[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Nmh-workers] 78 column limit
From: |
norm |
Subject: |
[Nmh-workers] 78 column limit |
Date: |
Tue, 04 Dec 2012 10:43:11 -0800 |
Ralph Corderoy <address@hidden> writes:
> Well, if this hypothetical utility existed it would have certainly flagged
>your message as violating the >78 column limit :-)
That's disconcerting. For more than a decade now, the default for my editor
was for no line wrapping. I inserted new lines to generate my own
formatting. But some recipients complained that my Emails are "jagged". This
was caused by their Email client inserting its own line endings.
So I gave up trying to control the format in which recipients see my Email.
Just last week, I wrote the code to make line wrapping be the default
whenever I'm editing a file in my drafts folder whose name is all digits.
So... do I conform to standards or make my my recipients unhappy? In passing
I note that almost all the Email I get, not from address@hidden, has
very long lines.
Norman Shapiro
- [Nmh-workers] UTF=8 in message bodies, norm, 2012/12/04
- Re: [Nmh-workers] UTF=8 in message bodies, Ken Hornstein, 2012/12/04
- Re: [Nmh-workers] UTF=8 in message bodies, Ralph Corderoy, 2012/12/04
- [Nmh-workers] 78 column limit,
norm <=
- Re: [Nmh-workers] 78 column limit, Jon Steinhart, 2012/12/04
- Re: [Nmh-workers] 78 column limit, norm, 2012/12/04
- Re: [Nmh-workers] 78 column limit, Ken Hornstein, 2012/12/04
- Re: [Nmh-workers] 78 column limit, norm, 2012/12/05
- Re: [Nmh-workers] 78 column limit, Ken Hornstein, 2012/12/05
- Re: [Nmh-workers] 78 column limit, norm, 2012/12/05
- Re: [Nmh-workers] 78 column limit, Ken Hornstein, 2012/12/05
- Re: [Nmh-workers] 78 column limit, Ralph Corderoy, 2012/12/05
- Re: [Nmh-workers] 78 column limit, Ken Hornstein, 2012/12/05
- Re: [Nmh-workers] 78 column limit, Michael Richardson, 2012/12/06