Re: a change towards freedom (was: Outlook and "inline attachments")

2002-08-30 Thread jkinz
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 02:34:59PM +0200, Sven Guckes wrote: > > anyway, what good is it to wait to change jobs? > if all changed jobs then they's swap one place > with windows with another place using windows. > the change must be within the system itself. > and i am not only talking about opera

Re: Outlook and "inline attachments"

2002-08-30 Thread Ken Weingold
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002, Sven Guckes wrote: > so if the boss sends himself such an email using his own client and > finds the same kind of effect - will he still believe that the > problem is with *other* clients? if yes - change job. Sven, bad thing to say right now. When most of your friends are

a change towards freedom (was: Outlook and "inline attachments")

2002-08-30 Thread Sven Guckes
* Eugen Leitl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-08-30 11:12]: > begin Fri, 30 Aug 2002 Sven Guckes quotation: > > two blanks? really? > Of course. In fact I later noticed you used > the same example in one of your signatures. err... these have only *one* space after the "begin". no, wait, one of them h

Re: Outlook and "inline attachments"

2002-08-30 Thread Eugen Leitl
begin Fri, 30 Aug 2002 Sven Guckes quotation: > two blanks? really? Of course. In fact I later noticed you used the same example in one of your signatures. > > But what's the point? Bosses define what constitutes brokenness. > > If he can't read your email, it's your fault, not his client's

Re: Outlook and "inline attachments"

2002-08-30 Thread Sven Guckes
* Eugen Leitl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-08-30 09:56]: > On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Sven Guckes wrote: > > > set attibution="begin 666 quoted text of %boss" > > begin followed by two blanks anywhere in the mail body would do, until > termininated by an > end two blanks? really? > But what's the poi