On Thu, 16 Jul 1998 07:39:49 +0100, Mary Hawking wrote:
>OK, Ahmed, if you want to keep this on GP-UK...
I just thought that others might benefit :-) If not, I'll take it off
the air.
>I was trying to separate everything by paragraphs - until a thread a
>while back deploring waste of bandwidth.. and it doesn't look like that
>when I send it!
A blank line does nothing to bandwidth. In fact, ascii text has
minute impact on bandwidth overhead.
>In Turnpike, the quoted text comes up in red, and the new material in
>black.. unless you stay on the same line, and "change the quoted text" -
>which I don't.
Not everybody uses Turnpike ;-)
It's all black on white to me. Try turning off the red colouring
(which you can do in settings) and you'll see what I mean :-)
>Is there a big difference in the way different mailing software displays
>messages received? If so, could you tell me which mailer chews up which
>other mailer's mesages?
Of course!
I can't answer your question about which is which. The advice is to
use bog standard, non-fancy, straight ascii text and most mailers
will
display it good and proper.
There are settings in each malier that individuals can adjust. For
example, turning off the dispaly of full headers (the kludges)
Some mailers can't even handle or properly display 8 bit encoding! To
be safe, I use 7 bit encoding which is OK for all mailers.
The question is really this: do you want your e-mail to be inclusive
or exclusive? A bit like web sites that exclude all browsers other
than 3rd or 4th generation.
There are a lot of older technologies around. They work for people and
that is fine :-)
>>Ahmad, forever your frie
>
>er .. could you complete that word?
"friend" :-)
Ahmad
________________________________________
Dr Ahmad Risk
http://mednetics.org
home: +44 1273 748198
work: +44 1737 240022
fax: +44 1737 244660
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|