In article <001001c266eb$fbfced80$a44b01d5@famwaugh>, Bill Waugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>----- Original Message ----- >From: "Tony Firshman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2002 11:54 AM >Subject: Re: [ql-users] e-mail plain protocols [was Parcelfarce] > >> to messagesin the format they were sent >> On Fri, 27 Sep 2002 at 22:46:34, John G Hitchcock wrote: >> (ref: <007001c2666f$7c0fabc0$dc169fd4@johns>) >> >> >In I/E v 6.00 >> > >> >tools >> >options >> >send tab >> >select: include message in reply >> >------------------------------------------------- >> >Note: In I/E 6: There does not *seem* to be the offer of the - >> > >> >'>' etc as a prefix but a standardisation on ':' >> Interesting - I have _never_ seen ':' until now. > >As I stated in a reply '>' ':' and '|' are available. > >I noted that I also had the 'reply to messages in the fromat they were >sent ' ticked, this overrides any plain text settings if replying to >html mails, I'm not sure this could have any bearings on my mail to Tony >and Norman as I assume they replied in plain text. >the URL that I pasted in to the original reply to Tony would not >constitute a html mail on return surely. > >Could someone tell me if my mails are ok now please (:-) Yes, they seem OK now, Bill. Although I would suggest that you 'untick' the 'reply to messages in the format they were sent' in Outlook, and just stick to plain text. You can always make an individual choice later for a particular email if you wish. Although M$ have this as the 'default' setting in Outlook it encourages a lot of bouncing around of extra bandwidth ... -- Malcolm Cadman
