[kde-linux] In KMail templates how to eliminate the > symbols

[Steve Smoult]

Duncan

I suppose it might be clearer if I said that I do not want to show
quotes?  Or indents or italics either.  I use a ************* in the
template to separate each successive mail.

Why do I have long mails?  Well, a friend of mine in London (I am in
Paris) sends me what-to-do instructions to get Slackware up and
running and I try to keep the subjects separate but in one mail, ie a
set of long mails according to subjects.  Sometimes I have 5/6 or more
e-mails going and if I break them down into smaller ones it makes
going back to earlier points a little laborious.  If I remove the >
symbols with the edit command in KMail, or with emacs, that is a
hassle and I still have the indents.  If I do not do it with each mail
then when I actually do it I have words all over the place at the end
of the mail.

So how to get no indents, no italics, no >'s.   That is the question. 

Steve

************************************************

On Friday 10 July 2009 16:18:13 Duncan wrote:
> Steve Smoult <steve.smoult at laposte.net> posted
> 200907100827.29839.steve.smoult at laposte.net, excerpted below, on  Fri, 10
>
> Jul 2009 08:27:29 +0200:

> > I refer to the reply template which will not accept a blank in the
> > "quote indicator" and adds a > for each reply.  So after a series of
> > mails I have a >>>>>> and so on.
>
> The individual words make sense, but I fail to see the problem.
>
> If you're quoting six levels deep (which in most cases you shouldn't be
> as it will normally be summarized out, by then, quote only the context
> you are replying to, not the whole mail, including all previous mails,
> etc...), how would /you/ signify that it's the six-level deep quote, and
> not the five-level-deep quote or the seven-level deep quote?
>
> Similarly, the line wraps shouldn't ordinarily be a problem as the quotes
> get deeper nested, both because it's traditional to wrap at 72 chars or
> so originally to allow several levels of quote before it hits that magic
> 80 char per line limit, and because modern clients should dynamically
> rewrap (and by that I don't mean leave jaggies!) in most contexts if
> necessary.  Also,, again, by the third quote level, normally quotes are
> already highly excerpted or summarized, and few quotes survive to the
> fourth level or higher anyway, because by then, they're seldom apropos to
> the ongoing conversation any longer.
>
> Least-wise that's been the case for years (since the 80-char limit was
> the physical limit of the display) for both newsgroups and mailing lists,
> and for private mail, there's even less reason to maintain N degrees of
> quote.
>
> So six levels of quote will (or should be) be extremely rare, and where
> they do exist, likely due to some artificial constraint such as the
> occasional support context caution I've seen to include the entire
> previous conversation (what, they don't have archives to look it up in?),
> well, artificial and not so pretty constructs are then par for the
> artificially constrained course.
>
> Also, most reasonably modern clients (including kmail) color-code the
> quote levels based on the number of quote indicators, so it's quite easy
> to tell the quote levels apart simply by their color -- provided the
> quote indicator has been included reliably and someone along the line
> didn't include some off-the-wall strange delimiter that breaks the
> pattern.
>
> I thus don't see the problem.  But perhaps I've missed it.