Re: DEAD HORSE (was [OT sort of] PocoMail- was Re[4]: HTML based emails)

2002-01-15 Thread Marck D Pearlstone
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Jan, On 15 January 2002 at 11:34:35 -0500 (which was 16:34 where I live) Jan Rifkinson wrote to Marck D Pearlstone and made these points: Marck>> [...] I am forced to pronounce it dead. [/...] Please take it Marck>> off-list or to TBOT. > Sorr

Re: DEAD HORSE (was [OT sort of] PocoMail- was Re[4]: HTML based emails)

2002-01-15 Thread Jan Rifkinson
Hello Marck. At 11:03 AM on Tuesday, January 15, 2002 you wrote the following about [DEAD HORSE (was [OT sort of] PocoMail- was Re[4]: HTML based emails)] Marck> [...] I am forced to pronounce it dead. [/...] Marck> Please take it off-list or to TBOT. Sorry, Mark. I actually thought

DEAD HORSE (was [OT sort of] PocoMail- was Re[4]: HTML based emails)

2002-01-15 Thread Marck D Pearlstone
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Jan, On 15 January 2002 at 10:45:52 -0500 (which was 15:45 where I live) Jan Rifkinson wrote to Dierk Haasis and made these points: > ... but I always welcome comic relief. > :-) This topic has gone way "off" and I am forced to pronounce i

Re: [OT sort of] PocoMail- was Re[4]: HTML based emails

2002-01-15 Thread Jan Rifkinson
Hello Dierk. At 3:31 AM on Tuesday, January 15, 2002 you wrote the following in response to my comments [[OT sort of] PocoMail- was Re[4]: HTML based emails] >> I'd take a Porsche over a Mercedes any day. Dierk> Well, both are German luxury cars ... which Dierk> means most

DEAD HORSE (was [OT sort of] PocoMail- was Re[4]: HTML based emails)

2002-01-15 Thread Marck D Pearlstone
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Dierk, On 15 January 2002 at 09:09:18 +0100 (which was 08:09 where I live) Dierk Haasis wrote to Ray Vermey and made these points: > Did I get your point, your irony? This topic has gone way "off" and I am forced to pronounce it dead. Please t

Re: [OT sort of] PocoMail- was Re[4]: HTML based emails

2002-01-15 Thread Dierk Haasis
Hello Ray! On 14 Jan 2002 at 10:32:18 pm you wrote: > I could go on for a while but till now i realy like the > slickinterface of PocoMail a lot better than the Bat and also > itsHTML-possibility. >   > The Bat in my eyes is developping towards a more and more > hightechmailer (I am an Unix "g

Re: [OT sort of] PocoMail- was Re[4]: HTML based emails

2002-01-15 Thread Dierk Haasis
Hello Ray! On 14 Jan 2002 at 11:19:43 pm you wrote: > I just like to see HTML and every now and then write html. "Every now and then"? Shouldn't HTML messages only be used if necessary? I mean, you send a pure plain text message as HTML - just to annoy us? Or are you trying to make a point lik

Re: [OT sort of] PocoMail- was Re[4]: HTML based emails

2002-01-15 Thread Alastair Scott
On 15 January 2002 at 8:31 am Dierk wrote: > Well, both are German luxury cars ... which means most Germans like > them, virtually every non-German, and me not. > I'd rather have a good British (they are mostly half American today), > Italian or French car. Even the Spanish version of German car

Re: [OT sort of] PocoMail- was Re[4]: HTML based emails

2002-01-15 Thread Melissa Reese
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tuesday, January 15, 2002, at 12:20:27 AM PST, Dierk Haasis wrote: > Why, o why ... again a superfluous HTML mail with bad wrapping ... Give them an inch, and they take up the whole road... :-( It really is a dangerous line to cross. People al

Re: [OT sort of] PocoMail- was Re[4]: HTML based emails

2002-01-15 Thread Dierk Haasis
Hello Kenneth! On 14 Jan 2002 at 11:52:16 pm you wrote: > To each his/her own. Oh, yes ... > There is an option for word wrapping in Pocomail, and you don't have to keep it on >if you don't like it. Why, o why ... again a superfluous HTML mail with bad wrapping ... This thread begins to con

Re: [OT sort of] PocoMail- was Re[4]: HTML based emails

2002-01-15 Thread Dierk Haasis
Hello Jan! On 15 Jan 2002 at 3:20:20 am you wrote: > I'd take a Porsche over a Mercedes any day. Well, both are German luxury cars ... which means most Germans like them, virtually every non-German, and me not. I'd rather have a good British (they are mostly half American today), Italian or

Re: [OT sort of] PocoMail- was Re[4]: HTML based emails

2002-01-14 Thread Alastair Scott
On 14 January 2002 at 23:09 Melissa wrote: > Personally, I think Slaven is great. I know he's dedicated to making > Pocomail better, and no doubt it will improve. His tireless > programming efforts and dedication to customer support (and openness > to and implementation of suggestions) are much a

Re[2]: [OT sort of] PocoMail- was Re[4]: HTML based emails

2002-01-14 Thread Don Zeigler
On 1/14/2002 at 1:32 PM, Ray Vermey wrote: > 3) Multiple accounts are much easier under the Bat, in Poco you > haveto log in and out of the different accounts But each account suports multiple servers and identities. > 9) Filtering is also very easy Pocomail's filters don't compare to TB. Poco

Re[2]: [OT sort of] PocoMail- was Re[4]: HTML based emails

2002-01-14 Thread Don Zeigler
On 1/14/2002 at 3:09 PM, Melissa Reese wrote: > In spite of what I see as some very serious shortcomings, I do in fact > really like Pocomail. Certainly - if Slaven were to get together with > the programmers of TB!, there could be some *very interesting* > developments! :-) Pocobat? -- Regar

Re: [OT sort of] PocoMail- was Re[4]: HTML based emails

2002-01-14 Thread Jan Rifkinson
Hello Ray. At 4:32 PM on Monday, January 14, 2002 you wrote the following about [[OT sort of] PocoMail- was Re[4]: HTML based emails] Ray> [...] Well i will playing around for some time Ray> with Pocomail and see howthings develop. But going Ray> back to the Bat is like stepping in a

Re: [OT sort of] PocoMail- was Re[4]: HTML based emails

2002-01-14 Thread GeekMaster
At 6:09:11 pm on 1/14/2002, you wrote: > In spite of what I see as some very serious shortcomings, I do in fact > really like Pocomail. Certainly - if Slaven were to get together with > the programmers of TB!, there could be some *very interesting* > developments! :-) I think, for the most

Re: [OT sort of] PocoMail- was Re[4]: HTML based emails

2002-01-14 Thread Melissa Reese
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Monday, January 14, 2002, at 1:32:18 PM PST, Ray Vermey wrote: >>RR> On Sunday, January 13, 2002, 4:24:39 PM, GeekMaster wrote: >> >> >>G>> PocoMail.  In some ways, it's less powerful than The Bat, but >>nobody works harder than PocoMail's >>G>> a

Re: [OT sort of] PocoMail- was Re[4]: HTML based emails

2002-01-14 Thread Kenneth S. Rhee
On Mon, 14 Jan 2002 23:48:24 +0100, David van Zuijlekom wrote: >I can say one thing about Pocomail: the wrapping sucks! > >Look at your reply you gave to Nick. It looks a lot like the most >irritating wrapping like in OL/OE. ;-( To each his/her own.   However, let's try to be objective here.   I

Re: [OT sort of] PocoMail- was Re[4]: HTML based emails

2002-01-14 Thread David van Zuijlekom
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello Kenneth, On 14 Jan 2002 at 13:46:28 -0500, Kenneth S. Rhee [KSR] wrote concerning ': HTML based emails': ... >>Being the curious type, I tried it but right from the start I >>couldn't >>even set up hierarchical folders so that pretty much did i

Re[4]: [OT sort of] PocoMail- was Re[4]: HTML based emails

2002-01-14 Thread Carren Stuart
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tuesday, 15 January 2002 at 11:19 a.m. Ray wrote: RV> If the Bat was to be integrated with Poco... whohah THAT would RV> be some car with some engine ;-)   RV> Vrommm ;-) Ray, *That* I can agree with! :-)   Carren PGP pu

Re[4]: [OT sort of] PocoMail- was Re[4]: HTML based emails

2002-01-14 Thread Kenneth S. Rhee
On Mon, 14 Jan 2002 23:19:43 +0100, Ray Vermey wrote: >If the Bat was to be integrated with Poco... whohah THAT would >be some car with some engine ;-) > >Vrommm ;-) If you take the best part of the BAT (the latest beta) and best of PocoMail (the latest beta), and come up with th

Re[3]: [OT sort of] PocoMail- was Re[4]: HTML based emails

2002-01-14 Thread Ray Vermey
On Tue, 15 Jan 2002 10:57:19 +1300, Carren Stuart wrote: /SNIP/   Well Caren, email clients are just a matter of personal taste, we can agree on that one ;-) I just like to see HTML and every now and then write html. Sure the Bat is a great one and i use it for almost 3 years now as a registered

Re[2]: [OT sort of] PocoMail- was Re[4]: HTML based emails

2002-01-14 Thread Carren Stuart
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tuesday, 15 January 2002 at 10:32 a.m. Ray wrote: RV> Well i use Poco for one day now and here are some of my findings:   RV> I could go on for a while but till now i realy like the RV> slickinterface of PocoMail a lot better than the Bat and

Re: [OT sort of] PocoMail- was Re[4]: HTML based emails

2002-01-14 Thread Lars Geiger
Hi Ray, On 14 Jan 2002 at 22:32:18 [GMT +0100], you wrote: > 5) I like the HTML-editor of Poco. Yes, and you showed us how much you liked it by sending a HTML formatted message. Really useful! :-\ -- Regards, Lars The Bat! 1.54 Beta/28 on Windows NT 5.1 Build 2600 _

Re: [OT sort of] PocoMail- was Re[4]: HTML based emails

2002-01-14 Thread Ray Vermey
On Mon, 14 Jan 2002 21:18:00 +0100, Luc wrote: >RR> On Sunday, January 13, 2002, 4:24:39 PM, GeekMaster wrote: > > >G>> PocoMail.  In some ways, it's less powerful than The Bat, but >nobody works harder than PocoMail's >G>> author at accomodating user requests in the mail client. HTML is >nothin

Re: [OT sort of] PocoMail- was Re[4]: HTML based emails

2002-01-14 Thread Luc
It was foretold that on 14-1-2002 @ 22:20:39 GMT-0500 (which was 4:20 where I live) Rick Reumann wrote and spread these wise comments on "[OT sort of] PocoMail- was Re[4]: HTML based emails": RR> On Sunday, January 13, 2002, 4:24:39 PM, GeekMaster wrote: G>> "on the

Re: [OT sort of] PocoMail- was Re[4]: HTML based emails

2002-01-14 Thread Kenneth S. Rhee
On Mon, 14 Jan 2002 10:23:59 -0800, Nick Andriash wrote: >Being the curious type, I tried it but right from the start I >couldn't >even set up hierarchical folders so that pretty much did it for me. >If >there is a way I couldn't find it... You can set up the subfolders. I believe you have to do

Re: [OT sort of] PocoMail- was Re[4]: HTML based emails

2002-01-14 Thread Kenneth S. Rhee
On Mon, 14 Jan 2002 18:37:02 +, Alastair Scott wrote: >Well, I had a look at Poco and it turned me right off straight away >(as Pegasus and Eudora do). I'm a user interface designer - and >sensitive to such things - and I'd rather have an "old-fashioned" >interface like TB's rather than one wh

Re: [OT sort of] PocoMail- was Re[4]: HTML based emails

2002-01-14 Thread Alastair Scott
On 14 January 2002 at 03:20 Rick wrote: >I'm just curious if anyone could give >me some of the benefits/drawbacks of using PocoMail vs The Bat! I'm >a registered user of The Bat! that came from Pegasus so I'm just >curious what some users of it think of it compared to The Bat!. If

Re: [OT sort of] PocoMail- was Re[4]: HTML based emails

2002-01-14 Thread Nick Andriash
Hello Rick Reumann, On Sunday, January 13 2002 at 07:20 PM PDT, you wrote: > I'm just curious if anyone could give me some of the benefits/drawbacks > of using PocoMail vs The Bat! Being the curious type, I tried it but right from the start I couldn't even set up hierarchical folders so that

Re[2]: [OT sort of] PocoMail- was Re[4]: HTML based emails

2002-01-13 Thread Ray Vermey
Hello Melissa, 14 Jan 2002, 5:22:02, you wrote: MR> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- MR> Hash: SHA1 MR> On Sunday, January 13, 2002, at 7:48:08 PM PST, GeekMaster wrote: >> Anyway, give it a look. I want to say, like you, I am a registered >> user of The Bat, and as I said, I really do think

Re: [OT sort of] PocoMail- was Re[4]: HTML based emails

2002-01-13 Thread Melissa Reese
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sunday, January 13, 2002, at 7:48:08 PM PST, GeekMaster wrote: > Anyway, give it a look. I want to say, like you, I am a registered > user of The Bat, and as I said, I really do think it's among the > very best apps out there. But, being the fanat

Re: [OT sort of] PocoMail- was Re[4]: HTML based emails

2002-01-13 Thread GeekMaster
Rick Reumann wrote: >I'm just curious if anyone could give > me some of the benefits/drawbacks of using PocoMail vs The Bat! > Hi Rick. As you mention in your message, this might not be the best place for a blow-by-blow comparison, but certainly trying it is the best way to get a feel fo

[OT sort of] PocoMail- was Re[4]: HTML based emails

2002-01-13 Thread Rick Reumann
On Sunday, January 13, 2002, 4:24:39 PM, GeekMaster wrote: G> "on the fly" inline HTML message rendering. At this moment, I'm composing this from Opera 6's e-mail G> client, because being integrated into the browser, it's so very convenient. Generally though, I use G> PocoMail. In some wa