Joe Zeff posted on Fri, 23 Mar 2012 10:31:25 -0700 as excerpted:
> On 03/23/2012 04:47 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>
>> Speak for yourself. My business doesn't file in reverse chronological
>> order, nor have any of the companies I have worked for.
>>
>>
> You mean that when you file something you
Rui Maciel posted on Fri, 23 Mar 2012 16:46:08 + as excerpted:
>> does not change the fact that the *vast* majority of people (especially
>> in offices) use Outlook, and top-post and get by just fine.
>
> Outlook does not enforce top-posting. The cursor in the text edit box
> may be placed b
On Mar 23, 2012, at 12:34 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
> On 03/23/2012 04:47 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> I have written to companies many times, and not once have they
>> photocopied my letter and stapled it to the back of their answer (the
>> equivalent of top-posting). And I would certainly never expe
On 03/23/2012 04:47 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
I have written to companies many times, and not once have they
photocopied my letter and stapled it to the back of their answer (the
equivalent of top-posting). And I would certainly never expect to
receive a copy of the *entire* file attached to the
On 03/23/2012 04:47 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Speak for yourself. My business doesn't file in reverse chronological
order, nor have any of the companies I have worked for.
You mean that when you file something you always put it at the back of
the folder? You don't put the newest things in
On 03/23/2012 04:42 AM, Rui Maciel wrote:
I don't find it reasonable at all.
Neither do I, but then, neither of us works in that type of environment.
Like it or not, millions of people do and are accustomed to seeing
things that way and for them, top posting is normal. No, I don't use it
w
On Mar 23, 2012, at 11:46 AM, Rui Maciel wrote:
>> does not change the fact that the
>> *vast* majority of people (especially in offices) use Outlook, and
>> top-post and get by just fine.
>
> Outlook does not enforce top-posting. The cursor in the text edit box may be
> placed by default at t
On 03/23/2012 01:29 PM, Ron Johnson wrote:
All this self-righteous moralizing
This problem has absolutely nothing to do with self-righteousness or
morals. It's simply and clearly an issue regarding effective and
efficient ways to handle written communication, nothing more, nothing
less. L
On 03/23/2012 06:49 AM, Rui Maciel wrote:
On 03/22/2012 09:00 AM, Ron Johnson wrote:
So true. While Tbird puts my cursor at the bottom of the window, more
and more I must manually move the cursor to the top because non-geeks
have been trained by Outlook and webmail to type at the top.
Do you
On Mar 23, 2012, at 6:47 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> The fact is that most of the time people don't even notice that, after the
> first paragraph or so of fresh text, is an ever-growing five or ten or twenty
> pages of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of every damn email
> in th
On 03/22/2012 09:00 AM, Ron Johnson wrote:
So true. While Tbird puts my cursor at the bottom of the window, more
and more I must manually move the cursor to the top because non-geeks
have been trained by Outlook and webmail to type at the top.
Do you also believe you must intentionally write
Joe Zeff wrote:
On 03/22/2012 08:06 PM, thufir wrote:
I'm sure it was just someone in a hurry, but it sure*seems*
like a deliberate choice to re-define a standard.
Actually, it's quite reasonable from the proper POV. In business,
everything is filed in reverse chronological order
Speak
On 03/23/2012 06:24 AM, Joe Zeff wrote:
Actually, it's quite reasonable from the proper POV. In business,
everything is filed in reverse chronological order and people become
accustomed to seeing things that way. Very large numbers of people use
Outlook every day for business correspondence, a
On Thu 22 Mar 2012 at 23:24:00 -0700, Joe Zeff wrote:
> Actually, it's quite reasonable from the proper POV. In business,
> everything is filed in reverse chronological order and people become
> accustomed to seeing things that way. Very large numbers of people
Except that top-posting isn't real
On 03/22/2012 08:06 PM, thufir wrote:
I'm sure it was just someone in a hurry, but it sure*seems*
like a deliberate choice to re-define a standard.
Actually, it's quite reasonable from the proper POV. In business,
everything is filed in reverse chronological order and people become
accusto
thufir posted on Fri, 23 Mar 2012 03:10:52 + as excerpted:
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 17:49:40 +, Duncan wrote:
>
>
>> I think pan would be really nice with something similar. Combine that
>> with the idea of inserting some sort of visible marker between text-
>> parts, thus eliminating /tha
On Mar 22, 2012, at 10:06 PM, thufir wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:08:27 -0500, David Kelly wrote:
>
>> Outlook is a disease where properly formatted replies are almost
>> impossible to create.
>
> I start to see evil MS conspiracies, except that I cannot fathom what the
> payoff is for MS t
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 05:02:25 +1100, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
[...]
> "aol"? You're showing your age. They long ago moved to Hotmail, and now
> Gmail. With a bit of luck, they'll all be twitting or on Facebook by
> this time next year, and will never send another email or news post
> again.
LOL. You
On 03/22/2012 10:06 PM, thufir wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:08:27 -0500, David Kelly wrote:
Outlook is a disease where properly formatted replies are almost
impossible to create.
I start to see evil MS conspiracies, except that I cannot fathom what the
payoff is for MS to turn everyone into
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 17:49:40 +, Duncan wrote:
> I think pan would be really nice with something similar. Combine that
> with the idea of inserting some sort of visible marker between text-
> parts, thus eliminating /that/ long-standing issue, and it should work
> quite well.
Huh. If I cou
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:08:27 -0500, David Kelly wrote:
> Outlook is a disease where properly formatted replies are almost
> impossible to create.
I start to see evil MS conspiracies, except that I cannot fathom what the
payoff is for MS to turn everyone into top posters. Destroy usenet or
som
Joe Zeff wrote:
On 03/22/2012 02:00 AM, Ron Johnson wrote:
So true. While Tbird puts my cursor at the bottom of the window, more
and more I must manually move the cursor to the top because non-geeks
have been trained by Outlook and webmail to type at the top.
Two comments: first, you can con
David Kelly wrote:
On Mar 22, 2012, at 12:35 PM, Duncan wrote:
Ron Johnson posted on Thu, 22 Mar 2012 04:00:37 -0500 as excerpted:
While Tbird puts my cursor at the bottom of the window, more
and more I must manually move the cursor to the top because non-geeks
have been trained by Outlook an
Ron Johnson wrote:
the vast unwashed masses just think we're a bunch of kooks and will
continue to top-post no matter how much we lecture them, because that's
how Outlook and web mail works.
No. It's because they are lazy and stupid when it comes to email (no matter
what their other virtues
On Mar 22, 2012, at 2:53 PM, Ron Johnson wrote:
> Yes, yes, yes, I *completely* agree. Which is why I'm bottom-posting.
That's not really ideal either.
> There are *lots* of "should be" circumstances in this world. However, the
> vast unwashed masses just think we're a bunch of kooks and wil
On 03/22/2012 01:08 PM, David Kelly wrote:
On Mar 22, 2012, at 12:35 PM, Duncan wrote:
Ron Johnson posted on Thu, 22 Mar 2012 04:00:37 -0500 as excerpted:
While Tbird puts my cursor at the bottom of the window, more
and more I must manually move the cursor to the top because non-geeks
have b
On 03/22/2012 02:00 AM, Ron Johnson wrote:
So true. While Tbird puts my cursor at the bottom of the window, more
and more I must manually move the cursor to the top because non-geeks
have been trained by Outlook and webmail to type at the top.
Two comments: first, you can configure Tbird for
On Mar 22, 2012, at 12:35 PM, Duncan wrote:
> Ron Johnson posted on Thu, 22 Mar 2012 04:00:37 -0500 as excerpted:
>
>> While Tbird puts my cursor at the bottom of the window, more
>> and more I must manually move the cursor to the top because non-geeks
>> have been trained by Outlook and webmail
thufir wrote:
On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 11:34:44 +1100, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
The bug you refer to was probably that pan didn't display text/html
mimetype blocks even as plain text, in the buggy versions. It probably
treated those mime parts as attachments, instead.
That is not bug, it is a featu
thufir posted on Thu, 22 Mar 2012 08:54:04 + as excerpted:
> Gwene is a variation of this situation, which is evolving. It's
> basically required to parse those with HTML as they are RSS feeds. I
> know, I know. I *like* and prefer plain text, but the world marches on.
Whew! I hadn't seen
Ron Johnson posted on Thu, 22 Mar 2012 04:00:37 -0500 as excerpted:
> While Tbird puts my cursor at the bottom of the window, more
> and more I must manually move the cursor to the top because non-geeks
> have been trained by Outlook and webmail to type at the top.
If I'm replying, my reply goes
On 03/22/2012 03:54 AM, thufir wrote:
On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 11:34:44 +1100, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
The bug you refer to was probably that pan didn't display text/html
mimetype blocks even as plain text, in the buggy versions. It probably
treated those mime parts as attachments, instead.
That i
On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 11:34:44 +1100, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> The bug you refer to was probably that pan didn't display text/html
>> mimetype blocks even as plain text, in the buggy versions. It probably
>> treated those mime parts as attachments, instead.
>
> That is not bug, it is a feature.
On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 03:41:36 +, Duncan wrote:
> Another option that would fit in nicely with the first would be to add an
> open in browser option. The existing browser setting that's activated
> when a URL is clicked would be opened to display the html part in the
> tool already designed
Rhialto posted on Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:22:08 +0100 as excerpted:
> On Fri 10 Feb 2012 at 03:41:36 +, Duncan wrote:
>> the tool already designed to handle html in a secure and efficient way,
>> the browser.
>
> I know about "the browser", but what is this "tool already designed to
> handle html
Steven D'Aprano posted on Fri, 10 Feb 2012 17:33:08 +1100 as excerpted:
> Duncan wrote:
>> Rui Maciel posted on Thu, 09 Feb 2012 13:07:01 + as excerpted:
>>
>>> On 02/09/2012 12:34 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
I really don't understand the choice of displaying HTML attachments
in-line
On Fri 10 Feb 2012 at 03:41:36 +, Duncan wrote:
> the tool already designed to handle html in a secure and efficient
> way, the browser.
I know about "the browser", but what is this "tool already designed to
handle html in a secure and efficient way"?
:^)
-Olaf.
--
___ Olaf 'Rhialto' Seibert
Duncan wrote:
Rui Maciel posted on Thu, 09 Feb 2012 13:07:01 + as excerpted:
On 02/09/2012 12:34 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
I really don't understand the choice of displaying HTML attachments
in-line as raw text. It seems to be saying "Screw you, I dislike HTML
posts and so will deliberate
Rui Maciel posted on Thu, 09 Feb 2012 13:07:01 + as excerpted:
> On 02/09/2012 12:34 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>
>> I really don't understand the choice of displaying HTML attachments
>> in-line as raw text. It seems to be saying "Screw you, I dislike HTML
>> posts and so will deliberately m
On 02/09/2012 12:14 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 02/09/2012 09:32 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Between Outlook, Hotmail, Lotus Notes, and Gmail, good email practice is
vanishing.
And let's not forget Android. I have a Nook Tablet that does email. Not
only is it hard coded to do top posting, you can't
On 02/09/2012 10:33 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
And yet you didn't return this faulty product for a refund and buy a
better tablet.
*Shrug!* Sending email from my tablet is a minor convenience for me,
especially as I tend to use it in places where there's no WiFi when I'm
away from home.
Joe Zeff wrote:
On 02/09/2012 09:32 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Between Outlook, Hotmail, Lotus Notes, and Gmail, good email practice is
vanishing.
And let's not forget Android. I have a Nook Tablet that does email. Not
only is it hard coded to do top posting, you can't move the cursor down
On 02/09/2012 09:32 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Between Outlook, Hotmail, Lotus Notes, and Gmail, good email practice is
vanishing.
And let's not forget Android. I have a Nook Tablet that does email.
Not only is it hard coded to do top posting, you can't move the cursor
down to the bottom whe
Joe Zeff wrote:
On 02/09/2012 08:06 AM, Rui Maciel wrote:
Ok, then. Pick your mailing list.
I'm on several mailing lists, including one for Scribus. The list
software is set not to send html, but it does tell you that html has
been scrubbed. (When some ID10T sends *both* text and html, we
On 02/09/2012 08:06 AM, Rui Maciel wrote:
Ok, then. Pick your mailing list.
I'm on several mailing lists, including one for Scribus. The list
software is set not to send html, but it does tell you that html has
been scrubbed. (When some ID10T sends *both* text and html, we see the
text, an
Rui Maciel wrote:
On 02/09/2012 01:47 PM, Ron Johnson wrote:
The war against bad netiquette in mail and newsgroups, of course.
I don't see that "war" as having been lost. Bottom-posting is still the
norm and HTML isn't used a lot (rarely, if all) in emails and it is
non-existent in Usenet
On 02/09/2012 10:06 AM, Rui Maciel wrote:
On 02/09/2012 04:02 PM, Ron Johnson wrote:
This list is a tiny fraction of a drop in a very large ocean.
Ok, then. Pick your mailing list.
Mailing lists are read (not counting nntp-gateways) using *mail* apps.
Most mail I receive is (sadly) html-fo
On 02/09/2012 04:02 PM, Ron Johnson wrote:
This list is a tiny fraction of a drop in a very large ocean.
Ok, then. Pick your mailing list.
Rui Maciel
___
Pan-users mailing list
Pan-users@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/pan-use
On 02/09/2012 09:54 AM, Rui Maciel wrote:
On 02/09/2012 02:49 PM, Ron Johnson wrote:
and HTML isn't used a lot (rarely, if all) in emails
Yeah... no.
How many HTML emails have been sent to this mailing list? Feel free to
comb through the archives.
This list is a tiny fraction of a drop
On 02/09/2012 02:49 PM, Ron Johnson wrote:
and HTML isn't used a lot (rarely, if all) in emails
Yeah... no.
How many HTML emails have been sent to this mailing list? Feel free to
comb through the archives.
Rui Maciel
___
Pan-users mail
On 02/09/2012 08:28 AM, Rui Maciel wrote:
On 02/09/2012 01:47 PM, Ron Johnson wrote:
The war against bad netiquette in mail and newsgroups, of course.
I don't see that "war" as having been lost. Bottom-posting is still the
norm
Uh-huh.
and HTML isn't used a lot (rarely, if all) in em
On 02/09/2012 01:47 PM, Ron Johnson wrote:
The war against bad netiquette in mail and newsgroups, of course.
I don't see that "war" as having been lost. Bottom-posting is still the
norm and HTML isn't used a lot (rarely, if all) in emails and it is
non-existent in Usenet.
Rui Maciel
__
On 02/09/2012 07:34 AM, Rui Maciel wrote:
On 02/09/2012 01:24 PM, Ron Johnson wrote:
Christ on a stick, people! That war was lost as soon as Windows users
with Outlook Express invaded the Intarweb, and *over* when gmail
defaulted to top-posting and and html formatting.
What war are you talkin
On 02/09/2012 01:24 PM, Ron Johnson wrote:
Christ on a stick, people! That war was lost as soon as Windows users
with Outlook Express invaded the Intarweb, and *over* when gmail
defaulted to top-posting and and html formatting.
What war are you talking about?
Rui Maciel
On 02/09/2012 07:07 AM, Rui Maciel wrote:
On 02/09/2012 12:34 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
I really don't understand the choice of displaying HTML attachments
in-line as raw text. It seems to be saying "Screw you, I dislike HTML
posts and so will deliberately make them as obnoxious and annoying a
On 02/09/2012 12:34 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
I really don't understand the choice of displaying HTML attachments
in-line as raw text. It seems to be saying "Screw you, I dislike HTML
posts and so will deliberately make them as obnoxious and annoying as
possible in the hope that Microsoft, G
Am 09.02.2012 05:37, schrieb Duncan:
Steven D'Aprano posted on Thu, 09 Feb 2012 11:34:44 +1100 as excerpted:
There's no good excuse for running multiple text-like attachments
together in the body pane as if they were all part of one document,
particularly when those attachments are only nominal
Steven D'Aprano posted on Thu, 09 Feb 2012 11:34:44 +1100 as excerpted:
> There's no good excuse for running multiple text-like attachments
> together in the body pane as if they were all part of one document,
> particularly when those attachments are only nominally text like HTML.
I will agree w
Duncan wrote:
Maurice Batey posted on Wed, 08 Feb 2012 12:34:12 + as excerpted:
On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 11:20:29 +, Maurice Batey wrote:
Is there a 'read HTML' facilty in old Pan?
Google Groups shows there was a bug (78723) that was fixed in
Pan 0.12.0 so that HTML would be shown correct
On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:00:49 +, Duncan wrote:
> Pan neither new nor old parses HTML. It simply displays it as "raw"
> plain text, html tags and all.
Ah, well - thanks, Duncan.
The odd thing is that the previous recent posting from the same person was in
plain text, not HTML.
--
/\/\aur
Maurice Batey posted on Wed, 08 Feb 2012 12:34:12 + as excerpted:
> On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 11:20:29 +, Maurice Batey wrote:
>
>> Is there a 'read HTML' facilty in old Pan?
>
> Google Groups shows there was a bug (78723) that was fixed in
> Pan 0.12.0 so that HTML would be shown correctly.
>
On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 11:20:29 +, Maurice Batey wrote:
> Is there a 'read HTML' facilty in old Pan?
Google Groups shows there was a bug (78723) that was fixed in Pan 0.12.0 so
that HTML would be shown correctly.
I'm using Pan 0.14.2.91. Perhaps the HTML text in the posting was invalid...
-
In a newsgroup thread I've been following I've been trying to read a posting in
HTML by someone who had hitherto been posting in plain text.
But I could not find a Pan facility for doing that, so had to copy/paste the
body into a temporary file and read that with Firefox...
Is there a 'read HTML
63 matches
Mail list logo
