[Xmca-l] Re: Email Format Conventions
Huw Lloyd
huw.softdesigns@gmail.com
Sun Aug 17 19:19:28 PDT 2014
If you want to inspect the email contents you can look at their ASCII.
e.g. for gmail there is a "show original" option. The ASCII can contain
special codes to be interpreted by email clients etc.
I don't think the longsig directive is implemented on mailman (the server
xmca uses) but it can be.
Best,
Huw
On 18 August 2014 02:30, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
> So much for my theory!
> Your message, Huw, turned the coloured lines next to David Ki's message
> that I saw in my reply to him, into grey lines in your reply.
> So how do some messages end up with mixtures?
>
> andy
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>
>
> Huw Lloyd wrote:
>
>> Testing
>>
>> --LongSig
>>
>>
>> This test may be cut.
>>
>>
>> On 18 August 2014 01:57, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:
>> ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
>>
>> Or just sort your messages in subject/date order and read each
>> message in whatever order you like. ... except for people like Huw
>> who embed their replies. :)
>> But in any case, it is nothing to do with xmca.
>> Some messages put coloured lines on the left, some put grey lines
>> on the left and some put >s on the left. It is hard to tell by
>> looking, but I think it is the email client of the first responder
>> which formats the next layer of indenting, resulting in mixtures
>> of the 3 different modes in any given message on occasion.
>>
>> Andy
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> ------------
>> *Andy Blunden*
>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Huw Lloyd wrote:
>>
>> On 17 August 2014 19:20, David H Kirshner <dkirsh@lsu.edu
>> <mailto:dkirsh@lsu.edu>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> David,
>> Thanks for your insightful post.
>> In scrolling down below your message, to recover the
>> context, I was
>> faced--as all of us so often are--with the garbling effect
>> that comes from
>> use of the ">" program that separates out the various
>> generations of
>> response by inserting a new level of ">" for each new message.
>> That formatting option may serve a valuable function in
>> case two or more
>> authors are replying to each other with comments embedded
>> in the prior
>> text. But that kind of communicative format is not used
>> very frequently,
>> and even when it is, the line-break function of the
>> program tends to
>> fragment sentences to the point of incoherence (see below).
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi David,
>>
>> Actually embedded replies are used frequently and productively
>> in many
>> technical arenas!
>>
>>
>>
>> I suspect this format continues to be in popular use
>> because people who
>> use it feel a sense of comfort with the tradition of usage
>> that trumps
>> functionality concerns, or perhaps they just don't know
>> how to change
>> formats.
>> Are there other reasons?
>>
>>
>>
>> The email software conventions programmed into email clients
>> (applications)
>> indent the content of email that is replied to. Overriding
>> this by not
>> indenting old text would be unusual.
>>
>> Text formats etc are usually filterable by the mail server.
>> Additionally
>> the mail server can also perform simple functions such as
>> cutting all text
>> below a specially marked piece of text (e.g:
>> http://www.redmine.org/issues/4409) to help prevent very long
>> trailing
>> messages.
>>
>> Best,
>> Huw
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list