On 2012-11-30, Gray Calhoun g...@clhn.co wrote:
Etiquette varies based on the domain (e.g. where you are). There is
not one single etiquette for the universe. In Japan, tipping is often
regarded as extremely offensive. In the US, tipping is often
expected.
This is true, etiquette varies with
On 2012-11-30, Derek Martin inva...@pizzashack.org wrote:
I agree; good reasons for the existing standards have been put
forth. Arguments against those standards and said reasons have
contained fallacious logic.
This is the first such claim. No one has yet called out any fallacy
in logic
On 2012-12-01, Rado Q l%...@gmx.de wrote:
=- Jamie Paul Griffin wrote on Sat 1.Dec'12 at 8:38:57 + -=
Long lines != the end of the world. Simple as that.
... _for you_.
But it can mean the beginning of the end for efficient
communication, when everybody starts caring less and less for
On 2012-12-01, Jamie Paul Griffin ja...@kode5.net wrote:
... and I agree completely. As I wrote, I now wrap my lines and will
make extra effort to ensure message formatting conforms so they are
more readable. I don't like upsetting people, and I have taken on
board all the valid and sensible
On 2012-11-30, Rich Kulawiec r...@gsp.org wrote:
I have heard myriad arguments advanced for abandoning or modifying
email etiquette over the past ten, twenty, thirty years. None of
them have ever been accompanied by a convincing rationale that
demonstrates why the proposed changes are
On 2012-11-27, Jamie Paul Griffin ja...@kode5.net wrote:
I'm sorry but you've lost me again :-) - both of you
There are two kinds of people:
1) Those who oppose ambiguity
2) Those who are wrong
Now those who oppose ambiguity want quotes to be trimmed, with a
direct reply underneath so
On 2012-11-26, Chris Bannister cbannis...@slingshot.co.nz wrote:
Waste is something that in itself has no value. But formatting has
value added to the presentation. So it's a stretch to label html as
waste, before even discussing the significance of it.
I don't see how an html email adds
On 2012-11-24, Patrick Shanahan ptilopt...@gmail.com wrote:
* Tony's unattended mail tony.parker-9o8uv...@cool.fr.nf [11-24-12 15:58]:
Again, this is another straw man. What I am suggesting is not the
format=flowed standard. It's a hypothetical hybrid.
Saying that people will violate
On 2012-11-25, Chris Bannister cbannis...@slingshot.co.nz wrote:
With regards to mailing list posts, which is what the original post
of mine was addressing, sending HTML posts is very wasteful. They
are archived in various places on the Net, where they are stored for
ever and a day. Yeah,
On 2012-11-23, Jim Graham spooky1...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 09:47:46PM +, Tony's unattended mail wrote:
BTW, sending a variable width format allows for 72 character
rendering, so these dated ergonomics studies are not at odds with an
unwrapped source text anyway.
Two
On 2012-11-24, Jim Graham spooky1...@gmail.com wrote:
By variable width format, I mean a text message with unwrapped
paragraphs (which only has EOLs when semantically necessary).
Ok, but the question still applies. if a table, for example, is typed
in a fixed-width 72--76 column format,
On 2012-11-24, Derek Martin inva...@pizzashack.org wrote:
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 09:47:46PM +, Tony's unattended mail wrote:
It's been pointed out that this number comes from scientific studies
regarding the ergonomics of reading.
=20
Sure, but not in what I quoted and responded
On 2012-11-24, Derek Martin inva...@pizzashack.org wrote:
But how will the client decide what to monospace, and what not to?
There is no discerning factor... in both cases you just have lines
of text which are terminated by a newline.
The number of consecutive newlines distinguishes the two.
On 2012-11-24, Derek Martin inva...@pizzashack.org wrote:
Yeah, I said exactly that in another message. Now generate HTML
mail with Mutt. Plus you still get a lot of folks -- many of whom
use GUI clents -- who complain about HTML mail for any number of
reasons. And at least a few of them
On 2012-11-24, Derek Martin inva...@pizzashack.org wrote:
=20
The number of consecutive newlines distinguishes the two. Two
newlines marks the end of a paragraph, and one newline marks the end
of monospaced text.
Only if the user writes them that way. I receive a lot of flowed
e-mail at
On 2012-11-24, Patrick Shanahan ptilopt...@gmail.com wrote:
* Peter Davis p...@pfdstudio.com [11-24-12 15:09]:
On 11/24/12 12:49 PM, Derek Martin wrote:
The convention for e-mail is 72 characters.
No. That was the convention. Currently, I don't believe there is one,
convention in this
On 2012-11-24, Derek Martin inva...@pizzashack.org wrote:
It's not a straw man, because format=3Dflowed is functionally
identical to what you're suggesting in every way, except that you
are imposing an ADDITIONAL constraint that a specified number of
line feeds MEANS something. THIS CAN NOT
On 2012-11-23, Derek Martin inva...@pizzashack.org wrote:
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 06:17:27PM +, Tony's unattended mail wrote:
At this time, the generally accepted assumption is to wrap at around
72--76 characters
=20
Right.. one million smokers can't be wrong.
It's been pointed out
On 2012-11-21, Jim Graham spooky1...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 05:02:50PM +, Tony's unattended mail wrote:
LF means begin next line now. So as an author posting text to a
forum, at what point do you need an LF? Not after XX width,
because that makes poor assumptions about
On 2012-11-21, Rado Q l%...@gmx.de wrote:
I guess you put too much interpretation/ meaning in plain-text/
text/plain: LF is just that, nothing else, 2 LF are a paragraph,
that's it.
Too much interpretation is an odd stance to take. It's a necessary
amount of interpretation in order to
On 2012-11-20, Chris Bannister cbannis...@slingshot.co.nz wrote:
Ouch! Could you please set the line wrap value in your editor to a
sane value? 72 characters seems to be the recommended setting.
That was the recommendation in the 90s.
These days, any decent news reader has word wrap.
On 2012-11-20, John Long codeb...@inbox.lv wrote:
I use slrn, probably the best all around news reader out there and
it doesn't wrap unless you tell it. But even that looks bad.
slrn's problem. Slrn (which I sometimes use as well) should do
better.
You can't make a sloppy pile of HTML or
On 2012-11-20, John Long codeb...@inbox.lv wrote:
The tools are fine Outlook, AOL, google groups, it's pretty much
all about thumbing your nose at the world and saying you don't give
a rat's a$$ about the other guy.
Outlook actually illustrates my point. Good tools interpret the
On 2012-11-20, Rado Q l%...@gmx.de wrote:
=- David Young wrote on Tue 20.Nov'12 at 11:59:55 -0600 -=
What, you have computers in your pockets but there is no
conformance to the width in columns of 40 year-old data terminals
any more?
That's not a technical issue but readability: it's easier
On 2012-11-20, Rado Q l%...@gmx.de wrote:
The same argumentation applies to producing readable mail:
why fix something on the reader-end when it could/should be fixed at
the source?
To say that you can only have a convention that's mindful of the
source XOR the target is to create a false
On 2012-11-20, Patrick Shanahan ptilopt...@gmail.com wrote:
Original text is fine unwrapped, but should not be sent that way. You
should not impose on the reciever but sent mat'l in a manner that would be
presented as one *should* expect.
Recipients should not impose on composers. Otherwise
On 2012-11-18, Woody Wu narkewo...@gmail.com wrote:
I want to read/post the list in gmane.org. So I want to ask, if the
list (mutt-users) allow users to subscribe but without send messages to
their mailbox?
Sadly, the mutt list forces users to subscribe. Consequently, the
red-tape forces
However, I find dovecot deliver (which uses the sieve language
for filtering) to be much more readable/writable than procmail.
Sieve does not include regular expressions -- I shit you not.
Dovecote needs regular expression capability to be shoe-horned in by
some hokey plugin. Regular
On 2012-10-28, Remco Rijnders re...@webconquest.com wrote:
While it is not an answer to your original question, would it not work if=
=20
you added your own root certificate with smime_keys add_root ? Then it=20
should hopefully accept your own certificate too.
Thanks for the suggestion.
Due to a bug in mutt, I will begin using gnus for some things
(e.g. self-signed S/MIME certs). The question is, can mutt and gnus
both be used to access the same set of mbox files?
Are there any unhandled race-condition-like pitfalls with having both
tools work on mbox files simultaneously?
Has anyone figured out how to add keys for S/MIME without using the
smime_keys script?
I suspect smime_keys is just a wrapper script and everything can
probably be done using openssl. Due to my lack of PERL skills,
and this bug:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=690255
I am
31 matches
Mail list logo
