Re: Flow flaws

On 2006.05.09 14:54, Mişu Moldovan wrote:
> Ma, 09 Mai 2006 la 09:51 -0500, Mark Flacy <mflacy1 comcast net> a scris:
> > On 2006.05.09 09:01, Mişu Moldovan wrote:
> > > 
> > 
> > [snip]
> > 
> > > Balsa by default inserts in the messages that it creates at the end  
> > > of every line an " =20" expression. That seems to be a "hard wrap"  
> > > that mail clients use it to always wrap lines whenever they bump  
> > > into it. However, some clients insert in the mails they generate  
> > > just a "soft wrap" consisting only of one "=" which make the mail  
> > > clients wrap lines more liberally, expanding lines to the entire  
> > > width of the available space in the current view. I would also  
> > > prefer the "soft wrap", it seems so much better, why isn't it  
> > > enabled by default?
> > 
> > Well, the "Format=Flowed" declaration in the header resulted in a  
> > perfect re-wrap of your e-mail.
> > 
> > Of course, when you *do* set "Format=Flowed", you cannot send any  
> > preformatted ascii tables or block indented paragraphs.
> Sorry if I'm wrong, but I think I was referring to something else. Please look at my current reply (composed using Sylpheed). See how the lines expand to the right to fill the whole width of the message view? You might need to maximize the window to see that. That's what I meant by "soft wrap", the mail client uses the whole horizontal space to display the message. True for all mail clients I've ever used. The replies from Balsa are "hard wrapped", usually leaving some space to the right.

This reply was sent with inbound and outbound word wrapping disabled.  I'm also creating a rather long paragraph in order to see what happens to the outbound text with both wrappings disabled.  Maybe all of *my* whiny noises about word wrap are due to Balsa not doing what I think is "reasonable" but my configuration is set to force it to do unreasonable things.

Toggling "Format=Flowed" in the Options menu from off to on to off doesn't give you the original buffer back.  As I just found out.  That's also not good, IMO.

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]