Barry, the quirk is NOT with Thunderbird but with Yahoo's display code for the web site. I am also on some Google groups and my comments using Thunderbird format properly on the web site display. What Yahoo needs to do that Google seems to be doing is add an additional line break code at the end of any quote. We shouldn't have to do that especially if our email client is showing a clear delineation between text quoted and our entry. I don't know why this is such an issue to some people on FFL as it certainly isn't anywhere else. And on being on many developer groups I don't know of anyone who purposely uses shorter line lengths. That's very retro for this day in age. :-D
Go look at the some of the Google group web pages and you'll see how it should be handled. Thunderbird has problems with SOME Yahoo groups in handling messages that don't occur with my Google groups. My guess is that Yahoo's message headers are incorrectly formatted. TurquoiseB wrote: > --- In [email protected], "Richard M" <compost...@...> wrote: > >> Edg - I think Yahoo's editor sucks. >> >> I try to improve on it by using my text editor to compose >> (http://www.editpadpro.com/). I set 72 chars line length and >> use the option to convert line wrapping to line breaks. Then >> I paste that back to Yahoo. >> >> But far all I know my posts are crap when viewed in folks' >> email clients (er...I mean look like crap). >> > > Richard, your posts look great for me, > at any screen resolution or font size. > The procedure you mention above is one > that many folks who have been around the > Internet block use on discussion groups, > or they simply limit themselves to short > line lengths using hard returns the way > I do, no matter what editor they use. > > The reasons for doing this aren't neces- > sarily limitations in the editors but in > the way that messages are processed. Newbs > and Internet tyros don't understand that > when they type stuff in using word wrap, > the Internet nodes that forward that email > on to other nodes do not necessarily > *preserve* that word wrap. They add hard > line breaks after every perceived line, or > arbitrarily, at 80 characters. This may > work on some people's readers, if that > person uses a small font, but creates > shitty line breaks on others. > > The problem is compounded when someone > replies. When quoted text is preceded by > a > symbol and a space, more shitty line > breaks occur. Get three or four replies > into it, like > >>>>> this and you start getting garbage >>>>> > like > >> this that no one >> >>>>> wants to bother to read, much less >>>>> > reply > >> to. >> > > Some writers are aware of the limitations > of the system and compensate for it by using > short line lengths and hard returns. It is > not that much more trouble for them, and it > generally provides a better-formatted output > for most readers. > > Some users are lulled into the belief that > such consideration isn't necessary because > they use "smart" mail readers like Thunder- > bird, which deconstructs each message and > adds a kind of artificial word wrap back > into it to compensate for these inadequacies > of the email process. Because their posts > look good to them when they read them, they > think they look good to everyone else. But > even Thunderbird has its quirks, in that > when, for example, Bhairitu replies to a > post he sees a blank line between the body > of the post he's replying to and his reply > and we do not. So it's often difficult to > figure out where his comments start. > > Not knowing how your posts appear to others > is the nerd counterpart of building your > website in one browser (for example, IE) > and assuming that it will look the same or > work the same in other browsers. It isn't > true, and such assumptions are often per- > ceived by users as the arrogance and lack > of caring about users that they are. > > Such is the crap we have to put up with as > users because of the tech version of "lineage." > Newer, smarter systems are built on older, > dumber systems, and of necessity have to keep > supporting the older, dumber standards. > > In a way, it's like believing that mantra > meditation can only be taught using a puja > to propitiate "gods" and get them to zap > the mantra with woo woo rays. It's always > been done that way, so there *must* have been > some magical, mystical reason for it back at > the beginning, so we have to preserve it. :-) > > The reality is that the Internet is made up > of a hodge-podge of nodes of differing ages > and differing intelligences and degrees of > "smartness." (A lot like the members of FFL.) > If one is courteous one compensates to some > extent for the existence of the weakest nodes > in the chain. > > Just to provide a sense of balance, this is > an issue on every chat forum I've ever been > on. And one rule reigns supreme -- the biggest > offenders are generally the people who write > the longest posts. The psychological reason > for this IMO is that most of them have never > had to write for an actual *audience* of > readers, and thus don't have much respect > for readers. They're typing just because they > can; it's a form of egobabble. > > Some who write long posts (myself and a few > others here) have learned over time not to > do this. That doesn't mean that anyone reads > our crap -- it's still often egobabble -- but > the few who do can at least read it without > having to piece it back together to try to > make sense of something that may have made > no sense to start with. :-) > > > > >
