J.B. Moreno wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Ben Bucksch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> J.B. Moreno wrote:
>
>
>>> Two it is simply different from what people are used to and some
>>> people either reject that change or prefer what they had before.
>>
>> I can see that, but please that we have far more important things to do
>> first.
>
>
> I'm not sure I can agree that is the case -- at least not for the
> mailnews portion. F=f is clearly the change with the most far reaching
> effects and potential -- a smooth upgrade to f=f could change the way
> things are done in the future (for everybody) and thus should either be
> as perfect as we can make it or as simple as we can make it with the
> additional benefits to come later after people have gotten used to it
> (the path taken by Turnpike).
You know, I started this whole thread with what I thought was a real
simple question. I never dreamed I'd be opening a big ol' can-o-worms. :)
I'll take the hack (thank you, Basic LW. I did one myself but wasn't
entirely pleased with it). And now I'll wait patiently for f=f to honor
my line-wrapping (i.e. max width) preferences. Using a wide window to
get the most info in the thread pane unfortunately causes excessively
long f=f lines, which can make reading difficult for me. It's especially
bad with html mail that has tiny fonts. This is my biggest beef with it.
A little more css should do it? I'll keep my eye on
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=62031 since this looks like
what I want.
barney
