Hello Carsten,
RFC 2822 says:
| 2.1.1. Line Length Limits
|
| There are two limits that this standard places on the number of
| characters in a line. Each line of characters MUST be no more than
| 998 characters, and SHOULD be no more than 78 characters, excluding
| the CRLF.
* ms writes:
There they say: Otherwise some e-mail programs will wrap the text at wrong
points or not wrap it at all which in my experience is not true (any more).
I don't know of any popular client (including console mail and my mobile
phone ;-) that does not wrap at all or at wrong
Hi
On Wednesday 10 August 2005 at 4:24:27 PM, in
mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED], A.Translator wrote:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N36A2169B
I often used tinyurl when referring to a webaddress in a usenet message, but
learnt recently this is 'not done' because the viewer cannot see where the
link
Hi Group,
Sorry for this (maybe) silly question, but what do you think:
Is it still considered good to have free mass text (not manual ascii-tables,
quotes or the like) automatically wrapped at (e.g.) 70 characters?
In TB! (that I don't use for this mail, as you can see, because its not
Hello Martin!
On Wednesday, August 10, 2005, 6:05 AM, you wrote:
In TB! (that I don't use for this mail, as you can see, because its
not installed on this machine) I have wrapping activated.
MicroEd here has just wrapped your quotes perfectly.
For ease of quoting, I chose selective quoting,
Mary Bull bracht volgend idée uit :
For ease of quoting, I chose selective quoting, leaving out the part
in which you specified 70 characters per line as the standard wrap.
Where do I select 'selective quoting', please?
--
Regards,
Adriana.
[ put out the rubbish if you need to reach me by
Hello Adriana!
On Wednesday, August 10, 2005, 7:45 AM, you wrote:
For ease of quoting, I chose selective quoting, leaving out the part
in which you specified 70 characters per line as the standard wrap.
Where do I select 'selective quoting', please?
It's a shorthand phrase to describe these
Hallo Mary,
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 08:00:01 -0500GMT (10-8-2005, 15:00 +0200, where I
live), you wrote:
MB 2) Use the F4 key
MB or
MB 2) Hold down the shift key and click on the Reply arrow in the toolbar
or
2) Specials - Reply quoting selected text
--
Groetjes, Roelof
Veni, Vidi, VISA. (I
Mary Bull wrote :
1) Highlight (select) that part of the original message which you wish
to quote.
Then do one of two things:
2) Use the F4 key
Thank you. That is the way I usually reply, but I did not realize it was called
selective quoting.
--
Regards,
Adriana.
[ put out the
On Wednesday, August 10, 2005, at 08:38 AM, ms wrote:
But I must admin I seldomly use text from an email that way, so
thats no argument so far.
This is the key point. You have a system that will not work well in
all circumstances. The current system works well for reading mail but
not copying
Wednesday, August 10, 2005, ms wrote:
Can someone point me to a good website that cares about this maybe?
Take a look at
http://www.effectivemeetings.com/productivity/communication/netiquette.asp
It's the first hit in this Google search:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N36A2169B
--
Urban
No
Thanks, Urban, for your reply!
Urban [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wednesday, August 10, 2005, ms wrote:
Can someone point me to a good website that cares about this maybe?
Take a look at
http://www.effectivemeetings.com/productivity/communication/netiquette.asp
It's the first hit in this
Urban stelde dit idée voor :
It's the first hit in this Google search:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N36A2169B
If I may sidetrack to the shorter link:
I often used tinyurl when referring to a webaddress in a usenet message, but
learnt recently this is 'not done' because the viewer cannot see
On Wednesday, August 10, 2005, at 09:13 AM, ms wrote:
That's why I asked for a website that specializes on the reasons
for wrapping: most websites that deal with netiquette only say do
this but they don't point out why very exactly
Try this site. It offers some other insights as well:
Hello A.Translator,
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 17:24:27 +0200 GMT (10/08/2005, 22:24 +0700 GMT),
A.Translator wrote:
It's the first hit in this Google search:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N36A2169B
AT If I may sidetrack to the shorter link:
AT I often used tinyurl when referring to a webaddress in a
Hello A.Translator everyone else,
on 10-Aug-2005 at 17:24 you (A.Translator) wrote:
tinyurl
I block everything from the mediaplex servers because of the advertising, I
can't make use of any tinyurl shortcut anyway.
--
Best regards,
Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.de - ICQ 238153981)
Never
Thomas Fernandez stelde de volgende uitleg voor :
A tinyurl is a clear no-no, because it robs me of that
little advance cheat.
Thank you both. I will stop using tinyurls on usenet.
--
Regards,
Adriana.
[ put out the rubbish if you need to reach me by e-mail ]
Hello Mary,
Back in TB! again (pheew), I read your message:
MicroEd here has just wrapped your quotes perfectly.
For ease of quoting, I chose selective quoting, leaving out the part
in which you specified 70 characters per line as the standard wrap.
It happens to be what I use, since
Hello Martin!
On Wednesday, August 10, 2005, 2:08 PM, you wrote:
For ease of quoting, I chose selective quoting ... 70 characters
per line as the standard wrap.
...
...and when using selective quoting all is fine. Then I tried replying
to my own message with normal reply and this is what
Hello Mary!
On Wednesday, August 10, 2005, 2:18 PM, you wrote:
sometimes run out of pro's. On the other hand there is the
contra that text cannot be pasted easily into other apps when
wrapped, and that nowadays nearly every client auto wraps incoming mail
correctly.
...
Hello Mary!
On Wednesday, August 10, 2005, 2:33 PM, you wrote:
I found a report of mis-wrapped quoting--shortened lines rather than
the long line at the paragraph end in Marin's display. ...
That should read Martin's display. Probably careless typing on my
part, but quite reminiscent of the
Hello Mary,
I found a report of mis-wrapped quoting--shortened lines rather than
the long line at the paragraph end in Marin's display. Link:
https://www.ritlabs.com/bt/view.php?id=4241
Its status is Resolved, Verify Wait.
Not sure if it is the same thing, but nearest that I could find.
Hello Martin!
On Wednesday, August 10, 2005, 4:11 PM, you wrote:
https://www.ritlabs.com/bt/view.php?id=4241
Well that looks different, but may be the same reason technically.
Anyway, the developers have marked it Resolved (Verify Wait); and it
was February, 2005, long before the current
23 matches
Mail list logo
