| 1 |
Stroller ha scritto: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On 21 Dec 2008, at 09:46, Mark David Dumlao wrote: |
| 4 |
>> ... On perhaps my third or fourth repost, I found a |
| 5 |
>> shocking answer: |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 8:24 AM, Nicolas Sebrecht |
| 8 |
>>> ... |
| 9 |
>>> You may try by sending a mail using the text format instead of the HTML |
| 10 |
>>> one. I don't read more than one line when it's written in HTML. I |
| 11 |
>>> suspect that a lot of contributors do the same here. |
| 12 |
>>> |
| 13 |
>>> Please, conform to the netiquette. |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
>> That was one of the coldest, most invisible, and hardest to |
| 16 |
>> troubleshoot communication errors I've ever seen. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> This is a very poor description. Mr Sebrecht's reply certainly was not a |
| 19 |
> "communication error", if that's what you mean. His response was quite |
| 20 |
> reasonable, and it wasn't even terse. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
The comunication error is not the answer of mr.Sebrech. It's the fact |
| 23 |
that, as you put it: |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> no-one bitchslapped you for this. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Basically he went ignored for unknown (to him -and to potentially any |
| 28 |
newbie) reasons, without feedback, for a lot of time until Sebrech told |
| 29 |
him that under pressure. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
> I don't know what you mean by using the adjective "cold" in relation to |
| 32 |
> the communication error that your mailer posts HTML by default. You |
| 33 |
> should file an upstream bug about that with whomever supplies it. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Why is posting HTML mail a bug? I don't like HTML mail and I try to |
| 36 |
avoid it as much as possible, but there is nothing intrinsically "wrong" |
| 37 |
in HTML mail. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
m. |
Archives