Re: Test from uuencode boy

2001-04-04 Thread Greg McCarroll

* [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
 test.  can you read this one, or is it attached?  This is in Microsoft
 Outlook Rich Text.  The previous mails have been sent in Plain Text.  
 

thats perfect as far as i'm concerned (mutt user)

-- 
Greg McCarroll  http://www.mccarroll.uklinux.net



Re: Test from uuencode boy

2001-04-04 Thread Gareth Harper


- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 2:41 PM
Subject: Test from uuencode boy


test.  can you read this one, or is it attached?  This is in Microsoft
Outlook Rich Text.  The previous mails have been sent in Plain Text.

Snip

I recieved that one as the usual signature main body, with 2 attachments
this time, one plain text signature (again), and an attatched rtf file with
the main body..

Outlook express (until I can get my adsl online with linux)

Gareth Harper




Re: Test from uuencode boy

2001-04-04 Thread Robin Szemeti

On Wed, 04 Apr 2001, you wrote:
 
 test.  can you read this one, or is it attached?  This is in Microsoft
 Outlook Rich Text.  The previous mails have been sent in Plain Text.  

works for me .. theres stuff I dont need, but since it identifies whats
what in the headers I can read it fine in Kmail

-- 
Robin Szemeti

The box said "requires windows 95 or better"
So I installed Linux!



Re: Test from uuencode boy

2001-04-04 Thread Nicholas Clark

On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 04:15:21PM +0100, Leon Brocard wrote:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent the following bits through the ether:
 
  test.  can you read this one, or is it attached?  This is in Microsoft
  Outlook Rich Text.  The previous mails have been sent in Plain Text.  
 
 Okay, you have a 17-line corporate .signature. This means that every
 post from you must contain at least 17 lines of Perl/Buffy-related
 discussion or you'll get killfiled ;-)

Surely s/you/that address/ ?

And as I would assume that it's mandatory that anything coming from an
ubsw.com address has that sort of disclaimer on it, wouldn't it be easier
to obtain an address outside ubsw.com so that you can avoid having the
disclaimer in the first place?

Otherwise at least 17 lines of on-topic discussion per message is going to
unacceptably increase the signal to noise on this list, I'd guess.

Nicholas Clark
-- 
ENOJOB: http://plum.flirble.org/~nick/CV.html



Re: Test from uuencode boy

2001-04-04 Thread Merijn Broeren

Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
 test.  can you read this one, or is it attached?  This is in Microsoft
 Outlook Rich Text.  The previous mails have been sent in Plain Text.  
 
 
Your message looks like this :

  I 1 no description [multipa/alternativ, 7bit, 3.4K] 
  I 2 |-no description[text/plain, quoted, ISO-8859-1, 1.1K] 
  I 3 +-no description   [multipa/mixed, 7bit, 1.9K] 
  A 4   |-BDY.RTF  [applica/rtf, base64, 0.5K] 
  I 5   +-Legal Disclaimer  [text/plain, 7bit, us-ascii, 0.9K] 

Amazing powers of obfuscation in Outlook. 
-- 
Merijn Broeren| My hat to keep the Martian brain rays out works just fine.
Software Geek | It's really *good* tin foil.
  | And stop staring at me like that.



Re: Test from uuencode boy

2001-04-04 Thread Jonathan Stowe

On Wed, 4 Apr 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 test.  can you read this one, or is it attached?  This is in Microsoft
 Outlook Rich Text.  The previous mails have been sent in Plain Text.


Sort of - pine seems to prefer the disclaimer over the body of the message
as an alternative part but I have just installed it and the configuration
may be shagged ...

/J\