Once everyone mentioned this document like it was the Magna Carta, I looked at it for about 6 seconds.
It was written in 1982. THAT'S 19 EIGHTY 2!!!!!!! It's not the Magna Carta, it's the Rosetta Stone!!!!!! This thing was written before anyone even had a GUI interface, LONG before anyone could more than dream of a 13" colour VGA monitor. Well, it's quite apparent that the makers of Calypso (Courier), TheBat, Eudora, Netscape, Pocomail, Outlook, Outlook Express, etc.., etc.., etc.., never bothered with that ancient chiseled stone either. They all offer the user the ability to set their own word wrap. With the current average monitor screen resolution being 1024X768 and *most* people's computers use some sort of "windowed" GUI, there has been for years enough screen space to view more "Letter" quality text formatting. Columns of text is over - now that we can actually type and format in PROPER letter fashion. 78 characters may have been all that could fit on a 9" monochrome screen. But it's time to leave the mule and cart behind. :-) Have fun, ht ////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ On 11/21/03, Wayne Brissette wrote: >tass [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 11/21/03 at 1:40 AM stated: > >>> >>>>either specify, or turn off "Word Wrap" as default - for both incoming >>>>AND outgoing mail. >>> >>>Not possible, there is no such concept in RFC 822 e-mail; see Wayne >>>Brissette for details. :) >> >>I'm not sure what you mean "not possible". Every email client I've ever >>used before has an option for settings a specific number of text characters >>before the program wraps down to the next line for new outbound >>messages. And most of them had a selection that allowed the user >>to turn this function off entirely. >>It is unbearably annoying to type specific lines of text with proper >>formatting >>just to see it come out the other end with the sentences all broken up into >>smaller sections for no good reason at all. And were not talking about >>endless strings of text without a "return" anywhere to be found. Most lines >>I type are around 110 characters maximum. >>Not to mention it plays havoc with extra long links that the email client >>can't read as wrapped to the next line. That really bites. :-) > >Since Ben thinks I'm the expert. ;-) > >Here is the story on line "wraps". The Internet spec for mail (now RFC >2822 : <http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2822.html>), recommends 78 characters >per line. > >Here is the direct quote: > >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. > > The 998 character limit is due to limitations in many implementations > which send, receive, or store Internet Message Format messages that > simply cannot handle more than 998 characters on a line. Receiving > implementations would do well to handle an arbitrarily large number > of characters in a line for robustness sake. However, there are so > many implementations which (in compliance with the transport > requirements of [RFC2821]) do not accept messages containing more > than 1000 character including the CR and LF per line, it is important > for implementations not to create such messages. > > The more conservative 78 character recommendation is to accommodate > the many implementations of user interfaces that display these > messages which may truncate, or disastrously wrap, the display of > more than 78 characters per line, in spite of the fact that such > implementations are non-conformant to the intent of this > specification (and that of [RFC2821] if they actually cause > information to be lost). Again, even though this limitation is put on > messages, it is encumbant upon implementations which display messages > > to handle an arbitrarily large number of characters in a line > (certainly at least up to the 998 character limit) for the sake of > robustness. > > >Now, there is even more to the story than this. The relays that a message >go through (depending on the age of the equipment) may also put a hard >wrap at 78 characters. So, when you send your 110 character text it may >mean your text shows up on the other end looking very odd. There are ways >that can avoid this such as sending the message as a MIME formatted >message, but that means the message isn't pure text (which can be a good >thing at times, although personally I'm more of a purest and like my mail >as text). > >Anyhow, the bottom line is PowerMail takes the safest route and >automatically places messages at 78 characters as it is sent out. It >seems like a pain, but really it is the best route when dealing with >email, since the lost of a single word can make a huge difference in how >things interpreted. A quote from Mark Twain comes to mind -- > >The difference between the almost right word & the right word is really a >large matter--it's the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning. >- Letter to George Bainton, 10/15/1888 > >Anyhow, I realize this isn't what you and some others want, but in the >overall scheme of things it really is the safest method today. > >Wayne > > > >-- >All human rules are more or less idiotic. >- Mark Twain > >Live DAT & Music Page: http://homepage.mac.com/wayneb/ >Wayne's Music Calendar: http://ical.mac.com/wayneb/Music >PowerMail AppleScript Archives: http://homepage.mac.com/wayneb/powermail.html > >Music Currently playing: > >
