Another New Feature Request

[Bill Wood]

Yes, indeed.

I understand it all, and I am better off than I was.
But ... the biggest problem with the overall design of
email, I think, is that embedded hard returns are
allowed. We need a new RFC that eliminates hard returns
except where they are specifically required (zb,
tables, paragraphs, etc). Then email would be just like
word processing wherein the line length formatting (in
particular) is done by the reader, not the file. (yes,
yes. I know. Hard returns can be forced if you really
want to).

Anyway, it's irritating to me that I spend so much time
deleting hard returns.

Thanks for the info.

w3



On Sat, 30 Oct 1999 23:21:48 +0200 (CDT), Menno Tillema
wrote:

>On Sun, 31 Oct 1999 14:26:37 -0700 (PDT), Bill Wood wrote:
>
>   > Thanks, Menno. This works with the following
>   > limitations. An item in the  To:-field can not be
>   > edited, apparently, but it can be deleted and replaced.
>
>When you use MB2 on the To: field you can choose to edit the address,
>or to copy or trnasfer it to the CC/BC field. 
>
>   > The reflow-at-send hard returns are still there and if
>   > the body of the msg is edited, you must still reformat
>   > the msg by hand (mainly deleting hard returns).
>
>If you only want to change the address, this is no problem, the body of
>the message stays 'as is'. Otherwise you have indeed to reformat the
>tekst. 
>
>Hope this helps.
>
>
>
>Bond Heemschut
>Provinciale Commissie Zuid-Holland
>M. Tillema, secretaris
>
>
>Voldersgracht 25 A
>2611 EV  Delft
>015 - 212 47 75
>015 - 212 07 95 (fax)
>http://www.heemschut.nl
>
>
>
>

w3

Bill Wood
Las Vegas, NV
wwwood@lv.rmci.net

Support Bilingual Education
 ...  English and Mathematics