>> You don't look at any of the headers in any form before reading a
>> message?
SL> Look, no. Scan, yes.
Ok, I prefer to have them easily available *completely* rather than
*partly*. Difference in needs I suppose.
>> Am I correct in assuming that you don't ever care what the full To:
>> field is, if it's long?
SL> Oddly enough that rarely happens. The few times it does happen I have no
SL> problems showing the headers, er kludges.
Heh kludges. You mean like an X-header? ;)
anyway my original point was simply that showing all of the headers
was way more than I wanted, but I would like to be able to select the
headers that I want to see *in their entirety*. Perhaps TB! could
readily do line-wrapping on the headers I want to see...
>> Who says what parts are the body or not is just speaking about
>> preference anyway, but I would imagine that the commonly accepted
>> definition is "the stuff that's not the headers."
SL> Then that flies in the face of the word "attachments". As in these files
SL> are attached to the message. They are not the message, they are not the body,
SL> they are additions to it.
Ok while I get the point that they are somewhat arbitrarily arranged,
I wish to submit that many messages flying around the internet today
don't have any body-proper, unless the first text-based MIME "block"
is to be taken as the body...
SL> Operative part is "from most clients." Most clients do not allow the user
SL> to set which part comes first, last or anywhere in between.
Yep, that's why mail will always be the most powerful way to compose
messages. ;)
SL> Therefore your statement that having the attachment displayed "in
SL> the order they come in" is kinda pointless especially in counter
SL> to my statement that the attachment view should go on the bottom
SL> of the window, not the side.
Believe it or not, I am on your side. Tabs along the bottom would be
nice, but what would TB! do if it was a type that it couldn't deal
with? Or should it be an array of icons in a window like they are
now, except at the bottom? Either way, I really couldn't give a damn
because I get so few attachments (75% of which actually come from this
list). Not to mention, reading mail at 1600x1200 allows me a little
more screen space to devote to the message window. :)
>> Why, all of the sudden does "understanding MIME" mean we shouldn't
>> show the user something that actually does closely resemble what the
>> file looks like?
SL> Because there is no positional information of relevance. You show me a
SL> client that can do it in wide use (because I do know of one that does it) and
SL> you might have a case for displaying things in order. Fact is I can't think
SL> of one in wide enough use to justify it.
That most clients don't use it doesn't mean that it shouldn't be used.
Revolutions are started with baby steps. :)
SL> ...that skipping over icons is easier than just not having them there in the
SL> first place, especially when you claim to not care about them?
If there were a list of attachments like you describe, the course of
action would be the <Delete> key, and not the <Space> bar. :)
-tom!
--
Bah, ridiculous thing.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
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]>
--------------------------------------------------------------
You are subscribed as : [email protected]
