVF5dQUNBAjBeX15ZVF0WXVloCVQ6XFxcQ0IDWFhdQg==-webmailer2@s,
m0n0 wrote:
> Am Montag, den 26.03.2012, 00:37 +0200 schrieb Tim Hill
> :
> > Why's it there? Are there still people on dialup who need it?
> Gener
In article <5277f53bddtri...@orchid-squad.org.uk>,
Tricia Garner wrote:
> On 26 Mar, in article
> <8f18b3c749ca5517d1f25a4db079e5d1-EhVcX1lFRQVaRwYcDTpQCEFddQZLVF5dQUNBAjBeX15ZVF0WXVloCVQ6XFxcQ0IDWFhdQg==-webmailer2@s,
> m0n0 wrote:
> > Am Montag, den 26.03.2012, 00:37 +0200 schrieb Tim Hil
On 29 Mar 2012 Tricia Garner wrote:
> How can one lng email with all the replies in all the threads
> which people haven't snipped repeated again and again possibly be
> less annoying than 40 emails? Just curious.
I quite agree. With 40 messages properly threaded it's easy just to
ignore to
In message
Richard Porter wrote:
> On 29 Mar 2012 Tricia Garner wrote:
>
>> How can one lng email with all the replies in all the threads
>> which people haven't snipped repeated again and again possibly be
>> less annoying than 40 emails? Just curious.
>
> I quite agree. With 4
evanal...@talktalk.net wrote on 29 Mar:
>> How can one lng email with all the replies in all the threads
>> which people haven't snipped repeated again and again possibly be
>> less annoying than 40 emails? Just curious.
> It is a matter of personal preference. For me I prefer the one long
>
In article , Jim Nagel
wrote:
> evanal...@talktalk.net wrote on 29 Mar:
> >> How can one lng email with all the replies in all the threads
> >> which people haven't snipped repeated again and again possibly be
> >> less annoying than 40 emails? Just curious.
> > It is a matter of personal pr
On 3 Apr 2012 wrote:
> In article , Jim Nagel
> wrote:
>> evanal...@talktalk.net wrote on 29 Mar:
How can one lng email with all the replies in all the threads
which people haven't snipped repeated again and again possibly be
less annoying than 40 emails? Just curious.
>>>
Quoting evanal...@talktalk.net:
> In article , Jim Nagel
> wrote:
> > evanal...@talktalk.net wrote on 29 Mar:
>
> > >> How can one lng email with all the replies in all the threads
> > >> which people haven't snipped repeated again and again possibly be
> > >> less annoying than 40 emails? J
On 3 Apr 2012 dave higton wrote:
> I have to admit that I can't see the upside of digests, and I can
> see a big downside.
They might help to reduce the clutter if you have to use some poxy
Windoze/MuckOS email client or webmail service that doesn't allow you
to do filtering, mailing lists, th
On Tue, Apr 03, 2012 at 11:32:53AM +0100, Richard Porter wrote:
> On 3 Apr 2012 dave higton wrote:
>
> > I have to admit that I can't see the upside of digests, and I can
> > see a big downside.
>
> They might help to reduce the clutter if you have to use some poxy
> Windoze/MuckOS email client
In article <527a841756evanal...@talktalk.net>,
wrote:
> As I said, its a matter of personal preference. Not everyone wants to
> do as you do.
> Why so evangelical?
No problem as long as you don't reply to anything. Because when you do,
you're being a nuisance to others.
On 3 Apr 2012 Rob Kendrick wrote:
> Less of the jingoism, please. RISC OS is not immune to crap mail
> clients. Additionally, this list is for discussion of NetSurf, not
> list digests.
Oops, sorry. I saw Messenger at the top and probably thought I was on
the Messenger list (even so..., you m
19 matches
Mail list logo
