Hail the revolution.  Why is anyone using OE these days?  Thunderbird 
0.9 is stable, full of features and it will import all of your data from 
Outlook / Outlook Express.  The only thing it lacks is a calender (yes 
it reads newsgroups too).  To be honest, I can do without that for now, 
OE doesn't have one anyway.

Also, a feature which I have to praise.. Thread view of email.  It's 
great, I have a folder that all of my piclist mails come in to, then it 
organises the messages of threads based on the subject etc.  It means I 
can follow a mailing list much like you would a newsgroup.  Really 
reduces the stress of all that mailing list mail coming in.

Justin.

P.s it's a pain not signing, I have to manually disable it each time I 
make a post to this group :(

Russell McMahon wrote:

>CC Justin (no mouse actions were consumed in the preparation of this 
>message).
>
>This is the first and only message of Justin's that I can see "normally".
>
>Of the replies that I have received offlist, about 50% see Justin's messages 
>as I do - a blank subject field with he signature and message body in two 
>separate attachments. These seem to mainly be OE users but that's not 
>certain (not all have said).
>
>Some people are seeing the attachments inside an attachment - enough to 
>drive the sanest crazy.
>
>Those who report seeing the messages 'normally" all seem to have been NOT 
>using OE. Without going and looking i think that 1 or perhaps two outlook 
>(not express) users saw them OK. Users of Macs, Linux, DEC running Ultrix 
>(!)[ :-) ] and various non-Micro$oft PC based email programs seem to see 
>them OK. Also GMail is OK I think.
>
>The "problem" appears to be one of interpretation. Lee Jones kindly sent me 
>an overview of what makes email tick - and it seems surprising that more 
>things don't go wrong than do already.
>
>A "solution" to the "problem" would be for Justin not to digitally sign his 
>messages to the list. As OE is quite likely the largest single browser used 
>this would be a quick way of getting his messages read. There is probably a 
>better method which allows signing and OE display. I'll wait until the 
>answerings die down and then see if there's anything obvious in what i get.
>
>Much of Lee's interesting answer appended below
>
>
>        Russell McMahon
>
>_______________________________________
>
>
>  
>
>>>Presentation of a MIME encoded message is up to the user's email
>>>user agent.  Most people use a combined user agent and web browser.
>>>So what you see is an indirect result of what you chose to use as
>>>your email user agent.
>>>      
>>>
>
>  
>
>>That has rapidly been becoming fairly clear of late :-)
>>I've been noting how eg various webmails, Gmail & OE handle various 
>>emails. Also what happens when messages are relayed through various mail 
>>systems.
>>    
>>
>
>A relaying system may choose to enclose the message in another
>wrapper layer, though usually it just adds some received header(s)
>and passes the message on.  I think it can also simplify the MIME
>message structure if the incoming message is too complex (has extra
>structure that is redundant).
>
>Spam filtering, virus blocking, and company policies may also block
>part(s) (which sometimes leads to notice part(s) being added or
>substituted) or block entire messages (which may cause a notice
>message to be substituted for the original).
>
>  
>
>>I would have thought (obviously erroneously) that it would be
>>relatively easy to write a standard that allowed dissimilar
>>systems to display emails reasonably consistently.
>>    
>>
>
>MIME is not that standard.  MIME was written to allow binary
>materials to be sent via a primarily 7-bit transport mechanism.
>It was designed so that alternative representations of a part
>(which should have the same content in different form) could
>be supplied to allow the user's email agent to display the
>best fit given the user's preference and the display hardware
>that was available when the message was read.  Recall that at
>the time MIME was created, most display hardware was textual
>terminals with graphics capability being a much higher cost.
>People would agree on display IF (note big IF):
>
>1) everyone agreed on which was most important -- content or
>   form (prettiness) -- so that the "correct" one was chosen
>   to maximize user's desires on display hardware available.
>   Given the variability of display subsystem and different
>   people having different display preferences, you cannot
>   standardize it.
>
>2) commercial vendors all agreed on what was "best" for the
>   user and all wanted to look the same -- note that this is
>   normally interpreted as opposite of market differentiation.
>
>Technically, it's fairly easy (OK, lets call it achievable).
>Politically and commercially, it is (in my opinion) impossible.
>
>
>
>  
>
_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist