So much Windows Mailer crap on this list...

[David Poehlman]

not that easy.  I have all my addresses set to plain text and also, have
turned off that annoying put addresses I reply to in my addressbook
because as an old pine hack, I like using nicknames.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Angelo Sonnesso" <asonnesso at coastalnet.com>
To: <speakup at braille.uwo.ca>
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 9:04 AM
Subject: Re: So much Windows Mailer crap on this list...


It is easier then you would think.
When you respond to a message in Outlook express the reply address is
automatically placed in the address book.
You go in to the address book go to the address you want.
Press enter.
Press ctrl-tab once.
Press shift-tab until you come to a box that says "send as plain text.
Hit the space bar to check the box.
Press tab once and press the space bar, or the enter key and you are
done.

> Perhaps, it would be a good idea for someone using outlook (I haven't
> used it for over a year now), to write a specific document detailing
> which radio buttons and so on should be checked or unchecked to set
> outlook up properly. It is true that this could be figured out, but
> there are some people out there that just won't take the time to find
> out how to configure outlook properly for blind lists. What's even
worse
> is that some people don't even know how to find out how to configure
> outlook. They let their isps set things up for them with automated
> software, and they think that's it.
> Greg
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 01:41:00PM -0500, Brian Borowski wrote:
> > Greg:
> > Maybe they can't aford a modem, but they sure can adjust settings to
> reduce
> > crap in their out-going mail, and if they don't know how, then find
> someone
> > who can help get through the settings and change it.  The idea, that
> an
> > empty message from a standard windows email client contains about 2K
> of
> > nothing is just stupid and a waste...
> >
> > Brian Borowski
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 1 Feb 2002, Gregory Nowak wrote:
> >
> > > Fortunately, this doesn't appply to me anymore since I got
> broadband. But, you know, hardware modems are not exactly cheap. Yes,
> there are some gnu/linux drivers for windows modems, but not everyone
> has a supported modem. So, if you'd like people on this list to be
using
> pine, mutt, ETC. for their mail, take into consideration the fact that
> not everyone here can aford a new modem, or an expensive broadband
> connection.
> > > Greg
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 07:20:50AM -0500, Brian Borowski wrote:
> > > > I guess this has been discussed bofore, but I can't help doing
it
> again.
> > > > Why do so many people use outlook and other Windows utilities to
> post to
> > > > this list?  It's understandable if you're a new user, but doing
it
> for a
> > > > year or two, makes me wonder; if you're a Windows user and never
> want to
> > > > use linux to do your stuff; get off the list, and stop polluting
> it with
> > > > crap.  If you're a  windows user, and insist on posting
> (especially for
> > > > some of those high-volume posters), then change your settings so
> that we
> > > > don't have to se a couple of Kbytes of header, and shut off the
> damn html
> > > > repeat of your message that shows up at the end.  It may come as
a
> big
> > > > surprise to some people, but when us people who use pine and
other
> mail
> > > > readers have to go through hundreds of messages; we don't want
to
> see
> > > > (hear) all that garbage; it's a nuisance, and it slows us down
> terribly,
> > > > just trying to get through the list.
> > > >
> > > > Also, I'm in complete agreement with the complaints about
> including
> > > > messages including messages, including messages within eachother
> until
> > > > things get huge; it's a waste of bandwidth, and time.  I also
> notice, that
> > > > some users seem to post multiple copies of their messages;
please,
> have
> > > > pity on us who read our mail?  While I'm complaining:
> > > > Why do people include 50 or 100 lines of others messages, and
then
> put
> > > > their one line comment about it right at the end of all that
> stuff?  My
> > > > advice, is that if you're going to include all that stuff, and
> have five or
> > > > ten words to say about; why not put your comment at the top, and
> save us
> > > > all that reading through stuff we've probably already seen
before
> so many
> > > > times?
> > > >
> > > > Brian Borowski
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Speakup mailing list
> > > > Speakup at braille.uwo.ca
> > > > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Speakup mailing list
> > > Speakup at braille.uwo.ca
> > > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Speakup mailing list
> > Speakup at braille.uwo.ca
> > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup at braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup at braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>


_______________________________________________
Speakup mailing list
Speakup at braille.uwo.ca
http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup