On Wed, 2003-07-16 at 10:52, Chris W. Parker wrote:
I am in the same boat as you!! (And see I'm even proving it right now by
top posting!! HA HA.)
Umm.. Anyways.. I think our only alternative will be to use another mail
client that is compatible with Exchange 2000. (Which is what I am
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 18:36:29 -0400, Lorenzo Prince wrote:
Well, if you are worried about annoying the entire list, don't worry about me.
Is there any particular reason why your lines are overlong? They
should be wrapped around 70-74 characters. A
Not to mention archive diving trying to find a clue to an issue. With
a
top posted mail thread where no one tried to trim extraneous stuff it
is
almost impossible to figure out.
I had a hard time with the top posting is evil attitude but after
four
or five years of utilizing mail archives
On Thursday 17 July 2003 09:12, Benjamin J. Weiss wrote this in an
attempt to be witty and informative:
snip
Okay, okay, I'll try to trim and bottom post. My mother always
taught me that I should follow the mannerisms of my host. :)
Ben
Inline qouting is best. ;)
--
Wielder of the mighty
Michael Schwendt staggered into view and mumbled:
Is this based on experience or do you guess? It is my experience
that visually impaired people appreciate when all irrelevant text is
edited out and quotes are stripped down to the minimum that is
necessary to keep context.
It is actually from
Yeah I know we've been over this before, but it's a new day and a new
version of Outlook. In order for me to be able to use Windows XP in any
useful fashion I had to upgrade to Office XP as well. Now, Quotefix for
Outlook doesn't work. Anyone have something similar so I don't annoy
the crap out
On Wednesday 16 July 2003 10:18, Mark Haney wrote this in an attempt to
be witty and informative:
Yeah I know we've been over this before, but it's a new day and a new
version of Outlook. In order for me to be able to use Windows XP in
any useful fashion I had to upgrade to Office XP as well.
of a exchange 2000 compatible mail client
other than Outlook?
Chris.
-Original Message-
From: Mark Haney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 8:19 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Outlook Quotefix
Yeah I know we've been over this before, but it's a new day and a new
-
From: Chris W. Parker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 12:53 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Outlook Quotefix
I am in the same boat as you!! (And see I'm even proving it right now by
top posting!! HA HA.)
Umm.. Anyways.. I think our only alternative
On Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 09:52:31AM -0700, Chris W. Parker wrote:
In this case, anyone know of a exchange 2000 compatible mail client
other than Outlook?
While you are at it, find something that provides useful threading,
please. Very annoying to read bits and pieces of the same thread in
On Wednesday 16 July 2003 12:33, Hal Burgiss wrote this in an attempt to
be witty and informative:
On Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 09:52:31AM -0700, Chris W. Parker wrote:
In this case, anyone know of a exchange 2000 compatible mail client
other than Outlook?
While you are at it, find something
-Original Message-
From: Hal Burgiss [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
While you are at it, find something that provides useful
threading, please. Very annoying to read bits and pieces
of the same thread in multiple places in the mailbox.
I'm open to suggestions.
Chris.
--
redhat-list
At 7/16/2003 10:56 -0700, you wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Hal Burgiss [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
While you are at it, find something that provides useful
threading, please. Very annoying to read bits and pieces
of the same thread in multiple places in the mailbox.
I'm open to
On Wednesday 16 July 2003 12:56, Chris W. Parker wrote this in an
attempt to be witty and informative:
-Original Message-
From: Hal Burgiss [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
While you are at it, find something that provides useful
threading, please. Very annoying to read bits and pieces
On Wednesday 16 July 2003 13:18, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote this in an
attempt to be witty and informative:
At 7/16/2003 10:56 -0700, you wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Hal Burgiss [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
While you are at it, find something that provides useful
threading, please.
Well, if you are worried about annoying the entire list, don't worry about me. I for
one would rather have the reply to
a question I posted answered right up front instead of having to wade through the muck
and the mire of anywhere from 1
to 5 message I've already read at least twice.
Lorenzo Prince mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 3:36 PM said:
I for one would rather have the reply to a question I
posted answered right up front instead of having to wade through the
muck and the mire of anywhere from 1 to 5 message I've already read
at least twice.
On Wed, 2003-07-16 at 18:31, Chris W. Parker wrote:
Lorenzo Prince mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 3:36 PM said:
I for one would rather have the reply to a question I
posted answered right up front instead of having to wade through the
muck and the mire of
On Wednesday 16 July 2003 17:36, Lorenzo Prince wrote this in an attempt
to be witty and informative:
Well, if you are worried about annoying the entire list, don't worry
about me. I for one would rather have the reply to a question I
posted answered right up front instead of having to wade
19 matches
Mail list logo
