Re[2]: RTF formatting

Hello Mark, Tuesday, July 8, 2003, 9:25:46 AM, you wrote: MP> Hello Lawrence, MP> Tuesday, July 8, 2003, 3:33:28 PM, you wrote: LJ>> Whats the latest on the oft requested ability to format outgoing mail LJ>> messages? LJ>> It would be great to even just embolden, underline or italicize. MP>

Re[2]: RTF

Wednesday, October 30, 2002, 3:32:26 AM, Sudip wrote in message mid:1063625593.20021030091726@;ntc.net.np SP> Anything that comes to me like that is not read at all ! Sudip, your friends must be 'better-trained' than mine - they *will* insist on using stuff like Incredimail! -- Cheers, Anne

Re[2]: RTF

Roelof- Tuesday, October 29, 2002, 1:58:47 PM, you wrote: RO> Why are you both bashing Microsoft and stating that they're the RO> standard everyone should adhere too? Now, now, Roelof...just because M$ is switching over to xml doesn't mean that it's a M$ standard. RTF *is* becoming a thing of th

Re[2]: RTF

Bonjour Roelof, Le mardi 29 octobre 2002 à 22:58:47, vous écriviez : RO> Hallo François, RO> On Tue, 29 Oct 2002 22:14:19 +0100GMT (29-10-02, 22:14 +0100GMT, where RO> I live), you wrote: FP>> * rtf itself is a thing of the past, since M$ itself is switching FP>> to XML RO> Why are you both ba

Re[2]: RTF

Bonjour Roelof, Le mardi 29 octobre 2002 à 22:58:47, vous écriviez : RO> Hallo François, RO> On Tue, 29 Oct 2002 22:14:19 +0100GMT (29-10-02, 22:14 +0100GMT, where RO> I live), you wrote: FP>> * rtf itself is a thing of the past, since M$ itself is switching FP>> to XML RO> Why are you both ba

Re[2]: RTF

Bonjour Jonathan, May I enter this thread just to mention that : * HTML is not primarily a cosmetic format, but a semantic format : it is a subset of XML and thus carry inherent qualities that goes far above rtf. * rtf itself is a thing of the past, since M$ itself is switching to XML * to please

Re[2]: RTF

Monday, October 28, 2002, 11:16:38 PM, Miguel wrote in message mid:1834822594.20021029001638@;ermspain.com MAU> Specially when TB already MAU> includes a Rich Text Viewer? I wonder how many of the ones who have MAU> participated in this thread do use the RTV. And if they do, why? :-) It does? I

Re[2]: RTF

Monday, October 28, 2002, 9:40:54 PM, pmf wrote in message mid:11621038062.20021028164054@;sprintmail.com p> my guess is that TB v.2 will support sending emails in HTML, p> so you'll have the features you want. I only hope it also has the p> ability not only to render a text only version, but also

Re[2]: RTF

Monday, October 28, 2002, 8:13:04 PM, Mark wrote in message mid:6813457140.20021028121304@;ahsoftware.net MW> Most of the "styled text" messages I receive from people are simply MW> the a text message using a different font, i.e., the sender preferred MW> that the recipient see the message in 10-p

Re[2]: RTF

Monday, October 28, 2002, 7:43:54 PM, Jonathan wrote in message mid:19517308906.20021028134354@;certiflexdimension.com JA> There has been rumours that HTML will be supported in version 2 JA> though, so RTF might just be pointless as HTML is probably supported JA> in a lot more clients than RT

Re[2]: RTF

On Monday, October 28, 2002, Allie C Martin wrote in : JN>> I don't know if you misunderstood my intent or if I misstated JN>> the subject. I really should not have mentioned RTF, which is a JN>> MS format. What I did mean is what, I believe, is

Re: Re[2]: RTF

On Mon, 28-Oct-2002 17:54 [GMT-0500] myob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello Richard, > Monday, October 28, 2002, 10:03:29 PM, you wrote: >>> * I can also even *emphasize* certain words, or "quote" them. >>> If necessary, I can even SHOUT. > >> Yes but, if Joseph's wishes were acceded to, your

Re[2]: RTF

Hello Richard, Monday, October 28, 2002, 10:03:29 PM, you wrote: MW>> * I can also even *emphasize* certain words, or "quote" them. MW>> If necessary, I can even SHOUT. RW> Yes but, if Joseph's wishes were acceded to, your *emphasize* RW> would actually show as bold font. No colours or anything

Re[2]: RTF

Richard- Monday, October 28, 2002, 2:03:29 PM, you wrote: RW> Yes but, if Joseph's wishes were acceded to, your *emphasize* would RW> actually show as bold font. No colours or anything fancy needed, just RW> the capability to have bold, italic etc as my newsreader Ameol already RW> does. Ah... s

Re[2]: RTF

On Monday, October 28, 2002, Jonathan Angliss wrote in : JA> I've seen some people specifying fonts that look 'cool' on their JA> computer, but just didn't have the same desired affect on mine. I agree. That's one reason to restrict any ch

Re[2]: RTF

Mark, On Monday, October 28, 2002, Mark Wieder wrote in : MW> There are several centuries worth of literature that prove the point MW> that not only does text mode not need RTF or HTML formatting, but that MW> often simple text can get the point a

Re[2]: RTF

On Monday, October 28, 2002, Jonathan Angliss wrote in : JA> Would you mean like the enchanced-text/rich text mode? Yes. -- JN Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information: http:

Re[2]: RTF

On Monday, October 28, 2002, Pete Milne wrote in : JN>> from allowing bullets, italics, underlines, and bold? PM> Isn't that better served by Word or such? Send it as an attached file. Pete, Sometimes an attached file is fine, and the current de