On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 12:35:15PM -0600, David Champion wrote:
This message is in enriched text. Here's some text in boldfaced type.
Here's italic. You can also do formatting -- you can
everything works for me (mutt 1.3.25) but the italic (i saw it
underlined) and justified text (which was
On 2002.01.21, in 20020121164625.GB2845@neuromancer,
giorgian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 12:35:15PM -0600, David Champion wrote:
This message is in enriched text. Here's some text in boldfaced type.
Here's italic. You can also do formatting -- you can
[08.01.02 13:11 +0100] Nick Wilson -- :
* Erika Pacholleck [EMAIL PROTECTED] [020108 13:09]:
is the * the same convention for *bold* as the _ is
is for _underline_ ?
vote here: [x] yes [ ] no
I think David mentioned USENET conventions earlier in this post.
He was not sure about that,
[07.01.02 12:35 -0600] David Champion -- :
You could use enriched text. It's documented in RFC 1563:
ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc1563.txt
--- [snipped fine examples ] ---
Hey great, thanks for the examples and especially the RFC number
(I never learn how to find the number out
Alas! Erika Pacholleck spake thus:
(I never learn how to find the number out quickly - yes, I know
there is a list, but that one is really long :( ).
Do a google search for something like RFC database, and you should
find a search engine for RFCs, which is very handy.
In fact, the way things
[07.01.02 10:21 -0500] David T-G -- :
...and then Nick Wilson said...
%
% I'll stick with using *bold* like this. It works for me :)
I certainly agree :-)
I like to add a related question about conventions:
is the * the same convention for *bold* as the _ is
is for _underline_ ?
vote
* Erika Pacholleck [EMAIL PROTECTED] [020108 13:09]:
[07.01.02 10:21 -0500] David T-G -- :
...and then Nick Wilson said...
%
% I'll stick with using *bold* like this. It works for me :)
I certainly agree :-)
I like to add a related question about conventions:
is the * the same
Nick --
...and then Nick Wilson said...
%
% Hi folks
Hello!
% Firstly, yes, I know this is a trivial issue!
Well, it depends on your definition of trivial... If you mean easy, it
may not be; if you mean worthless, then it might be :-)
% I use vim as my editor and can't work out how to
of real ASCII text is mistaken. I thought
that because I saw bold text in mails sent to me (back when I was
exclusively using Eudora under Win) that I could do the same. I guess
they were some kind of HTML thing.
I'll stick with using *bold* like this. It works for me :)
Thanks again.
--
Nick
might mean is something like a simple ASCII reader.
% that because I saw bold text in mails sent to me (back when I was
% exclusively using Eudora under Win) that I could do the same. I guess
% they were some kind of HTML thing.
Not necessarily; see my example still above.
%
% I'll stick
On 2002.01.07, in [EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Nick Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes I mean /like/ HTML, but *not* HTML as I dump anything of nature
> also. I guess my understanding of real ASCII text is mistaken. I thought
> that because I saw bold text in m
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
At some point hitherto, David Champion hath spake thusly:
This message is in enriched text. Here's some text in boldfaced type.
Here's italic. You can also do formatting -- you can
These worked for me (using mutt 1.3.22.1)
Nick Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I use vim as my editor and can't work out how to make portions of my
text bold? I know many of you use vim so I hope someone can help.
Some MUAs will display a^Ha (aa) as a bold a. Is this what
you mean?
Sam
* Samuel Padgett [EMAIL PROTECTED] [020108 08:39]:
Nick Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I use vim as my editor and can't work out how to make portions of my
text bold? I know many of you use vim so I hope someone can help.
Some MUAs will display a^Ha (aa) as a bold a. Is this what
14 matches
Mail list logo
