1:03 p.m.
I've now been using Evolution for about a couple of weeks, but
two things that I miss from other mailers (and can't seem to find
in Evolution):
1) The ability to define the priority of my messages. In other mailers,
I can select to send a message (if urgent) with *high*
priority, instead of the default.
2) Mark text in a message, and have *only* that text show as
quoted in a reply. As it stands, I have to select "reply", *then*
edit the message.
Otherwise, I like Evolution. (I haven't used the calendar or
appointments yet, though).
Elton ;-)
--
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/stats/team/team_4504.html
"You only live once: let's make life BETTER for each other."
LINUX User #193975 [AMD ATHLON CPU] ICQ #149608718.Public
1:16 p.m.
On Mon, 2003-12-15 at 14:03, Elton Woo wrote:
I've now been using Evolution for about a couple of weeks, but
two things that I miss from other mailers (and can't seem to find
in Evolution):
1) The ability to define the priority of my messages. In other mailers,
I can select to send a message (if urgent) with *high*
priority, instead of the default.
Agreed.
2) Mark text in a message, and have *only* that text show as
quoted in a reply. As it stands, I have to select "reply", *then*
edit the message.
This works fine for me.
--Jack
1:28 p.m.
On Mon, 2003-12-15 at 11:16, Jack Aboutboul wrote:
> 1) The ability to define the priority of my messages. In other
mailers,
> I can select to send a message (if urgent) with *high*
> priority, instead of the default.
Agreed.
This flag is ignored by most mailers, for good reason; it's trivially
easy for spammers to abuse it.
<b
6:02 p.m.
On Mon, 2003-12-15 at 14:28, Bryan O'Sullivan wrote:
On Mon, 2003-12-15 at 11:16, Jack Aboutboul wrote:
> > 1) The ability to define the priority of my messages. In other mailers,
> > I can select to send a message (if urgent) with *high*
> > priority, instead of the default.
>
> Agreed.
This flag is ignored by most mailers, for good reason; it's trivially
easy for spammers to abuse it.
So how is it that kmail, netscape, mozilla, and
other mailers which
I've used in the past *don't* ASSume that I will use the software to
spam people?
My need to change priority has a reason and a logic.
For example, on another list, I wanted to reply to someone off-list,
*urgently*. The recipient needed some linux CD's to install on his
system in and was asking for a loan of a set. He was also travelling
back and forth in and out of town, so naturally in that case, I would
require / wish to reply to him *urgently*.
However, replying via Evolution, I was not afforded that "luxury"!
LOL!
Elton ;-)
--
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/stats/team/team_4504.html
"You only live once: let's make life BETTER for each other."
LINUX User #193975 [AMD ATHLON CPU] ICQ #149608718.Public
7:04 p.m.
On Mon, 2003-12-15 at 16:02, Elton Woo wrote:
On Mon, 2003-12-15 at 14:28, Bryan O'Sullivan wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-12-15 at 11:16, Jack Aboutboul wrote:
>
> > > 1) The ability to define the priority of my messages. In other mailers,
> > > I can select to send a message (if urgent) with *high*
> > > priority, instead of the default.
> >
> > Agreed.
>
> This flag is ignored by most mailers, for good reason; it's trivially
> easy for spammers to abuse it.
So how is it that kmail, netscape, mozilla, and other mailers which
I've used in the past *don't* ASSume that I will use the software to
spam people?
My need to change priority has a reason and a logic.
For example, on another list, I wanted to reply to someone off-list,
*urgently*. The recipient needed some linux CD's to install on his
system in and was asking for a loan of a set. He was also travelling
back and forth in and out of town, so naturally in that case, I would
require / wish to reply to him *urgently*.
However, replying via Evolution, I was not afforded that "luxury"!
I don't know why Ximian developers are reluctant to enable sending
messages with a priority flag, but I do know that I usually ignore the
flag. It maybe important to the sender, but not to me. Evolution
lets me flag a message as high priority when it is important to me.
The example you cited, if it was important to the recipient, then it
doesn't matter if you flagged it or not. They will make it a priority.
If you still feel that you need this ability, then I would strongly urge
you to take this to the Ximian Evolution list.
--
Clifford Snow
10:10 p.m.
On Mon, 2003-12-15 at 20:04, Clifford Snow wrote:
On Mon, 2003-12-15 at 16:02, Elton Woo wrote:
>
> My need to change priority has a reason and a logic.
>
> However, replying via Evolution, I was not afforded that "luxury"!
I don't know why Ximian developers are reluctant to enable sending
messages with a priority flag, but I do know that I usually ignore the
Agreed. I
have no argument with that.
However, I don't understand the following statement:
Evolution
lets me flag a message as high priority when it is important to me.
I cannot find
any option when *sending a message* in Evolution,
whereby I can flag a message as "urgent". I guess I'll just switch back
to Mozilla-mail then!
cheers,
Elton ;-)
10:32 p.m.
On Mon, 2003-12-15 at 20:10, Elton Woo wrote:
<snip>
However, I don't understand the following statement:
> Evolution
> lets me flag a message as high priority when it is important to me.
I cannot find any option when *sending a message* in Evolution,
whereby I can flag a message as "urgent". I guess I'll just switch back
to Mozilla-mail then!
You can flag received messages that are important to you.
What you want
is the sender to determine how important messages are for the
recipient. Let the recipient choose. They can use the powers of most
mail clients to help them organize messages to sort their mail. Don't
assume the sender has that right.
--
Clifford Snow
8:45 a.m.
At 22:32 12/15/2003, Clifford Snow wrote:
You can flag received messages that are important to you. What you
want
is the sender to determine how important messages are for the
recipient. Let the recipient choose. They can use the powers of most
mail clients to help them organize messages to sort their mail. Don't
assume the sender has that right.
Oh, for Pete's sake!
<rant>
This is not about "choice" or anyone's "right" to determine
anything... and
by flagging a message as Important when I send it I am not forcing anyone
to do anything. Jeez... sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Mail clients that allow me (a.k.a. "the sender") to flag a message with
higher priority give me the convenience of indicating to the recipient that
this message is, for some reason, of a higher priority TO ME. Period, end
of story, no political, libertarian, or totalitarian subtleties. I can just
as well write "urgent" on the outside of a paper envelope.
Does this force the recipient to comply, give it special treatment, or even
acknowledge such a flag? Not at all. He/she can disregard it entirely if
desired. Or the recipient can actually pay some attention if, IN HIS
OPINION, a message that I consider urgent is to be treated differently from
other mail in any way. A case in point: when I send emails to my
subordinates, I assure you that they care about which messages I think
deserve a quicker response. Then again, other recipients may not give a damn.
And yes, when I receive messages, I _would_ like to know if the sender
considers a particular message to be more important than others. I may or
may not do anything about it, depending on who the sender is and how my
workload is, but I would like to know.
Removing or omitting the ability to mark sent messages with higher or lower
priority is NOT a good thing. It removes choice, which you so fervently
espouse. Having that choice does not force anything upon the recipient.
Evolution is going to lose points with most corporate users, and many other
folks, for not having this. Why-oh-why would this become an issue of rights
and choice? Good grief!
</rant>
--
Rodolfo J. Paiz
rpaiz(a)simpaticus.com
http://www.simpaticus.com
9:13 a.m.
On Tue, 2003-12-16 at 14:45, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote:
Removing or omitting the ability to mark sent messages with higher or
lower
priority is NOT a good thing. It removes choice, which you so fervently
espouse. Having that choice does not force anything upon the recipient.
Evolution is going to lose points with most corporate users, and many other
folks, for not having this. Why-oh-why would this become an issue of rights
and choice? Good grief!
This is better suited in the evolution mailing lists, specially if
accompanied with code or a bounty.
You can also make a subject like:
[URGENT] about my retirement plan...
Rui
--
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?
Please AVOID sending me WORD, EXCEL or POWERPOINT attachments.
See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
9:32 a.m.
--- "Rodolfo J. Paiz" <rpaiz(a)simpaticus.com> wrote:
At 22:32 12/15/2003, Clifford Snow wrote:
>You can flag received messages that are important
to you. What you want
>is the sender to determine how important messages
are for the
>recipient. Let the recipient choose. They can use
the powers of most
>mail clients to help them organize messages to sort
their mail. Don't
>assume the sender has that right.
Oh, for Pete's sake!
<rant>
This is not about "choice" or anyone's "right" to
determine anything... and
by flagging a message as Important when I send it I
am not forcing anyone
to do anything. Jeez... sometimes a cigar is just a
cigar.
Mail clients that allow me (a.k.a. "the sender") to
flag a message with
higher priority give me the convenience of
indicating to the recipient that
this message is, for some reason, of a higher
priority TO ME. Period, end
of story, no political, libertarian, or totalitarian
subtleties. I can just
as well write "urgent" on the outside of a paper
envelope.
Does this force the recipient to comply, give it
special treatment, or even
acknowledge such a flag? Not at all. He/she can
disregard it entirely if
desired. Or the recipient can actually pay some
attention if, IN HIS
OPINION, a message that I consider urgent is to be
treated differently from
other mail in any way. A case in point: when I send
emails to my
subordinates, I assure you that they care about
which messages I think
deserve a quicker response. Then again, other
recipients may not give a damn.
And yes, when I receive messages, I _would_ like to
know if the sender
considers a particular message to be more important
than others. I may or
may not do anything about it, depending on who the
sender is and how my
workload is, but I would like to know.
Removing or omitting the ability to mark sent
messages with higher or lower
priority is NOT a good thing. It removes choice,
which you so fervently
espouse. Having that choice does not force anything
upon the recipient.
Evolution is going to lose points with most
corporate users, and many other
folks, for not having this. Why-oh-why would this
become an issue of rights
and choice? Good grief!
</rant>
I agree completely.
=====
--------------------------------------------------------------
"Never memorize what you can look up." -Albert Einstein
12:27 p.m.
On Tue, 2003-12-16 at 10:32, pctech(a)mybellybutton.com wrote:
--- "Rodolfo J. Paiz" <rpaiz(a)simpaticus.com> wrote:
> At 22:32 12/15/2003, Clifford Snow wrote:
> >You can flag received messages that are important
> to you. What you want
> >is the sender to determine how important messages
> are for the
> >recipient. Let the recipient choose. They can use
> the powers of most
> >mail clients to help them organize messages to sort
> their mail. Don't
> >assume the sender has that right.
I think you are all missing the point.
1) I do not send messages willy-nilly flagged as "urgent".
The situation I described, both myself *and* my recipient
knew the situation was urgent (him needing the CD's before
Monday).
2) By being able to flag the message as important, it would
indicate to my addressee that "here is the reply you were
waiting for from Elton". It is still HIS CHOICE, if he
wants to wade through his mailbox *or* read my reply *first*.
I am not imposing on him.
But if, as has been indicated, Evolution "assumes" the user
will abuse "priority" flag, this is unfairly presumptive, as
well as taking away the freedom of choice which I *normally*
associate with GNU/LINUX and open source. :-(
Elton.
--
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/stats/team/team_4504.html
"You only live once: let's make life BETTER for each other."
LINUX User #193975 [AMD ATHLON CPU] ICQ #149608718.Public
12:41 p.m.
On Tue, 2003-12-16 at 18:27, Elton Woo wrote:
But if, as has been indicated, Evolution "assumes" the
user
will abuse "priority" flag, this is unfairly presumptive, as
well as taking away the freedom of choice which I *normally*
associate with GNU/LINUX and open source. :-(
Freedom of choice comes from the user never being locked into some
application, and being able to switch to and from apps at will.
Now, you may need to be able to code to convert some format, but you're
always allowed to do that with Free Software.
What 'Freedom of Choice' is not is someone doing something because you
think it should be done.
Offer a bounty for that feature or some code, or even a fork of
Evolution, (if you simply can't convice the developers by your prett
eyes alone) but please calm down with your histeria.
Rui
--
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?
Please AVOID sending me WORD, EXCEL or POWERPOINT attachments.
See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
4:40 a.m.
On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 07:02:15PM -0500, Elton Woo wrote:
[...]
For example, on another list, I wanted to reply to someone off-list,
*urgently*. The recipient needed some linux CD's to install on his
system in and was asking for a loan of a set. He was also travelling
back and forth in and out of town, so naturally in that case, I would
require / wish to reply to him *urgently*.
Hm, so in that case, you *knew* that his mailer supports that flag?
I for one use mutt, which thankfully ignores that flag - and in addition
I told it to ignore the whole header - and Spamassassin to increase the
spam score upon receiving such a mail, as almost all mails I get with
that flag set seem to be spam.
Point is, that flag is non-standard, which means you cannot rely on the
recipient seeing it anyway. And even if he does see it, he might very
well ignore it, as so many spammers use it as well.
It's almost as funny as the infamous "I want to recall that mail"
messags from Outlook users who never heard about the fact that there
other mail programs out there that simply ignore that request... ;-)
Cheerio,
Thomas
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Ribbrock http://www.ribbrock.org
"You have to live on the edge of reality - to make your dreams come true!"
8:16 a.m.
On Tue, 2003-12-16 at 04:40, T. Ribbrock wrote:
Point is, that flag is non-standard, which means you cannot rely on
the
recipient seeing it anyway. And even if he does see it, he might very
well ignore it, as so many spammers use it as well.
I believe this flag with outlook was created and expected to work for
users within a company/network, not in general with POP clients, mailing
lists like this and stuff outside their realm. Even though the
recipient can have it marked how he wants and do with it what he wants,
it was available (If express has this as well, then that is another
store and probably more on topic of what this is about).
It's almost as funny as the infamous "I want to recall that mail"
messags from Outlook users who never heard about the fact that there
other mail programs out there that simply ignore that request... ;-)
OT: But the option above you mentioned with recalling, was again meant
for a company/network environment and I had to use it a few times. Good
for when as tech need to send out info/warnings or whatever and do it at
night or before the other folks get in, and you messed it up and need to
redo it. Don't really think this was meant for outside that network or
with anything but using outlook in that environment.
--
Mike Chambers
Madisonville, KY
"It's funny until someone gets hurt...then it's hilarious!"
9:08 a.m.
At 08:16 12/16/2003, you wrote:
On Tue, 2003-12-16 at 04:40, T. Ribbrock wrote:
> Point is, that flag is non-standard, which means you cannot rely on the
> recipient seeing it anyway. And even if he does see it, he might very
> well ignore it, as so many spammers use it as well.
I believe this flag with outlook was created and expected to work for
users within a company/network, not in general with POP clients
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall using priorities in Eudora
back in 1995, well before Outlook was even created.
Most things were not invented by MS, contrary to what they'd like you to
believe... <grin>
--
Rodolfo J. Paiz
rpaiz(a)simpaticus.com
http://www.simpaticus.com
12:15 p.m.
On or about 2003-12-16 09:08, Rodolfo J. Paiz whipped out a trusty #2
pencil and scribbled:
At 08:16 12/16/2003, you wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-12-16 at 04:40, T. Ribbrock wrote:
>
> > Point is, that flag is non-standard, which means you cannot rely on
> the
> > recipient seeing it anyway. And even if he does see it, he might very
> > well ignore it, as so many spammers use it as well.
>
> I believe this flag with outlook was created and expected to work for
> users within a company/network, not in general with POP clients
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall using priorities in
Eudora back in 1995, well before Outlook was even created.
Most things were not invented by MS, contrary to what they'd like you
to believe... <grin>
Well, if you open the horse's mouth, and look at the teeth, you'll note
that there are two commonly used headers: X-MS-Priority: <text> and
X-Priority: <number>. The former was of course invented by MS. The
latter was invented much earlier, when mail actually went from one
machine to another to get cross-country, sometimes on dial-up uucp
links. And it was intended to priortize the transmission of mail,
therefore more for the use of the MTA's than the users. In particular,
X-Priority: 5 was used to indicate mail that had long lead times (like
announcing a conference 6 months in advance). This mail could obviously
be saved until the wee hours of the morning, when long-distance calls
were cheaper. X-Priority: 1 was intended for extremely urgent mail,
usually having to do with network conditions, and generally sent between
sysadmins. The net was so different then, no one would dream of setting
a bogus priority that was inappropriate for the real urgency of a message.
And they aren't really NON-standard. All headers beginning with "X-"
are allowed specifically by the standard, with the usage and semantics
to be agreed upon by the community involved. That's why when MS wanted
a *user-to-user* indicator of priority, they avoided the earlier
X-Priority: header and set up a distinct one for their own "community"
of Outlook users.
--
Fritz Whittington
TI Alum - http://www.tialumni.org
12:29 p.m.
At 12:15 12/16/2003, you wrote:
And they aren't really NON-standard. All headers beginning with
"X-" are
allowed specifically by the standard, with the usage and semantics to be
agreed upon by the community involved. That's why when MS wanted a
*user-to-user* indicator of priority, they avoided the earlier X-Priority:
header and set up a distinct one for their own "community" of Outlook users.
Excellent commentary. Thanks.
--
Rodolfo J. Paiz
rpaiz(a)simpaticus.com
http://www.simpaticus.com
9:06 a.m.
At 04:40 12/16/2003, you wrote:
Point is, that flag is non-standard, which means you cannot rely on
the
recipient seeing it anyway. And even if he does see it, he might very
well ignore it, as so many spammers use it as well.
That is perfectly true. However, while non-standard it is common enough
that it becomes useful in many settings. Two examples:
1. My entire corporation, and so far most of my clients and
suppliers, do use mailers that support that flag and are generally
responsible about using it for useful purposes, not for jokes. It makes
things flow more easily when we all see that a particular message was sent
"urgently" since we can then read it and react as we then see fit.
2. I run the email system for my family (65 people), and they are
pretty careful about its use and they certainly appreciate its existence.
I'm OK with your statements that you ignore it, many people ignore it, and
spammers abuse it. Those are all true and valid. However, this does not
make having the flag there a bad thing, nor should it be eliminated because
of those reasons. Many _other_ people like it and use it, and many mailers
do support it.
--
Rodolfo J. Paiz
rpaiz(a)simpaticus.com
http://www.simpaticus.com
9:16 a.m.
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 09:06:20AM -0600, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote:
At 04:40 12/16/2003, you wrote:
>Point is, that flag is non-standard, which means you cannot rely on the
>recipient seeing it anyway. And even if he does see it, he might very
>well ignore it, as so many spammers use it as well.
That is perfectly true. However, while non-standard it is common
enough
that it becomes useful in many settings. Two examples:
[...]
You're perfectly right. What I was really driving at is that there too
many people out there thinking that it *is* a standard flag and rely on
its behaviour (same as the recall), completely unaware that it is in
fact completely optional and not even supported by a significant
percentage of other users out there. As long as one is aware of this and
doesn't rely on this behaviour (especially in a mixed environment), all is
dandy. Blame MS for not informing people properly...
Cheerio,
Thomas
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Ribbrock http://www.ribbrock.org
"You have to live on the edge of reality - to make your dreams come true!"
4:06 p.m.
Em Seg, 2003-12-15 às 17:16, Jack Aboutboul escreveu:
> 2) Mark text in a message, and have *only* that text show as
> quoted in a reply. As it stands, I have to select "reply", *then*
> edit the message.
This works fine for me.
How? I miss this since pmmail from os/2...
--
[]s
Alexandre Ganso
500 FOUR vermelha - Diretor Steel Goose Moto Group
1:51 p.m.
Elton Woo said:
I've now been using Evolution for about a couple of weeks, but
two things that I miss from other mailers (and can't seem to find
in Evolution):
1) The ability to define the priority of my messages. In other mailers,
I can select to send a message (if urgent) with *high*
priority, instead of the default.
Reported numberous times upstream in Ximian's Bugzilla. Don't hold your
breath.
2) Mark text in a message, and have *only* that text show as
quoted in a reply. As it stands, I have to select "reply", *then*
edit the message.
Sounds like:
http://bugzilla.ximian.com/show_bug.cgi?id=25196
But someone else mentioned it works, so I'm not sure if I missed one.
--
William Hooper
6:06 p.m.
On Mon, 2003-12-15 at 14:51, William Hooper wrote:
Elton Woo said:
> in Evolution):
>
> 1) The ability to define the priority of my messages. In other mailers,
> I can select to send a message (if urgent) with *high*
> priority, instead of the default.
Reported numberous times upstream in Ximian's Bugzilla. Don't hold your
breath.
In that case, would you recommend another mailer, please?
The nasty bug with kmail creating empty messages has not been
fixed, and I've lost patience having to clean out my folders
each time kmail *autostarts*... :-(
> 2) Mark text in a message, and have *only* that text show as
> quoted in a reply. As it stands, I have to select "reply", *then*
> edit the message.
Sounds like:
http://bugzilla.ximian.com/show_bug.cgi?id=25196
But someone else mentioned it works, so
No, it *doesn't*! (version 1.4.5 here)
:-(
Thanks for your reply,
Elton ;-)
--
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/stats/team/team_4504.html
"You only live once: let's make life BETTER for each other."
LINUX User #193975 [AMD ATHLON CPU] ICQ #149608718.Public
12:29 p.m.
On or about 2003-12-15 18:06, Elton Woo whipped out a trusty #2 pencil
and scribbled:
On Mon, 2003-12-15 at 14:51, William Hooper wrote:
>Elton Woo said:
>
>
>>in Evolution):
>>
>>1) The ability to define the priority of my messages. In other mailers,
>>I can select to send a message (if urgent) with *high*
>>priority, instead of the default.
>>
>>
>Reported numberous times upstream in Ximian's Bugzilla. Don't hold your
>breath.
>
>
>
In that case, would you recommend another mailer, please?
The nasty bug with kmail creating empty messages has not been
fixed, and I've lost patience having to clean out my folders
each time kmail *autostarts*... :-(
I'm pretty partial to Mozilla myself :-) There are FC1 RPMs for 1.4.1,
at least. The 1.5 and 1.6x tarballs installed OK on RH9, I haven't
gotten around to trying them on FC1.
>>2) Mark text in a message, and have *only* that text show as
>>quoted in a reply. As it stands, I have to select "reply", *then*
>>edit the message.
>>
>>
With Mozilla, you can mark text in the original mail, Copy to clipboard,
then when composing the reply, you have the choice of the usual Paste,
or a "Paste as Quotation" option. No, it's not completely automatic,
but it works OK.
<snip>
--
Fritz Whittington
TI Alum - http://www.tialumni.org
12:35 p.m.
On Tue, 2003-12-16 at 13:29, Fritz Whittington wrote:
With Mozilla, you can mark text in the original mail, Copy to
clipboard,
then when composing the reply, you have the choice of the usual Paste,
or a "Paste as Quotation" option. No, it's not completely automatic,
but it works OK.
Thank you, thank you, sir!!! A thousand blessings upon you and
your house <G>. I was just trying to remember why I switched from
mozilla-mail to kmail. It was just this extra little "annoying"step,
but moz is worth it!
You made my day!
cheers,
Elton ;-)
--
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/stats/team/team_4504.html
"You only live once: let's make life BETTER for each other."
LINUX User #193975 [AMD ATHLON CPU] ICQ #149608718.Public
12:40 p.m.
On Tue, 2003-12-16 at 14:35, Elton Woo wrote:
On Tue, 2003-12-16 at 13:29, Fritz Whittington wrote:
> With Mozilla, you can mark text in the original mail, Copy to clipboard,
> then when composing the reply, you have the choice of the usual Paste,
> or a "Paste as Quotation" option. No, it's not completely automatic,
> but it works OK.
"Paste as Quotation" is available in Evo, too.
--
Ben Steeves _ bcs(a)metacon.ca
The ASCII ribbon campaign ( ) ben.steeves(a)unb.ca
against HTML e-mail X GPG ID: 0xB3EBF1D9
http://www.metacon.ca/ascii / \ Yahoo Messenger: ben_steeves
12:48 p.m.
On Tue, 2003-12-16 at 13:40, Ben Steeves wrote:
"Paste as Quotation" is available in Evo, too.
Admittedly, I'm not the brightest bulb in the room,
but I cannot find this option in Evolution
(version 1.4.5 here). Newbieized / dummy directions,
please? ... or I'm going back to Mozilla...
TIA,
Elton ;-)
--
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/stats/team/team_4504.html
"You only live once: let's make life BETTER for each other."
LINUX User #193975 [AMD ATHLON CPU] ICQ #149608718.Public
12:54 p.m.
On Tue, 2003-12-16 at 18:48, Elton Woo wrote:
(version 1.4.5 here). Newbieized / dummy directions,
please? ... or I'm going back to Mozilla...
I think this is more a PBCAK than a newbie problem.
--
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?
Please AVOID sending me WORD, EXCEL or POWERPOINT attachments.
See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
11:31 a.m.
On Tue, 2003-12-16 at 18:54, Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
On Tue, 2003-12-16 at 18:48, Elton Woo wrote:
> (version 1.4.5 here). Newbieized / dummy directions,
> please? ... or I'm going back to Mozilla...
I think this is more a PBCAK than a newbie problem.
Me thinks it would be closer to
PBCAM, as it's more a mouse thing then a
keyboard thing : )
Doug
1:03 p.m.
On Tue, 2003-12-16 at 10:48, Elton Woo wrote:
On Tue, 2003-12-16 at 13:40, Ben Steeves wrote:
> "Paste as Quotation" is available in Evo, too.
Admittedly, I'm not the brightest bulb in the room,
but I cannot find this option in Evolution
(version 1.4.5 here). Newbieized / dummy directions,
please? ... or I'm going back to Mozilla...
You only see it when you're in a message.
http://www.prestoncrawford.com/pastequotation.jpg
Preston
1:13 p.m.
On Tue, 2003-12-16 at 18:48, Elton Woo wrote:
but I cannot find this option in Evolution
(version 1.4.5 here). Newbieized / dummy directions,
please?
You have this option when you compose a new message, it is not in the
main window.
T.
--
Thierry Sayegh <geek(a)glossolalie.net>
1:43 p.m.
On Tue, 2003-12-16 at 14:13, Thierry Sayegh wrote:
On Tue, 2003-12-16 at 18:48, Elton Woo wrote:
> but I cannot find this option in Evolution
> (version 1.4.5 here). Newbieized / dummy directions,
> please?
You have this option when you compose a new message, it is not in the
main window.
T.
Oh... In the "compose" window. Merci encore. I'll ignore the
hostile replies...
Elton ;-)
2:43 p.m.
On Tuesday 16 December 2003 11:43, Elton Woo wrote:
Oh... In the "compose" window. Merci encore. I'll
ignore the
hostile replies...
Now, if only it worked well in conjunction with "don't quote emails" in
the capacity that when you do your "paste as quote" it appends the "On
Tuesday foo wrote:" on top of it. This would emulate the way that
kmail/sylpheed works with selection quoting. As it stands now, to only
quote the highlighted section, you have to highlight, copy, reply,
erase all current quote, paste as quote, move cursor down to begin
reply. In kmail, it's: highlight, reply, move cursor.
Does anybody else think this is a reasonable RFE?
--
Jesse Keating RHCE MCSE (geek.j2solutions.net)
Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedora.us/wiki/FedoraLegacy)
Mondo DevTeam (www.mondorescue.org)
GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub)
Was I helpful? Let others know:
http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=jkeating
2:55 p.m.
On Tue, 2003-12-16 at 15:43, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Tuesday 16 December 2003 11:43, Elton Woo wrote:
Now, if only it worked well in conjunction with "don't quote
emails" in
the capacity that when you do your "paste as quote" it appends the "On
Tuesday foo wrote:" on top of it. This would emulate the way that
kmail/sylpheed works with selection quoting. As it stands now, to only
True, I
find that if I select "reply" it quotes the entire message,
whereas with other mailers, I could do "reply quoted" (i.e, reply
to the *highlighted* section of text ONLY). ... maybe I'm doing this
wrong, but the only way to past only the quoted text is to do
"create new" which implies that I also have to manually renter the
subject line, prepended with a "re", etc., etc...
Jesse, would you recommend Sylpheed? I've never tried it...
Does anybody else think this is a reasonable RFE?
I would toss
in my two Canuck cents to vote "yea"... :-(
I've seen so much positive comments on Evolution in this
and the shrike-list, that I thought I'd give it a try, but
this disappoints me. The other thing, I've just found out,
is that unlike some other mailers, you cannot selectively
delete some of the messages in the trash folder.
It's "all or nothing" ... <*sigh*>.
Elton
--
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/stats/team/team_4504.html
"You only live once: let's make life BETTER for each other."
LINUX User #193975 [AMD ATHLON CPU] ICQ #149608718.Public
3:01 p.m.
On Tuesday 16 December 2003 12:55, Elton Woo wrote:
True, I find that if I select "reply" it quotes the entire
message,
whereas with other mailers, I could do "reply quoted" (i.e, reply
to the *highlighted* section of text ONLY). ... maybe I'm doing this
wrong, but the only way to past only the quoted text is to do
"create new" which implies that I also have to manually renter the
subject line, prepended with a "re", etc., etc...
There is actually a setting that you can tell Evolution to not quote the
original email. You hit reply and it gives you a blank email, but uses
all the right headers and subject line.
Jesse, would you recommend Sylpheed? I've never tried it...
I used to use it (and it's where I first found the "highlight-quote"),
but it got somewhat unstable for a while, then there was the whole
gtk1-gtk2 move, and spell checker issues as well. I'm not sure the
current state of Sylpheed.
> Does anybody else think this is a reasonable RFE?
I would toss in my two Canuck cents to vote "yea"... :-(
I've seen so much positive comments on Evolution in this
and the shrike-list, that I thought I'd give it a try, but
this disappoints me. The other thing, I've just found out,
is that unlike some other mailers, you cannot selectively
delete some of the messages in the trash folder.
Huh, I hadn't tried that yet.
--
Jesse Keating RHCE MCSE (geek.j2solutions.net)
Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedora.us/wiki/FedoraLegacy)
Mondo DevTeam (www.mondorescue.org)
GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub)
Was I helpful? Let others know:
http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=jkeating
3:40 p.m.
On Tue, 2003-12-16 at 16:01, Jesse Keating wrote:
There is actually a setting that you can tell Evolution to not quote
the
original email. You hit reply and it gives you a blank email, but uses
From *within* your message, from the Main menu "Actions" or
from the
icons along the main window, I have Reply, Reply to All, Reply to
Sender, Reply to list, Post a reply.
Hitting *any* of these, and Evolution STILL quotes the
*entire* message.
What am I missing or doing wrong? FWIW, it is version 1.4.5 of Evolution
here.
Elton :-(
--
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/stats/team/team_4504.html
"You only live once: let's make life BETTER for each other."
LINUX User #193975 [AMD ATHLON CPU] ICQ #149608718.Public
4:17 p.m.
On Tue, 2003-12-16 at 17:04, Ian P. Thomas wrote:
Good grief.
Tools->Settings->Composer Preferences->Reply Style
Sorry to have annoyed you. Thanks anyway!
Elton ;-)
(...unlike most people, I don't know *everything*)
--
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/stats/team/team_4504.html
"You only live once: let's make life BETTER for each other."
LINUX User #193975 [AMD ATHLON CPU] ICQ #149608718.Public
5:05 a.m.
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:01:44 -0800
Jesse Keating <jkeating(a)j2solutions.net> wrote:
On Tuesday 16 December 2003 12:55, Elton Woo wrote:
> Jesse, would you recommend Sylpheed? I've never tried it...
I used to use it (and it's where I first found the "highlight-quote"),
but it got somewhat unstable for a while, then there was the whole
gtk1-gtk2 move, and spell checker issues as well. I'm not sure the
current state of Sylpheed.
It's still lacking a built-in spell checker, but it seems quite stable
to me. I dropped evolution when it dropped the emacs-like key-bindings.
Admittedly sylpheed doesn't have all the bindings either, but it does
allow me to fire up emacs at the touch of a button. I also like not
having to keep killing stray processes all the time. Plus it seems much
faster. Then again it's just a mail client not 'groupware'.
Maybe the latest evo is much better - once I get FC1 onto my desktop
machine I'll probably try it out again.
Chris
3:41 p.m.
On Tue, 2003-12-16 at 20:55, Elton Woo wrote:
I've seen so much positive comments on Evolution in this
and the shrike-list, that I thought I'd give it a try, but
this disappoints me. The other thing, I've just found out,
is that unlike some other mailers, you cannot selectively
delete some of the messages in the trash folder.
It's "all or nothing" ... <*sigh*>.
Elton
That's because when you delete an email it is only marked for deletion.
Your email isn't gone until you have expunged it. The Trash folder is
actually a vFolder.
I thought this was a bit weird at first, but I don't find it a problem.
If you don't want to see messages that are marked for deletion in your
(real) mail folders you can select View->Hide Deleted Messages.
--
David
4:01 p.m.
On Tue, 2003-12-16 at 16:41, David Keen wrote:
On Tue, 2003-12-16 at 20:55, Elton Woo wrote:
> is that unlike some other mailers, you cannot selectively
> delete some of the messages in the trash folder.
That's because when you delete an email it is only marked for
deletion.
Your email isn't gone until you have expunged it. The Trash folder is
actually a vFolder.
Sorry, I guess I didn't explain myself properly. I am
aware of
the feature of "hiding" deleted mail. What I mean is that (with other
mailers), I was able to expunge *some* of the trash, and
keep others that I didn't want to wipe out immediately.
As I understand it (perhaps wrongly) if I select "empty trash",
I don't have the choice to save *some messages* which I *don't want to
delete immediately*, but which I just want to leave in the trash.
... at least at the time of emptying, hence my statement of "it's
all or nothing"...
...er, am i explaining myself properly?
Perhaps I'll figure it out, so please bear with me (unbearable as
I may be!). (I've been painting the apartment: maybe the fumes are
getting to my brains ... what little of it there is! <*chuckle*>).
Perhaps I could do "show deleted" and thus "recover" those (which
I don't want to really expunge at the moment, before I "clean the
trash". (But then I'll have to 'mark them as deleted again').
Oh well, "Man findet immer ein Ausweg" as my friends in Europe say.
Does this sound right?
Thanks,
Elton ;-)
4:36 p.m.
On Tue, 2003-12-16 at 22:01, Elton Woo wrote:
On Tue, 2003-12-16 at 16:41, David Keen wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-12-16 at 20:55, Elton Woo wrote:
> > is that unlike some other mailers, you cannot selectively
> > delete some of the messages in the trash folder.
> That's because when you delete an email it is only marked for deletion.
> Your email isn't gone until you have expunged it. The Trash folder is
> actually a vFolder.
Sorry, I guess I didn't explain myself properly. I am aware of
the feature of "hiding" deleted mail. What I mean is that (with other
mailers), I was able to expunge *some* of the trash, and
keep others that I didn't want to wipe out immediately.
As I understand it (perhaps wrongly) if I select "empty trash",
I don't have the choice to save *some messages* which I *don't want to
delete immediately*, but which I just want to leave in the trash.
... at least at the time of emptying, hence my statement of "it's
all or nothing"...
...er, am i explaining myself properly?
Perhaps I could do "show deleted" and thus "recover" those (which
I don't want to really expunge at the moment, before I "clean the
trash". (But then I'll have to 'mark them as deleted again').
Oh well, "Man findet immer ein Ausweg" as my friends in Europe say.
Does this sound right?
*nod*
I guess, I just never had the need to delete only some of my trash. It
generally sits in there a day or so and then I 'expunge' it. I can
undelete any messages during this time (you don't need to unhide them to
do this).
Any mail that I think I might want in the future I don't move to the
trash!
BTW, I thought VFolders were a little strange to begin with as well, but
now I find them quite useful.
--
David
12:43 p.m.
On Tue, 2003-12-16 at 18:35, Elton Woo wrote:
On Tue, 2003-12-16 at 13:29, Fritz Whittington wrote:
> With Mozilla, you can mark text in the original mail, Copy to clipboard,
> then when composing the reply, you have the choice of the usual Paste,
> or a "Paste as Quotation" option. No, it's not completely automatic,
> but it works OK.
Thank you, thank you, sir!!! A thousand blessings upon you and
your house <G>. I was just trying to remember why I switched from
mozilla-mail to kmail. It was just this extra little "annoying"step,
but moz is worth it!
You made my day!
Don't tell me you never noticed the sixth menu item on the Edit menu of
the composer window of Evolution...
Rui
--
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?
Please AVOID sending me WORD, EXCEL or POWERPOINT attachments.
See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
1 p.m.
On Tue, 2003-12-16 at 13:43, Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
On Tue, 2003-12-16 at 18:35, Elton Woo wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-12-16 at 13:29, Fritz Whittington wrote:
> > With Mozilla, you can mark text in the original mail, Copy to clipboard,
> > then when composing the reply, you have the choice of the usual Paste,
> > or a "Paste as Quotation" option. No, it's not completely
automatic,
Don't tell me you never noticed the sixth menu item on the Edit
menu of
the composer window of Evolution...
It says "Paste" *not* "Paste as
quotation" should I ASSume that it does?
... muito obgligado,
Elton ;-)
--
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/stats/team/team_4504.html
"You only live once: let's make life BETTER for each other."
LINUX User #193975 [AMD ATHLON CPU] ICQ #149608718.Public
1:08 p.m.
On Tue, 2003-12-16 at 19:00, Elton Woo wrote:
On Tue, 2003-12-16 at 13:43, Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
> Don't tell me you never noticed the sixth menu item on the Edit menu of
> the composer window of Evolution...
It says "Paste" *not* "Paste as quotation" should I ASSume that it
does?
Can't count?
... muito obgligado,
What language is this?
Rui
--
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?
Please AVOID sending me WORD, EXCEL or POWERPOINT attachments.
See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
1:29 p.m.
On Tue, 2003-12-16 at 11:00, Elton Woo wrote:
On Tue, 2003-12-16 at 13:43, Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-12-16 at 18:35, Elton Woo wrote:
> > On Tue, 2003-12-16 at 13:29, Fritz Whittington wrote:
> > > With Mozilla, you can mark text in the original mail, Copy to clipboard,
> > > then when composing the reply, you have the choice of the usual Paste,
> > > or a "Paste as Quotation" option. No, it's not completely
automatic,
> Don't tell me you never noticed the sixth menu item on the Edit menu of
> the composer window of Evolution...
It says "Paste" *not* "Paste as quotation" should I ASSume that it
does?
... muito obgligado,
Elton ;-)
Look at the composer window. Paste quotation. Evolution 1.4.5.
-toms
7412
days inactive
7442
days old
46 comments
22 participants
participants (22)
-
Alexandre Strube -
Ben Steeves -
Bryan O'Sullivan -
Chris Rouch -
Clifford Snow -
David Keen -
Douglas Furlong -
Elton Woo -
Frank Tanner III -
Fritz Whittington -
Ian P. Thomas -
Jack Aboutboul -
Jesse Keating -
kona -
Mark Derricutt -
Mike Chambers -
Preston Crawford -
Rodolfo J. Paiz -
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra -
T. Ribbrock -
Thierry Sayegh -
William Hooper