Hello Chris, On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 00:44:45 +1100 GMT (01/03/2004, 20:44 +0700 GMT), Chris wrote:
>> I think it is a major shortcoming of Outlook, and I find myself >> adding the missing characters in replies. No, excuse me, I think >> this shortcoming occurs with the AOL mail software, not Outlook. > I personally hate multiple '>' with a passion - I think it looks > so untidy & makes reading the email harder (due to multiple '>' > indenting the older text to the right - I much prefer all text to be > straight down the left hand margin of the page so you don't have to > go searching to see where each sentence starts). I disagree, and I left part of the message you replied to make my point. But then, it may be a matter of taste. >> Why would you want to ignore (falsify?) quoting levels? > See above. I wasn't even aware that there was a 'quoting level' - > that's how much I ignore anything over one '>'. For mine, there is > either quoted text, or current text - I don't care how many times > the quoted has been replied to. I do. I like to be able to tell apart my original sentence and your reply. If all is on one quoting level, confusion sets in quickly. >> Odd numbers are 1,3,5,.. and even numbers are 2,4,6,.. The colours >> alternate rather than displaying the same colour for all quoting >> levels. I was very happy when this was introduced, but if you don't >> like it, you get change both "odd" and "even" to the same colour. > This is something I don't have a particular preference for - I > may just change it to the same colour to see how it goes. Just for > simplicity - 2 colours in an email: the replied text, & the current > text. If that works for you, no problem. But I do wonder, if the quoted passages are all in the same colour and with only one '>', how do you know who said what? Maybe I am too easy to confuse. >> Yes, but this is what top-posting is for, and IMHO has nothing to do >> with ignoring quoting levels. > I find the Outlook like template very easy to understand, with > all the information laid out in a nice, neat, logical way. The > default The Bat! template for me makes a dog's breakfast of this > task. Not here, to the contrary. Our needs and tastes differ. > For personal emails, where the history of the email, > addressee's etc aren't so important, the difference is much less, > but still slightly in Outlook's favour for mine. If you use inline quoting (like here), how do you insert the email addresses? What you say makes sense for top posting only. But there it does make sense. > Still, the problem I found was that even when an email was only > between 2 email addresses, than later on, if you went back & read > through the text of the email, nowhere was the exact > [EMAIL PROTECTED] email address listed...so if you > didn't make a note of what that address was, you can't resend an > email to it. You are talking about an exchange between 2 email addresses. So the other address is either in the From or the To header. BTW your messages don't thread... -- Cheers, Thomas. Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste. Man: Your place or mine? Woman: Both. You go to yours, and I'll go to mine. Message reply created with The Bat! 2.04.7 under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build 2222 A using a Pentium P4 1.7 GHz, 256MB RAM ________________________________________________ Current version is 2.04.7 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
