[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bad mailer Subject meddling (was: links in Help buffer aren't always cor
From: |
Drew Adams |
Subject: |
bad mailer Subject meddling (was: links in Help buffer aren't always correct) |
Date: |
Thu, 15 Dec 2005 07:39:25 -0800 |
-----Original Message-----
Subject: Re: address@hidden: links in Help
bufferaren'talwayscorrect]
Drew, could you please do something about your #$%^&* mailer? Look how
it butchers the Subject lines when it thinks they are too long: it
removes whitespace and splices words, which makes it a pain to read
and use "C-c C-n" in Rmail.
Sorry, I don't know how to fix that in Outlook. I use Outlook 2000, for
various reasons related to work. It's old, but still a very common (the most
common?) email client in use. I don't defend it, but it's the one I use.
If it produces brain-dead subject lines, but it is a very common mailer,
maybe Rmail's C-c C-n could somehow deal with it by adding extra
intelligence to handle the retarded output ;-)? No flames please - I don't
even know what C-c C-n does, and I'm not proposing that good, free programs
bend to the idiosyncrasies of bad MS products. I can also try to remember
to edit the Subject line, to shorten it - but that will mess up sorting
messages by Subject. Another alternative is, sad to say, using the Delete
key on posts from Drew.
Another problem I noticed with Outlook, BTW, is that even if I set the
format explicitly to "plain text", when I reply to a Unicode post the result
appears formatted. In that case, at least, I found a workaround (provided I
notice it in time): explicitly change the encoding of the message from
Unicode.
On a related subject: Unlike the posts to emacs-devel, bug reports get the
original sender's email address (e.g. "address@hidden") prepended
to the subject line, as in this one (but I removed that). That makes the
subject much longer (m u c h longer, in some cases). Is that "feature"
really necessary or a good idea?
- RE: address@hidden: links in Help buffer aren't alwayscorrect], (continued)
- RE: address@hidden: links in Help buffer aren't alwayscorrect], Drew Adams, 2005/12/13
- Re: address@hidden: links in Help buffer aren't alwayscorrect], Kevin Rodgers, 2005/12/13
- Re: address@hidden: links in Help buffer aren't alwayscorrect], Kevin Rodgers, 2005/12/14
- Re: address@hidden: links in Help buffer aren't alwayscorrect], Richard M. Stallman, 2005/12/14
- RE: address@hidden: links in Help buffer aren'talwayscorrect], Drew Adams, 2005/12/14
- Re: address@hidden: links in Help buffer aren'talwayscorrect], Kevin Rodgers, 2005/12/14
- RE: address@hidden: links in Help bufferaren'talwayscorrect], Drew Adams, 2005/12/14
- Re: address@hidden: links in Help buffer aren'talwayscorrect], Stefan Monnier, 2005/12/14
- Re: address@hidden: links in Help buffer aren'talwayscorrect], Richard M. Stallman, 2005/12/15
- Re: address@hidden: links in Help buffer aren'talwayscorrect], Eli Zaretskii, 2005/12/14
- bad mailer Subject meddling (was: links in Help buffer aren't always correct),
Drew Adams <=
- Re: bad mailer Subject meddling (was: links in Help buffer aren't always correct), Alfred M\. Szmidt, 2005/12/15
- Re: bad mailer Subject meddling (was: links in Help buffer aren't always correct), Richard M. Stallman, 2005/12/16
- Re: bad mailer Subject meddling (was: links in Help buffer aren't always correct), Eli Zaretskii, 2005/12/16
- Re: bad mailer Subject meddling (was: links in Help buffer aren't always correct), Eli Zaretskii, 2005/12/15
- Re: address@hidden: links in Help buffer aren'talwayscorrect], Richard M. Stallman, 2005/12/15
- Re: address@hidden: links in Help buffer aren'talwayscorrect], Kevin Rodgers, 2005/12/16