Charles Gregory wrote on Wed, 6 Jan 2010 12:20:33 -0500 (EST): > Because I was getting several M$ Outhouse correspondents complaining that > my messages (using the 'standard' '>') were 'difficult to read'. > I could never get them to explain exactly how/why they were difficult to > read. It was like they were seeing something completely different with > bits of text missing. Not just word-wrapped..... They were very insistent > that I top post rather than use (to me) standard quote-reply method...
The reason are not the ">", but the fact that these morons are only used to the crappy way that Outlook quotes. It makes no difference for them what character you use, it's the basic way of quoting. Kai -- Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
