I vote for 2 or 3. We often exchange paragraphs of text for inclusion in our web sites. The automatic hard wrapping of PM makes it necessary to edit the message content in order to have it "flowing" into the web pages...
Peter Am Sa, 10. Sep 2005, schrieb C. A. Niemiec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>Is that in the manual or FAQ somewhere? I've certainly never seen that >>limit publicized anywhere. > >No, it's not documented. But here's a few points: > >1. Jerome (or someone from CTM) dropped a quick note on the list a while >back to confirm PowerMail _does_ wrap outgoing mail. I believe the amount >is 78 characters. > >2. The RFC for Internet Mail (RFC 2822 <http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/ >rfc2822.html>) recommends wrapping at 78 characters per line. > >3. PowerMail does _not_ hard wrap incoming mail. Also confirmed by CTMDev. > > >Possibilities I can think of: > >1. Leave it the way it is. "Our mail is hard-wrapped at 78 characters, >and we _like_ it that way!" :) > >2. Have an _application-wide_ preference to define a hard wrap of ## >characters for outgoing mail, or none at all. Easiest to grasp >conceptually -- one place in the usual preferences. Default could be 78 >as currently. This might be useful for PowerMail users in a workgroup >environment who want their mail-text free flowing, and so could turn it off. > >3. Have a _per-account_ preference as with #2 to set a hard limit. For >things like specific accounts used for mailing lists. Because some things >you send out you know will be quoted a few times (especially on lists). >Setting it shorter will prevent the overflow problem from happening as >quickly (overflow = a full line, then one character, a full line, then >three characters, etc.). Plus, some e-mail services hard wrap mail >shorter (or people can set a preference to do so). I have see some e-mail >like this from Yahoo accounts IIRC. There are likely others. > >4. Have an option in the _filters_ to hard wrap text in outgoing mails to >a certain limit for certain addresses, like mailing lists. Point #3 for >filters basically. Wouldn't affect incoming mail. > >5. There is no point 5. > >6. Have a text scrubber (like TextSoap, BBEdit, etc.)** to neatly and >automagically reformat all mail so you never realize nor care what >wrapping is. "It just works." > >** I know these two third-party, and that you can access them via >AppleScripting right now. This point is to identify an integrated >solution, i.e. text scrubbing. Whether or not CTMDev should roll their >own is off topic. > >7. Further options... (?) You name 'em. > > >Having said all that, remember, remember, remember (!) -- having an >adjustable hard-wrap preference will never format all of your mail >perfectly, will not guarantee that nothing will happen to it on the way, >nor that the person on the other end will receive looking exactly the way >you sent it. Never. You have been warned. > > >Ok, so I vote for Point #4 above. Let's change it. ;) -- Peter Baral Medienwerkstatt Muehlacker Verlagsgesellschaft m.b.H. +---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: <http://www.medienwerkstatt-online.de>
