On 19/06/10 07:58 AM, Marion Hakanson wrote:
doug.lin...@merchantlink.com said:
Apparently, before Outlook there WERE no meetings, because it's clearly
impossible to schedule one without it.
Don't tell my boss, but I use Outlook for the scheduling, and fetchmail
plus procmail to download email
doug.lin...@merchantlink.com said:
> Apparently, before Outlook there WERE no meetings, because it's clearly
> impossible to schedule one without it.
Don't tell my boss, but I use Outlook for the scheduling, and fetchmail
plus procmail to download email out of Exchange and into my favorite
email
> People still use Outhouse? Really?! Next you'll be suggesting that
> some people still put up with Internet Exploder... ;-)
Those of us who are literally forced to use it aren't too happy. Nor am I
happy with the giant stupid signature that gets tacked on that you all have to
trim when you
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 3:52 PM, Linder, Doug
wrote:
>> Another thing that Gmail does that I find infuriating, is that it
>> mucks with the formatting. For some reason it, and to be fair, Outlook
>> as well, seem to think that they know how a message needs to be
>> formatted better than I do.
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Linder, Doug
>Sent: Friday, June 18, 2010 12:53 PM
>
>Try doing inline quoting/response with Outlook, where you quote one
section,
>reply, quote again, etc. It's impossible. You can't split up the quoted
section to
>add new text - no way, no how. Very infuriati
> Another thing that Gmail does that I find infuriating, is that it
> mucks with the formatting. For some reason it, and to be fair, Outlook
> as well, seem to think that they know how a message needs to be
> formatted better than I do.
Try doing inline quoting/response with Outlook, where you quo
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Frank Cusack
wrote:
> This list is the worst one that I am on for that kind of behavior. Makes
> me wonder how those folks can manage complex storage systems when they
> cannot even organize their thoughts efficiently.
As mentioned earlier, gmail may be behind a
On 6/10/10 11:07 PM -0700 Dave Koelmeyer wrote:
I trimmed, and then got complained at by a mailing list user that the
context of what I was replying to was missing. Can't win :P
There's a big difference between trim and remove.
The worst is when people quote 3-4 paragraphs, respond inline to O
On Jun 11, 2010, at 2:07 AM, Dave Koelmeyer
wrote:
I trimmed, and then got complained at by a mailing list user that
the context of what I was replying to was missing. Can't win :P
If at a minimum one trims the disclaimers, footers and signatures,
that's better then nothing.
On long th
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 2:33 AM, Brandon High wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 11:31 AM, Bob Friesenhahn
> wrote:
>> I think that you may notice that most of the perpetrators are from Gmail.
>> It seems that Gmail is very good at hiding existing text in its user
>> interface so people think noth
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 11:31 AM, Bob Friesenhahn
wrote:
> I think that you may notice that most of the perpetrators are from Gmail.
> It seems that Gmail is very good at hiding existing text in its user
> interface so people think nothing of including most/all of the email they
> are replying to
I trimmed, and then got complained at by a mailing list user that the context
of what I was replying to was missing. Can't win :P
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolari
On Thu, 10 Jun 2010, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
The problem is all the top-posts and similar bottom-posts where
everything in the thread is kept. This is not good netiquette, even
in 2010.
I think that you may notice that most of the perpetrators are from
Gmail. It seems that Gmail is ver
> > It's getting downright ridiculous. The digest people will kiss you.
>
> But those reading via individual message email quite possibly will
> not. Quoting at least what you're actually responding to is crucial to
> making sense out here.
The problem is all the top-posts and similar bottom-post
On Thu, June 10, 2010 12:26, patto...@yahoo.com wrote:
> It's getting downright ridiculous. The digest people will kiss you.
But those reading via individual message email quite possibly will not.
Quoting at least what you're actually responding to is crucial to making
sense out here.
--
David
15 matches
Mail list logo
