| 1 |
On 21 Dec 2008, at 09:46, Mark David Dumlao wrote: |
| 2 |
> ... On perhaps my third or fourth repost, I found a |
| 3 |
> shocking answer: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 8:24 AM, Nicolas Sebrecht |
| 6 |
>> ... |
| 7 |
>> You may try by sending a mail using the text format instead of the |
| 8 |
>> HTML |
| 9 |
>> one. I don't read more than one line when it's written in HTML. I |
| 10 |
>> suspect that a lot of contributors do the same here. |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>> Please, conform to the netiquette. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> That was one of the coldest, most invisible, and hardest to |
| 15 |
> troubleshoot communication errors I've ever seen. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
This is a very poor description. Mr Sebrecht's reply certainly was not |
| 18 |
a "communication error", if that's what you mean. His response was |
| 19 |
quite reasonable, and it wasn't even terse. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I don't know what you mean by using the adjective "cold" in relation |
| 22 |
to the communication error that your mailer posts HTML by default. You |
| 23 |
should file an upstream bug about that with whomever supplies it. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Unix is terse, and you should expect that. Mr Sebrecht's reply was |
| 26 |
polite, helpful & informative. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
> ... I had posted and reposted the same |
| 30 |
> message three times over the span of a week - to no joy. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
You should count yourself lucky that no-one bitchslapped you for this. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Stroller. |
Archives