On Sat, 29 Jul 2000 04:51:48 -0700, Ming-Li wrote:
ML> Just to clarify something: Forte Agent put attachments at the end of
ML> message body (not a separate pane or window) with icons and
ML> filenames. It doesn't put them "in the middle of text".
ML> It's funny that Tom (whose trumpeting of Age
Hi Steve,
> If you had a problem with me pointing out how disruptive icons in
> the middle of text was, take it up with me.
Just to clarify something: Forte Agent put attachments at the end of
message body (not a separate pane or window) with icons and
filenames. It doesn't put them "in the midd
This is my last post in the Dead Horse, so I don't need to be flogged
just yet. I just need to make my self be known. ;)
>> Heh kludges. You mean like an X-header? ;)
SL> No, as in headers. Those are headers, not "kludges" like TB! calls them.
It was a joke, as I understand the X-hea
>> DEAD HORSE pronounced.
SL> Uhm, rescind that please. We were not getting cyclic...
I'm with Steve on this one. Although I see Marck's reasoning, it felt
as if this discussion might actually go into interesting-ideas mode.
Perhaps, though, that is better for TBBETA, a list of which I am
Friday, July 28, 2000, 9:25:06 AM, Marck wrote:
> No problem - it was just the second time you had said so.
However I think that it wasn't the only point made in that post. And,
humorously enough, I think the thread wound down before you called a DH. ;)
--
Steve C. Lamb
Hi Steve,
On 28 July 2000 at 07:39:25 GMT -0700 (which was 15:39 where I
live) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote and made these points on the subject
of "DEAD HORSE (was Re: Before I open a suggestion on this...)":
>> DEAD HORSE pronounced.
SL> Uhm, rescind that please. We were not
Friday, July 28, 2000, 1:51:07 AM, Marck wrote:
TF>> I see your point. How about tabs at the bottom then? This way you know
TF>> there are attacheements, and I really don't need big icons. I have now
TF>> icons on the left side, plus tabs for some of the attachments.
> IMHO we're starting to get
On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 04:53:58PM +0800, Thomas Fernandez wrote:
> That would be OK for me too. When I see the extension .xls, I don't
> really need the icon. I'm not sure we're the majority though.
Well, the icon I was thinking of was tiny, just like the icons in the list
view for the messa
This message: 28/07/2000 11:49 GMT.
Hello Marck,
On 28 July 2000 at 09:51:07 GMT +0100 (which was 09:51 where I live)
Marck ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) typed:
MDP> DEAD HORSE pronounced.
Would it not be possible to use one of these dead horses for public
thwackings?
There seems to be an awful lo
Hi Steve,
On Fri, 28 Jul 2000 01:29:10 -0700GMT (28/07/2000, 16:29 +0800GMT),
Steve Lamb wrote:
SL> In office email I've yet to get a list larger than what I can see in the
SL> window. Any larger and we set up a mailing list.
We would have to set up a new mailing list for each thread then,
Hi Thomas,
On 28 July 2000 at 11:34:09 GMT +0800 (which was 04:34 where I
live) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote and made these points on the subject
of "Before I open a suggestion on this...":
TF> [nice graphic illustration skipped]
TF> I see your point. How about tabs at the bottom th
On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 12:18:55AM -0700, Tom Plunket wrote:
> Heh kludges. You mean like an X-header? ;)
No, as in headers. Those are headers, not "kludges" like TB! calls them.
> anyway my original point was simply that showing all of the headers
> was way more than I wanted, but I woul
On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 11:34:09AM +0800, Thomas Fernandez wrote:
> Fundamental difference between you and me. In office email, I *need*
> to look at the TO and CC fields. shft-crtl-K is cumbersome.
In office email I've yet to get a list larger than what I can see in the
window. Any larger a
>> You don't look at any of the headers in any form before reading a
>> message?
SL> Look, no. Scan, yes.
Ok, I prefer to have them easily available *completely* rather than
*partly*. Difference in needs I suppose.
>> Am I correct in assuming that you don't ever care what the full To:
>>
Hello Tony Boom,
Responding to your article on Thursday, July 27, 2000 at 00:26:53 GMT
+0100 (which was 28/07/2000 6:26 GMT +0700 my Local Time) :
SL>> What preview pane? :P
TB> I think the area people are referring to is the blank area above the
TB> preview text. There is plenty of wast
Hi Steve,
On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 16:16:24 -0700GMT (28/07/2000, 07:16 +0800GMT),
Steve Lamb wrote:
>> You don't look at any of the headers in any form before reading a
>> message?
SL> Look, no. Scan, yes.
Fundamental difference between you and me. In office email, I *need*
to look at the TO
On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 13:56:42 -0700, Tom Plunket wrote:
SL>> Great, so we could have a slew of information which, most
SL>> times, we don't want or need before we get to the actual body of
SL>> the message. Well, if nothing else, it identifies the poorly
SL>> formed spam faster.
TP> You don'
Hi tracer,
On 27 July 2000 at 20:31:31 GMT +0700 (which was 14:31 where I live)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote and made these points on the subject of "OT:
Moistened vs. Unmoistened - was Re: Before I open a suggestion on
this...":
>> Personal preference... The moistened ones
Hello Leif Gregory,
On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 21:22:39 +0900 GMT your local time,
which was Thursday, July 27, 2000, 7:22:39 PM (GMT+0700) my local time,
Leif Gregory wrote:
> Hello Tony,
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 at 10:47:42 [GMT +0100], you wrote:
TB>> At least you had the decency to moisten the Trout
Thursday, July 27, 2000, 1:56:42 PM, Tom wrote:
> You don't look at any of the headers in any form before reading a
> message?
Look, no. Scan, yes.
> Am I correct in assuming that you don't ever care what the full To:
> field is, if it's long?
Oddly enough that rarely happens. The few
>> top of the message. However, if you're only interested in To:, From:,
>> CC:, and Subject:, it only shows those, but it shows those fully (and
>> wrapped at screen width.
SL> Great, so we could have a slew of information which, most times, we don't
SL> want or need before we get to the a
Thursday, July 27, 2000, 10:11:15 AM, Thomas wrote:
> Let's swing away from technology-centered UI to user-centered UI. You
> are technically right, but the user would appreciate it if the
> attachment icon was in the body on a GUI.
The user would, would s/he? I don't think so. As I said, b
Wednesday, July 26, 2000, 4:26:53 PM, Tony wrote:
> I think the area people are referring to is the blank area above the
> preview text. There is plenty of wasted space there as can bee seen
> from the example.
Wasted only if the fields are short. Quite frankly they need to drop the
Hallo Steve,
On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 07:02:43 -0700 GMT (27/07/00, 22:02 +0800 GMT),
Steve Lamb wrote:
>> top of the message. However, if you're only interested in To:, From:,
>> CC:, and Subject:, it only shows those, but it shows those fully (and
>> wrapped at screen width.
SL> Great, so we
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 02:36:58AM -0700, Tom Plunket wrote:
> Isn't it funny that Agent solved this years ago in what I would call
> the near-perfect solution?
Because it isn't nearly perfect nor a solution?
> top of the message. However, if you're only interested in To:, From:,
> CC:, and
Greetings Tony!
On Thursday, July 27, 2000 at 10:26:54 GMT +0100 (which was 2:26 AM where you think
I live) [EMAIL PROTECTED] typed:
TB> This message: 27/07/2000 10:24 GMT.
TB> Hello Curtis,
TB> On 27 July 2000 at 18:45:00 GMT -0500 (which was 00:45 where I live)
TB> Curtis ([EMAIL PROTECTE
Hello Sashka,
On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 20:38:38 -0400 GMT your local time,
which was Thursday, July 27, 2000, 7:38:38 AM (GMT+0700) my local time,
Sashka wrote:
> Hello,
SL>>> What preview pane? :P
TB>> I think the area people are referring to is the blank area above the
TB>> preview text. Th
e subject
MDP> of "Before I open a suggestion on this...":
TB>> ... as can bee seen from the example.
MDP> Slap around face with moistened trout for sending attachments to
MDP> TBUDL. Let's not make it a habit guys'n'gals. Nice mock-up, ho
wrote and made these points on the subject
> of "Before I open a suggestion on this...":
LG>> Oh, believe me... I couldn't agree more. Personally, I think they
LG>> should be shoved into the grey bar showing the headers and message
LG>> size, similar to Outloo
Hello Tony,
On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 at 10:47:42 [GMT +0100], you wrote:
TB> At least you had the decency to moisten the Trout first. Thank you
TB> for that :-) Leif normally uses a very hard dry one.
Personal preference... The moistened ones are slippery and I'm more
likely to lose grip in mid-sw
This message: 27/07/2000 10:24 GMT.
Hello Curtis,
On 27 July 2000 at 18:45:00 GMT -0500 (which was 00:45 where I live)
Curtis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) typed:
C> The potential problem is that the header bars thickness varies
C> with how much header info the user wishes to display.
Which co
This message: 27/07/2000 10:42 GMT.
Hello Marck,
On 27 July 2000 at 01:28:57 GMT +0100 (which was 01:28 where I live)
Marck ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) typed:
MDP> Slap around face with moistened trout
I apologize and humbly accept the above mentioned beating.
At least you had the decency to
>> So I have to go to crtl-shft-K and see all headers. Instead, I would
>> like a little window (option, for those who like the current way) that
>> shows all recipients, osrting by TO and CC, very much like the window
>> that opens when you create a message and click on the little
>> addre4ssboo
Hello All,
On 27-7-2000 1:26:53, Tony wrote:
T> This message: 27/07/2000 00:25 GMT.
T> Hello Steve,
T> On 26 July 2000 at 15:50:08 GMT -0700 (which was 23:50 where I live)
T> Steve ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) typed:
SL>> What preview pane? :P
T> I think the area people are referring to is the bl
Hi Januk,
On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 21:43:15 -0700GMT (27/07/2000, 12:43 +0800GMT),
Januk Aggarwal wrote:
JA> Well these areas are never quite the right size anyway. I find that
JA> usually there is either one Recipient listed, or way too many to see
JA> them all, regardless of the screen width. Now
Hello Thomas,
On Wednesday, July 26, 2000 at 12:44:49 GMT +0800 (which was 9:44 PM
where I live) [EMAIL PROTECTED] typed:
> So I have to go to crtl-shft-K and see all headers. Instead, I would
> like a little window (option, for those who like the current way) that
> shows all recipients, o
Hi Leif,
On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 09:58:27 +0900GMT (27/07/2000, 08:58 +0800GMT),
Leif Gregory wrote:
LG> Besides, if I want to see everyone a message was addressed to, I
LG> just CTRL-SHFT-K anyways.
This is something I really don't like, by the way. I often need to who
received a certain message
Hello Leif,
On Wednesday, July 26, 2000 at 09:58:27 GMT +0900 (which was 5:58 PM
where I live) [EMAIL PROTECTED] typed:
> Yeah, maybe someone will complain about it shortening the available
> viewable area of the TO, FROM, SUBJECT etc.
Well these areas are never quite the right size anyway
Hi Tony,
On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 00:26:53 +0100GMT (27/07/2000, 07:26 +0800GMT),
Tony Boom wrote:
SL>> What preview pane? :P
TB> I think the area people are referring to is the blank area above the
TB> preview text. There is plenty of wasted space there as can bee seen
TB> from the example
C> Right now I need the preview window width to be about 90
C> characters wide to view most messages without window wrapping kicks in.
C> To accommodate the attachments bar, I need about a 95 character width, a
C> width that I cannot get with TB! in full screen mode and the account
C> fol
On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 20:38:38 -0400, Sashka wrote:
S> Yeah! it's what I wanted to see in TB! for long long time, but since
S> in message can be not only one attachment, but few it will be better
S> to make it like in OE. dropdown menu with list of attachments and
S> command Save all.
Yeah
Hi Leif,
On 27 July 2000 at 09:58:27 GMT +0900 (which was 01:58 where I
live) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote and made these points on the subject
of "Before I open a suggestion on this...":
LG> Oh, believe me... I couldn't agree more. Personally, I think they
LG> should be sho
Hello Steve,
On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 at 13:58:06 [GMT -0700], you wrote:
SL> ...is there any way to have attachments show up at the bottom of
SL> the edit and folder view windows instead of the side? The side is
SL> absolutely the stupidest place to put it because causes the width
SL> of the view wi
Hello,
SL>> What preview pane? :P
TB> I think the area people are referring to is the blank area above the
TB> preview text. There is plenty of wasted space there as can bee seen
TB> from the example.
Yeah! it's what I wanted to see in TB! for long long time, but since
in message can be
Hi Tony,
On 27 July 2000 at 00:26:53 GMT +0100 (which was 00:26 where I
live) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote and made these points on the subject
of "Before I open a suggestion on this...":
TB> ... as can bee seen from the example.
Slap around face with moistened trout
Hi All,
SL>>> What preview pane? :P
TB>> I think the area people are referring to is the blank area above
TB>> the preview text. There is plenty of wasted space there as can bee
TB>> seen from the example.
> The potential problem is that the header bars thickness varies
> wit
On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 00:26:53 +0100, Tony Boom wrote:
SL>> What preview pane? :P
TB> I think the area people are referring to is the blank area above
TB> the preview text. There is plenty of wasted space there as can bee
TB> seen from the example.
The potential problem is that
Greetings Tony!
On Wednesday, July 26, 2000 at 00:26:53 GMT +0100 (which was 4:26 PM where you
think I live) [EMAIL PROTECTED] typed:
TB> This message: 27/07/2000 00:25 GMT.
TB> Hello Steve,
TB> On 26 July 2000 at 15:50:08 GMT -0700 (which was 23:50 where I live)
TB> Steve ([EMAIL PROTECTED
On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 15:50:36 -0700, Ming-Li wrote:
ML> Again, if it's optional, I see no reason against it. If it's changed
ML> for good, then I'm against it. I like the attachment pane on the
ML> side, because I want to see more lines in the preview pane, while I
ML> usually have plenty of room
This message: 27/07/2000 00:25 GMT.
Hello Steve,
On 26 July 2000 at 15:50:08 GMT -0700 (which was 23:50 where I live)
Steve ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) typed:
SL> What preview pane? :P
I think the area people are referring to is the blank area above the
preview text. There is plenty of wasted s
On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 15:50:08 -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
>> This was my exact point in an earlier thread about displaying the
>> icons representing an S/MIME signature. My suggestion was to follow
>> Outlook and Eudora's example... re-designing the icon to something
>> much smaller, and to relocate
On Wednesday, July 26, 2000, 3:50:08 PM, Steve Lamb wrote:
SL> What preview pane? :P
Oh, I forgot... you don't use it. :o)
Nonetheless, for those of us that do use the 3 pane view, the S/MIME
signature icon, and the space it takes, is no less troublesome.
Nick
--=N.J. (Nick) Andriash
Wednesday, July 26, 2000, 3:46:55 PM, Nick wrote:
> This was my exact point in an earlier thread about displaying the icons
> representing an S/MIME signature. My suggestion was to follow Outlook
> and Eudora's example... re-designing the icon to something much smaller,
> and to relocate it to the
Hi Steve,
> ...is there any way to have attachments show up at the bottom
> of the edit and folder view windows instead of the side? The side
> is absolutely the stupidest place to put it because causes the
> width of the view window to change.
Again, if it's optional, I see no reason again
On Wednesday, July 26, 2000, 1:58:06 PM, Steve Lamb wrote:
SL> This is a problem in that my edit and view windows are wide enough
SL> for 80 characters, an attachment comes in (like SLIME, er, SMIME) and all of a
SL> sudden it is down to 72ish and I need to scroll to read/edit.
This was my exact
Greetings Mark!
On Wednesday, July 26, 2000 at 22:43:44 GMT +0100 (which was 2:43 PM where you
think I live) [EMAIL PROTECTED] typed:
MRH> Curtis,
MRH> Regarding your message dated: Wednesday, July 26, 2000...
C>> I agree 200%. Finally!!, someone else brings up this practical
C>> concern.
Curtis,
Regarding your message dated: Wednesday, July 26, 2000...
C> I agree 200%. Finally!!, someone else brings up this practical
C> concern.
If I make it 3-for-0 in favour does that me we get the feature?
Good suggestion, well seconded.
Cheers,
Mark
--
-
On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 13:58:06 -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
SL> ...is there any way to have attachments show up at the bottom of
SL> the edit and folder view windows instead of the side? The side is
SL> absolutely the stupidest place to put it because causes the width of
SL> the view window to cha
...is there any way to have attachments show up at the bottom of the edit
and folder view windows instead of the side? The side is absolutely the
stupidest place to put it because causes the width of the view window to
change. This is a problem in that my edit and view windows are wide enoug
59 matches
Mail list logo
