On Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 03:30:25PM +0900, John De Hoog wrote:
> I tend to prefer the former approach, which is easy and more widely
> used.
The problem is that it makes the assumption that if text is marked then
you want to use it for a reply. That is not the only reason to mark text. A
lot of email that some people get have data in the email they use in other
windows and C&P to those windows. Automatic quoting of marked material is a
pain. Furthermore, aside from simple replies like this one, it is not good to
use since if quoting properly the individual should be quoting a little,
replying a little, quoting a little more and so on. IE, it isn't a single
block of text he is quoting.
If you really feel the need, mark, copy, reply with no quotes, paste as
quoted. Or have the original text option turned on and C&PaQ from that.
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team double click here:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--------------------------------------------------------------
