-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, 3 Mar 2001, at 16:35:31 [GMT +0100], Andreas Schwartmann wrote:
AS> A while ago, while still using Eudora (shame on me ...) I purchased a
AS> small application called "E-Sig", which randomly created signature
AS> files and attached them to my
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello Andreas,
You wrote on 3/3/2001, 4:35 PM:
Andreas> I am wondering if there is a way to incorporate these
Andreas> randomly created signatures (TXT files) into outgoing mail.
Try:
%COOKIE="X:\Path\random_signature_file.txt&q
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Andreas,
On 03 March 2001 at 16:35:31 +0100 (which was 15:35 where I live)
Andreas Schwartmann wrote and made these points:
AS> I am wondering if there is a way to incorporate these randomly created
AS> signatures (TXT files) into ou
about 100 taglines, quotes, never knowing which
one would be used on a particular outgoing mail.
Now I understand that "The Bat" does not work with signature files
that might get attached but uses templates.
I am wondering if there is a way to incorporate these randomly created
signatu
Hello, the Bat! list recipients,
Thursday, December 21, 2000, Nick Andriash wrote to [EMAIL PROTECTED] about
Signatures; Margins/wrapping:
BS>> A paragraph is recognized by TB only if there is a blank line between
BS>> them. So, this is an example for a 'uncorrect' pa
On December 20, 2000, at 3:32:39 AM, Beat Strasser Wrote:
BS> A paragraph is recognized by TB only if there is a blank line between
BS> them. So, this is an example for a 'uncorrect' paragraph.
I don't believe so. TB does not recognize any paragraphs when you try and
highlight 2 or 3 paragraphs,
Hallo Leonard,
On Wed, 20 Dec 2000 05:54:22 -0500 GMT (20/12/2000, 18:54 +0800 GMT),
Leonard S. Berkowitz wrote:
LSB> 1. Is the only way to insert a signature through the use of templates?
You can create a QuickTemplate which in turn calls a text file. When
you write your message, you can invok
Hi Leonard
> 1. Is the only way to insert a signature through the use of templates?
> I am not interested in random signatures or cookies. There is an entry
> for "signatures" in the help index, but it displays an essay on
> templates.
Yes. Templates are used instead
Hello, the Bat! list recipients,
Wednesday, December 20, 2000, Leonard S. Berkowitz wrote to The Bat Users Discussion
List about
Signatures; Margins/wrapping:
LSB> 1. Is the only way to insert a signature through the use of templates?
Yes
LSB> I am not interested in random signatu
1. Is the only way to insert a signature through the use of templates?
I am not interested in random signatures or cookies. There is an entry
for "signatures" in the help index, but it displays an essay on
templates.
2. The message editor wraps nicely until I go back an insert a w
Hello Ming-Li,
Wednesday, July 05, 2000, 2:09:26 PM, you wrote:
ML> If you hardcode the word "Zipper" and its email address in the reply
ML> template, then no, TB! won't change it. If you use the macro
ML> %FromFName and %FromAddr, and you change the Account before typing
ML> anything in the mes
Hi Zipper,
> I thought that TB was supposed to change the signature to the
> one of the active account. If I am creating a message in a
> different account, and I go to options/active account, it leaves
> the signature on of the original message.
By signature you mean the following lines, rig
On Wed, 5 Jul 2000 12:37:37 +0100, Zipper wrote:
Z> I thought that TB was supposed to change the signature to the one
Z> of the active account. If I am creating a message in a different
Z> account, and I go to options/active account, it leaves the signature
Z> on of the original message.
Hello TBUDL,
I thought that TB was supposed to change the signature to the one of
the active account. If I am creating a message in a different account,
and I go to options/active account, it leaves the signature on of the
original message.
Also is there a way to get the cursor to go to the
On Thu, 20 Jan 2000 05:17:48 +0100, Jast wrote:
> Well I don't :-D However, even if I did it, that's what trashcans are
> for...
I dislike system trashcans. :-D I have the hassle of having to clear
them since I hardly EVER restore anything. You can send your system in a
tizzy as I've seen
Morning Allie Martin,
> Undo is not very practical for all things. Abort ... fine. But how do
> you reverse the damages. I definitely support popup confirmations for
> potentially seriously damaging operations such as deleting accounts,
> folder contents etc. It's not everyday that you do it.
On Wed, 19 Jan 2000 18:14:24 +0100, Jast wrote:
[..snip..]
> Bleh. I don't like these confirmation popup boxes. They "never saved my
> ass". What I do like though is the option to undo and abort
> operations.
Undo is not very practical for all things. Abort ... fine. But how do
you r
Morning Allie Martin,
> Er. *Allie clears his throat* Objection sire :-D
>
> That pop-up confirmation has saved my ass on many an occasion when I
> accidentally hit the delete key or selected the wrong menu option with
> both keyboard and mouse.
Bleh. I don't like these confirmation po
On Wed, 19 Jan 2000 01:49:28 +, Marck D. Pearlstone wrote:
--
> Ahem - I don't think that actually works. Spaces at EOL are only
> preserved in templates from my experimentation. So we actually do get
> no space. What's more, If we have the temerity to let the
> cursor wander through
Hi Steve,
On Tue, 18 Jan 2000 13:42:04 -0800GMT (19/01/2000, 05:42 +0800GMT),
Steve Lamb wrote:
SL> The reply-to behavior is not a convention. It is a prompt or an option
SL> for a prompt. It is partially dictated by a formal document (RFC822) and
SL> therefore is closer to a standard than
\\\|///
/ ~ _ \
(- O o -)
--oOOo-(_)-oOOo---
Hello Marck,
MDP> Ahem - I don't think that actually works. Spaces at EOL are only
MDP> preserved in templates from my experimentation. So we a
Hi Allie,
On 19 January 2000 at 20:20:26 GMT -0500 (which was 01:20 where I
live) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote and made these points:
>> An aside: if The Bat! strips virtual space, do sigdashes go out
>> improperly formatted? In other words, do we get
>> or are we stuck with ?
AM> No, y
Tuesday, January 18, 2000, 3:40:33 PM, Tom wrote:
> ...that other programs prompt is not at issue.
If one is trying to argue based on convention alone, it is. What others
do is what dictates convention.
> What if the solution was to NOT prompt, but to offer an easy way to change
> to other
On Tue, 18 Jan 2000 15:40:33 -0800, Tom Plunket wrote:
> ...that other programs prompt is not at issue. What if the solution
> was to NOT prompt, but to offer an easy way to change to other
> addresses (or other fields, what have you)? Like, say, a droplist
> when editing your message, and you
SL> Incorrect. REPLY-TO is a matter of at least RFC822. RFC822 does dictate
SL> what purposes REPLY-TO can be employed for and puts forth acceptable use of
SL> that field.
I would bet that it does not require a prompt, though, as you say:
SL> Further, convention is that there is at lea
On Tue, 18 Jan 2000 13:42:04 -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
[..snip..]
> Unlike the "do you REALLY want to delete this" prompts from Windows which
> are ineffective. I know they are coming, I slam the enter key already while
> flying on autopilot so it confirms nothing.
Er. *Allie clears hi
Monday, January 17, 2000, 9:26:45 AM, Thomas wrote:
> Semantic difference. What I meant is the client default, of course.
Then say that. My client is TB!, not Thomas Fernandez. ;P
> I don't think so. Both are not regulated by the RFC's or whereever,
> and it is only common agreemens - conv
>> Ok, but why would you *intentionally* put the wrong reply-to in your
>> headers? It is not required that you fill it in...
I tried deleting it so I could save the world a few headers worth of
bandwidth, and was unable to.
AM> It's this very issue that has me displaying the Reply:to heade
Monday, January 17, 2000, 10:18:28 PM, Januk wrote:
>> Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> We've gone over this, Allie. At first glance that is going to the right
>> place because of TB!'s broken behavior, configurable or not.
> Ok, but why would you *intentionally* put the wrong reply-to
On Mon, 17 Jan 2000 22:18:28 -0800, Januk Aggarwal wrote:
>> Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> We've gone over this, Allie. At first glance that is going to the right
>> place because of TB!'s broken behavior, configurable or not.
> Ok, but why would you *intentionally* put the wrong r
Hello Steve,
Monday, January 17, 2000, 4:43:18 AM, you wrote:
> Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> We've gone over this, Allie. At first glance that is going to the right
> place because of TB!'s broken behavior, configurable or not.
Ok, but why would you *intentionally* put the wrong r
Hallo Steve,
On Mon, 17 Jan 2000 08:50:02 -0800 GMT (18.01.2000, 00:50 +0800 GMT),
Steve Lamb wrote:
SL> Uhm, no. *YOU* should reply to the destination that is fitting the
SL> content of the message at hand. The *client* should default that to be the
SL> reply-to. There is a *BIG* differe
Monday, January 17, 2000, 1:04:22 AM, Thomas wrote:
> But this is exactly the point: I should reply to the list, that's why
> the list server replaces you original reply-to with the list address.
Uhm, no. *YOU* should reply to the destination that is fitting the
content of the message at han
Monday, January 17, 2000, 1:04:03 AM, Allie wrote:
> Move your eyes up to the To: field and verify the address before
> sending (that's if either address mean anything to you in the first
> place). Problem solved. :
Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
We've gone over this, Allie. At
Hi Steve,
On Mon, 17 Jan 2000 00:28:51 -0800GMT (17/01/2000, 16:28 +0800GMT),
Steve Lamb wrote:
>> How about following conventions in the mailing culture being the
>> reason why? ;-) Here is what I mean (and I am not as good in wording
>> as you are):
SL> Doing so would dictate that the Rep
On Mon, 17 Jan 2000 00:28:51 -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
>> My opinion on this is therefore: The reply-to address is the default
>> for replying. I don't want a pop-up window, as I don't want a pop-up
>> window for a missing subject. It is the same case for me.
> Until the first time someone se
On Mon, 17 Jan 2000 00:21:01 -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
[..snip..]
>> Well, technically, if I were to go along with you, the editor should
>> not place anything in the header of replies because one, it's assuming
>> that you wish to use the reply to address (duh) and two, it's wrongfully
>> as
Friday, January 14, 2000, 7:17:54 PM, Thomas wrote:
> How about following conventions in the mailing culture being the
> reason why? ;-) Here is what I mean (and I am not as good in wording
> as you are):
Doing so would dictate that the Reply-to is not set 1/2 the time. :P
> 1.) Reply-to me
Friday, January 14, 2000, 5:07:15 PM, Allie wrote:
> Well, technically, if I were to go along with you, the editor should
> not place anything in the header of replies because one, it's assuming
> that you wish to use the reply to address (duh) and two, it's wrongfully
> assuming that you'll w
Hi Allie,
On Fri, 14 Jan 2000 23:23:53 -0500GMT (15/01/00, 12:23 +0800GMT),
Allie Martin wrote:
>> the same. Plain F4 results in a reply with no quotes at
>> all.
AM> You need to have text selected and then it will quote only the
AM> selected text. If no text is selected it will not
OK. W
On Sat, 15 Jan 2000 10:58:50 +0800, Thomas Fernandez wrote:
[..snip..]
> I confirmn the same. Plain F4 results in a reply with no quotes at
> all.
You need to have text selected and then it will quote only the
selected text. If no text is selected it will not quote anything.
--
-=Allie=-
Hi Steve,
On Fri, 14 Jan 2000 14:43:25 -0800GMT (15/01/2000, 06:43 +0800GMT),
Steve Lamb wrote:
>> Okay, I don't know who you are or what you did with Steve but you have
>> about 10 minutes to get out of there before I call the police!!!
ROTFLMAO
SL> Hey, I signed that one bucko. :P
Nice
Hi Steve,
On Fri, 14 Jan 2000 16:45:24 -0800GMT (15/01/2000, 08:45 +0800GMT),
Steve Lamb wrote:
>> Can't sentence the user to a perennial popup confirmation to deal with
>> possible exceptions to an overwhelming rule. Isn't that taking your never
>> assume philosophy a bit too far . to the p
Hi Jast,
On Sat, 15 Jan 2000 03:26:12 +0100GMT (15/01/2000, 10:26 +0800GMT),
Jast wrote:
>> That was *plain* F4...
J> Maybe you have some templates interfering? As for me, I don' get any
J> quotes at all whatever I do, since I have no quoting macro in my
J> templates (I prefer to quote manua
On Friday, January 14, 2000, 4:45:24 PM, Steve Lamb wrote:
> I'd love to know how. I don't see a checkbox for it. Wait, I bet it is
> another #$^#$^$#%ing macro. Nope, a freaking checkbox this time. I wish
> RITLABS would stop dicking around and do the configuration right. Jeez.
Further
On Friday, January 14, 2000, 4:45:24 PM, Steve Lamb wrote:
>> BTW, Nick did bring up a valid point about simply looking at the To:
>> address before hitting send. I see that in a similar way as checking to
>> make sure there's a subject before sending. TB! is a little unorthodox in
>> that it
Morning Steve Lamb,
> Nope. There is a choice there that has to be made, why should the
> computer assume which address to send to?
The way I see it that's what the Reply-To header is for: Providing
the information to which address a reply goes to. The assumption made
is therefore correct. Th
Morning Szendrõ István,
> That was *plain* F4...
Maybe you have some templates interfering? As for me, I don' get any
quotes at all whatever I do, since I have no quoting macro in my
templates (I prefer to quote manually.) Anyway, worth a check.
--
+--Jast
|on W
On Fri, 14 Jan 2000 16:45:24 -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Nope. There is a choice there that has to be made, why should the
> computer assume which address to send to?
Well, technically, if I were to go along with you, the editor should
not place anything in the header of replies because
Friday, January 14, 2000, 4:24:41 PM, Allie wrote:
> Can't sentence the user to a perennial popup confirmation to deal with
> possible exceptions to an overwhelming rule. Isn't that taking your never
> assume philosophy a bit too far . to the point where you're shooting
> yourself in the foot?
On Friday, January 14, 2000, 4:24:41 PM, Allie Martin wrote:
> TB! is a little unorthodox in
> that it will put the senders name and the reply to address together in the
> To: field. If that confuses the user then the user may turn it off.
Where is that option located Allie? In some respects I
On Fri, 14 Jan 2000 16:06:59 -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
[..snip..]
> *smile* Like I said, I can play with you with reply-tos. Want a
> message to go to my debian lists? All I need to do is accidentally send
> you a message while in one of those folders since I set the reply-to
> back to the
Friday, January 14, 2000, 3:49:57 PM, Allie wrote:
>A toolbar button perhaps? :) I use this feature a lot more than reply
> to all and yet it's deep within a menu if you wish to invoke it with a
> mouse.
Personally I like the drop down buttons like on the send/check mail
buttons. I'm not
Friday, January 14, 2000, 3:45:50 PM, Allie wrote:
> Well, it's not all the time that the user will know the significance
> of either address or why the addresses differ.
All the more reason why they should be prompted.
> I would therefore think that it is not an assumption being mad
On Fri, 14 Jan 2000 14:43:25 -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
[..snip..]
> Well, it would help if that feature (CNTL-F4) were in the mouse options
> somewhere. Hell, I didn't even know about it.
A toolbar button perhaps? :) I use this feature a lot more than reply
to all and yet it's deep withi
On Fri, 14 Jan 2000 14:13:32 -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
[..snip..]
> IMHO, yes. I can play a LOT of fun games with you with reply-tos. Since
> most people don't display the reply-to in the header information (most clients
> don't by default, people normally stick with defaults) someone could
Friday, January 14, 2000, 2:35:00 PM, Nick wrote:
> peek and make sure it right. The newbies can do this while checking to
> make sure the subject is filled in. ;)
BTW, just wanted to add that this isn't as easy as it seems. I mean, at a
glace, who is this message being sent to? Nick Danger
In Reference to "Replt-To in mailing list (Was: mailto: in
Signatures)" From Steve Lamb:
SL> Well, it would help if that feature (CNTL-F4) were in the mouse options
SL> somewhere. Hell, I didn't even know about it.
It is, albeit rather hidden, right click on the me
Friday, January 14, 2000, 2:35:00 PM, Nick wrote:
> Okay, I don't know who you are or what you did with Steve but you have
> about 10 minutes to get out of there before I call the police!!!
Hey, I signed that one bucko. :P
> Are you advocating a feature to help out newbies at the cost of po
In Reference to "Replt-To in mailing list (Was: mailto: in
Signatures)" From Steve Lamb:
SL> IMHO, yes. I can play a LOT of fun games with you with reply-tos. Since
SL> most people don't display the reply-to in the header information (most clients
SL> don'
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Friday, January 14, 2000, 2:06:18 PM, Nick wrote:
> But is really wrong to assume you want to reply to the Reply to:
> address unless you specify differently?
IMHO, yes. I can play a LOT of fun games with you with reply-tos. Since
most people d
In Reference to "Replt-To in mailing list (Was: mailto: in Signatures)" From Steve
Lamb:
SL> Of course. How many times have I said the program shouldn't assume?
SL> Wouldn't it be an assumption on which address to use when the two differ? :P
But is really w
Friday, January 14, 2000, 1:35:54 PM, Andrew wrote:
> Oh, Steve. I don't believe my eyes - you propose to implement a
> prompt?! :) So that the program asks one more silly question each time
> I reply...
Of course. How many times have I said the program shouldn't assume?
Wouldn't it be an as
Hello, The Bat Users!
SL> Operative word is "should", not must. Because of that, and
SL> the widespread use of mailing lists, I think that the client
SL> should prompt the user on which address they want to send to with
SL> the default being the reply-to. This gives the user the ability
SL>
Hello Roel,
Friday, January 14, 2000, 11:42:42 AM, you wrote:
R> plain f4 works fine :-)
R> plain f4 works fine :-)
That was *plain* F4...
--
Best regards,
István Szendrõmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Using The Bat! 1.39 Beta/1 under Windows 98 4.10 Build 1998
--
-
\\\|///
/ ~ _ \
(- O o -)
--oOOo-(_)-oOOo---
Hello Allie,
AM> The text block was quoted twice? Interesting. When I do it here, the
AM> entire message text get's quoted. The To: field however
On Fri, 14 Jan 2000 09:16:03 +0100, Szendrõ István wrote:
AM>> If you select a block of text and hit CTRL-F4 a reply message to
AM>> the *sender* will be generated and with the entire message text
AM>> quoted.
AM>> If you select a block of text and hit CTRL-F4 a reply message to the
AM>
Hello Allie,
Thursday, January 13, 2000, 10:02:08 PM, you wrote:
AM> If you select a block of text and hit CTRL-F4 a reply message to the
AM> *sender* will be generated and with the entire message text quoted.
AM> If you select a block of text and hit CTRL-F4 a reply message to the
AM>
Hello Allie,
Thursday, January 13, 2000, 10:02:08 PM, you wrote:
AM> If you select a block of text and hit CTRL-F4 a reply message to the
AM> *sender* will be generated and with the entire message text quoted.
AM> If you select a block of text and hit CTRL-F4 a reply message to the
AM>
On Thursday, January 13, 2000 at 15:52:40 ,Nick scribbled:
>> That they put the mailto: in the template at all, IMHO, is a good thing.
NA> Not sure what you mean by that Angel... do you mean they have a specific
NA> Macro that will automatically put in a "MailTo:" in a signature?
What I meant wa
On Thursday, January 13, 2000, 9:15:03 AM, Angel wrote:
> That they put the mailto: in the template at all, IMHO, is a good thing.
Not sure what you mean by that Angel... do you mean they have a specific
Macro that will automatically put in a "MailTo:" in a signature?
Nick
--
-=Nick Andrias
Thursday, January 13, 2000, 12:19:13 PM, Roel wrote:
> sorry, i meant control-f4, *not* shift-f4
Wow, never knew that was there. Would be better to have that as a
pulldown on the button than in the "special" menu.
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm yo
Thursday, January 13, 2000, 12:03:54 PM, Alexander wrote:
> ... but right now the only e-mail client that it the way you (and me;-))
> consider optimal is Pegasus AFAIK;-)
PMMail, Pine, Mutt
> OTOH, I do not think this extra "which address would you use?" dialogue is a
> elegant deceision a
On Thu, 13 Jan 2000 21:17:33 +0100, Roel wrote:
[..snip..]
> if you want to reply to the 'from'-address, use shift-f4...
Ooops! That should be CTRL-F4. Shift-F4 replies to the reply-to
address but without a message body.
> only 'drawback' (i think it's a feature actually!) is that you'll n
Hello, fellow Bat-lovers.
On Thursday, January 13, 2000, 1:03:54 PM, Alexander wrote:
>> When hitting reply and the FROM differs from REPLY-TO the client should
>> ask which address to send to. I know that RFC822 states that REPLY-TO should
>> be used over FROM in cases like this. In fact,
\\\|///
/ ~ _ \
(- O o -)
--oOOo-(_)-oOOo---
Hello Alexander,
AVK> OTOH, I do not think this extra "which address would you use?" dialogue is a
AVK> elegant deceision at all (you might believe me
\\\|///
/ ~ _ \
(- O o -)
--oOOo-(_)-oOOo---
Hello Alexander,
AVK> OTOH, I do not think this extra "which address would you use?" dialogue is a
AVK> elegant deceision at all (you might believe m
Hi there!
On 13 Jan 00, at 9:50, Steve Lamb wrote
about "Replt-To in mailing list":
> Personally this is a small nigglet, IMHO, with TB!. There have been tons
> of arguments over whether or not mailing lists should set "Reply-To" or not.
> I am a proponent of the mailing-lists setting i
Thursday, January 13, 2000, 9:57:38 AM, Januk wrote:
> Just to note, I'm reading this using Netscape Communicator under Unix at
> University, and only the address using mailto: is recognized. Just adding to
> list of annoying e-mail clients. :)
Well, what do you expect from a web browser?
Steve Lamb wrote:
> So requiring, for example, me to write [EMAIL PROTECTED] as
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED],
Just to note, I'm reading this using Netscape Communicator under Unix at
University, and only the address using mailto: is recognized. Just adding to
list of annoying e-mail clients.
Thursday, January 13, 2000, 9:15:03 AM, Angel wrote:
> maling lists et al. because of the reason stated above: hitting Reply or
> Reply-To for a "private" reply would send it to the entire list.
Personally this is a small nigglet, IMHO, with TB!. There have been tons
of arguments over whethe
On Wednesday, January 12, 2000 at 21:30:37 ,Keith scribbled:
KR> But, Angel, you don't have either in this message, either!
ACK! LOL
Thanks for pointing that out, I've put it back in. I used it a long time ago but
I took it out. (Temporary brain fart moment on my part maybe? LOL)
If someone wante
Thursday, January 13, 2000, 7:37:38 AM, Nick wrote:
> I agree with you to some extent Steve, but I find your response puzzling, as
> you seem to be one that strongly professes the use of Internet Standards.
Yup.
> In researching the subject a little, I find that RFC 2368 (at least my
> under
On Thursday, January 13, 2000, 12:29:05 AM, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Those that don't have C&P if needed. I fail to see why we should mangle
> our sigs for the inadequacies of another client.
I agree with you to some extent Steve, but I find your response puzzling, as
you seem to be one that str
Wednesday, January 12, 2000, 7:50:14 PM, Nick wrote:
> out AOL as one of them, and I know that Eudora and MS Outlook Programs do
> not, while Agent and OE do, so I don't know why some do, and some don't.
Those that don't have C&P if needed. I fail to see why we should mangle
our sigs for the
On Wednesday, January 12, 2000, 9:30:37 PM, Keith Russell wrote:
> Unless someone points me to some email clients that recognize only the
> "mailto:" format, I plan to stop using it.
Two very popular E-Mail Programs come to mind Keith... MS Outlook and Eudora
Pro, neither of which will recognize
Hello, fellow Bat-lovers.
On Wednesday, January 12, 2000, 8:50:14 PM, Nick wrote:
[snip]
> Not necessarily Keith. There are some very popular Programs that do not
> recognize [EMAIL PROTECTED] as a 'clickable' E-Mail address. Angel pointed
> out AOL as one of them, and I know that Eudora and MS
Hello, fellow Bat-lovers.
On Wednesday, January 12, 2000, 3:51:04 PM, Angel wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 12, 2000 at 14:42:55 ,Keith scribbled:
KR>> Is there really any good reason for including the "mailto," since,
KR>> as far as I can tell, most email clients will recognize an email
KR>
Hello, fellow Bat-lovers.
On Wednesday, January 12, 2000, 3:59:39 PM, Steve wrote:
> Wednesday, January 12, 2000, 2:42:55 PM, Keith wrote:
>> address without the prefix? (In other words, won't
>> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" work as well as "mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]" and be
>> less confusing to non
Hello, fellow Bat-lovers.
On Wednesday, January 12, 2000, 3:52:53 PM, Nick wrote:
> In Reference to "mailto: in Signatures" From Keith Russell:
KR>> (In other words, won't "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" work as well as
KR>> "mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]" and
On Wednesday, January 12, 2000, 2:42:55 PM, Keith Russell wrote:
>Is there really any good reason for including the "mailto," since, as far
>as I can tell, most email clients will recognize an email address without
>the prefix? (In other words, won't "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" work as well as
>"ma
On Wednesday, January 12, 2000 at 14:42:55 ,Keith scribbled:
KR> Is there really any good reason for including the "mailto," since,
KR> as far as I can tell, most email clients will recognize an email
KR> address without the prefix?
I may not have the correct answer, but I don't use the mai
Wednesday, January 12, 2000, 2:42:55 PM, Keith wrote:
> address without the prefix? (In other words, won't
> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" work as well as "mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]" and be
> less confusing to non-techies?)
Yes. :)
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your s
In Reference to "mailto: in Signatures" From Keith Russell:
KR> (In other words, won't "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" work as well as
KR> "mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]" and be less confusing to non-techies?)
Hey!! Don't go getting all logical and stuff on us. If
Hello, fellow Bat-lovers.
As I recall, the default templates that come with The Bat! include a
"mailto:" in the signature, as you see below. I've noticed that many
list subscribers use this format.
Is there really any good reason for including the "mailto," since,
as far as I can tell,
Hello cid,
Wednesday, January 12, 2000, 5:09:19 PM, you wrote:
cin> What's the benefit? Do you filter on those,or does the bat treat
cin> them special?
cin> I like to put my Best Regards before the --, but what I consider a
cin> "sig" after the --.
cin> The reason is, I consider my Signature, o
At Wed, 12 Jan 2000 16:50:50 +0200, you wrote:
>
>Please, move "-- \n" before your "Best regards,"! ;-))
>
What's the benefit? Do you filter on those,or does the bat treat
them special?
I like to put my Best Regards before the --, but what I consider a
"sig" after the --.
The reason is, I cons
201 - 297 of 297 matches
Mail list logo
