Ted is always impolite, but he's right that the current roundcube editor
is shocking, in many ways (but not teh way mentioned here) and a few
people have brought this up, I understand my gripes are fixed, I'll soon
know in a week or two. It is rare that I post in here anyway, I've
posted more in past couple days than most of the last 10 years combined
:)
BTW RC now tells me this is 12pt, yet looks no bigger than before.
On 06/12/2014 06:29, jdow wrote:
> Ted was remarkably impolite the way he phrased it. BUT, I will say as a
> practical matter microprint emails do get rather short shrift from me when
> scanning through message threads. I seldom dig in here of late. But I do scan
> through the messages which look interesting and sometimes offer such advice
> as I can. (Usually on topics a simple Google search doesn't help with.) I'm
> sure my advice would be equivalent to much other advice you might get from
> people whose eyes are better than mine. And mine are far better than most of
> my contemporaries and some of my former co-workers at the time. But, on the
> very small chance that advice from me or someone with worse vision than even
> me might help, it might be a good idea to send emails that are more readable.
>
> I am sure I am not the only person here who would appreciate it.
>
> Thanks
>
> {^_^}
>
> On 2014-12-05 07:38, Noel Butler wrote:
> pffft I see no problem, as like most developers if you cant reproduce it,
> then its nothing to bother about, after all this time 2 ppl dont like a font
> or whatever, your pissing up the wrong tree if you think I have a care factor
> about changing things when i cant reproduce it. time to move along ... On
> 05/12/2014 19:46, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: The problem is Roundcube. It does
> not insert soft line breaks as per the MIME Quoted-Printable encoding.
> There's a lot of MIME stuff that Roundcube doesn't do very well, it's just
> not a very good web mail interface. I'm always surprised at how vehemently
> people defend it.
