On 2013-11-20 17:45 +1300, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 02:26:21PM +0100, Andre Majorel wrote:
>
> > An attribution wouldn't have hurt but it's plain to see that Jon
> > was replying to Emilio's message, not Ron's. Or don't mailers
> > show threads any more ?
>
> Mutt, the one
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 02:26:21PM +0100, Andre Majorel wrote:
> On 2013-11-19 21:54 +1300, Chris Bannister wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 05:07:52PM +, Brad Rogers wrote:
> >
> > > I think Jonathan was directing his comments to Emilio, not
> > > you. It's difficult to know for sure as he d
On Tue, 2013-11-19 at 16:29 -0700, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> > Averaged computer users very often replace the subject and body of a
> > message, IOW they only keep the address to write a new mail. They aren't
> > aware, that they keep some magic note that is hidden in a magical
> >
Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> Averaged computer users very often replace the subject and body of a
> message, IOW they only keep the address to write a new mail. They aren't
> aware, that they keep some magic note that is hidden in a magical
> header. I suspect that Gmail doesn't support it for good reason
On Tue, 2013-11-19 at 16:04 -0700, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Andre Majorel wrote:
> > Or don't mailers show threads any more ?
>
> Actually many popular (but incorrect) mail user agents do not show
> threads. Previously the biggest offender was Outlook. These days the
> biggest offender is Gmail. I f
Andre Majorel wrote:
> Or don't mailers show threads any more ?
Actually many popular (but incorrect) mail user agents do not show
threads. Previously the biggest offender was Outlook. These days the
biggest offender is Gmail. I find it very surprising that a mail user
agent wouldn't handle the
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 05:07:52PM +, Brad Rogers wrote:
> I think Jonathan was directing his comments to Emilio, not you. It's
> difficult to know for sure as he didn't use a name, or quote some of the
> offending message.
That's right. My mailer did set in-reply-to correctly, and the messa
On 2013-11-19 21:54 +1300, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 05:07:52PM +, Brad Rogers wrote:
>
> > I think Jonathan was directing his comments to Emilio, not
> > you. It's difficult to know for sure as he didn't use a
> > name, or quote some of the offending message.
An attribu
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 05:07:52PM +, Brad Rogers wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 16:52:44 +
> Ron Leach wrote:
>
> Hello Ron,
>
> >Jonathan, thank you for the note. I've rechecked.
>
> I think Jonathan was directing his comments to Emilio, not you. It's
> difficult to know for sure as
On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 16:52:44 +
Ron Leach wrote:
Hello Ron,
>Jonathan, thank you for the note. I've rechecked.
I think Jonathan was directing his comments to Emilio, not you. It's
difficult to know for sure as he didn't use a name, or quote some of the
offending message.
--
Regards _
Ron Leach wrote:
> Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >I don't know what happened to quoting in your message but it was nigh-on
> >unreadable. It might be worth a look at your mailer settings.
>
> Jonathan, thank you for the note. I've rechecked.
>
> Looks OK in our mailer, looks fine from the
On 18/11/13 16:52, Ron Leach wrote:
> On 18/11/2013 16:33, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I don't know what happened to quoting in your message but it was nigh-on
>> unreadable. It might be worth a look at your mailer settings.
>>
>>
> Jonathan, thank you for the note. I've rechecked.
>
> L
On 18/11/2013 16:33, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
Hi,
I don't know what happened to quoting in your message but it was nigh-on
unreadable. It might be worth a look at your mailer settings.
Jonathan, thank you for the note. I've rechecked.
Looks OK in our mailer, looks fine from the copy from the
13 matches
Mail list logo
