On Sun, Jul 31, 2005 at 02:32:24PM +0200, Dallman Ross wrote:
On Sun, Jul 31, 2005 at 05:46:43PM +0530, Ligesh wrote:
If he replies I will post it here, so that it will turn up in
google for the next person does the search.
I have tonsillitis at the moment and don't have the energy to
continue the discussion about list netiquette and email formatting,
and it's rather OT anyway. But maybe someone else will pick up the
gauntlet. However -- and this is intended more as an observation
than a major flame, so please don't get too bent out of shape, but --
I note that you didn't include an attribution for the person you
quoted (Michelle Konzack, but I have elided her text here); and you
I think I was quoting myself and not Michelle. Anyway, I just press 'r', and
then remove some lines, so ideally mutt should have done the attribution part.
also emailed me instead of the list, previously. Not cardinal
sins, and mistakes happen, but all these things in concert lead
me to conclude that your list-posting skills may not be what you
think they are. Nearly endless line-lengths are not the way to
post to text lists. Here's your message I'm replying to as it
appears in the unexpiring "official" archive:
I have configured all my mailing lists to munge the 'Reply-To' header and add
the mailing list address there, so I always end up pressing just 'r'. I cannot
understand the logic behind the other way, since most often the person would
want to reply to the mailing list, rather than to the sender. I guess I have a
problem with rules and practices which doesn't make logical sense to me.
I have 42 mailboxes (My mailer is actually vim, which calls mutt individually
for each mailbox); I have configured both ezmlm, and mailman (In ezmlm, I just
forcibly add a 'reply-to: <mailing list>'; mailman has a configuration option
itself which will do it); Anyway, I have more than enough experience, though I
do get into "replying" debacle in mailing lists that are configured in that
fashion.
http://www.xray.mpe.mpg.de/mailing-lists/procmail/2005-07/msg00245.html
Do you think that looks all so readable?
Of course, badly written softwares will screw up; but that can't be helped. As
a matter of fact, I have a 'set wrapmargin=40' in my muttrc, which will soft
wrap the lines at around 80 chars itself. The comfortable reading length is
actually 65 chars, but I can't have such a setting because a lot of people
arbitrarily put hard newlines at 75 chars. :-)
Anyway, the point is:
- A single line paragraph will work in all circumstances. (You can configure
your display software to wrap the line at whatever you wish. And it will work
very fine in PDAs, and also will look good in forums.
- 75 char word wrap will screw up entirely in a lot of situations.
To me it trivially makes a formidable case for the former. Couple this with
the ease of editing at the sender end, I don't understand why people still get
into some religious fervor about the word wrapping issue. 80 char is simply a
historical relic from the days of the dumb terminals. It is not only difficult
to edit at the sender end, it will screw up the display unless the screen width
is more than 75 chars.
Dallman, not really intending to sound angry, but it probably does
nonetheless
I am just pointing out what appears to be logical to me. If that is making
people angry, I can't help that.
--
:: Ligesh :: http://ligesh.com
____________________________________________________________
procmail mailing list Procmail homepage: http://www.procmail.org/
procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail