subject:"Word wrap"

Hello Thomas,

Tuesday, April 18, 2006, 10:33:34 PM, you wrote:

 Your sig delimiter doesn't work;

How about this...?

-- 
Best regards,
 Timmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]



Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Word Wrap

2006-04-19 Thread Marck D Pearlstone

Dear Tim,

@19-Apr-2006, 10:32 -0700 (19-Apr 18:32 here) Tim Hamm [TH] in
mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said to Thomas:

 Your sig delimiter doesn't work;

TH How about this...?

Much better!

-- 
Cheers --  //.arck D Pearlstone -- List moderator and fellow end user
TB! v3.72.10 (Beta) on Windows XP 5.1.2600 Service Pack 2
'

pgpBCITV3MNMK.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[2]: Word Wrap

Hello Thomas,

Tuesday, April 18, 2006, 10:33:34 PM, you wrote:

 Word wrap doesn't automatically wrap quoted text (like whne you are
 replying),

It seems my original post only had to do with quoted text being wrapped
when replying not pasted text...

What I found out is that TB follows the formatting of the message you
are replying to regardless if word wrap is activated. So, if the message
you received goes all the way to the end of the margin or past the
default limit of 70, TB wants to follow the original formatting. On
the other hand, if the message lies within the 70 character default,
TB will wrap as usual. I tried this on several emails and found this to be
be true. Keep in mind I am referring to quoted text only.

-- 
Best regards,
 Timmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]



Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[3]: Word Wrap

Hello Ben,

Wednesday, April 19, 2006, 1:38:55 AM, you wrote:

Thomas Word wrap doesn't automatically wrap quoted text (like whne you are
Thomas replying),

My apologies everyone... it appears I quoted Thomas's reply when it
should have be another member when pointing out the differences in
word wrap when replying to quoted vs. pasted text.

-- 
Best regards,
 Timmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]



Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Word Wrap

2006-04-19 Thread Alexander S. Kunz

Hello Tim,

why is each of your *new* messages to the list marked as Re:,
indicating a reply to a previous message? *puzzled*

-- 
Best regards,
 Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.de - ICQ 238153981)

NP: Biotron by Amtinaoüs
(from the 1997 album Nataraja 2)



Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[2]: Word Wrap

Hello Alexander,

Wednesday, April 19, 2006, 12:16:34 PM, you wrote:

 why is each of your *new* messages to the list marked as Re:,
 indicating a reply to a previous message? *puzzled*


I don't know who put the [2] in the original subject heading...?

I've always started out a new messages with Re: in the subject heading
Something from my Eudora days... you are not the first person to ask
this... I guess this is confusing to the group so I will no longer use
Re: in the subject heading...

-- 
Best regards,
 Timmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]



Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Word Wrap

2006-04-19 Thread Mary Bull

Hello Tim!

On Wednesday, April 19, 2006, 2:24 PM, you wrote:

 I don't know who put the [2] in the original subject heading...?

Look in Account/Properties/Templates/Reply.

There's a check box for Use reply numbering in the subject line.
Uncheck it and the numbers will no longer appear.

And thanks for your promise not to type Re as part of your
new-thread messages! Be less confusing for most of us, I think.

-- 
Best regards,
Mary
The Bat! 3.72.10 (Beta) on Windows XP 5.1 2600 Service Pack 2








Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Word Wrap

2006-04-19 Thread Alexander S. Kunz

Hello Tim Hamm  everyone else,

on 19-Apr-2006 at 21:24 you (Tim Hamm) wrote:

 why is each of your *new* messages to the list marked as Re:,
 indicating a reply to a previous message? *puzzled*

 I don't know who put the [2] in the original subject heading...?

Thats TheBat's automatic reply numbering. You can change it in the
Account Properties / Templates / Reply - there's a tickbox use reply
numbering on the bottom (below the reply template textbox).

 I've always started out a new messages with Re: in the subject heading
 Something from my Eudora days... you are not the first person to ask
 this... I guess this is confusing to the group so I will no longer use
 Re: in the subject heading...

I dare say its not only confusing for this group.

This Re: subject prefix is used to indicate a REply to some other
message. When I see a Re: in a subject, I assume it is a reply to
another message - which makes me wonder if the original message is
missing on my end, or if TheBats threading function has failed...

Normally, you don't have to worry about it at all. When you compose a
new message, just type an appropriate subject (as you already do). When
you reply to an existing message, TheBat will automatically add the
Re: (or the Re[n] if you use reply numbering) to the subject. And
when you forward a message, TheBat will automatically add a Fwd:
prefix to the subject.

-- 
Best regards,
 Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.de - ICQ 238153981)

NP: La Future Orbite by Joking Sphinx
(from the 1997 compilation Nataraja 2)



Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Word Wrap

2006-04-18 Thread Tim Hamm

Hello TBUDL,

  Word wrap doesn't seem to work with certain messages when replying
  regularly or with quoted text. For instance; Right now, only 1 of
  those 3 messages will word wrap work properly with the standard 70
  character return. Wrap works fine when creating new message.

--
Regards,
Tim

mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Using The Bat! Version 3.71.03 
Windows XP Version 5.1 Build 2600
Service Pack 2



Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Word Wrap

2006-04-18 Thread Thomas Fernandez

Hello Tim,

On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 20:27:12 -0700 GMT (19/04/2006, 10:27 +0700 GMT),
Tim Hamm wrote:

TH   Word wrap doesn't seem to work with certain messages when replying
TH   regularly or with quoted text. For instance; Right now, only 1 of
TH   those 3 messages will word wrap work properly with the standard 70
TH   character return. Wrap works fine when creating new message.

Word wrap doesn't automatically wrap quoted text (like whne you are
replying), unless you have Auto-Wrap or Auto-Format under Utilities
menu item activated. I forgot which, because I wrap manually using
ctrl-L (everybody works differently).

TH --
TH Regards,

Your sig delimiter doesn't work; there is a blank missing at the end.
Should be minus-minus-blank-enter for it to work.

-- 

Cheers,
Thomas.

I tested this program in the presence of a certified child labourer,
and she went crazy over it.  - Wanda Sloan in a software review for
an icon-generating program.
http://thomas.fernandez.hat-gar-keine-homepage.de/

Message reply created with The Bat! 3.72.10 (Beta)
under Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2






Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

word wrap problem with Windows editor

2006-03-26 Thread Robin Anson

Batfolk, 

With all the discussion about the Windows compatible and the MicroEd editors, I 
thought I would have a look at the windows editor again. However I have 
discovered a problem with the line length displayed in the editor. 

I have text wrapping set at 76 characters, but the text in my editor is 
wrapping at 51 characters instead. The MicroEd editor works as expected and 
wraps at 76 characters (or of course, the word break prior), but for some 
reason the value of 76 seems to be misinterpreted in the windows editor.

Now, I realise this is just a soft wrap, and that it is simply a display issue 
in the editor, but does anyone else experience this? Or can anyone suggest why 
the Windows compatible editor wraps at 51 characters instead of 76?

Robin

-- 
Robin

Using The Bat! v3.0.1.33
  Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2
  Popfile v0.22.3



Current version is 3.71.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Word wrap still considered good style?

2005-08-13 Thread Martin Schuster

Hello Carsten,

 RFC 2822 says:

 | 2.1.1. Line Length Limits
 |
 |   There are two limits that this standard places on the number of
 |   characters in a line. Each line of characters MUST be no more than
 |   998 characters, and SHOULD be no more than 78 characters, excluding
 |   the CRLF.

 BTW: http://www.immer-international.de/wrapping.PNG - no wrapping here.

Yeah, I downloaded a newer version of nPOP that wraps ok now! So no
more unwrapped mails...!

 You may also find http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2646.html
 interesting ...

Yeah and there I also had a look at RFC 2822...very interesting.

Thanks for this in depth information!

-- 
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?

2005-08-12 Thread Carsten Thönges

* ms writes:

 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 ;-)

RFC 2822 says:

| 2.1.1. Line Length Limits
|
|   There are two limits that this standard places on the number of
|   characters in a line. Each line of characters MUST be no more than
|   998 characters, and SHOULD be no more than 78 characters, excluding
|   the CRLF.

BTW: http://www.immer-international.de/wrapping.PNG - no wrapping here.

You may also find http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2646.html
interesting ...

Carsten
-- 


Current version is 3.51.10 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Word wrap still considered good style?

2005-08-12 Thread MFPA


Hi

On Wednesday 10 August 2005 at 4:24:27 PM, in
mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED], A.Translator wrote:

 http://makeashorterlink.com/?N36A2169B

 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...

makeashorterlink is better than tinyurl in this respect as it
shows you the url before redirecting you to it.

-- 
Best regards,
 
MFPA

Keep them dry and don't feed them after midnight

Using The Bat! v3.0.1.33 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1



Current version is 3.51.10 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Word wrap still considered good style?

2005-08-10 Thread ms

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: 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: 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?

2005-08-10 Thread Roelof Otten

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?

2005-08-10 Thread -=Curtis=-

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?

2005-08-10 Thread Urban

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?

2005-08-10 Thread ms

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: Word wrap still considered good style?

2005-08-10 Thread -=Curtis=-

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?)

2005-08-10 Thread Thomas Fernandez

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?

2005-08-10 Thread Alexander S. Kunz

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?

2005-08-10 Thread Martin Schuster

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?

2005-08-10 Thread Martin Schuster

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

Re: Word wrap problems

2004-08-10 Thread Allie Martin

M I C C U L L E N, [MIC] wrote:

 Yeah, I'm running 1280x1024 on a 19 screen, and it looks pretty good @ 9.
 Thanks for the heads-up.

I concur (using same resolution and font size). It's a nice Monospaced
font which kind of looks like Comic Sans  Marck will like to hear
that. ;)

However, as with most nice appearing monospaced fonts, the character
range is limited and many who write in other languages may not be
happy with this.

-- 
Allie Martin [List Moderator and fellow end-user]
 The Bat! v2.13 Lucky Beta/4 on WinXP Pro (SP1)

. Every morning is the dawn of a new error...
  


pgpmkeWzOZfHx.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Current version is 2.12.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Word wrap problems

2004-08-09 Thread Alexander S. Kunz

Hello Marck D Pearlstone,

27-Jul-2004 14:17, you wrote:

 We have found that a popular mono font is Andale Mono - if you can find
 that one, maybe you'll have a change of heart.

A late reply, but nevertheless... I just found a rather nice monospaced
font in TrueType format - its called Monaco and can be found here:

http://www.pa.msu.edu/ftp/pub/misc/tek-phaser/ttfonts/MONACO.TTF

Its not looking very good at size 8 or 9, but if you have a higher
resolution (I'm using 1280x1024), size 10 looks pretty good (just IMHO of
course)

-- 
Best regards,
 Alexander

The errors to avoid are those that eliminate opportunities to try again. --
Lazar Goldberg



Current version is 2.12.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Word wrap problems

2004-08-09 Thread M i c C u l l e n

On Mon, 9 Aug 2004, at 22:38:27 [GMT+0200] (which was Tue, 4:38 [GMT+800]
Perth, Western Australia) you wrote:

[snips]

Alexander A late reply, but nevertheless... I just found a rather nice monospaced
Alexander font in TrueType format - its called Monaco and can be found here:

Alexander http://www.pa.msu.edu/ftp/pub/misc/tek-phaser/ttfonts/MONACO.TTF

Thanks.

Alexander Its not looking very good at size 8 or 9, but if you have a higher
Alexander resolution (I'm using 1280x1024), size 10 looks pretty good (just IMHO of
Alexander course)

Yeah, I'm running 1280x1024 on a 19 screen, and it looks pretty good @ 9.
Thanks for the heads-up.

-- 

cheers, Mic (reply address works)
You're not supposed to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong 
is wrong, no matter who does it or who says it.
Malcolm X




Current version is 2.12.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Word wrap problems

2004-07-28 Thread Rick Friedman

On Wednesday, July 28, 2004, 1:16:21 AM, Peter wrote:
PB Hello Mary,

PB Wednesday, July 28, 2004, 2:34:25 PM, you wrote:

 Can you see us?  Can everyone but me see you?

PB To be perfectly honest Mary I have no idea. Can someone else say if
PB they can see me or not please?

PB Thank you.


Sorry, Peter. I can't see you. I noticed that your picture is in the
latest rogues.zip file but your picture is not showing up in emails
you send.

In order to get your picture to be seen by others, they need to make
sure they have the latest rogues.zip file. Also, you need to do one of
two things (the first of which is preferred):

1. Place your roguemoticon in the X-Rogue header (instructions
courtesy of Leif Gregory):
   You can do that with this macro:
   %SetHeader(X-Rogue,:your_handle:)%-
   in your templates for this and other tb-lists.
   However, only the macro won't do the trick.
   TB'll say: 'Hey, that's no RFC822 header', so you'll have to
   define it as such:
   Options - Preferences - Messages - Message headers - 'Add'
   Now you'll get a pop-up to define the header
   Display as: X-Rogue (or whatever, it isn't very important)
   RFC header: X-Rogue
   Uncheck: 'This field is an address list' (because it isn't)
   Check: 'Allow this field to be edited in the message editor'
   Uncheck: 'Display this field in the scrollable part of the
   header pane'

2. You can simply place your handle in your signature. I can see
that your handle is, :Peter_Ballantyne: Place that (including the
colons) in your signature. However, people who use the plain text
viewer to read their email won't see your picture. That is why method
#1 is preferred.

--
Rick

The next greatest place to heaven on earth? A ball game at Yankee Stadium.
:flag-usa:




Current version is 2.12.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Word wrap problems

2004-07-28 Thread M i c C u l l e n

On Wednesday, July 28, 2004 @ 5:29:25 AM, 9Val wrote:

[snips]

9Val And  one  more  -  Smart wrapping of quoted text which doesn't work in
9Val Windows editor.

Yep, that's another big plus. Now, if they can just give the option of
proportional fonts...

-- 

cheers, Mic (reply address works)
A rose by any other name would still attract aphids.




Current version is 2.12.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[2]: Word wrap problems

2004-07-28 Thread 9Val

Hello M, 

MicCullen Now, if they can just give the option of
   
   who? :)
   
MicCullen proportional fonts...

It is impossible because needs full editor rewrite

-- 

 9Val



Current version is 2.12.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Word wrap problems

2004-07-28 Thread M i c C u l l e n

On Wednesday, July 28, 2004 @ 7:49:26 PM, 9Val wrote:

[snips]

MicCullen Now, if they can just give the option of
9Val
9Valwho? :)

THEM!! You know, them. Man, how much clearer could I be? THEM.*
   
MicCullen proportional fonts...

9Val It is impossible because needs full editor rewrite

Sigh... sensible wrapping or proportional fonts. Sometimes I long for Agent.
(Then I remember that it can't even deal with two email accounts, and the
filtering is primitive...)

*'Them' = 'You' for sufficiently correct values of 'them' :-)

-- 

cheers, Mic (reply address works)
If you don't have a vision for the future, then your future is threatened to be a 
repeat of the past.
A. R. Bernard  Clergyman




Current version is 2.12.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

OT: Re: Word wrap problems

2004-07-28 Thread 9Val

Hello M,  

MicCullen Now, if they can just give the option of
9Val   
9Val   who? :)

MicCullen THEM!! You know, them. Man, how much clearer could I be? THEM.*

Sounds  like  pray to known to all gods, whose names shouldn't be said
on public :))

MicCullen *'Them' = 'You' for sufficiently correct values of 'them' :-)

No, them is Stefan :)

-- 

 9Val



Current version is 2.12.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Word wrap problems

2004-07-28 Thread Joseph N.

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 11:25:19 GMT, M i c C u l l e n wrote:

 9Val And  one  more  -  Smart wrapping of quoted text which
 doesn't work in 9Val Windows editor.
 
 Yep, that's another big plus. Now, if they can just give the
 option of proportional fonts...
 
Much agreed.  That would be a very desireable combination.

-- 
JN



Current version is 2.12.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Word wrap problems

2004-07-28 Thread Alexander S. Kunz

Hello Mary Bull,

27-Jul-2004 23:59, you wrote:

 I then find Utilities/Format Block (I choose Left from this drop-down
 Menu) in the Edit Mail Message window extremely helpful. I position the
 cursor anywhere on the long line and click on Format Block/Left, and my
 copy-and-paste is hard-wrapped, ready for sending except for attribution.

Thats one of my favorite functions, too!

Btw. the non-mouse persons :-) will press ALT + L for that function. It
works equally well on long pasted lines or quotes text that is out of
bound.

-- 
Best regards,
 Alexander




Current version is 2.12.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Word wrap problems

2004-07-28 Thread Leif Gregory

Hello Rick,

Wednesday, July 28, 2004, 12:08:54 AM, you wrote:
Rick 1. Place your roguemoticon in the X-Rogue header (instructions
Rick courtesy of Leif Gregory):

Errr. I didn't write that. I swear :grin:


-- 
Leif Gregory (TB list moderator and fellow end user).

Tagline of the day:
Statistically speaking, 50% of the people you meet have a below average IQ.

Using The Bat! 2.12.03 under Windows 2000 5.0
Build 2195 Service Pack 4 on a Pentium 4 2GHz with 512MB







Current version is 2.12.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Word wrap problems

2004-07-28 Thread Rick Friedman

On Wednesday, July 28, 2004, 1:01:04 PM, Leif wrote:
LG Hello Rick,

LG Wednesday, July 28, 2004, 12:08:54 AM, you wrote:
Rick 1. Place your roguemoticon in the X-Rogue header (instructions
Rick courtesy of Leif Gregory):

LG Errr. I didn't write that. I swear :grin:

Oooops! My mistake! The instructions were courtesy of Roelof Otten.
:gdr:

--
Thanks,
Rick

I believe in getting into hot water; it keeps you clean. - G.K. Chesterton
:flag-usa:




Current version is 2.12.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Word wrap problems

2004-07-28 Thread Roelof Otten

Hallo Rick,

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 13:39:47 -0400GMT (28-7-2004, 19:39 +0200, where I
live), you wrote:

Rick 1. Place your roguemoticon in the X-Rogue header (instructions
Rick courtesy of Leif Gregory):
LG Errr. I didn't write that. I swear :grin:
RF Oooops! My mistake! The instructions were courtesy of Roelof Otten.

Well, blame gets around I see. ;-)

RF --
RF Thanks,
RF Rick

I think your signature delimiter is lacking a space.

-- 
Groetjes, Roelof

Disclaimer: Any opinion stated in this message is not necessarily shared by my budgies 
or rabbits.



Current version is 2.12.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Word wrap problems

2004-07-28 Thread Rick Friedman

On Wednesday, July 28, 2004, 4:21:06 PM, Roelof wrote:
RF --
RF Thanks,
RF Rick

RO I think your signature delimiter is lacking a space.

Hmmm... right you are. I could've sworn I put a space in there. Ahh
well... it should be OK now.

-- 
Thanks,
Rick
Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can 
imagine. -- Sir Arthur Eddington
:flag-usa:




Current version is 2.12.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Word wrap problems

G'day tbudl,

Word wrapping - I can't seem to get it sorted in TheBat, after a decade of no problems 
with Agent.

I'd like my lines to wrap at about 80 characters, but can't seem to get it to happen. 
I'm using the Plain Text (Windows) editor as I HATE non-proportional fonts, even 
though I'd like some of the features of the Micro-Ed editor...

Oh, it happens on screen when I'm composing the email, but it arrives at its 
destination unwrapped.

I've been playing with options and macros and everything I can find, googling it, even 
going to the help file as a measure of last resort, but no luck.

I'm sure I'm doing something dumb here - any ideas? TIA.

-- 

cheers, Mic (return address works)
I will prepare and some day my chance will come. Abraham Lincoln




Current version is 2.12.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Word wrap problems

2004-07-27 Thread Allie Martin

M I C C U L L E N, [MIC] wrote:

 I'd like my lines to wrap at about 80 characters, but can't seem
 to get it to happen. I'm using the Plain Text (Windows) editor as I
 HATE non-proportional fonts, even though I'd like some of the
 features of the Micro-Ed editor...

 Oh, it happens on screen when I'm composing the email, but it
 arrives at its destination unwrapped.

It's not you but TB!. It's a limitation with the use of that editor.

TB! originally had only MicroEd. MicroEd is special in that when it
wraps as you type, it hard wraps. You'll see what I mean if you type a
few lines of text in MicroEd and copy and paste it to notepad. Toggle
notepad's wrapping on and off and the text remains wrapped. With this
behaviour comes the advantage of not needing the wrap on send feature
which is what most other e-mail clients use since their editors don't
really wrap while editing. Soft-wrapping occurs and then the text is
reflowed upon sending.

The Windows editor for TB! was introduced so that those who don't like
the cursor behaviour as well as other aspects of MicroEd could have a
more familiar solution. Unfortunately TB! will not wrap on sending so
the text is sent unwrapped.

Your only solution would be to hit the return key when you're near to
80 characters and do the hard wrapping yourself, switch back to
MicroEd or ignore the problem. I use MicroEd only.

-- 
-=[ Allie Martin ]=-
List Moderator and fellow end-user
PGPKeys: http://key.ac-martin.com
The Bat! v2.12.04 on WinXP Pro (SP1)  


pgpKRtXGXQs9Y.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Current version is 2.12.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Word wrap problems

2004-07-27 Thread Marck D Pearlstone

Dear M,

@27-Jul-2004, 19:55 +0800 (27-Jul 12:55 UK time) M i c C u l l e n
said to tbudl:

 I'd like my lines to wrap at about 80 characters, but can't
 seem to get it to happen. I'm using the Plain Text (Windows)
 editor as I HATE non-proportional fonts, even though I'd like some
 of the features of the Micro-Ed editor...

That's a shame. The Micro-Ed editor is the only one that pre-formats
the text. Non-proportional fonts are vital for:

o  Column alignment
o  ASCII Presentation
o  Bullets
o  Hanging indents
o  ASCII art

We have found that a popular mono font is Andale Mono - if you can
find that one, maybe you'll have a change of heart.

 Oh, it happens on screen when I'm composing the email,
 but it arrives at its destination unwrapped.

It's a soft wrap - in the style of Windows editors.

 I've been playing with options and macros and everything I can
 find, googling it, even going to the help file as a measure of
 last resort, but no luck.

 I'm sure I'm doing something dumb here - any ideas? TIA.

If you check the options, all of the format and wrap options are
Micro-ed specific. Sadly, it's a case of find a mono font you
like or forget about format control.

-- 
Cheers -- //.arck D Pearlstone --List moderator and fellow end user
TB! v2.12.03 on Windows XP 5.1.2600 Service Pack 1
'

pgpe821I3SFGp.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Current version is 2.12.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Word wrap problems

On Tuesday, July 27, 2004 @ 8:15:04 PM, Allie Martin wrote:

[snips]

 I'd like my lines to wrap at about 80 characters, but can't seem
 to get it to happen. I'm using the Plain Text (Windows) editor as I
 HATE non-proportional fonts, even though I'd like some of the
 features of the Micro-Ed editor...

 Oh, it happens on screen when I'm composing the email, but it
 arrives at its destination unwrapped.

Allie It's not you but TB!. It's a limitation with the use of that editor.

Man, I was SO hoping that you weren't going to say that...

Allie TB! originally had only MicroEd. MicroEd is special in that when it
Allie wraps as you type, it hard wraps. You'll see what I mean if you type a
Allie few lines of text in MicroEd and copy and paste it to notepad. Toggle
Allie notepad's wrapping on and off and the text remains wrapped. With this
Allie behaviour comes the advantage of not needing the wrap on send feature
Allie which is what most other e-mail clients use since their editors don't
Allie really wrap while editing. Soft-wrapping occurs and then the text is
Allie reflowed upon sending.

What they do is sensible, IMHO.

Allie The Windows editor for TB! was introduced so that those who don't like
Allie the cursor behaviour as well as other aspects of MicroEd could have a
Allie more familiar solution. Unfortunately TB! will not wrap on sending so
Allie the text is sent unwrapped.

Allie Your only solution would be to hit the return key when you're near to
Allie 80 characters and do the hard wrapping yourself,

Horrid solution, for sure.

Allie  switch back to MicroEd

I'll try it for a few days and see how I go. Sure is ugly though.

Allie or ignore the problem. I use MicroEd only.


I may have to as well. Thanks for the help.

-- 

cheers, Mic (reply address works)
A kleptomaniac is a person who helps himself because he can't help himself.
Henry Morgan




Current version is 2.12.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Word wrap problems

On Tuesday, July 27, 2004 @ 8:17:38 PM, Marck D Pearlstone wrote:

[snips]

Marck Dear M,

Sounds like James Bond :-)

Marck @27-Jul-2004, 19:55 +0800 (27-Jul 12:55 UK time) M i c C u l l e n
Marck said to tbudl:

I'd like my lines to wrap at about 80 characters, but can't
seem to get it to happen. I'm using the Plain Text (Windows)
editor as I HATE non-proportional fonts, even though I'd like some
of the features of the Micro-Ed editor...

Marck That's a shame. The Micro-Ed editor is the only one that pre-formats
Marck the text. Non-proportional fonts are vital for:

Marck o Column alignment

Which is fine if everyone else is using non-prop fonts, but they don't.

Marck o ASCII Presentation
Marck o Bullets
Marck o Hanging indents
Marck o ASCII art

Never ever use them, nor do the people I correspond with.

Marck We have found that a popular mono font is Andale Mono - if you can
Marck find that one, maybe you'll have a change of heart.

OK, I grabbed that from
http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=34153package_id=56408release_id=105355
in case anyone else wants to have a go with it.

I'll try it and see how we go.

Oh, it happens on screen when I'm composing the email,
but it arrives at its destination unwrapped.

Marck It's a soft wrap - in the style of Windows editors.

I've been playing with options and macros and everything I can
find, googling it, even going to the help file as a measure of
last resort, but no luck.

I'm sure I'm doing something dumb here - any ideas? TIA.

Marck If you check the options, all of the format and wrap options are
Marck Micro-ed specific.

I was kinda hoping that, as with so many other things in this program, it
meant something a little different to what it appeared to mean...

Marck Sadly, it's a case of find a mono font you
Marck like or forget about format control.

Is it just me, or is that pretty weird?

Thanks for your help.

cheers, Mic (reply address works)
There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The
other is as though everything is a miracle.
Albert Einstein

Current version is 2.12.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Word wrap problems

2004-07-27 Thread Allie Martin

M I C C U L L E N, [MIC] wrote:

 I'll try it for a few days and see how I go. Sure is ugly though.

It's the fonts that are often ugly. I use BitStream Vera Sans Mono
which is fine for the characters I tend to type.

If you wish to try it you can send me a note offlist.

-- 
-=[ Allie Martin ]=-
List Moderator and fellow end-user
PGPKeys: http://key.ac-martin.com
The Bat! v2.12.04 on WinXP Pro (SP1)  


pgpSo0bHvFUbk.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Current version is 2.12.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Word wrap problems

On Tuesday, July 27, 2004 @ 9:40:01 PM, Allie Martin wrote:

[snips]

 I'll try it for a few days and see how I go. Sure is ugly though.

Allie It's the fonts that are often ugly.

Ain't that the truth!!! As  a journalist, I tend to worry about HOW it looks
as well as the information contained, which can be very annoying at times like
this...

Allie  I use BitStream Vera Sans Mono
Allie which is fine for the characters I tend to type.

OK, I grabbed that one from http://www.december14.net/fonts.shtml#family here
if anyone wants to play with that. It's a less ugly font than some others, I
think it'd be fair to say :-)

Thanks - we'll see how it goes.

-- 

cheers, Mic (reply address works)
It has long been an axiom of mine that the little things are infinitely the most 
important.
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, (Sherlock Holmes)




Current version is 2.12.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Word wrap problems

2004-07-27 Thread Edvinas Matiuaitis

Hello Allie,

On Tuesday, July 27, 2004, at 16:40 Lithuanian Time, you wrote:

AM It's the fonts that are often ugly. I use BitStream Vera Sans Mono
AM which is fine for the characters I tend to type.

This BitStream Vera family looks good, however it has one very big
shortcomig (for me at least) -- they contain just one character set...

--
Edvinas
Using The Bat! 2.12.00 on Windows 2000 Service Pack 4








Current version is 2.12.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[2]: Word wrap problems

Hello Allie,

Wednesday, July 28, 2004, 12:15:04 AM, you wrote:

MicroEd is special in that when it
 wraps as you type, it hard wraps.

 The Windows editor for TB! was introduced so that those who don't like
 the cursor behaviour as well as other aspects of MicroEd could have a
 more familiar solution. Unfortunately TB! will not wrap on sending so
 the text is sent unwrapped.

Hi Allie. I have been following this discussion with interest as the
differences between the two editors has always puzzled me. Does that
mean that when I prepare a message using the Windows editor that my
recipient will receive it as one long line, or will their email
program wrap it for them?  Thanks for your help.



-- 
Best regards,
 Petermailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]



Current version is 2.12.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[3]: Word wrap problems

Hello Peter, 

PB differences between the two editors has always puzzled me. Does that
PB mean that when I prepare a message using the Windows editor that my
PB recipient will receive it as one long line,

Yes, recipient will receive one long line

PB or will their email
PB program wrap it for them?

Depends of program and its wrapping setting

-- 

9Val



Current version is 2.12.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[4]: Word wrap problems

Hello 9Val,

Wednesday, July 28, 2004, 7:46:38 AM, you wrote:

 Hello Peter, 

PB differences between the two editors has always puzzled me. Does that
PB mean that when I prepare a message using the Windows editor that my
PB recipient will receive it as one long line,

 Yes, recipient will receive one long line

PB or will their email
PB program wrap it for them?

 Depends of program and its wrapping setting


Uh-oh. I've seen those unwrapped messages occasionally, and there're
r-e-a-l-l-y  i-r-r-i-t-a-t-i-n-g. So, as a long time user of the
Windows editor in The Bat! perhaps I really ought to seriously look at
MicroEd once more. I don't use tables, lists, etc. in emails as a
rule, but I do want my recipients to get a message that is easy to
display and read. Would I be correct in assuming that MicroEd has huge
potential for goofing up due to the great number of options avaulable?

-- 
Peter in New Zealand.

-- 
Best regards,
 Petermailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]



Current version is 2.12.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Word wrap problems

2004-07-27 Thread Dave Gorman

Hello Peter,

Tuesday, July 27, 2004, 3:02:59 PM, you wrote:


 Would I be correct in assuming that MicroEd has huge potential for
 goofing up due to the great number of options avaulable?

I'm not certain what you mean by potential for goofing up, but the
really nice thing about MicroEd is that your content will be sent
wrapped exactly as you see it. You know before sending how the
wrapping will be received by your recipient.

-- 
Dave
Using The Bat! v2.12.00 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1




Current version is 2.12.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[5]: Word wrap problems

Hello Peter, 

PB MicroEd once more. I don't use tables, lists, etc. in emails as a
PB rule, but I do want my recipients to get a message that is easy to
PB display and read. Would I be correct in assuming that MicroEd has huge
PB potential for goofing up due to the great number of options avaulable?

One  of  most  useful features for me is virtual spaces. Other options
(important  for  me)  are  auto-wrap,  justify on wrap, possibility to
change  justify  of  paragraph  by  one hotkey. And I always know what
recipient will get.

-- 

9Val



Current version is 2.12.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[4]: Word wrap problems

2004-07-27 Thread Stuart Cuddy

Hello 9Val,
Tuesday, July 27, 2004, 2:46:38 PM, you wrote:

PB differences between the two editors has always puzzled me. Does that
PB mean that when I prepare a message using the Windows editor that my
PB recipient will receive it as one long line,

9 Yes, recipient will receive one long line

PB or will their email
PB program wrap it for them?

9 Depends of program and its wrapping setting


I just tested this by sending on long line in the HTML editor and
sending it to myself and viewing it in plain text viewer and it wraps
as needed in TB! When would it show up as one long line in an e-mail
program? Or would this only happen if you copy and paste to notepad?

-- 
Best regards,
 Stuartmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Using The Bat! v2.12.03 
 On Windows 98 4.10 Build #



Current version is 2.12.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Word wrap problems

Hello Stuart,  

SC I just tested this by sending on long line in the HTML editor and
SC sending it to myself and viewing it in plain text viewer and it wraps
SC as needed in TB!

Hmm,  may  be  I  don't know some preferences, but TB! wraps it on the
window  edge  and on high resolution and wide viewer to follow line is
un-comfort for my eyes.

-- 

9Val



Current version is 2.12.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[2]: Word wrap problems

2004-07-27 Thread Stuart Cuddy

Hello 9Val,
Tuesday, July 27, 2004, 3:30:28 PM, you wrote:

SC I just tested this by sending on long line in the HTML editor and
SC sending it to myself and viewing it in plain text viewer and it wraps
SC as needed in TB!

9 Hmm,  may  be  I  don't know some preferences, but TB! wraps it on the
9 window  edge  and on high resolution and wide viewer to follow line is
9 un-comfort for my eyes.


Agreed. I meant that it wraps at the window edge as opposed to if you
paste it into Notepad and it doesn't wrap at all. I also agree Micro-ed
is great for this.

-- 
Best regards,
 Stuartmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Using The Bat! v2.12.03 
 On Windows 98 4.10 Build #



Current version is 2.12.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Word wrap problems

2004-07-27 Thread George Mitchell

9Val wrote:

9 Hmm,  may  be  I  don't know some preferences, but TB! wraps it on
9 the window  edge  and on high resolution and wide viewer to follow
9 line is un-comfort for my eyes.

Agreed.  I'd like to see an option to specify a virtual right margin
for wrapping purposes.

-- 
George

Using The Bat! 2.12.00 on Windows XP Pro 5.1, Build 2600, Service Pack 1.



Current version is 2.12.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[2]: Word wrap problems

Hello Dave,

Wednesday, July 28, 2004, 8:14:23 AM, you wrote:

 Hello Peter,

 Tuesday, July 27, 2004, 3:02:59 PM, you wrote:


 Would I be correct in assuming that MicroEd has huge potential for
 goofing up due to the great number of options avaulable?

 I'm not certain what you mean by potential for goofing up,

Sorry, that may be a Kiwi (New Zealand) slang saying. To goof up
usually means to mess something up. In other words, due to the great
number of options available for MicroEd there is a greater possibility
of someone like me messing things up by fiddling. That's what I meant
to say. Sorry for the slang.

-- 
Peter in New Zealand.




-- 
Best regards,
 Petermailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]



Current version is 2.12.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[5]: Word wrap problems

Hello Stuart,

Wednesday, July 28, 2004, 8:28:25 AM, you wrote:

 Hello 9Val,
 Tuesday, July 27, 2004, 2:46:38 PM, you wrote:

PB differences between the two editors has always puzzled me. Does that
PB mean that when I prepare a message using the Windows editor that my
PB recipient will receive it as one long line,

9 Yes, recipient will receive one long line

PB or will their email
PB program wrap it for them?

9 Depends of program and its wrapping setting

When would it show up as one long line in an e-mail
 program?

To tell the truth I am not sure, but I occasionally receive emails
that are in one long unwrapped line. I have to scrool for miles
sideways to read them. I am usure of the sending program.

-- 
Peter in New Zealand.




-- 
Best regards,
 Petermailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]



Current version is 2.12.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[2]: Word wrap problems

Hello Dave,

Wednesday, July 28, 2004, 8:14:23 AM, you wrote:

You know before sending how the
 wrapping will be received by your recipient.

That's a very worth while advantage I had not understood before. Thank
you for pointing it out. I will try using MicroEd again and see if
this thread will help me to get a grasp on what I suspect is really a
very well designed little editor.

-- 
Peter in New Zealand.


-- 
Best regards,
 Petermailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]



Current version is 2.12.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Word wrap problems

Hello 9Val,  

9 One  of  most  useful features for me is virtual spaces. Other options
9 (important  for  me)  are  auto-wrap,  justify on wrap, possibility to
9 change  justify  of  paragraph  by  one hotkey. And I always know what
9 recipient will get.

And  one  more  -  Smart wrapping of quoted text which doesn't work in
Windows editor.

-- 

9Val



Current version is 2.12.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Word wrap problems

2004-07-27 Thread Dave Gorman

Hello Peter,

Tuesday, July 27, 2004, 4:22:08 PM, you wrote:

 Would I be correct in assuming that MicroEd has huge potential for
 goofing up due to the great number of options avaulable?

 I'm not certain what you mean by potential for goofing up,

 Sorry, that may be a Kiwi (New Zealand) slang saying. To goof up
 usually means to mess something up. In other words, due to the great
 number of options available for MicroEd there is a greater possibility
 of someone like me messing things up by fiddling. That's what I meant
 to say. Sorry for the slang.

Your communication was fine, it was my communication that was unclear.
I understood the concept of goofing up. I just wasn't sure how you
thought you were going to goof things up by using MicroEd. Your
clarification has gotten through my thick skull :)

Granted, there are a lot of options, and it is not necessarily clear
what each of them means or does. However, since what you see in the
editor before you send is what will actually be sent, you have the
opportunity to correct anything that has been goofed up.

Also, you can experiment with different options toggled off or on to
see the effect they have. And the broad range of knowledge and
experience on this list can provide clarification as to what any of
the options do and how to use them.

Hope that helps!

-- 
Dave
Using The Bat! v2.12.00 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1




Current version is 2.12.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Word wrap problems

2004-07-27 Thread Mary Bull

Hello Peter!

On Tuesday, July 27, 2004, 4:24 PM, you wrote:

SCWhen would it show up as one long line in an e-mail
SC program?

PB To tell the truth I am not sure, but I occasionally receive emails
PB that are in one long unwrapped line. I have to scrool for miles
PB sideways to read them. I am usure of the sending program.

So far as I know, I have never sent an e-mail that showed up as one
long line.

However, occasionally I find quoting a small part of a web-page, that
I'm giving the URL for in my message, useful.  And sometimes that
copy-and-paste will result in one long line.

I then find Utilities/Format Block (I choose Left from this
drop-down Menu) in the Edit Mail Message window extremely helpful. I
position the cursor anywhere on the long line and click on Format
Block/Left, and my copy-and-paste is hard-wrapped, ready for sending
except for attribution.

One more nice provision of this Editor.

A work-around for an e-mail in one long line in the View Folder
window, assuming you really want to read this message, would be to
press the Reply button, or choose Reply from the drop-down Message
menu.

Then you could format the line just as if you had composed the
message, and read it a little more comfortably.

Of course, there are hot keys and short-cut keys for calling these
features--I use the drop-down menus (and sometimes the right-click
menus) because I enjoy using a mouse.

-- 
Best regards,
Mary
:Mary:
The Bat! 2.12.00 on Windows XP 5.1 2600 Service Pack 1







Current version is 2.12.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Word wrap problems

2004-07-27 Thread Allie Martin

Peter Ballantyne, [PB] wrote:

 That's a very worth while advantage I had not understood before.
 Thank you for pointing it out. I will try using MicroEd again and
 see if this thread will help me to get a grasp on what I suspect is
 really a very well designed little editor.

Your concern for making your text appear nicely formatted for your
recipients will make you get along well with MicroEd. The options are
nothing to worry about since they really only adjust cursor behaviour
and formatting options. It's truly WYSIWYS, in that what you see is
what you send.

Your main hurdles will be getting accustomed to the free caret, i.e.,
the phenomenon of being able to move the caret anywhere in the editor
and just start typing. While that provides obvious advantages, many
have grown accustomed to the usual ways in which the caret's movements
are restricted.

The other thing to grow accustomed to is text reflowing and how it
works. Using Alt-L vs Autoformat and finally settling on your default
approach.

Good luck and enjoy!

-- 
-=[ Allie Martin ]=-
List Moderator and fellow end-user
PGPKeys: http://key.ac-martin.com
The Bat! v2.12.04 on WinXP Pro (SP1)  


pgplxsp8p47Bq.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Current version is 2.12.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[2]: Word wrap problems