Re: Making CC sticky
Hi Roelof, On Tue, 9 Aug 2005, at 18:38:31 [GMT+0200] (which was Wed, 2:38:31 Australian Eastern Time) you wrote: I tried, but I can't. Thanks to all who replied. Close (by close I mean very close) examination of the macro showed an missing; soon as I added this in the correct position the problem disappeared. -- John Phillips, Sydney, Australia Using The Bat! v3.51.10 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2 Who is General Failure, and why is he reading my disk?! Winamp currently playing: Current version is 3.51.10 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Word wrap still considered good style?
Hi Group, Sorry for this (maybe) silly question, but what do you think: Is it still considered good to have free mass text (not manual ascii-tables, quotes or the like) automatically wrapped at (e.g.) 70 characters? In TB! (that I don't use for this mail, as you can see, because its not installed on this machine) I have wrapping activated. But I have this discussion with friends sometimes, and besides the point that some clients don't quote correctly when replying (one at the beginning and then many many lines without ) and the what-you-see-is-what-you-send effect when composing a mail I sometimes run out of pro's. On the other hand there is the contra that text cannot be pasted easily into other apps when wrapped, and that nowadays nearly every client auto wraps incoming mail correctly. Can someone point me to a good website that cares about this maybe? -- Thanksalot, Martin Current version is 3.51.10 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: how to stop TB! cutting word in half when at the end of the line?
On Tuesday, August 09, 2005 at 1:50:19 PM [GMT -0500], Richard Wakeford wrote: Just read your message you wrote using the plain text message editor and, despite you having your normal setting of 78 characters per line, the message arrived here with text wrapping set to fill the window so, if I expand this particular message of yours to full screen, the sentences re format to fill the screen and not a sign of 78 characters anywhere. I wonder if that's just me and my main settings or has someone else noticed the same behaviour with this editor? In fact, going back to Jurgen's messages and adjusting the window size, the same thing happens. MicroEd, TB!'s original editor, truly wraps while editing. You can confirm this by copying some of the text you're typing in MicroEd and pasting it in NotePad. Switch off wrapping in NotePad and the text remains wrapped. OTOH, the Plain Text/Windows editor soft-wraps while editing in that the wrapping is just visual, but not actually part of the true formatting of the text. The true format is a single long line of text. To see this, type several lines of text in the Plain Text/Windows editor, then copy/paste it in NotePad. Disable wrapping in NotePad. You should see a single long line of text. TB!, unlike OE, Outlook, Eudora and the others, does not have a wrap on send engine. It never needed one because of MicroEd. It never got one with the introduction of these other editors. So now, there is this long ongoing discussion about: - the lack of wrapping on sending which is required for these editors with more standard behaviour while editing. BTW, typical editors behave in the same way. If you type some text in notepad and enable wrapping, the text isn't truly being wrapped. It's just something visual. Copy the text to another editor and disabling wrapping will show a single line of text. - looks like the soft-wrapping engine for the plain text editor behaves strangely, with the wrapping points sometimes cutting words into pieces. Not to worry about it though since it's not in the actual formatting of the message on sending. I use only MicroEd, since I wish to see the format of what I'm actually sending when finished. -- -= Curtis =- The Bat! v3.51.10 System Specs: http://specs.aimlink.name -=-=- Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects. Current version is 3.51.10 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: how to stop TB! cutting word in half when at the end of the line?
Hello -=Curtis=-! On Wednesday, August 10, 2005, 6:14 AM, you wrote: So far, I can't duplicate your problem, Jürgen. But, I just ran into a different one: I used the Character Map to input a u with diaresis into your name just now, and the font that I'm writing in did a complete change. Probably not a bug--just something in my settings. The likely reason is that the font you're using doesn't support the character you've inputted. TB! then auto-switches to a font that does. Thanks. I'm interested in this only in my beta-testing capacity (being that work is on-going past the full release of v. 3.51.10). My absolute, committed preference is for the MicroEd as my message editor. I like its flexibility, its reliability, and the what you see is what you send characteristic with which it is blessed. :) -- Best regards, Mary The Bat! 3.51.10 on Windows XP 5.1 2600 Service Pack 2 Current version is 3.51.10 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Word wrap still considered good style?
Hello Martin! On Wednesday, August 10, 2005, 6:05 AM, you wrote: In TB! (that I don't use for this mail, as you can see, because its not installed on this machine) I have wrapping activated. MicroEd here has just wrapped your quotes perfectly. For ease of quoting, I chose selective quoting, leaving out the part in which you specified 70 characters per line as the standard wrap. It happens to be what I use, since knowledgeable TB! list friends recommended it to me some time ago. But I have this discussion with friends sometimes, and besides the point that some clients don't quote correctly when replying (one at the beginning and then many many lines without ) and the what-you-see-is-what-you-send effect when composing a mail I sometimes run out of pro's. On the other hand there is the contra that text cannot be pasted easily into other apps when wrapped, and that nowadays nearly every client auto wraps incoming mail correctly. I do run into difficulty with the nested angle-bracket quote indicators sometimes, especially when replying to long threads on the mailing lists I'm subscribed to. It helps a bit not to specify initials in my settings. If I think it would be confusing otherwise, I sometimes manually add initials. Can someone point me to a good website that cares about this maybe? Don't know of one. But it is a very interesting topic that you've raised. -- Best regards, Mary The Bat! 3.51.10 on Windows XP 5.1 2600 Service Pack 2 Current version is 3.51.10 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Making CC sticky
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 19:27:26 +0200, Alexander S. Kunz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not exactly undocumented, my helpfile says: I'm -still- on v2.12.00, it was undocumented since introduction in v2.x, where x=12 if I'm not mistaken. -- Happy flappin'! Corne' (aka Cory, The Batdmin) Current version is 3.51.10 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Word wrap still considered good style?
Mary Bull bracht volgend idée uit : For ease of quoting, I chose selective quoting, leaving out the part in which you specified 70 characters per line as the standard wrap. Where do I select 'selective quoting', please? -- Regards, Adriana. [ put out the rubbish if you need to reach me by e-mail ] Current version is 3.51.10 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Word wrap still considered good style?
Hello Adriana! On Wednesday, August 10, 2005, 7:45 AM, you wrote: For ease of quoting, I chose selective quoting, leaving out the part in which you specified 70 characters per line as the standard wrap. Where do I select 'selective quoting', please? It's a shorthand phrase to describe these actions: 1) Highlight (select) that part of the original message which you wish to quote. Then do one of two things: 2) Use the F4 key or 2) Hold down the shift key and click on the Reply arrow in the toolbar HTH -- Best regards, Mary The Bat! 3.51.10 on Windows XP 5.1 2600 Service Pack 2 Current version is 3.51.10 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Word wrap still considered good style?
Hallo Mary, On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 08:00:01 -0500GMT (10-8-2005, 15:00 +0200, where I live), you wrote: MB 2) Use the F4 key MB or MB 2) Hold down the shift key and click on the Reply arrow in the toolbar or 2) Specials - Reply quoting selected text -- Groetjes, Roelof Veni, Vidi, VISA. (I came, I saw, I went shopping) The Bat! 3.51.10 Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2 1 pop3 account, server on LAN OTFE enabled P4 3GHz 2 GB RAM pgpzdhadvV0mC.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 3.51.10 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Word wrap still considered good style?
Mary Bull wrote : 1) Highlight (select) that part of the original message which you wish to quote. Then do one of two things: 2) Use the F4 key Thank you. That is the way I usually reply, but I did not realize it was called selective quoting. -- Regards, Adriana. [ put out the rubbish if you need to reach me by e-mail ] Current version is 3.51.10 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Word wrap still considered good style?
On Wednesday, August 10, 2005, at 08:38 AM, ms wrote: But I must admin I seldomly use text from an email that way, so thats no argument so far. This is the key point. You have a system that will not work well in all circumstances. The current system works well for reading mail but not copying and pasting snippets of it into another application since the line breaks are retained. However, we read our mail a lot, lot more than we copy/paste parts of it into another application. So in the absence of a solution that would work well in both situations we have to choose the solution that works best for what we do most, i.e., reading the mail. -- -= Curtis=- Using TB! v3.51.10 System Specs: http://specs.aimlink.name =-=-= ...One picture is worth 128K words. Current version is 3.51.10 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Word wrap still considered good style?
Wednesday, August 10, 2005, ms wrote: Can someone point me to a good website that cares about this maybe? Take a look at http://www.effectivemeetings.com/productivity/communication/netiquette.asp It's the first hit in this Google search: http://makeashorterlink.com/?N36A2169B -- Urban No men who really think deeply about women retain a high opinion of them; men either despise women or they have never thought seriously about them. (Otto Weininger) Current version is 3.51.10 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Word wrap still considered good style?
Thanks, Urban, for your reply! Urban [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wednesday, August 10, 2005, ms wrote: Can someone point me to a good website that cares about this maybe? Take a look at http://www.effectivemeetings.com/productivity/communication/netiquette.asp It's the first hit in this Google search: http://makeashorterlink.com/?N36A2169B There they say: Otherwise some e-mail programs will wrap the text at wrong points or not wrap it at all which in my experience is not true (any more). I don't know of any popular client (including console mail and my mobile phone ;-) that does not wrap at all or at wrong points (which as I read it does not mean at arbitrary points). Of course still true is Curtis' point that wrapping on window border might produce lines that are too long ( mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ) but thats not what they mean, I guess. That's why I asked for a website that specializes on the reasons for wrapping: most websites that deal with netiquette only say do this but they don't point out why very exactly ;-) -- Martin Current version is 3.51.10 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Word wrap still considered good style?
Urban stelde dit idée voor : It's the first hit in this Google search: http://makeashorterlink.com/?N36A2169B If I may sidetrack to the shorter link: I often used tinyurl when referring to a webaddress in a usenet message, but learnt recently this is 'not done' because the viewer cannot see where the link is going and could therefore without realizing surf to say a fascist site. I would show you the usenet thread, but it is in Dutch, so it would probably only be of use to Roelof. Is there any netiquette on the use of shortened links that you know of? -- Regards, Adriana. [ put out the rubbish if you need to reach me by e-mail ] Current version is 3.51.10 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: how to stop TB! cutting word in half when at the end of the line?
rich gregory @ 2005-Aug-9 1:33:42 PM how to stop TB! cutting word in half when at the end of the line? mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] What can I do to keep TB from eliminating the SPACESBETWEEN words in a quote when I reply? If I remember correctly, that was a bug in the way The Bat! converted HTML messages in to plain text messages. Now, that only explains it if this problem only happens when you quote HTML messages... -- Chris Quoting when replying to this message is good for your karma. Using The Bat! v3.51.10 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2. Accessing a POP3 mailbox. There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about. pgprBnEg09Oya.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 3.51.10 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Word wrap still considered good style?
On Wednesday, August 10, 2005, at 09:13 AM, ms wrote: That's why I asked for a website that specializes on the reasons for wrapping: most websites that deal with netiquette only say do this but they don't point out why very exactly Try this site. It offers some other insights as well: http://www.lemis.com/email/email-format.html -- -= Curtis=- Using TB! v3.51.10 System Specs: http://specs.aimlink.name =-=-= ...Sign on baby's bib: SPIT HAPPENS. Current version is 3.51.10 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Tinyurls (was: Word wrap still considered good style?)
Hello A.Translator, On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 17:24:27 +0200 GMT (10/08/2005, 22:24 +0700 GMT), A.Translator wrote: It's the first hit in this Google search: http://makeashorterlink.com/?N36A2169B AT If I may sidetrack to the shorter link: AT I often used tinyurl when referring to a webaddress in a usenet message, but AT learnt recently this is 'not done' because the viewer cannot see where the link AT is going I agree to much extent but not entirely. I usually don't open links in the usenet, because you never know what comes up. But there are exceptions, when I can clearly determine the domain and think I can trust that. A tinyurl is a clear no-no, because it robs me of that little advance cheat. But that't the usenet. Over here, on the TBBETA mailing list, we mostly know each others. Urban provided a tinyurl in addition to what she said, and we know her and trust her to not lead us into damnation. I still prefer full links, but some people provide the tinyurl in addition to the full link over here. I wouldn't open a link that is *only* posted as a tinyurl. AT Is there any netiquette on the use of shortened links that you know of? I don't know. -- Cheers, Thomas. Der Angeklagte unterhielt mit mir bis zum 7. Monat einen intimen Kontakt und fuhr dann zu einer anderen Arbeitsstelle. Message reply created with The Bat! 3.51.10 under Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2 Current version is 3.51.10 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Word wrap still considered good style?
Hello A.Translator everyone else, on 10-Aug-2005 at 17:24 you (A.Translator) wrote: tinyurl I block everything from the mediaplex servers because of the advertising, I can't make use of any tinyurl shortcut anyway. -- Best regards, Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.de - ICQ 238153981) Never put off until tomorrow that which can be done the day after tomorrow. -- Mark Twain Current version is 3.51.10 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Tinyurls (was: Word wrap still considered good style?)
Thomas Fernandez stelde de volgende uitleg voor : A tinyurl is a clear no-no, because it robs me of that little advance cheat. Thank you both. I will stop using tinyurls on usenet. -- Regards, Adriana. [ put out the rubbish if you need to reach me by e-mail ] Current version is 3.51.10 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Word wrap still considered good style?
Hello Mary, Back in TB! again (pheew), I read your message: MicroEd here has just wrapped your quotes perfectly. For ease of quoting, I chose selective quoting, leaving out the part in which you specified 70 characters per line as the standard wrap. It happens to be what I use, since knowledgeable TB! list friends recommended it to me some time ago. ...and when using selective quoting all is fine. Then I tried replying to my own message with normal reply and this is what I got: - reply to mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - ... sometimes run out of pro's. On the other hand there is the contra that text cannot be pasted easily into other apps when wrapped, and that nowadays nearly every client auto wraps incoming mail correctly. ... I hope you can see this correctly: the last line of this paragraph is 85 characters long, while all other lines wrap at 70 characters (my setting). Is there a good explanation for this that I am missing? -- Martin TB! 3.51.10 on Windows XP 5.1 Service Pack 2 Current version is 3.51.10 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Word wrap still considered good style?
Hello Martin! On Wednesday, August 10, 2005, 2:08 PM, you wrote: For ease of quoting, I chose selective quoting ... 70 characters per line as the standard wrap. ... ...and when using selective quoting all is fine. Then I tried replying to my own message with normal reply and this is what I got: - reply to mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - ... sometimes run out of pro's. On the other hand there is the contra that text cannot be pasted easily into other apps when wrapped, and that nowadays nearly every client auto wraps incoming mail correctly. ... I hope you can see this correctly: the last line of this paragraph is 85 characters long, while all other lines wrap at 70 characters (my setting). Confirmed. My copy of TB! did not re-wrap your long line above. Is there a good explanation for this that I am missing? Another bug disclosed? It does seem the most likely thing to me. As you know, some user interface modifications that the development team did in the run-up to v. 3.51.10 did show up as bugs in the MicroEd. Perhaps this is one. Off to the BT page, to search whether something like this has been reported. -- Best regards, Mary The Bat! 3.51.10 on Windows XP 5.1 2600 Service Pack 2 Current version is 3.51.10 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Word wrap still considered good style?
Hello Mary! On Wednesday, August 10, 2005, 2:18 PM, you wrote: sometimes run out of pro's. On the other hand there is the contra that text cannot be pasted easily into other apps when wrapped, and that nowadays nearly every client auto wraps incoming mail correctly. ... I hope you can see this correctly: the last line of this paragraph is 85 characters long, while all other lines wrap at 70 characters (my setting). Confirmed. My copy of TB! did not re-wrap your long line above. Is there a good explanation for this that I am missing? Another bug disclosed? It does seem the most likely thing to me. As you know, some user interface modifications that the development team did in the run-up to v. 3.51.10 did show up as bugs in the MicroEd. Perhaps this is one. Off to the BT page, to search whether something like this has been reported. I found a report of mis-wrapped quoting--shortened lines rather than the long line at the paragraph end in Marin's display. Link: https://www.ritlabs.com/bt/view.php?id=4241 Its status is Resolved, Verify Wait. Not sure if it is the same thing, but nearest that I could find. -- Best regards, Mary The Bat! 3.51.10 on Windows XP 5.1 2600 Service Pack 2 Current version is 3.51.10 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Word wrap still considered good style?
Hello Mary! On Wednesday, August 10, 2005, 2:33 PM, you wrote: I found a report of mis-wrapped quoting--shortened lines rather than the long line at the paragraph end in Marin's display. ... That should read Martin's display. Probably careless typing on my part, but quite reminiscent of the old dropped characters bug, all the same. I'll try to watch more attentively for errors like this. -- Best regards, Mary The Bat! 3.51.10 on Windows XP 5.1 2600 Service Pack 2 Current version is 3.51.10 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Word wrap still considered good style?
Hello Mary, I found a report of mis-wrapped quoting--shortened lines rather than the long line at the paragraph end in Marin's display. Link: https://www.ritlabs.com/bt/view.php?id=4241 Its status is Resolved, Verify Wait. Not sure if it is the same thing, but nearest that I could find. Well that looks different, but may be the same reason technically. There hasn't been a new beta for quite some time now, so maybe the ritlab guys are working on something big...I'd wait to see what the next beta brings and maybe open a bugreport then. I consider this problem to be more like a small glitch than a bug, as one can easily see when it happens. And, as the very interesting website Curtis pointed me to showed: not-wrapping is not-a-good thing anyway ;-) Thanks for your time and effort! -- Martin TB! 3.51.10 on Windows XP 5.1 Service Pack 2 Current version is 3.51.10 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Word wrap still considered good style?
Hello Martin! On Wednesday, August 10, 2005, 4:11 PM, you wrote: https://www.ritlabs.com/bt/view.php?id=4241 Well that looks different, but may be the same reason technically. Anyway, the developers have marked it Resolved (Verify Wait); and it was February, 2005, long before the current beta series that led up to v. 3.51.10. There hasn't been a new beta for quite some time now, so maybe the ritlab guys are working on something big...I'd wait to see what the next beta brings and maybe open a bugreport then. I consider this problem to be more like a small glitch than a bug, as one can easily see when it happens. Exactly. I'd simply hit Format block: left (I use the menu not a shortcut key) and move on without much real concern if it hadn't turned up in the context of these wrapping threads. And, as the very interesting website Curtis pointed me to showed: not-wrapping is not-a-good thing anyway ;-) :thumbup: Thanks for your time and effort! I was pleased to do it. I learn a lot when I take the time to look at TB!'s various issues and capabilities. -- Best regards, Mary The Bat! 3.51.10 on Windows XP 5.1 2600 Service Pack 2 Current version is 3.51.10 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
