Am 19.03.2013 09:23, schrieb A.L.E.C:
On 03/19/2013 12:35 AM, Michael Heydekamp wrote:
So something has been fixed in step #2, although there was nothing to fix,
because everything was correct already (but isn't now correct anymore). The
correct fix should take place in step #4 (forwarding a
Am 19.03.2013 20:08, schrieb Michael Heydekamp:
Let's see and count (I'm preceding the next line with a quote char just to
prevent any wrapping of this count line):
34567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Am 19.03.2013 20:22, schrieb Michael Heydekamp:
Now we take the original test again:
34567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456
xxxä x xxx x xxxäx xx x xx xx
xx. x x xx xx.xx. xx ,
Am 19.03.2013 20:26, schrieb Michael Heydekamp:
It worked again. Now I have to find out why and under wich circumstances it
didn't work yesterday. :-/
Stay tuned.
@alec:
After some more local tests, I must admit that even I can't reproduce the
issue anymore that I encountered last night
On 01/19/2013 07:00 PM, Michael Heydekamp wrote:
I believe this might be a simple counting problem: In step #2, RC is
counting characters only and inserts an LF after pos. 76. In step #4, RC
counts the already existing LF (which does not exist in step #2) as a
character. This needs to be
Am 18.03.2013 19:54, schrieb A.L.E.C:
On 01/19/2013 07:00 PM, Michael Heydekamp wrote:
I believe this might be a simple counting problem: In step #2, RC is
counting characters only and inserts an LF after pos. 76. In step #4, RC
counts the already existing LF (which does not exist in step #2)
Am 18.01.2013 20:29, schrieb Thomas Bruederli:
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 1:13 AM, Michael Heydekamp listu...@freexp.de
wrote:
The message quoted below sounds ridiculous, as both texts do look exacly
the same. The reason apparently is that I copied the first paragraph from
the original mail
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 1:13 AM, Michael Heydekamp listu...@freexp.de wrote:
Ok, we're coming closer...
The message quoted below sounds ridiculous, as both texts do look exacly
the same. The reason apparently is that I copied the first paragraph from
the original mail being in the Sent
Am 18.01.2013 20:29, schrieb Thomas Bruederli:
However, I generally fail to understand and reproduce your problem.
Could you describe exactly what you did step by step?
I definitely will, but not tonight anymore. ;)
Cheers,
--
Michael Heydekamp
Co-Admin freexp.de
Düsseldorf/Germany
On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 01:13:25 +0100, Michael Heydekamp
listu...@freexp.de wrote:
xxxä x xxx x xxxäx xx x xx xx
xx. x x xx xx.xx. xx , xx xxx
xx xxx xxßxx, x xxx xx xxx xxx
When I'm sending a plain text message (8bit-chars intentionally unchanged,
as this might probably play a role, although unlikely in this particular
case)...
xxxä x xxx x xxxäx xx x xx
Ok, we're coming closer...
The message quoted below sounds ridiculous, as both texts do look exacly
the same. The reason apparently is that I copied the first paragraph from
the original mail being in the Sent folder, where the lines were wrapped
already after pos. #76 (so each line had an LF at
12 matches
Mail list logo
