RE: Outlook Quotefix

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 >

Re: Outlook Quotefix

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 f

Re: Outlook Quotefix

On Thursday 17 July 2003 09:12, Benjamin J. Weiss wrote this in an attempt to be witty and informative: > 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 +

Re: Outlook Quotefix

> 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 arc

Re: Outlook Quotefix

-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

Re: Outlook Quotefix

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

RE: Outlook Quotefix

On Wed, 2003-07-16 at 18:31, Chris W. Parker wrote: > Lorenzo Prince > 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

RE: Outlook Quotefix

Lorenzo Prince 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 tw

Re: Outlook Quotefix

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. Actuall

Re: Outlook Quotefix

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 > > > threadi

Re: Outlook Quotefix

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 pie

RE: Outlook Quotefix

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 sugge

RE: Outlook Quotefix

-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

Re: Outlook Quotefix

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 someth

Re: Outlook Quotefix

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 multi

RE: Outlook Quotefix

-Original Message- 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 o

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 will be to use another mail client that is compatible with Exchange 2000. (Which is what I am connecting to, maybe you are also?) In this case, anyone know o

Re: Outlook Quotefix

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 wel