On 11/6/02 8:34 AM, "Peter C.S. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thus spake Paul Berkowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, circa 11/6/2002 10:35 AM: >> Have you been following the discussion at all? [...] if Denes were to send >> the actual email artifact, [...] it [...] could give a clue [...] as to >> what's wrong [...]. The text is of no use whatsoever for that, > > Paul, I suggested sending the *source code* of the message, which is just > what is needed. There's nothing in an "email artifact" but the original > source code plus some overhead making it into an attachment. My complaint > was in the unnecessary use of attachments when plain text was perfectly > fine. And as for my comment about hidden text, I've seen messages similar to > the ones Denes asked about, which appeared blank and had nothing in them > when forwarded, but which had hidden content revealed by View>Source. > When there are bugs, it's best to see the untouched original in case there is some sort of corruption. In fact, stuffing the attachment is best of all. You'd make a pretty lousy beta tester, trying to tell MS that they don't need what they say they need. If someone from MS says "please send it as an attachment" then just send it as an attachment and stop arguing. I'm leaving this discussion. -- Paul Berkowitz MVP Entourage PLEASE always state which version of Entourage you are using - 2001 or X. It's often impossible to answer your questions otherwise. -- To unsubscribe: <mailto:Entourage-Talk-Off@;lists.letterrip.com> archives: <http://www.mail-archive.com/entourage-talk%40lists.letterrip.com/> old-archive: <http://www.mail-archive.com/entourage-talk%40lists.boingo.com/>
