A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Microsoft Windows XP » General XP issues or comments
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

OE 6 email and replying with the "to" addres (instead of the "default" one)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #16  
Old October 18th 17, 07:25 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
R.Wieser
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,302
Default OE 6 email and replying with the "to" addres (instead of the "default" one)

Nil,

What I mean is that for you to ask for new features to be added
to a program that was abandoned long, long ago is futile and just
plain silly.


True, it would be. *IF* I would have been asking for that. Which I wasn't.

Nobody is here to serve you.


True. Some of us here seem to be hell-bent on interpreting a question
exactly as *they* want to, even though they have been informed of the fact
that the person who wrote it certainly didn't mean it that way.

Grousing about not getting what you want is childish. And futile.


.... And than making an ass of themselves by ignoring such an explanation,
and just keep on bitching.

Kiddo, its one thing to make a mistake in an interpretation of what was
asked for. But it takes a special kind of individual to keep continuing
their mistake even when they have been informed of it.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser


-- Origional message:
"Nil" wrote in message
...
On 17 Oct 2017, "R.Wieser" wrote in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:

Nil,
You obviously don't understand that Outlook Express was dropped
from further development more than a decade and a half ago.


What do you mean ? Where the developpers of that era stupider
than the ones outof this era than ?


What I mean is that for you to ask for new features to be added to a
program that was abandoned long, long ago is futile and just plain
silly.

Although I can understand your sentiment (I regulary use MSDN
documentation), I do not agree with you. If they would have just
barfed something out with minimum specs than it would, for
example, only have supported a single email addres, and would not
have had message rules.


It doesn't matter whether you agree with me or not, the fact remains
that the program is long dead and the developers will never touch it
again. What they could or would have done at that time is irrelevant.
No new features or settings will ever be added.

And alas, if I remove all the complaints about what you think I
must have ment outof your message I'm left with a blank sheet.
Which does not help me one iota further in finding the answer I'm
looking for ....


Nobody is here to serve you. Grousing about not getting what you want
is childish. And futile.



Ads
  #17  
Old October 18th 17, 07:46 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
R.Wieser
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,302
Default OE 6 email and replying with the "to" addres (instead of the "default" one)

Nil,

He said he was addressing the Microsoft developers...


Nope, I never have. And I will owe you a cookie if you can quote where I
did.

I however *did* say that, and I quote myself here "Here I was trying to
refer to MS, its designers, ".

And although English/American isn't my first language, I'm pretty sure that
"to refer to" and "was addressing" (to use the exact phrases) have rather
distinctive, and non-comparable meanings. You can even use them in the
same sentence. Like "you keep referring to my question, but certainly not
addressing it". :-)

No kiddo, you are either trying to pick a fight, are trolling, or are simply
not taking notice of what somebody actually said. :-(

Regards,
Rudy Wieser


-- Origional message:
"Nil" wrote in message
...
On 17 Oct 2017, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote
in microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:

He was asking if anyone knew, if it was _possible_, how to do what
he wanted (make the To: based on the From: being replied to rather
than the default personality); not asking for that to be _added_.
He may have expressed an _opinion_ that it was likely, given all
the other things that it _can_ do, that OE _could_ do that; he
wasn't asking for it to be _added_ if it can't.


He said he was addressing the Microsoft developers... all of whom left
the project more than a decade ago.

He wasn't saying it bothered him that you didn't know. He was just
asking if anyone did know, for sure.


Sounded to me like was getting ****y at people for telling him a truth
that he didn't want to hear.



  #18  
Old October 18th 17, 01:07 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
J. P. Gilliver (John)[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,679
Default OE 6 email and replying with the "to" addres (instead of the "default" one)

In message , R.Wieser
writes:
Nil,

What I mean is that for you to ask for new features to be added
to a program that was abandoned long, long ago is futile and just
plain silly.


True, it would be. *IF* I would have been asking for that. Which I wasn't.

Nobody is here to serve you.


True. Some of us here seem to be hell-bent on interpreting a question
exactly as *they* want to, even though they have been informed of the fact
that the person who wrote it certainly didn't mean it that way.

Grousing about not getting what you want is childish. And futile.


... And than making an ass of themselves by ignoring such an explanation,
and just keep on bitching.

Kiddo, its one thing to make a mistake in an interpretation of what was
asked for. But it takes a special kind of individual to keep continuing
their mistake even when they have been informed of it.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

(I'd have said this by email if I knew it

Beautifully put! For someone who says English is not their first
language (what is - German?), you have an excellent grasp of it; I
understood what you were asking (basically: "can what is in the subject
line be set in OE - I've looked but can't find it, but it's a Microsoft
product, so the answer _may_ be in some obscure menu"; you were NOT
asking "can this be added to OE" - you knew full well it's a dead
product), and even if that was misunderstood, you have clarified the
situation such that there is absolutely no doubt about what you are
asking. (Sadly, it looks like the answer _is_ "no". I don't actually
know of a news/email client that _does_ have that feature, but I've not
looked for it.)

-- Origional message:


(The second "o" in that line - is it put there by your software? -
shouldn't be there. [I'd say there's no need to include the original
anyway, since you've already included the relevant parts above.])
[rest snipped]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

My mission in life is not merely to survive, but to thrive, and to do so with
some passion, some compassion, some humour, and some style. - Maya Angelou,
quoted by Annabel Nnochiri, in RT 2017/5/13-19
  #19  
Old October 18th 17, 02:46 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
R.Wieser
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,302
Default OE 6 email and replying with the "to" addres (instead of the "default" one)

Hello John,

Beautifully put!


Thanks. :-) Although I always try, its sometimes good to hear it I do it
well.

For someone who says English is not their first language (what is -
German?), you have an excellent grasp of it;


Again my thanks. And you're very close, I'm Dutch.

Sadly, it looks like the answer _is_ "no". I don't actually know of a
news/email client that _does_ have that feature, but I've not looked for
it.


Yep, it looks that way. I just had to make sure (no dumber thing than to
assume that something you want doesn't exist, only to years-and-years later
by accident find out that it does after all .... :-( :-) ).

-- Origional message:


(The second "o" in that line - is it put there by your software? -
shouldn't be there.


Funny. Just a hour or so ago I found that out too (I do tend to use Google
as a dictionary, when I'm in doubt of if my spelling is correct, and was
checking something unrelated). And that after having it used that way for
several decades. :-\

And no, I insert that by hand every time. OE *is* a bit of dumb ... :-)

[I'd say there's no need to include the original anyway, since you've
already included the relevant parts above.])


True. But somehow I like to give people reading my posts (now, or in the
future when the parent message isn't in close vincinity anymore) a chance to
take a sniff of the context it was taken from. But maybe you're right, and
I should ditch it. I'll have to think about it (have been doing it for
more than a decade).

Regards,
Rudy Wieser


  #20  
Old October 18th 17, 05:09 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
J. P. Gilliver (John)[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,679
Default OE 6 email and replying with the "to" addres (instead of the "default" one)

In message , R.Wieser
writes:
[]
And no, I insert that by hand every time. OE *is* a bit of dumb ... :-)


I presume, after all these years, you've come across OE-quotefix?

[I'd say there's no need to include the original anyway, since you've
already included the relevant parts above.])


True. But somehow I like to give people reading my posts (now, or in the
future when the parent message isn't in close vincinity anymore) a chance to
take a sniff of the context it was taken from. But maybe you're right, and
I should ditch it. I'll have to think about it (have been doing it for
more than a decade).

[]
Well, When you quote the bits you're replying to anyway, as you do, I'd
say there's usually no need to quote all of the original - especially
since most people don't seem to snip at all, so they can get very long
and irrelevant. But it's up to you of course!
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

This was before we knew that a laboratory rat, if experimented upon, will
develop cancer. [Quoted by] Anne ), 1997-1-29
  #21  
Old October 18th 17, 06:10 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
R.Wieser
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,302
Default OE 6 email and replying with the "to" addres (instead of the "default" one)

John,

I presume, after all these years, you've come across OE-quotefix?


I heard about it, but never bothered to take a peek at it. As a (hobby)
programmer myself I have my sincere doubts about if it can do its work
without having to babysit it. You can choose your own prefix char/chars,
and I do not really believe that such a program it will be able to
dependantly recognise that a certain char or combination thereof is a prefix
or not. "Sheer luck" is what comes to mind ... :-|

Well, When you quote the bits you're replying to anyway.


I always do. I hate it having to guess what a certain paragraph (or more)
might be an answer to from in the origional message, and do not want to put
that upon other people.

But its not all that hard to selectivily quote something, pulling it out of
context and make it appear as if it said something else altogether
(something our esteemed Nil tried to do, but than better :-) ). I've been
accused of doing it, and have been on the receiving end. Though being able
to quote more from the same spot (mine or theirs) than normally cuts that
short.

Somehow having the replied-to message at the bottom of my own made me feel
safe that it could not be altered or thrown away by the poster of the
origional message (I've seen both happen on fora, and seem to remember that
a request to remove a message from (conforming) newsgroup servers is
possible too).

And the "but what if my message is read in the future, and its all they
have" argument plays its tune to me ...

Than again, being at the receiving end of it only happened to me a few
times, and probably is not a really good reason to keep attaching large
swats of previous messages to mine.

Hmmm ...

But it's up to you of course!


:-) You do not really want to know how many people thought it was up to
*them* to decide I how I should post. ... which ofcourse is a good way to
lower your chances of ever seeing it become true. :-D

Regards,
Rudy Wieser


  #22  
Old October 18th 17, 06:44 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
J. P. Gilliver (John)[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,679
Default OE 6 email and replying with the "to" addres (instead of the "default" one)

In message , R.Wieser
writes:
John,

I presume, after all these years, you've come across OE-quotefix?


I heard about it, but never bothered to take a peek at it. As a (hobby)
programmer myself I have my sincere doubts about if it can do its work
without having to babysit it. You can choose your own prefix char/chars,


Do give it a go - I found it needed little work to either install
(though a _little_ more than some) or use. Certainly, it probably only
works with a limited number of quote characters, but I found it useful.
(Well, its big brother Outlook-Quotefix; I have never used OE, but I had
to use O at work, and quotefix worked up to [but not including] about
the 2007 version I think.)

and I do not really believe that such a program it will be able to
dependantly recognise that a certain char or combination thereof is a prefix
or not. "Sheer luck" is what comes to mind ... :-|


It does more than _just_ look after quotes. (Though I can't remember
what else, now!)

Well, When you quote the bits you're replying to anyway.


I always do. I hate it having to guess what a certain paragraph (or more)
might be an answer to from in the origional message, and do not want to put
that upon other people.


I wish more people did! Surely the way we're communicating here is far
easier to follow than either top- or bottom-posting.
[]
Somehow having the replied-to message at the bottom of my own made me feel
safe that it could not be altered or thrown away by the poster of the
origional message (I've seen both happen on fora, and seem to remember that


(so have I)
[]
And the "but what if my message is read in the future, and its all they
have" argument plays its tune to me ...


I've seen that one, but most of the time, I feel that if I quote enough
of the original to match what I'm saying, they don't _need_ the history
- in fact, since a thread can wander, it can actually be
counter-productive.

_Sometimes_ I feel there's enough needed in the original - or, it's too
hard to figure out which bits to snip (I use "[]" to indicate where I've
snipped) - that I _do_ leave it all (though I then tend to put my
response below rather than above, though not always).

Than again, being at the receiving end of it only happened to me a few
times, and probably is not a really good reason to keep attaching large
swats of previous messages to mine.


Indeed. Each case on its merits.

Hmmm ...

But it's up to you of course!


:-) You do not really want to know how many people thought it was up to
*them* to decide I how I should post. ... which ofcourse is a good way to
lower your chances of ever seeing it become true. :-D


Well, I ignore those. I _have_ been known to killfile posters using
Windows Live Mail after - I think it is - issue 15, because that makes
their posts (unless they're the first poster in a thread) impossible to
follow; though I haven't seen any such posts for some time, so maybe
it's improved.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser


--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

'It works for me' is not the same as it isn't broke - Kenn Villegas, 2010-2-19
in
https://rwmj.wordpress.com/2010/02/1...s-technically/
  #23  
Old October 18th 17, 06:52 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Nil[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,731
Default OE 6 email and replying with the "to" addres (instead of the "default" one)

On 18 Oct 2017, "R.Wieser" wrote in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:

True, it would be. *IF* I would have been asking for that. Which
I wasn't.


No? This is what I read:

You:
The only question is, has anyone thought of the situation I
described, and added a setting for it (just as they did for using
only one (freely selectable!) email addres for all accounts, or
allow every account to send with its own one) ... :-)

JJ:
I'm pretty sure you already know that OE is a compiled
application, and adding a setting to it would involve hacking the
application.

You: Here I was trying to refer to MS, its designers, and what
they thought of could be usefull to the user of their product.

JJ: The answer is no. You can ask someone to rummage OE all you
want, but you won't find it.


You wanted a setting that is not in the program. It was pointed out
that the program is what it is and cannot be changed. You asked if
Microsoft would add your desired feature. It was pointed out yet again
that no new features would be forthcoming.

If you meant something else, I'll just have to take your word for it,
because that's not what I got from what you wrote.
  #24  
Old October 18th 17, 07:05 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
J. P. Gilliver (John)[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,679
Default OE 6 email and replying with the "to" addres (instead of the "default" one)

Sigh. I thought we'd explained this fully.

In message , Nil
writes:
[]
You wanted a setting that is not in the program. It was pointed out


He didn't _know_ it isn't in the prog., so was asking if anyone knew of
a way to get it - or, that it _definitely_ isn't. The answer "I don't
think you can do that" was what he'd concluded, but given the way some
software (especially Microsoft ones of this nature) sometimes hide
settings in obscure places meant he wasn't definitely going to say it
isn't there.

that the program is what it is and cannot be changed. You asked if


HE NEVER ASKED FOR SOMETHING TO BE ADDED. HE KNOWS AS WELL AS YOU DO
THAT IT'S ABANDONWARE.

Microsoft would add your desired feature. It was pointed out yet again
that no new features would be forthcoming.


NO, HE DIDN'T. He asked if anyone _knew how_ to achieve what he wanted
(or knew _for sure_ that it couldn't be achieved - but by that stage he
wasn't/isn't willing to accept "no" from anyone who can't actually back
that up, though he's quite willing to accept "I don't know how to").

If you meant something else, I'll just have to take your word for it,
because that's not what I got from what you wrote.


Even if his original post wasn't clear - and it was to me - he's
clarified it enough times.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If your mind goes blank, remember to turn down the sound.
  #25  
Old October 18th 17, 08:34 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
R.Wieser
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,302
Default OE 6 email and replying with the "to" addres (instead of the "default" one)

John,

Do give it a go - I found it needed little work to either install (though
a _little_ more than some) or use.


Well, maybe I will take a look at it after all. Although reformatting the
quotes I use by hand is no biggie for me, it might have other features which
could come in handy -- which I will only know when I do peek at it.

I wish more people did! Surely the way we're communicating here is far
easier to follow than either top- or bottom-posting.


You said it. Bottom posting is really the pits to me though: You cannot
do a quick peek to see whom someone is responding to, as you always have to
scroll (way) down to find the start of the actual reply. Ontop of that
those people mostly do not believe in quoting what they respond to either.

though I then tend to put my response below rather than above, though not
always


.... whoops ! :-)

Well, I ignore those.


I still need to learn that I'm afraid (though I'm on my way I think). I
mostly tend to bluntly-and-directly challenge their authority (who made them
usenet police), how "rules" can be anything *near* to that if they cannot
enforce them, and by extension how they are able to assume that a set of
*guidelines* (no matter how well thought out they might be) can be anything
more than that. Ofcourse, any such question is duly ignored, and more
gargbagagle is posted instead. Which is quite telling in its own way.

I've never heard anyone try to enforce the "when someone greets you you
greet back" socially expected behavior. But that is pretty-much exactly
what those people try to do. :-\

I _have_ been known to killfile posters using Windows Live Mail [snip]


Maybe you should clean out that killfile ? Heck, maybe those people using it
have died of old age, and none are around anymore ... :-p

But yes, I once-in-a-while do killfile someone too. I tend to release them
after a few months (or sometimes even just weeks) or so (just checked.
Nope, currently its empty).

Regards,
Rudy Wieser


  #26  
Old October 18th 17, 09:03 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Bill in Co
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,927
Default OE 6 email and replying with the "to" addres (instead of the "default" one)

I'd second John's idea of trying OE-QuoteFix (which I'm also using, after
frustration with line wraps and quoting in OE), although it still may not be
perfect. :-) However, I don't know whether or not it will resolve the
specific problem you've asked about, Rudy.

R.Wieser wrote:
John,

Do give it a go - I found it needed little work to either install (though
a _little_ more than some) or use.


Well, maybe I will take a look at it after all. Although reformatting
the
quotes I use by hand is no biggie for me, it might have other features
which
could come in handy -- which I will only know when I do peek at it.

I wish more people did! Surely the way we're communicating here is far
easier to follow than either top- or bottom-posting.


You said it. Bottom posting is really the pits to me though: You
cannot
do a quick peek to see whom someone is responding to, as you always have
to
scroll (way) down to find the start of the actual reply. Ontop of that
those people mostly do not believe in quoting what they respond to either.

though I then tend to put my response below rather than above, though not
always


... whoops ! :-)

Well, I ignore those.


I still need to learn that I'm afraid (though I'm on my way I think). I
mostly tend to bluntly-and-directly challenge their authority (who made
them
usenet police), how "rules" can be anything *near* to that if they cannot
enforce them, and by extension how they are able to assume that a set of
*guidelines* (no matter how well thought out they might be) can be
anything
more than that. Ofcourse, any such question is duly ignored, and more
gargbagagle is posted instead. Which is quite telling in its own way.

I've never heard anyone try to enforce the "when someone greets you you
greet back" socially expected behavior. But that is pretty-much exactly
what those people try to do. :-\

I _have_ been known to killfile posters using Windows Live Mail [snip]


Maybe you should clean out that killfile ? Heck, maybe those people using
it
have died of old age, and none are around anymore ... :-p

But yes, I once-in-a-while do killfile someone too. I tend to release
them
after a few months (or sometimes even just weeks) or so (just checked.
Nope, currently its empty).

Regards,
Rudy Wieser



  #27  
Old October 18th 17, 09:11 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
R.Wieser
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,302
Default OE 6 email and replying with the "to" addres (instead of the "default" one)

Nil,

No? This is what I read:


Good for you. But you did not understand it.

Let me quote from what *you* quoted:

and added a setting for it (just as they did for using
only one (freely selectable!) email addres for all accounts, or
allow every account to send with its own one)


Now read the part between the round brackets again. Do you *really* think I
am referrring to some hacker(s) there ? Or is it maybe possible that I was
referring to the origional developers of the program, who had to implement
those things I mentioned there ? And if that is posssible, would than
the "just as" not mean that the "added a setting" would have been done by
those same people, the developpers ?

I think its is, as that is how I ment it.

You wanted a setting that is not in the program.


Prove it. Show me where I asked that. If you can't you owe *me* a cookie.
:-)

But I quote this for you, from my initial message: The first few words from
my actual question.

Quote:
tl;dr:
(how) can I tell OE 6
Thats says how can I *tell*. Not "how can I *make*", nor "who can *make
that for me*". To me that sounds quite clear. Why doesn't it for you ?

If you meant something else, I'll just have to take your word for it,


No you don't. You just have to *read* the message, instead of just grabbing
a word here-and-there and than throw you own imagination into the remaining
gaps.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser


  #28  
Old October 18th 17, 09:25 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
R.Wieser
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,302
Default OE 6 email and replying with the "to" addres (instead of the "default" one)

Bill,

I'd second John's idea of trying OE-QuoteFix


Ok, thank you. Have two people mentioning it as usefull to them does have
some weight. :-)

However, I don't know whether or not it will resolve the specific problem
you've asked about, Rudy.


Although I ofcourse have no idea, its not really likely. But who knows and
it will surprise me ?

And even if its not but it turns out it can directly act on (change) the
post I'm busy writing (tho reflow the quoted lines) I could well try to take
a peek inside and see if I can learn from it -- and maybe make the solution
myself. After all, I *am* a hobby programmer.

And even if that does not work out, maybe it does offer me functionality I
never knew I missed ? :-)

Regards,
Rudy Wieser


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.