Charles Boling said: >>Actually, this is something I don't see. Some are capable of doing it on >>user request, though, >>like Mozilla. If they do they will not produce the seesaw pattern but will >>reflow quoted >>paragraphs.
See, this looks horrible. And this pattern is unlike everything I see from decent readers (note that OE does worse, by not even putting quoting symbols in front of the short wrapped line endings). > "Standard" email has forced line breaks. I don't see that except for Microsoft. > Some [earlier] clients couldn't > wrap long lines when reading, Actually already in the very early ninetees my reader on an IBM mainframe could. So this is really too long ago. I agree that this has been an issue and it is a good idea to try to keep lines shorter than typical terminal widths, though. The worst which will happen there is a seesaw pattern when reading (because the lines are longer then terminal width), but producing the pattern in the first place doesn't make it better; it makes it worse for everybody else. > some mail transfer methods dropped data > longer than 80 bytes, etc. That is something I have never seen in over ten years. > A nice way to keep from breaking lines was/is > to wrap original messages at, say, 72 characters. Absolutely, but the question here is what to do with received lines. > That gave you extra room > so that when quoting messages, you could increase your breakpoint to, say, > 74, 76, 78 so that the ">" marks didn't orphan pieces of each line. The problem is next time. Wherever I move my breakpoint, next time my reply on the receiver's reply will probably be longer. Having different breakpoints for new text and quoted texts (where the latter is later, best 998 or longer if possible like with quoted-printable) solves this problem. > Most modern email clients handle various methods of encoding, such as > quoted-printable, that allow things to work more like a processor, where a > paragraph is essentially put back together into one big line and then > reflowed for viewing convenience. Yes, but my observation with uncountable people is that the preffered way is to don't have those long lines which could -- in theory -- be handled nicely, but paragraphs in the form I write now, i.e., with hard line wrapping. And almost all people not using broken MS software will keep those as the are or completely rewrap them, so they still look like paragraphs and don't have this seesaw pattern. > I know Outlook Express can do this > without having to use RTF -- it's all a matter of > configuration. Actually, to not destroy quotes in OE you will have to set some very long line lenght (about 130something which is the max), but then you will have wrap your lines by hand, else all your lines have that length which is too long for single lines to read, but too short for complete paragraphs. pi ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools! Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click -- squirrelmail-users mailing list List Address: [EMAIL PROTECTED] List Archives: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_id=2995 List Info: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/squirrelmail-users
