-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tuesday, October 29, 2002, Anne wrote...
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 JA>> supported in a lot more clients than RTF. > If this is the case then I sure hope it'd not be set as the default > option. In my view one of TB's great strengths is that it *doesn't* > support HTML. It's one of my personal hates in e-mail and the main > reason for my dumping OE as soon as I realised that other mail > clients existed. For me HTML can stay on webpages :-) Trust me... I agree 100% with you there... and it is something that gets repeated every now and again on here when new users first start using TB trying to find out if they can send HTML. The only time I think I have ever found a 'need' for even RTF in emails is when I'm working with code, and examples, it sometimes makes referencing a little easier, just like you see in may howto books such as O'Reily's for example. - -- Jonathan Angliss ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 6.5.8ckt iQA/AwUBPb7oHSuD6BT4/R9zEQLBBwCdEYTIHBc/fNq/GZuM5qV+ONOhDJAAoOpO bdW2gDWvh+sfcO7JvkeDk+oO =NruH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ________________________________________________ Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
