We did? I agree RC has its problems, but if half the tested clients,
plus gmail show it normally, the problem then lies on both sides, since
as my tests how, its not a problem for any clinet I have locally, nor
with the people I regularly converse with anyway, and THAT is all that
matters to me.
Nick,
BOTH Noel and I have agreed that it is NOT the client. You can think it
comes down to what client someone uses all you want. That isn't going
to make it true.
You obviously haven't read the explanation very carefully.
Ted
On 12/8/2014 2:26 AM, Nick Edwards wrote:
I cant see what th
I cant see what the fuss is about, using gmail, your text is all about
the same size, except when Noel says he changed to 12pt, then it looks
larger than everyone else's, including jdow's.
I think it comes down to what client you're using, and its fine by my
reckoning, and it also word wraps fine
Eh? I'm not young, unfortunately, although I'll take it as a compliment.
I don't really care if Noel uses Roundcube or not, but it was irritating
when he was asserting a few days ago that it "wasn't his MUA's problem"
when it clearly WAS his MUA's problem.
After several others chimed in tel
That didn't pan out, the svn version has serious bugs, so stuck with old
1.0.3 , shouldnt be so bad since I rarely post in here anyway :)
On 06/12/2014 14:07, Noel Butler wrote:
> No problems Jo, I might give its svn version a go, but as its the weekend I'm
> about to jet off for a couple d
Yeah, this is a few nibblies with this current version, how it made it
past beta I'll never know
On 06/12/2014 13:28, jdow wrote:
> I'll break it down - it may be a little smaller in appearance. It's on the
> edge. The prior settings worked nicer.
>
> This one declares a body style='font-s
No problems Jo, I might give its svn version a go, but as its the
weekend I'm about to jet off for a couple days, will try it monday, and
12pt as large? LOL, maybe thats why RC defaults to 10pt as average :)
Cheers
On 06/12/2014 13:21, jdow wrote:
> Hm, it renders much more readable. I nor
I'll break it down - it may be a little smaller in appearance. It's on the edge.
The prior settings worked nicer.
This one declares a body style='font-size: 10pt'. Then for each paragraph it
declares span style=3D"font-size: small;".
It sounds like Roundfile or whatever it was (can't remember
Hm, it renders much more readable. I normally default reading to about 12 to 14
point fonts. The 10 point was getting down to a size that some letters were
becoming ambiguous, which seriously slows down reading.
Thanks for trying.
As a side note I see that the plain text of mine you quoted is
Since this appears recent, I wonder if its a rc 1.0.3 issue..
again, manually setting to this 12pt, yet looks same as what people see
as 10pt
On 06/12/2014 02:03, John Hardin wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Dec 2014, Noel Butler wrote:
>
>> pffft I see no problem,
>
>
>
> pffft
Ted is always impolite, but he's right that the current roundcube editor
is shocking, in many ways (but not teh way mentioned here) and a few
people have brought this up, I understand my gripes are fixed, I'll soon
know in a week or two. It is rare that I post in here anyway, I've
posted more in
On 06/12/2014 01:56, Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 05.12.2014 um 16:47 schrieb Mike Grau:
> On 12/05/2014 09:38 AM, Noel Butler wrote: pffft I see no problem, as like
> most developers if you cant reproduce it, then its nothing to bother about,
> after all this time 2 ppl dont like a font or wha
John Hardin skrev den 2014-12-05 17:03:
On Sat, 6 Dec 2014, Noel Butler wrote:
pffft
turn html off is hard, admit its time for santa so possible write some
with red colors, kids garden :)
On 2014-12-05 12:32, jdow wrote:
On 2014-12-05 07:56, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 05.12.2014 um 16:47 schrieb Mike Grau:
On 12/05/2014 09:38 AM, Noel Butler wrote:
pffft
I see no problem, as like most developers if you cant reproduce it, then
its nothing to bother about, after all this time 2 pp
On 2014-12-05 07:56, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 05.12.2014 um 16:47 schrieb Mike Grau:
On 12/05/2014 09:38 AM, Noel Butler wrote:
pffft
I see no problem, as like most developers if you cant reproduce it, then
its nothing to bother about, after all this time 2 ppl dont like a font
or whatever, yo
Ted was remarkably impolite the way he phrased it. BUT, I will say as a
practical matter microprint emails do get rather short shrift from me when
scanning through message threads. I seldom dig in here of late. But I do scan
through the messages which look interesting and sometimes offer such ad
Charmingly polite again, eh Ted? Surely you can do better, young man.
{+_+}
On 2014-12-05 01:46, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
The problem is Roundcube. It does not insert soft line breaks
as per the MIME Quoted-Printable encoding. There's a lot of
MIME stuff that Roundcube doesn't do very well,
On Fri, 5 Dec 2014 at 12:30 -0500, David F. Skoll wrote:
=>On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 12:15:10 -0500 (EST)
=>Derek Diget wrote:
=>
=>> Been a long time since I dug into MIME details and MUA display
=>> formating, but don't forget about "format=flowed" when it comes to
=>> Content-Type: Text/Plain and
On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 12:15:10 -0500 (EST)
Derek Diget wrote:
> Been a long time since I dug into MIME details and MUA display
> formating, but don't forget about "format=flowed" when it comes to
> Content-Type: Text/Plain and line wrapping. And/or,
> Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
On Dec 5, 2014 at 11:34 -0500, David F. Skoll wrote:
=>Since most mail clients that send HTML mail also send a text/plain part with
=>similar content, my filter looks for messages with the structure:
=>
=> multipart/alternative
=> text/plain
=> text/html
=>
=>and con
Since most mail clients that send HTML mail also send a text/plain part with
similar content, my filter looks for messages with the structure:
multipart/alternative
text/plain
text/html
and converts that little subtree to just:
text/plain
There is o
On Fri, 2014-12-05 at 09:47 -0600, Mike Grau wrote:
> On 12/05/2014 09:38 AM, Noel Butler wrote:
> > pffft
> >
> > I see no problem, as like most developers if you cant reproduce it, then
> > its nothing to bother about, after all this time 2 ppl dont like a font
> > or whatever, your pissing up t
On Sat, 6 Dec 2014, Noel Butler wrote:
pffft
I see no problem,
pffft
--
John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhar...@impsec.orgFALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhar...@impsec.org
key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
-
Am 05.12.2014 um 16:47 schrieb Mike Grau:
On 12/05/2014 09:38 AM, Noel Butler wrote:
pffft
I see no problem, as like most developers if you cant reproduce it, then
its nothing to bother about, after all this time 2 ppl dont like a font
or whatever, your pissing up the wrong tree if you think I
On 12/05/2014 09:38 AM, Noel Butler wrote:
> pffft
>
> I see no problem, as like most developers if you cant reproduce it, then
> its nothing to bother about, after all this time 2 ppl dont like a font
> or whatever, your pissing up the wrong tree if you think I have a care
> factor about changing
pffft
I see no problem, as like most developers if you cant reproduce it, then
its nothing to bother about, after all this time 2 ppl dont like a font
or whatever, your pissing up the wrong tree if you think I have a care
factor about changing things when i cant reproduce it. time to move
alon
The problem is Roundcube. It does not insert soft line breaks
as per the MIME Quoted-Printable encoding. There's a lot of
MIME stuff that Roundcube doesn't do very well, it's just not a very
good web mail interface. I'm always surprised at how vehemently
people defend it.
Many email client
On 05/12/2014 14:40, Dave Pooser wrote:
> On 12/4/14 10:27 PM, "Nick Edwards" wrote:
> It's also not wrapping the text at all. it wraps fine here
Look at the last roundcube post, the one sent at 01:06 GMT. The line of
quoted text runs 273 columns without a linewrap.
What client are you usin
On 12/4/14 10:27 PM, "Nick Edwards" wrote:
>> It's also not wrapping the text at all.
> it wraps fine here
Look at the last roundcube post, the one sent at 01:06 GMT. The line of
quoted text runs 273 columns without a linewrap.
--
Dave Pooser
Cat-Herder-in-Chief, Pooserville.com
On 12/5/14, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
>
> On 12/4/2014 6:24 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
>> On Thu, 2014-12-04 at 20:22 -0600, Dave Pooser wrote:
>>> > strange, it indicates 12pt, and looks same size when returned on list
>>> > as
>>> >everyone elses, something must be a miss, hows this one? it's from
On 12/4/2014 6:24 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
On Thu, 2014-12-04 at 20:22 -0600, Dave Pooser wrote:
> strange, it indicates 12pt, and looks same size when returned on list as
>everyone elses, something must be a miss, hows this one? it's from
>evolution
That one looked significantly larger in my
On Thu, 2014-12-04 at 20:22 -0600, Dave Pooser wrote:
> > strange, it indicates 12pt, and looks same size when returned on list as
> >everyone elses, something must be a miss, hows this one? it's from
> >evolution
>
> That one looked significantly larger in my mail client (Outlook 2011 for
> Maci
> strange, it indicates 12pt, and looks same size when returned on list as
>everyone elses, something must be a miss, hows this one? it's from
>evolution
That one looked significantly larger in my mail client (Outlook 2011 for
Macintosh). Looking at source, your previous had 'font-size: 10pt' and
On Thu, 2014-12-04 at 17:45 -0800, jdow wrote:
> Clipped from the quoted message:
>
> body style=3D'font-size: 10pt'
>
> 12 pt would be better. Everybody else seems to come through with 12pt or
> larger
> font - or else plain text, which sane people prefer. (I may have to read HTML
> format.
On 2014-12-04 17:06, Noel Butler wrote:
On 05/12/2014 06:19, jdow wrote:
Speaking of footnotes, I don't have teeny tiny eyes for reading teeny tiny
print. Could you please use a slightly larger font? The world is not uniformly
made up of hairy chested (lose me right there) 20-40 year old (lo
On 05/12/2014 06:19, jdow wrote:
> Speaking of footnotes, I don't have teeny tiny eyes for reading teeny tiny
> print. Could you please use a slightly larger font? The world is not
> uniformly made up of hairy chested (lose me right there) 20-40 year old (lose
> me there, too) wunderkinds.
On 2014-12-04 13:29, Bob Proulx wrote:
jdow wrote:
footnotes:
Speaking of footnotes, I don't have teeny tiny eyes for reading teeny tiny
print. Could you please use a slightly larger font? The world is not
uniformly made up of hairy chested (lose me right there) 20-40 year old
(lose me there,
jdow wrote:
> >footnotes:
>
> Speaking of footnotes, I don't have teeny tiny eyes for reading teeny tiny
> print. Could you please use a slightly larger font? The world is not
> uniformly made up of hairy chested (lose me right there) 20-40 year old
> (lose me there, too) wunderkinds. Thank you in
On 2014-12-03 15:55, Noel Butler wrote:
On 04/12/2014 00:28, Greg Troxel wrote:
...
footnotes:
I use slackware, yes its releases come with latest versions of most things, and
updates move with upstreams due to slackwares philosophy and releases are
maintained for usually 5 or more years, but e
On 04/12/2014 00:28, Greg Troxel wrote:
> I am really boggled by people wanting to run LTS versions of code with
> old versions of tools and expecting to run newer versions of other
> things.
>
> More constructively, it's perfectly possible to build newer perl in a
> different prefix. Just be
On 12/3/2014 6:28 AM, Greg Troxel wrote:
I am really boggled by people wanting to run LTS versions of code with
old versions of tools and expecting to run newer versions of other
things.
Microsoft thinks like you do, that's why Internet Explorer 8 was the
last version of IE to run on Windo
I'm only expecting new rules sets to work, sir. I still run a lamentably antique
version of SA with my middle aged version of perl.
{o.o}
On 2014-12-03 06:28, Greg Troxel wrote:
I am really boggled by people wanting to run LTS versions of code with
old versions of tools and expecting to run n
Am 03.12.2014 um 15:28 schrieb Greg Troxel:
I am really boggled by people wanting to run LTS versions of code with
old versions of tools and expecting to run newer versions of other
things.
More constructively, it's perfectly possible to build newer perl in a
different prefix. Just because the
I am really boggled by people wanting to run LTS versions of code with
old versions of tools and expecting to run newer versions of other
things.
More constructively, it's perfectly possible to build newer perl in a
different prefix. Just because there's an old perl in the base system
doesn't me
44 matches
Mail list logo
