[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Plagiarism? Or bad technology?
- To: xanadu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: RE: Plagiarism? Or bad technology?
- From: Art Pollard <pollarda@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 08:17:42 -1000
- In-reply-to: <01BCB13F.BD8383A0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Reply-to: xanadu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Mon, 25 Aug 1997, Jay Osako wrote:
> I apologize for this, as it is indeed bad technology of the Micro$oft
> kind. Specificall,y at my workplace we are required (!) to use MS
> Outho^H^Hlook for all mail. Since Outlook does not follow anything
> similar to standard usage (it assumes your followup will appear *before*
> the replied-to message, apparently SOP for business mail) it screwed up
> my reply. This is not this frist time this has happened, and I can find
> few remedies short of manually entering the '>'. This is problematic
> since Outlook inserts an attiribution on every new parapgrah, a
> 'feature' that can't be disabled.
Of course.... We should have known that it would be traced eventually to
a problem in M$ software. Micro$oft has ideals as far away from Xanadu as
Hell is from Heaven.
Art Pollard <PollardA@xxxxxxxxxx>
Moderator for Comp.Theory.Info-Retrieval
List Maintainer for the Hyper-Theory (Hypertext Theory) mailing list.