Tuesday, January 11, 2000, 9:58:18 PM, tracer wrote:
> Could the red part om the sideflaps be made darker?
Sure, turn off high-color icons. ;)
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switch
Tuesday, January 11, 2000, 7:28:19 PM, John wrote:
> I often alter these headers in the middle of message composition. This
> is convenient to do with a built-in (or tightly coupled) editor, less
> so with a completely external editor.
Conceded. OTOH, I, more often than not, want to pipe tex
Tuesday, January 11, 2000, 8:10:26 PM, Thomas wrote:
> external editor, but that's a matter of taste. Only the message body
> is to be composed in the external editor.
That, too, is my preference.
> Sounds good to me. What happens in PMMail when you are finsihed editing and
> want to send/sa
Tuesday, January 11, 2000, 9:14:06 PM, tracer wrote:
> Steve, any idea what editors you have seen under windows which might
> do the job as external editors for the Bat??
Well, an editor which just edits plain text would work. As I've said, my
preference is for vim which is really a unix[1]
Tuesday, January 11, 2000, 11:50:36 PM, tracer wrote:
> why a bad idea?
Because of the current internet climate and the whole design behind the
mail system and how SMTP servers fit into it.
Technically, a lot of ISPs now will not accept port 25 connections from
dynamic IP space. Some ot
Wednesday, January 12, 2000, 1:37:36 AM, Stefan wrote:
> OK, you'll see it :-)
There's much more I'd rather see. However, I've made that abundantly
clear over the past few months.
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
ICQ: 5107343
Wednesday, January 12, 2000, 2:27:53 AM, Oleg wrote:
> It can do any task at hand depending on user skills even with no need
> to change configuration. Just visit Kizhi for an example.
Then why hold it up as an argument against a single tool? :P
> I didn't say it's all impossible. I just m
Wednesday, January 12, 2000, 7:33:16 AM, Claudius wrote:
> They serve well for people receiving/sending less than 10 emails/day
> and that is why they are email clients that cover the basics.
That's fine, there are plenty of clients out there that cover it. We
don't need to dumb down another
Wednesday, January 12, 2000, 7:45:46 AM, Claudius wrote:
> So what? You'd change this, RITLABS doesn't, maybe it is easy to
> change, but is it really important?
Yes. Conforming to the standards of the interface is important so people
can effectively use the product without thinking about it
Wednesday, January 12, 2000, 8:09:19 AM, Claudius wrote:
> There are different ways to communicate, to write emails, to quote. I
> quote the way I want to. I exchange emails with enough people from
> enough countries with enough experience that I decide how to quote in
> what situation.
Then
Wednesday, January 12, 2000, 11:02:36 AM, Mark wrote:
> I really _don't_ want TB! to go get images from a website. If they add that
> functionality, I sure hope it's an option that you can enable or disable.
It is a security hole and should not be implemented.
--
Steve C. Lamb
Wednesday, January 12, 2000, 2:42:55 PM, Keith wrote:
> address without the prefix? (In other words, won't
> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" work as well as "mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]" and be
> less confusing to non-techies?)
Yes. :)
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your s
Wednesday, January 12, 2000, 10:51:16 AM, Alexander wrote:
> 1) WatchCat (system spying and maintenance);
top, kill, and... oh wait, Windows, right, right. Reset key. I've got my
Linux box doing all my important work. Windows is just games. I've given up
on trying to make it stable and ju
Wednesday, January 12, 2000, 3:16:28 PM, Allie wrote:
> My NTWS install here is stable without my trying. :)
OK, now play the latest games on NT. :P
> I use NoteTab Pro since my editing needs increased beyond the realms
> of NotePad. NoteTab Pro is certainly no piece of cake. Take
Wednesday, January 12, 2000, 3:50:36 PM, Alexander wrote:
> To which one? You definitely *can* if your editor is WinEdt. Actually, I *do*
> use it with Pegasus for composing lengthy messages with TeX stuff.
Normal as in an editor which accepts a filename to edit.
--
Steve C. Lamb
Wednesday, January 12, 2000, 3:48:40 PM, Alexander wrote:
>> Right, looked at it. I dunno, but I like ACDeeSee's "browser" mode. I
> There's almost the same in PMView: File-->Open and you're there;-)
"Almost" is being kind, don't you think? In ACDeeSee I turn off all but
the "thumbna
Wednesday, January 12, 2000, 4:03:28 PM, Alexander wrote:
> WinEdt is "normal", then;-)
Your point? The statement was that if you program for DDE that is *all*
one needs to do. This, to me, seems like a naive statement as I'm sure all
editors do not support DDE. I doubt that vim supports i
d say there aren't any where there are. Support your
statements."
SL>> The convention of the culture that you have entered. I cannot believe I
SL>> still have to argue over this with every newbie that comes into a new
SL>> culture!
> I am the newbie that 'enter
Wednesday, January 12, 2000, 4:38:36 PM, Marck wrote:
> On 13 January 2000 at 16:29:28 GMT -0800 (which was 00:29 where I
> live) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote and made these points:
> It's DEAD HORSE time guys! Angel is quite right - take it off list
> please.
Upon rereading my last messag
Wednesday, January 12, 2000, 5:15:11 PM, Allie wrote:
>> Glad to see you're finally quoting correctly. Amazingly, you're learning.
> Forte' Agent, Becky, Poco Mail, PMMail, MR2/ICE, Post Road Mailer,
> Transoft Mail, and other less worthwhile e-mail clients that I've tried
> all support cust
Wednesday, January 12, 2000, 5:35:25 PM, Alexander wrote:
> I believe it's normal, if you don't think so, it's your problem.
> Furthermore, if your favourite vim doesn't support DDE, it's another *your*
> problem (and problem of other vim users under Windoze)...
Let's compare. Which has been
Wednesday, January 12, 2000, 7:50:14 PM, Nick wrote:
> out AOL as one of them, and I know that Eudora and MS Outlook Programs do
> not, while Agent and OE do, so I don't know why some do, and some don't.
Those that don't have C&P if needed. I fail to see why we should mangle
our sigs for the
Thursday, January 13, 2000, 1:54:16 AM, Andrew wrote:
> The other thing you learn from him is why Unix got stomped all over by
> Microsoft products. Steve has a pure Unix mindset: there is One Right
> Way to understand anything, and anyone who can't share it, even after
> being shouted at, is a St
Wednesday, January 12, 2000, 11:38:40 PM, Andrew wrote:
JA>> Well it depends on my needs, right? If I want to filter all mail from
JA>> one folder to one other folder, then I can just do one common string.
JA>> For example I could search for the letter e, anywhere in the message.
JA>> I'm 99.999%
Thursday, January 13, 2000, 1:03:00 AM, Alex wrote:
Alex>>> So why don't you edit glyphs file?
t>> Because if I cannot see it properly others cannot either.
> Wow... great logic ;-) There is no problem here!
Are you using the high or low color version? The low color version has
very distinct
Thursday, January 13, 2000, 1:26:27 AM, Oleg wrote:
> Because it's an argument for a single tool: TheBat! for all tasks
> regarding mail management.
^^
Spell checking and editing don't fall under management.
> It has nothing to do with the problem we are discuss
Thursday, January 13, 2000, 2:30:03 AM, Marck wrote:
> Anyway - where does it stop? ActiveX? ShockWave? CGI? JavaScript?
> VBScript? All perfectly valid HTML and transmittable in a mail
> document like any image. Let browsers browse and let MUA manage mail.
> KISS.
> [good heavens,
Thursday, January 13, 2000, 6:49:35 AM, Alex wrote:
> Anotherworkaround--justsearchforstringlike
> "sdafadfkldjakladjfkdjfklsfjkljlasfjslfd" which should NOT present in
> message ;-))
Whoa, there it is. :P
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I
Thursday, January 13, 2000, 7:37:38 AM, Nick wrote:
> I agree with you to some extent Steve, but I find your response puzzling, as
> you seem to be one that strongly professes the use of Internet Standards.
Yup.
> In researching the subject a little, I find that RFC 2368 (at least my
> under
Thursday, January 13, 2000, 9:01:36 AM, Nick wrote:
> Good post Steve... I'm finally beginning to see your point on using an
> external editor. :o) However, what about us that are not comfortable with
> some of the Unix style editors you mention.
Which is perfectly understandable. Until I t
Thursday, January 13, 2000, 9:08:40 AM, tracer wrote:
> didnt have..). Ok, I had the write the things but it made life so much
> easier to create standards(g)
Oh, standards are a good thing, as long as they are open. Microsoft often
doesn't open its standards, doesn't maintain the standards
Thursday, January 13, 2000, 9:14:17 AM, tracer wrote:
> Ok, maybe you can explain it, whats the use of a different colour
> scheme where you cannot see the colours???
> And why is it called High colour if it hasnt got any (g)
No clue. It changed with the new icon set some company designed fo
Thursday, January 13, 2000, 9:15:03 AM, Angel wrote:
> maling lists et al. because of the reason stated above: hitting Reply or
> Reply-To for a "private" reply would send it to the entire list.
Personally this is a small nigglet, IMHO, with TB!. There have been tons
of arguments over whethe
Thursday, January 13, 2000, 9:29:02 AM, Alex wrote:
> Not really. I do remove all "Received:" fields (and others like
> "X-List-Command:", "X-MSMail-Priority:", "X-Resent-To:", etc.) from my
> mail, because it takes too much space (sometimes more that half of
> message). So it will not
Thursday, January 13, 2000, 9:57:38 AM, Januk wrote:
> Just to note, I'm reading this using Netscape Communicator under Unix at
> University, and only the address using mailto: is recognized. Just adding to
> list of annoying e-mail clients. :)
Well, what do you expect from a web browser?
Thursday, January 13, 2000, 9:56:09 AM, Urban wrote:
JA>> When you say automate, what exactly do you mean?
> I want to filter the messages without having to download them first.
That requires a bit of skullduggery with POP. With true IMAP it is a snap.
--
Steve C. Lamb
Thursday, January 13, 2000, 10:25:48 AM, tracer wrote:
> Ok, Stefan... a minor cosmetic bug (g)
V, not F. Of course my rendering of my name in Esperanto is Stefan so I
guess I can live with it. ;)
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
ICQ:
Thursday, January 13, 2000, 10:34:43 AM, Alex wrote:
SL>> This is your choice and does not invalidate the fact that messages, as
SL>> they come in, do have those headers and thus that letter.
> Sorry, but it does mean! All header are removed before message comes
> to TB.
... Explain. M
Thursday, January 13, 2000, 12:03:54 PM, Alexander wrote:
> ... but right now the only e-mail client that it the way you (and me;-))
> consider optimal is Pegasus AFAIK;-)
PMMail, Pine, Mutt
> OTOH, I do not think this extra "which address would you use?" dialogue is a
> elegant deceision a
Thursday, January 13, 2000, 12:19:13 PM, Roel wrote:
> sorry, i meant control-f4, *not* shift-f4
Wow, never knew that was there. Would be better to have that as a
pulldown on the button than in the "special" menu.
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm yo
Thursday, January 13, 2000, 12:38:05 PM, Allie wrote:
> Most windows based editors for these application types are quite basic and
> remarkably consistent in how they function.
[snip-o-rama]
[portion about all applications shipping robust editors]
> It would be *then*, that people would be shout
Thursday, January 13, 2000, 1:11:27 PM, Alex wrote:
SL>> ... Explain. Might you actually be doing some filtering on server side?
> Not really on server side, just between server and TB!.
Again, explain.
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
Thursday, January 13, 2000, 2:38:10 PM, Januk wrote:
> As many as are out there, until you find something that does *exactly*
> what you need. I installed heaps of software when I upgraded my
> computer, simply because I didn't know what would work best.
Exactly. More is better. Separate pa
Thursday, January 13, 2000, 2:48:18 PM, Allie wrote:
> I think the deviation from your more ideal
> paradigm is based on the fact that most windows based editors don't
> provide advanced e-mail type editing functions especially with respect to
> quoting. Also, an integrated editor, perhaps wo
Friday, January 14, 2000, 12:40:39 AM, Allie wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2000 19:19:07 -0800, Januk Aggarwal wrote:
>> To some degree you are most certainly correct, but I think it depends
>> on the task. For example, if the only time you ever do any ASCII
>> text editing is for e-mail
> Aaah
Friday, January 14, 2000, 2:51:45 AM, Allie wrote:
> requirements of computing would be to furnish oneself with a decent ASCII
> editor that may be used with all these application types. Perhaps, windows
> would come packaged with an ASCII editor better than notepad. :))
I think you hit upon
Friday, January 14, 2000, 6:12:07 AM, Marck wrote:
CJT>> But Claudius, [snip] ...
> Whoa Neddy!
I thought it was "Nelly"? :/
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
---
Friday, January 14, 2000, 8:17:33 AM, Clemens wrote:
> nono, cause the whole mail size of this directory was TO big. And I
> don't think you can comrpess 55MB to 340K ^^ and 54 mails each about
> 2-20K can never need 55MB!!
Was it the inbox? You are aware that any message you ever got and
fi
Friday, January 14, 2000, 2:33:18 AM, Oleg wrote:
> Editing has.
Nope. One does not need to edit mail to send/received/file/sort/kill
mail. Before anyone gets any ideas about "send", bounce (er, redirect, damned
non-standard terminology) a message to someone. Whoa, ya just sent a message
w
Friday, January 14, 2000, 9:37:13 AM, Marck wrote:
> over the pond and distorted into "Whoa Nellie", made memorable by
> Earthworm Jim et al.
Earthworm Jim? You mistake me for someone young there, fella. I remember
that phrase long before that video game character.
--
Steve
Is there ever a changelog to go with the beta versions?
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
---+-
Friday, January 14, 2000, 11:41:50 AM, Allie wrote:
> Nope. With each new beta there is usually an announcement of it's
> release and what enhancements/fixes are included.
On the beta list. Kinda hard to convince people to look at it if they
don't see what is new that they might want to
Friday, January 14, 2000, 11:55:34 AM, Allie wrote:
> Uhm, yes. On the beta list. I guess that they must be thinking that if
> you're interested in beta testing, it's natural to join the beta list
> where testing may be discussed. :0
Right, but why join if you're not going to test? Why t
Friday, January 14, 2000, 1:35:54 PM, Andrew wrote:
> Oh, Steve. I don't believe my eyes - you propose to implement a
> prompt?! :) So that the program asks one more silly question each time
> I reply...
Of course. How many times have I said the program shouldn't assume?
Wouldn't it be an as
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Friday, January 14, 2000, 2:06:18 PM, Nick wrote:
> But is really wrong to assume you want to reply to the Reply to:
> address unless you specify differently?
IMHO, yes. I can play a LOT of fun games with you with reply-tos. Since
most people d
Friday, January 14, 2000, 2:35:00 PM, Nick wrote:
> Okay, I don't know who you are or what you did with Steve but you have
> about 10 minutes to get out of there before I call the police!!!
Hey, I signed that one bucko. :P
> Are you advocating a feature to help out newbies at the cost of po
Friday, January 14, 2000, 2:35:00 PM, Nick wrote:
> peek and make sure it right. The newbies can do this while checking to
> make sure the subject is filled in. ;)
BTW, just wanted to add that this isn't as easy as it seems. I mean, at a
glace, who is this message being sent to? Nick Danger
t. You hit reply, not knowing that there is a reply-to
and now your message is going to Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I
Friday, January 14, 2000, 3:49:57 PM, Allie wrote:
>A toolbar button perhaps? :) I use this feature a lot more than reply
> to all and yet it's deep within a menu if you wish to invoke it with a
> mouse.
Personally I like the drop down buttons like on the send/check mail
buttons. I'm not
Friday, January 14, 2000, 4:24:41 PM, Allie wrote:
> Can't sentence the user to a perennial popup confirmation to deal with
> possible exceptions to an overwhelming rule. Isn't that taking your never
> assume philosophy a bit too far . to the point where you're shooting
> yourself in the foot?
Friday, January 14, 2000, 5:07:15 PM, Allie wrote:
> Well, technically, if I were to go along with you, the editor should
> not place anything in the header of replies because one, it's assuming
> that you wish to use the reply to address (duh) and two, it's wrongfully
> assuming that you'll w
Friday, January 14, 2000, 6:39:05 PM, Jast wrote:
> A checkbox option that should be a macro...
> I think *all* message-specific options should be macros because this
> allows for better automation per template-file-inclusion - you won't
> have to go through a dozen folder checkbox options and
Friday, January 14, 2000, 7:17:54 PM, Thomas wrote:
> How about following conventions in the mailing culture being the
> reason why? ;-) Here is what I mean (and I am not as good in wording
> as you are):
Doing so would dictate that the Reply-to is not set 1/2 the time. :P
> 1.) Reply-to me
Saturday, January 15, 2000, 1:58:51 AM, Oleg wrote:
> At least I have need in preview when killing mail. The preview in TB! is
> based on the editor. Or should there be external message viewer also?
It isn't based on the editor. It is the other way around. The preview is
just a viewing obje
Saturday, January 15, 2000, 3:51:02 AM, Oleg wrote:
> That is almost exactly what I mean all this time. Just one more point. Steve
> states that if there will bie an option of using an external editor RitLabs
> will have more time to concentrate on mail-oriented features of TB! I still
> think tha
Saturday, January 15, 2000, 7:57:02 AM, Allie wrote:
> Just out of curiosity, I had a look around and cannot seem to find an
> editor that will work as well as TB!'s with respect to formatting and
> reflowing *quoted* text. Boxer 99 comes very close and of course is
> superior at formatting un
Saturday, January 15, 2000, 8:06:40 AM, Allie wrote:
> Yes, this different slant that different editors tend to be better at
> editing for different tasks, tends deviate from the strength in Steve's
> point. A single editor ideal for *all* tasks is a less likely scenario than
> a single editor for
Monday, January 17, 2000, 1:04:03 AM, Allie wrote:
> Move your eyes up to the To: field and verify the address before
> sending (that's if either address mean anything to you in the first
> place). Problem solved. :))))
Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
We've g
Monday, January 17, 2000, 1:04:22 AM, Thomas wrote:
> But this is exactly the point: I should reply to the list, that's why
> the list server replaces you original reply-to with the list address.
Uhm, no. *YOU* should reply to the destination that is fitting the
content of the message at han
Monday, January 17, 2000, 1:04:50 AM, Jast wrote:
> This way you can easily see what *does* happen.
Assuming your entire template fits in the edit box, which they rarely, if
ever do. The problem here is that if something is a boolean in nature why
have %SINGLERE when you can have a checkbox
Monday, January 17, 2000, 2:14:25 AM, Jast wrote:
> Luckily TB editor will allow you to add selection on both ends of a
> selection block (with Shift+mouseclick where you want it) so you won't have
> to go the full procedure when you forgot a line...
Mouse & text editing. You have tentacles,
Monday, January 17, 2000, 6:52:51 AM, Oleg wrote:
> Really? They at least share the code for displaying message and cursor
> movement and search. Only editing itself disabled while viewing message.
Right. Considering the viewer is the lesser of the two objects, which do
you think is based on
Monday, January 17, 2000, 8:23:14 AM, Roel wrote:
> just a tip: don't trust dreamweaver for cross-browser scripting...
> it often uses way more code than necesarry or it just doesn't work...
*arched brow* Dreamweaver or FP2k. Hmmm, I think the choice is clear
that considering Dreamweaver do
On Tue, Jan 18, 2000 at 01:05:19AM +, Marck D. Pearlstone wrote:
> Might I humbly suggest you use TB as an e-mail
> client a while longer. The editor is one thing that suddenly leaps out as
> being very well suited to the job it does for the /type of
> information/ it works on
Monday, January 17, 2000, 7:34:11 PM, Thomas wrote:
> I also like them; but you can get rid of them by going into
> Account/Properties/Templates/Reply. You have six choices of how you
> want the quotes to be shown.
You have 6 choices on how you want the quotes to be shown...
...5 of whi
Monday, January 17, 2000, 8:52:12 PM, Jast wrote:
> - take hand off kb, grab for mouse (ca .5 sec, not much more than moving it
> to PgUp on the keyboard)
Move hand to PgUp
> - use scrollbar to move up 9 pages (usually faster than 9x PgUp, gets quicker
Monday, January 17, 2000, 10:18:28 PM, Januk wrote:
>> Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> We've gone over this, Allie. At first glance that is going to the right
>> place because of TB!'s broken behavior, configurable or not.
> Ok, but why would yo
ion I have ever seen. This
is emulating Eudora's /very/ broken behavior and causes problems in the long
run.
Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (by way of someschmuck "[EMAIL PROTECTED]")
(by way of fartknocker "[EMAIL PROTECTED]") (by way of knifewooble
"[EMAIL PROTE
Monday, January 17, 2000, 11:49:10 PM, Januk wrote:
> Of course now I can not reproduce the bug if I try.
>>From shouldn't be anything special, should it?
Yes, it is. Why the extra >? You're server is using the mailbox format
which uses "^From " as the marker between text (^ is regex for "
Tuesday, January 18, 2000, 1:02:28 AM, Oleg wrote:
> I don't need excellent editor for editing mail. I am quite happy with
> mediocre one. The main thing I want from it -- speed.
That is you. You're not me and, well, the other 6 billion people on this
planet.
--
Steve C. Lamb
Tuesday, January 18, 2000, 1:15:11 AM, Marck wrote:
> No - so that you can begin to understand the power of the virtual
> space for plain text formatting.
> With space cansome things.
> virtual you do interesting
> Without it - no possibility.
Tuesday, January 18, 2000, 1:41:55 AM, Oleg wrote:
> It is just my personal opinion said by the way that adding some kind of a
> hook for external editor to TB! will not save time to RITlabs to be more
> concentrated on mail-specific functions.
Then you haven't thought it through.
Add ho
Tuesday, January 18, 2000, 5:10:22 AM, Grant wrote:
> I'm a long time user of Agent, and have to admit that this is the
> first program to come along in _years_ that turned my head at all! I
> really like the functionality of the Bat. However, mail is probably
> only 1/4 of my needs. The other 3/4
Tuesday, January 18, 2000, 7:38:45 AM, Thomas wrote:
> Make a constructive suggestion. ;-)
I did. Encouraging broken behavior is not to be done, period. That is
broken behavior. By using it you cause problems. By not using it you don't
cause problems. That is constructive.
--
Tuesday, January 18, 2000, 8:41:17 AM, Alexander wrote:
> Won't you qualify yourself??? As a matter of fact, you sound like one from
> time to time;-)
Nono man, that's 3. Get it right. :P
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
ICQ: 5107343
Tuesday, January 18, 2000, 10:55:44 AM, Michael wrote:
> Does any of the experts here have an idea what's going on and what I can
> do about that? Shouldn't they also in Indonesia be aware of the new DNS
> data?
Depends on the expire time on the zone file. If it is set to a week with,
say,
Tuesday, January 18, 2000, 10:40:09 AM, Marck wrote:
> Of course the external editor option looks more attractive all the time.
OF course it does. You'd think with Unix folks building on pushing 30
years of computing experience they'd get a few things right. I still find it
amusing that a l
Tuesday, January 18, 2000, 1:17:45 PM, Roel wrote:
> all the 'crap' is removed :-) don't worry about it: it isn't there...
I can think of one that is there. One that they had to put a special case
in just for all of this foofie cursor play. ;)
TP>> I agree with Steve. If I put four spaces
Monday, January 17, 2000, 9:26:45 AM, Thomas wrote:
> Semantic difference. What I meant is the client default, of course.
Then say that. My client is TB!, not Thomas Fernandez. ;P
> I don't think so. Both are not regulated by the RFC's or whereever,
> and it is only common agreemens - conv
Tuesday, January 18, 2000, 1:16:58 PM, Grant wrote:
> No, not really.
Use Outlook, it does both. Agent does both, from what I hear. I'd much
rather prefer to keep this specialized client specialized since it is so
damned hard to find a good specialized client in this madness to include
ever
Tuesday, January 18, 2000, 3:40:33 PM, Tom wrote:
> ...that other programs prompt is not at issue.
If one is trying to argue based on convention alone, it is. What others
do is what dictates convention.
> What if the solution was to NOT prompt, but to offer an easy way to change
> to other
Tuesday, January 18, 2000, 4:44:18 PM, Gary wrote:
> taskbar, I would like the ability to right click on the TB! tab, while
Options / Minimize to Tray
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switc
Tuesday, January 18, 2000, 5:38:48 PM, Tom wrote:
> So, then, on the arguement that you cite and seem to support, what are
> your thoughts of adding NNTP support to The Bat!?
We've discussed it at length.
> Certainly that seems like a slightly larger proposition than a few
> checkboxes in th
Tuesday, January 18, 2000, 5:20:05 PM, Marck wrote:
SL>> *Steve then points out that in some editors that isn't needed
SL>> since it retains the column that the cursor was last in, even on
SL>> short lines, even if it positions the cursor on column 1 for the
SL>> one line between.* :)
>
Tuesday, January 18, 2000, 7:48:38 PM, Thomas wrote:
> As a programmer, I don't understand why you would not appreciate the
> virual space
Sure, space over to where I want, go up, add code in another block, drop
back down, spaces are gone. :)
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm you
Tuesday, January 18, 2000, 8:11:29 PM, Thomas wrote:
> No. Constructive means you have an idea what to "do", not what to "not
> do".
No. Constructive means pointing out when people are about to step off a
cliff and fall a great distance to very large and sharp rocks at the bottom..
IE, point
Tuesday, January 18, 2000, 9:15:28 PM, Syafril wrote:
> It is take 2 step :-(.
Uhm, no, it doesn't. I bounced this message to myself. X-Sender was set
to me. One step.
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
ICQ: 5107343 | main con
Tuesday, January 18, 2000, 10:22:56 PM, Allie wrote:
> Steve quite rightfully said that it's a bad idea. The message header could
> become filled with 'by way of's ... ' in a message repeatedly redirected.
Not could, does. At my work nearly everyone uses Eudora. We bounce
messages from comm
Tuesday, January 18, 2000, 10:46:30 PM, Thomas wrote:
> What's the standard: If redirecting, does the X-Sender have to stay
> intact? RFC#? In that case, Outlook is non-standard and this problem
> is not a TB problem. Otherwise, if - as Syafril wished - the X-Sender
> can be changed, there is no p
Tuesday, January 18, 2000, 11:14:54 PM, Oleg wrote:
> Ïîæèâåì -- óâèäèì. We'll live -- we'll see. Real life is not always
> what a child of 5 will grasp. I have strong doubts that this ideal
> scheme is implementable in real life.
No, it isn't. But then considering the concept, this i
1 - 100 of 973 matches
Mail list logo
