>>Rather than optimising how people post, I
>>would be happy simply to stop the recent flood of lazy top posting.
>I don't know how other mail clients behave when it comes to hiding
>various elements of messages, but for what it's worth:
Wellp, in general, unless a top-posted post is somethi
On Fri, Jan 09, 2009 at 06:52:44AM -0800, Ben Fritz wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 16:41:45 +0800, Tony Mechelynck wrote:
> It would be opera:config. I use the Opera web browser at home, but
> I've never been impressed with the mail client. Anyway, opera:config
> has a search option that will hide a
Chris Bannister wrote:
> I did not write that.
Sorry, but I don't think I misrepresented anyone, if my understanding of
quoting is accepted.
Suppose I am replying to JCitizen and my message is:
JCitizen wrote:
>>
>
That means that JCitizen wrote "" in reply to someone
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 5:09 AM, John Beckett wrote:
> Rather than optimising how people post, I
> would be happy simply to stop the recent flood of lazy top posting.
>
Me too.
I don't know how other mail clients behave when it comes to hiding
various elements of messages, but for what it's
On Wed, Jan 07, 2009 at 05:42:42PM +1100, John Beckett wrote:
>
> Chris Bannister wrote:
> >> * Remove any email addresses (do not quote the email address of
> >> the person to whom you are replying).
I did not write that.
> > I don't understand this. If you can scan the body, you can
> > scan
On Wed, Jan 07, 2009 at 10:00:51AM -0500, Marvin Renich wrote:
> Inter-posting (or interleaved posting) *is* bottom posting[0]. Bottom
[..]
> [0] http://mailformat.dan.info/quoting/bottom-posting.html
No! Bottom posting is just jumping to the end of the message and typing
your reply. Proper quot
or whatever Opera calls it, I'm no Opera guru)?
> >
> > It would be opera:config. [...]
>
> If filtering on "address" leads nothing useful, [...]
Wtf has any of this got to do with the `Easiest way to
insert a blank line?'? C'mon dudes, with the collect
On 09/01/09 15:52, Ben Fritz wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 16:41:45 +0800, Tony Mechelynck wrote:
>
>> Have you tried the about:config page (or opera:config or whatever Opera
>> calls it, I'm no Opera guru)?
>
> It would be opera:config. I use the Opera web browser at home, but
> I've never bee
On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 22:52:44 +0800, Ben Fritz wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 16:41:45 +0800, Tony Mechelynck wrote:
>
>> Have you tried the about:config page (or opera:config or whatever Opera
>> calls it, I'm no Opera guru)?
>
> It would be opera:config. I use the Opera web browser at home,
On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 16:41:45 +0800, Tony Mechelynck wrote:
> Have you tried the about:config page (or opera:config or whatever Opera
> calls it, I'm no Opera guru)?
It would be opera:config. I use the Opera web browser at home, but
I've never been impressed with the mail client. Anyway, opera:
On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 16:41:45 +0800, Tony Mechelynck wrote:
>
> Have you tried the about:config page (or opera:config or whatever Opera
> calls it, I'm no Opera guru)?
>
>
I don't think they are there.
--
Regards,
Van.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this mes
On 09/01/09 09:16, Yue Wu wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 14:40:13 +0800, Chris Bannister wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jan 07, 2009 at 01:03:39PM +0800, Yue Wu wrote:
>>> On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 13:16:26 +0800, Chris Bannister wrote:
On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 03:55:49PM +1100, John Beckett wrote:
> * Remov
On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 14:40:13 +0800, Chris Bannister wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2009 at 01:03:39PM +0800, Yue Wu wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 13:16:26 +0800, Chris Bannister wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 03:55:49PM +1100, John Beckett wrote:
>> >> * Remove any email addresses (do not quote
On 09/01/09 07:40, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 04:20:37AM +0100, Tony Mechelynck wrote:
>> On 05/01/09 05:55, John Beckett wrote:
>>> * Use BOTTOM POSTING (quote a few lines that you are replying to, and
>>> put your reply underneath).
>> Inter-posting (like this) is even bett
On Wed, Jan 07, 2009 at 01:03:39PM +0800, Yue Wu wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 13:16:26 +0800, Chris Bannister wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 03:55:49PM +1100, John Beckett wrote:
> >> * Remove any email addresses (do not quote the email address of the
> >> person to whom you are replying).
> >
On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 04:20:37AM +0100, Tony Mechelynck wrote:
>
> On 05/01/09 05:55, John Beckett wrote:
> > * Use BOTTOM POSTING (quote a few lines that you are replying to, and
> > put your reply underneath).
>
> Inter-posting (like this) is even better, but harder, and (I think) will
> no
On 07/01/09 09:24, Tom Link wrote:
>>> Inter-posting (like this) is even better, but harder, and
>>> (I think) will not be enforced.
>> [...]
>> (but I won't try to promote inter-posting).
>
> IIRC there is a rfc about quoting (maybe it's part of the netiquette)
> and "inter-posting" is widely con
On Wed, 07 Jan 2009, Marvin Renich wrote:
>
> * Tom Link [090107 03:29]:
> >
> > > > Inter-posting (like this) is even better, but harder, and
> > > > (I think) will not be enforced.
> > >
> > > [...]
> > > (but I won't try to promote inter-posting).
> >
> > IIRC there is a rfc about quoting (m
* Tom Link [090107 03:29]:
>
> > > Inter-posting (like this) is even better, but harder, and
> > > (I think) will not be enforced.
> >
> > [...]
> > (but I won't try to promote inter-posting).
>
> IIRC there is a rfc about quoting (maybe it's part of the netiquette)
> and "inter-posting" is wide
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 5:08 AM, Tony Mechelynck
wrote:
> To insert an empty line and remain in Normal mode, without going to
> Insert mode and back:
>
>below current line:
>:put =''
Was I the only one who misunderstood the two single quotes and thought
it was one double
Hello,
"Tom Link" wrote:
> IIRC there is a rfc about quoting (maybe it's part of the netiquette)
> and "inter-posting" is widely considered good practice. IMHO the
> function of a quote is to make clear what you're referring to not to
> repeat what has been said.
Sven Guckes used to maintain a
Tom Link wrote:
> I think "inter-posting" should be promoted. Most new users
> will continue to use the Internet and sooner or later they
> will most likely be asked (more or less friendly) to change
> their quoting style anyway.
>
> Maybe the vim-information page on google groups should be
> spli
> > Inter-posting (like this) is even better, but harder, and
> > (I think) will not be enforced.
>
> [...]
> (but I won't try to promote inter-posting).
IIRC there is a rfc about quoting (maybe it's part of the netiquette)
and "inter-posting" is widely considered good practice. IMHO the
function
Chris Bannister wrote:
>> * Remove any email addresses (do not quote the email address of
>> the person to whom you are replying).
>
> I don't understand this. If you can scan the body, you can
> scan the headers, or am I missing something?
If a spammer subscribes to the list, then yes, they can
On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 13:16:26 +0800, Chris Bannister wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 03:55:49PM +1100, John Beckett wrote:
>> FOR NEW SUBSCRIBERS on this mailing list:
>>
>> * Thanks for joining, we like the company ... BUT:
>> * No signature/disclaimer/waffle attachments please (an attachment
On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 03:55:49PM +1100, John Beckett wrote:
> FOR NEW SUBSCRIBERS on this mailing list:
>
> * Thanks for joining, we like the company ... BUT:
> * No signature/disclaimer/waffle attachments please (an attachment for a
> patch, for example, is fine).
> * Trim waffle from the mess
Saluton Tony :)
On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 04:20:37 +0100, Tony Mechelynck dixit:
> > * Remove any email addresses (do not quote the email address of the
> > person to whom you are replying).
>
> Note that Bram always _adds_ the email address of the author of the
> mail to which he is replying to the T
Tony Mechelynck wrote:
>> * No signature/disclaimer/waffle attachments please (an
>> attachment for a patch, for example, is fine).
>
> Why no signature? Or maybe you meant no sig _attachment_?
Yes, I was trying to say "no junk attachment" (the message I was
replying to had a .gif file as an atta
On 05/01/09 04:42, Tim Chase wrote:
[...]
> As an aside, somewhere I picked up this little shorthand for this
> pair of commands:
>
> :put_
> :put!_
Reading the black hole register! Of course! Now why didn't I think of
that? Yet I do use "cp /dev/null filename" in the shell (and I learnt
On 05/01/09 05:55, John Beckett wrote:
> FOR NEW SUBSCRIBERS on this mailing list:
>
> * Thanks for joining, we like the company ... BUT:
> * No signature/disclaimer/waffle attachments please (an attachment for a
> patch, for example, is fine).
Why no signature? Or maybe you meant no sig _attachm
FOR NEW SUBSCRIBERS on this mailing list:
* Thanks for joining, we like the company ... BUT:
* No signature/disclaimer/waffle attachments please (an attachment for a
patch, for example, is fine).
* Trim waffle from the message you are replying to.
* Use BOTTOM POSTING (quote a few lines that you
Tony Mechelynck wrote:
> On 05/01/09 04:11, Aman Jain wrote:
>> thanks for the reply tony, but this was not easiest :)
>
> Depends what you call "easiest". I think "the easiest" is o (below
> current line) or O (above current line), but you said you
> specifically did not want that. If one key
> To insert an empty line and remain in Normal mode, without going to
> Insert mode and back:
>
> below current line:
> :put =''
> above current line:
> :.-1put =''
As an aside, somewhere I picked up this little shorthand for this
pair of commands:
:
On 05/01/09 04:11, Aman Jain wrote:
> thanks for the reply tony, but this was not easiest :)
Depends what you call "easiest". I think "the easiest" is o (below
current line) or O (above current line), but you said you
specifically did not want that. If one key (F5, once you've set it up
once a
thanks for the reply tony, but this was not easiest :)
On Jan 5, 8:08 am, Tony Mechelynck
wrote:
> On 05/01/09 03:31, Aman Jain wrote:
>
> > Is there a quicker way to insert a blank line, than by doing 'o'->ESC
>
> > Thanks
> > Aman Jain
>
> To insert an empty line and remain in Normal mode, wit
On 05/01/09 03:31, Aman Jain wrote:
> Is there a quicker way to insert a blank line, than by doing 'o'->ESC
>
> Thanks
> Aman Jain
To insert an empty line and remain in Normal mode, without going to
Insert mode and back:
below current line:
:put =''
above current
> Is there a quicker way to insert a blank line, than by doing 'o'->ESC
Not exactly, but vim makes it easy to map. I personally don't
use for its intended purpose, so I remap it to do precisely
what you describe (along with "-" as the analogue):
:nnoremap o
:nnoremap - O
to put a bla
Suppose there's no blank line already!!
On Jan 5, 7:59 am, Alick Guo wrote:
> Perhaps you want to insert multi blank line , you can copy a blank line an
> than paste it for multi-times OR you can also use "Record" to doing 'o'
> ->ESC for multi-times.
>
> Anyway if "A" blank line is what you wan
Perhaps you want to insert multi blank line , you can copy a blank line an
than paste it for multi-times OR you can also use "Record" to doing 'o'
->ESC for multi-times.
Anyway if "A" blank line is what you want , plz forget above. [?]
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Aman Jain wrote:
>
> Is the
Is there a quicker way to insert a blank line, than by doing 'o'->ESC
Thanks
Aman Jain
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
-~--~~~~--~~-
40 matches
Mail list logo
