Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2003 20:33:24 -0500 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: FAO: cfg: defaults Message-ID: <20030105013324.GD11814@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030104162127.0204c038@pop3.cris.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030104162127.0204c038@pop3.cris.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i On Sat, Jan 04, 2003 at 04:24:53PM -0800, Randall R Schulz wrote: >At 08:50 2003-01-04, John Morrison wrote: >>Please find for you perusal and review... (long links, will wrap!) > >Why don't you enclose all URLs in email within angle brackets instead >of forcing people to reintegrate the wrapped links? Even a short URL >can fall on a line wrap boundary if embedded in other text. I've noticed that people do this and I'm always curious as to why. Is there a mail reader convention that causes angle bracket wrapped URLs to be properly understood? I know that my mail reader doesn't understand them but... cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/