Back in the old days when I still used an actual email
client
application, IIRC, many had options for hard-wrapping outgoing text.
Gmail doesn't, AFAIK, but sticks 'em in on its own at somewhere under
80col, AFAICS. The convenience of Gmail is worth putting up with its
lack of customisability, but then, this is not something that I
personally particularly care about. If it were an option, I'd turn it
off, but AFAIK, it isn't, and I don't hugely care.
But Richard was asking people to do it /by hand/ which indicates to me
that he is using some very badly broken reader, which is a problem for
him but not for anyone else and it is, I would say, unacceptable for
him to ask others to take special measures to accommodate his broken
software. Secondly, I feel that this is not something that people
should be doing in text files, unless it is needed for some special
purpose, such as ASCII art or the like.
Is the web interface for reading postings to this list a very badly broken
reader? It seems to me to be something which copes very nicely with mails
which are formated according to email standards, like the vast majority of
mails sent to the list, including I think, all of those in this thread. It
copes with the few format=flowed mails by presenting each paragraph all
on one line, which makes them difficult to read unless you have a left and
right scrolling wheel on your mouse and like using it a lot.
Anyway, why wouldn't many people who enjoy discussing classic computers prefer
to be able to read mails from the list using classic equipment and software
without having it described as badly broken? Perhaps many of us come here
because we don't want to be on the bleeding edge of constantly evolving
standards?
To get back to the subject in hand, does anyone have a spare flyback transformer
for a VT220 so that I can get mine working again to check it's focus and read
my mail? The one I want is pcb mounted (16-26299-01) but there is a another
type connected to the pcb by flying leads (16-21181-01) and I suspect (hope)
they are electrically the same so with any luck, either would do. Even
format=flowed replies would be welcome and only slightly frowned on.
Good luck to the original poster getting his focus problem sorted and I
apologise for my part in hijacking his thread even if I did attempt to drag
it back in the direction of the VT220 and components responsible for focus.
Regards,
Peter Coghlan.