Brent L. Bates wrote:
> You are a fine one to complain about someone else's email.

my *note* was not a complaint. it was a request. as stated, i filter
'html' email to a separate email folder.

shashi's 1st post was in 'text/plain'. his reply was 'text/html'. reread
my second post and you might understand why i requested he not use
'text/html'.

asking that he 'trim dead wood' was because i saw no need for resending
links and *note*. saves storage for him, myself, followers of this tsl,
fnal, and any server that mirrors this tsl.

asking to reply 'inline' is as stated, for continuity.

asking not to 'spam me' is as stated. i do not need duplicate emails.

i have received replies from this tsl that have been sent as private
reply and 'cc:' reply. so, as stated.

it would be nice if this tsl added a
 'reply-to: [log in to unmask]
to headers when sending to tsl subscribers.

> I could easily read shashi kiran's email (I have a procmail filter that 
> automatically deletes the duplicate HTML part of incoming emails).

good for you. i use mozilla thunderbird.

what does procmail do if an email is only in 'html'?

> Yours on the other hand required more work because your entire message is 
> an attachment.

evidently procmail is causing my email to *appear* as an attachment.

appears that procmail is doing something to my email to make it appear
to you as an entire attachment.

so it seems that procmail is mishandling

}> This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
}> --------------enig5B7F26BE6BB629E0C0458D4B
}> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
}> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

in my email.

you really should send a bug report to http://www.procmail.org/ and not
accuse me of sending an entire email as an attachment.

> Start practicing what you preach.

if anyone is standing in a pulpit, it is you.

only parts of my email that are attachments are 'sig' and 'pgp' signing.

> I only made the effort to read your email because I was curious about your
> response.

now you know more about my response to shashi.

> Normally I just ignore emails like yours. If you're not willing to send 
> your message as just plain text, why should I bother trying to read it?

as stated, it was, as is this, 'text/plain'.

next time, before you complain about someone's email, you should look at
entire email, headers and body.


so, to shashi kiran, if you did not understand my post and took offense,
you have my apoligies. it was not meant to offend. it was to be only a
request.

to 'brent l. bates', who does not know how to break apart his sentences [1]
and writes in a single paragraph [2], kafba. :D

[1]  http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sentence
[2]  http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/paragraph


-- 

peace out.

tc,hago.

g
.

****
in a free world without fences, who needs gates.
**
help microsoft stamp out piracy - give linux to a friend today.
**
to mess up a linux box, you need to work at it.
to mess up an ms windows box, you just need to *look* at it.
**
learn linux:
'Rute User's Tutorial and Exposition' http://rute.2038bug.com/index.html
'The Linux Documentation Project' http://www.tldp.org/
'LDP HOWTO-index' http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/HOWTO-INDEX/index.html
'HowtoForge' http://howtoforge.com/
****