Re: Outlook-style quoting for Gnus

Re: Outlook-style quoting for Gnus

[Eric S Fraga]

Elias Mårtenson <lokedhs@gmail.com> writes:

[...]

> At work I suffer from a problem that I suppose is not unique in the
> world: Being in an organisation that exclusively uses Outlook. For

[...]

> I tried using Gnus, but I realised quickly that the everybody expects
> the replies to conform to the (yes, quite horrible) citation style of
> Outlook. This means that emails are HTML, and that the entire email
> chain prior is included in each mail. This includes preserved
> formatting and images. I also realised that Gnus had no way to provide
> this.

I guess I have taken the approach that if I have to put up with emails
from Outlook users that are backwards, ill-formatted and full of
unnecessary information, they can put up with my properly formatted,
properly ordered (Q -> A, not A <- Q) and bereft of cruft emails!

But that's probably because I'm a stubborn ****. :-)

When I do think it would be appropriate to send an HTML formatted email
(every now and again but luckily not very often), I use org-mime-htmlize
which does a really nice job of creating a multipart message.  This
doesn't address quoting of emails etc. of course.

Anyway, good luck with your solution.  If it works for you, and makes
your colleagues happy, then soldier on!  It's a testament to gnus that
you could actually develop a solution that works for you.  If only
Outlook etc. were that flexible.

-- 
: Eric S Fraga, GnuPG: 0xC89193D8FFFCF67D
: in Emacs 24.3.50.1 + Ma Gnus v0.8 + evil 1.0-dev
: BBDB version 3.02 ($Date: 2013/05/15 13:17:58 $)

Re: Outlook-style quoting for Gnus

[Steinar Bang]

>>>>> Eric S Fraga <e.fraga@ucl.ac.uk>:

> I guess I have taken the approach that if I have to put up with emails
> from Outlook users that are backwards, ill-formatted and full of
> unnecessary information, they can put up with my properly formatted,
> properly ordered (Q -> A, not A <- Q) and bereft of cruft emails!

Amen to that!

> But that's probably because I'm a stubborn ****. :-)

Nah... I would say "sensible", rather than "stubborn".