Re: plaintext email?

[bzs]

On January 16, 2019 at 00:04 jo...@iecc.com (John Levine) wrote:
 > > > Sudden plot-twist!
 > > > 
 > > > A small elite group of NANOG participants have been using stenographic 
 > > > forms of
 > > > encryption in the messages all along!�
 > >
 > >Did you mean steganographic?
 > 
 > No, stenographic, like, you know, double rot13.

Well slap my butt and call me Gregg!

-- 
-Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die| b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD   | 800-THE-WRLD
The World: Since 1989  | A Public Information Utility | *oo*

Re: plaintext email?

[cosmo]

You're way too close to the truth. The steganographic code is based on
typos. (bit rate is rather shit)
Now you must be  Elluminated

On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 9:06 PM John Levine  wrote:

> > > Sudden plot-twist!
> > >
> > > A small elite group of NANOG participants have been using stenographic
> forms of
> > > encryption in the messages all along!
> >
> >Did you mean steganographic?
>
> No, stenographic, like, you know, double rot13.
>
> R's,
> John
>

Re: plaintext email?

[John Levine]

> > Sudden plot-twist!
> > 
> > A small elite group of NANOG participants have been using stenographic 
> > forms of
> > encryption in the messages all along!�
>
>Did you mean steganographic?

No, stenographic, like, you know, double rot13.

R's,
John

Re: plaintext email?

[bzs]

On January 15, 2019 at 13:58 clinton.mie...@gmail.com (cosmo) wrote:
 > Sudden plot-twist!
 > 
 > A small elite group of NANOG participants have been using stenographic forms 
 > of
 > encryption in the messages all along! 

Did you mean steganographic?

I only ask because someone might learn something if they have the
right term, it's an interesting topic for those who are interested:

   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganography

-- 
-Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die| b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD   | 800-THE-WRLD
The World: Since 1989  | A Public Information Utility | *oo*

Re: plaintext email?

[Bryan Fields]

On 1/15/19 5:16 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 5:07 PM Aled Morris via NANOG 
> wrote:

Please don't post empty messages to the NANOG list.

-- 
Bryan Fields

727-409-1194 - Voice
http://bryanfields.net

Re: plaintext email?

[Christopher Morrow]

On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 5:07 PM Aled Morris via NANOG 
wrote:

> You can hide your secret message  by writing:
>
> dash dash space return
>
> Followed by your message.
>
> It’ll be hidden from all but the Internet illuminati
>
>
-- 

is that true?


> Aled
>
>
> On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 at 22:00, cosmo  wrote:
>
>> Sudden plot-twist!
>>
>> A small elite group of NANOG participants have been using stenographic
>> forms of encryption in the messages all along!
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 1:06 PM Bryan Fields 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/15/19 12:24 AM, b...@theworld.com wrote:
>>> > I'd like to go on record as saying that I PREFER top-posting.
>>>
>>> It's like having an @aol.com address.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Bryan Fields
>>>
>>> 727-409-1194 - Voice
>>> http://bryanfields.net
>>>
>>

Re: plaintext email?

[Aled Morris via NANOG]

You can hide your secret message  by writing:

dash dash space return

Followed by your message.

It’ll be hidden from all but the Internet illuminati

Aled


On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 at 22:00, cosmo  wrote:

> Sudden plot-twist!
>
> A small elite group of NANOG participants have been using stenographic
> forms of encryption in the messages all along!
>
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 1:06 PM Bryan Fields 
> wrote:
>
>> On 1/15/19 12:24 AM, b...@theworld.com wrote:
>> > I'd like to go on record as saying that I PREFER top-posting.
>>
>> It's like having an @aol.com address.
>
>
>>
>> --
>> Bryan Fields
>>
>> 727-409-1194 - Voice
>> http://bryanfields.net
>>
>

Re: plaintext email?

[cosmo]

Sudden plot-twist!

A small elite group of NANOG participants have been using stenographic
forms of encryption in the messages all along!

On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 1:06 PM Bryan Fields  wrote:

> On 1/15/19 12:24 AM, b...@theworld.com wrote:
> > I'd like to go on record as saying that I PREFER top-posting.
>
> It's like having an @aol.com address.
>
> --
> Bryan Fields
>
> 727-409-1194 - Voice
> http://bryanfields.net
>

Re: plaintext email?

[Bryan Fields]

On 1/15/19 12:24 AM, b...@theworld.com wrote:
> I'd like to go on record as saying that I PREFER top-posting.

It's like having an @aol.com address.

-- 
Bryan Fields

727-409-1194 - Voice
http://bryanfields.net

Re: plaintext email?

[James R Cutler]

Warning —top posting also with interspersed comments.

  <— that’s a thumbs up
> On Jan 15, 2019, at 1:36 PM, b...@theworld.com wrote:
> 
> 
> Re: Top Posting
> 
> To me it depends on whether there's any chance the reader won't know
> what precisely you're responding to in which case in-line is
> warranted.
> 
> I don't have any quoted text in this msg (is that top posting?), is
> anyone lost?
> 
> THE REAL REASON for my responding at all is because there are people
> who lurk and sometimes manage lists who will react angrily, often in
> private email (cowards! :-) ), to a top-post as if you violated some
> inarguable rule and you maybe should be banned or at the very least
> are very rude, similar in tone to if you'd spammed the list or
> whatever.

I am appalled at the nastiness regarding posting prejudices.
"But, but, if your cognitive processes do not match mine, you are an idiot.”
“Why should I love my neighbor as myself? I am so much better"
> 
> I just thought I'd point out it's just a formatting opinion, a
> judgement call by whoever is responding, and nothing more, it's not
> some rule everyone accepts so lose the self-righteous tone.
> 
> If anything I suspect it might have to do with the MUA one uses.
> 
> Maybe, at the very least, accept that the person who top-posted is
> looking at a very different layout than you are, one where that
> top-post looks just fine?

And the viewer/replier may have significantly different cognitive skills.
> 
> I use Emacs/VM for email. It's quite good at, for example, splitting
> the screen so I can look ahead (or behind) in the message if I've lost
> track of some context, or even opening multiple related msgs (even if
> already filed) simultaneously to go back and review what's been said
> already, or forward even to see if one is about to say something which
> has already been adequately addressed.
> 
> It's probably quite a bit different than the one-way upside-down
> (date-wise) scrolling on some vendor-supplied smartphone app.
> 
> I've used them when I've had nothing else and I haven't a clue how one
> can do much else than essentially "more" thru the latest, silo'd, 10^9
> spams interspersed with the occasional bit of ham 20 lines at a time
> so I guess I can understand why some become desperate and angry to get
> others to format their email for their convenience.
> 
> Maybe your problem isn't the top-posting but your lousy MUA?

Or, perhaps, attitude?
> 
> -- 
>-Barry Shein
> 
> Software Tool & Die| b...@theworld.com | 
> http://www.TheWorld.com
> Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD   | 800-THE-WRLD
> The World: Since 1989  | A Public Information Utility | *oo*


James R. Cutler
james.cut...@consultant.com
GPG keys: hkps://hkps.pool.sks-keyservers.net

Re: Top Posting Was: Re: plaintext email?

[James R Cutler]

On Jan 15, 2019, at 1:06 PM, John Levine  wrote:
> 
> By the way, have you changed and memorized all your passwords for this
> month yet?

No, I do not follow a predictable rhythm in changing passwords. Some change 
frequently, some change infrequently.

I only remember my login password, my iDevice PINs, and my 1Password password. 
1Password generates and remembers all the rest.

Changing passwords frequently is not effective if passwords are re-used between 
multiple sites. This continues to be the number one rule the I try to inculcate 
in my clients.

Re: plaintext email?

[Grant Taylor via NANOG]

On 01/15/2019 11:37 AM, b...@theworld.com wrote:
P.S. No, you already read the quoted text, that's how it got to be 
quoted text.


Are you making reference to having read the quoted text in a different 
email?


An email that someone might not have received, much less read yet?



--
Grant. . . .
unix || die



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: plaintext email?

[Brian Kantor]

On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 02:23:48PM -0500, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> Without reading further... which of your recent postings is this a reply to?
> Obviously you already know, because you said you don't need to see the
> text to know the context...

Gentlemen, this is getting petty.  Perhaps it's time to drop
the subject?  Or at least take it to private email?
- Brian

Re: plaintext email?

[Brian J. Murrell]

On Tue, 2019-01-15 at 00:24 -0500, b...@theworld.com wrote:
> I'd like to go on record as saying that I PREFER top-posting.
> 
> Why dig through what you've already read to see the new comments?

Because in long discussion threads, you lose the context to exactly
what a particular person is replying to/about.  When they answer inline
(or bottom posting if there is just one thing to say) you get the
context as to what they are talking about.

> Actually in an ideal world previous included bits would be links
> which
> could optionally be expanded via one shared remote copy but lo I
> wander.

Right.  So you are actually advocating for inline/bottom-posting with
appropriate trimming and the added benefit of being able to collapse
the trimmed quote.  That could very well and easily be an MUA feature. 
But you started your message by saying you prefer top posting.

> You should try some of the internet governance (I know, oxymoron)
> lists where people will inline a megabyte of discussion to add just
> "+1!" or "I agree!" or "congrats!" in the middle or bottom. It's like
> Alice's Restaurant.

That's a different problem that IMHO, top posting actually perpetuates:
lack of trimming.  Top posting makes it too easy to send along the
entire copies of all of the messages that previous top-posters posted
and didn't trim.  When you encourage inline replying or bottom posting,
it seems to point out, only if slightly more, than one could trim the
useless content as one goes by it to inline/bottom post.

Cheers,
b.




signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: plaintext email?

[valdis . kletnieks]

Without reading further... which of your recent postings is this a reply to?
Obviously you already know, because you said you don't need to see the
text to know the context...











Nope, it wasn't the one about how things became quoted text.

On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 13:36:38 -0500, b...@theworld.com said:
> I use Emacs/VM for email. It's quite good at, for example, splitting
> the screen so I can look ahead (or behind) in the message if I've lost
> track of some context, or even opening multiple related msgs (even if
> already filed) simultaneously to go back and review what's been said
> already, or forward even to see if one is about to say something which
> has already been adequately addressed.

And how many times did you have to hit control-alt-meta-cokebottle to
trace out which one this was really a reply to?

Re: plaintext email?

[William Herrin]

On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 10:37 AM  wrote:
> To me it depends on whether there's any chance the reader won't know
> what precisely you're responding to in which case in-line is
> warranted.

In a one-to-one private email you can reasonably assume that either
the recipient is familiar with the chain of discussion or is
sufficiently invested to scroll down for any missing context.

In a mailing list or multiple-recipient message, that's not a fair
assumption. A more reasonable assumption is that the recipient has not
been monitoring the thread until something specific you wrote caught
their eye. In that situation, asking them to hunt through a long chain
for the little bits of relevant context is, well, rude. And if you run
folks around in circles responding to the same questions because the
context that answered those questions was hard to find, that's even
worse.

Which is why top posting to a mailing list is considered rude. At least IMHO.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



-- 
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
Dirtside Systems . Web: 

Re: plaintext email?

[bzs]

On January 15, 2019 at 00:40 valdis.kletni...@vt.edu (valdis.kletni...@vt.edu) 
wrote:
 > A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.

P.S. No, you already read the quoted text, that's how it got to be
quoted text.

-- 
-Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die| b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD   | 800-THE-WRLD
The World: Since 1989  | A Public Information Utility | *oo*

Re: plaintext email?

[bzs]

Re: Top Posting

To me it depends on whether there's any chance the reader won't know
what precisely you're responding to in which case in-line is
warranted.

I don't have any quoted text in this msg (is that top posting?), is
anyone lost?

THE REAL REASON for my responding at all is because there are people
who lurk and sometimes manage lists who will react angrily, often in
private email (cowards! :-) ), to a top-post as if you violated some
inarguable rule and you maybe should be banned or at the very least
are very rude, similar in tone to if you'd spammed the list or
whatever.

I just thought I'd point out it's just a formatting opinion, a
judgement call by whoever is responding, and nothing more, it's not
some rule everyone accepts so lose the self-righteous tone.

If anything I suspect it might have to do with the MUA one uses.

Maybe, at the very least, accept that the person who top-posted is
looking at a very different layout than you are, one where that
top-post looks just fine?

I use Emacs/VM for email. It's quite good at, for example, splitting
the screen so I can look ahead (or behind) in the message if I've lost
track of some context, or even opening multiple related msgs (even if
already filed) simultaneously to go back and review what's been said
already, or forward even to see if one is about to say something which
has already been adequately addressed.

It's probably quite a bit different than the one-way upside-down
(date-wise) scrolling on some vendor-supplied smartphone app.

I've used them when I've had nothing else and I haven't a clue how one
can do much else than essentially "more" thru the latest, silo'd, 10^9
spams interspersed with the occasional bit of ham 20 lines at a time
so I guess I can understand why some become desperate and angry to get
others to format their email for their convenience.

Maybe your problem isn't the top-posting but your lousy MUA?

-- 
-Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die| b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD   | 800-THE-WRLD
The World: Since 1989  | A Public Information Utility | *oo*

Re: Top Posting Was: Re: plaintext email?

[Stephen Satchell]

On 1/15/19 8:03 AM, Tom Beecher wrote:
> No disrespect intended to anyone at all, but the pissing and moaning about
> it is a massive waste of time and energy.

But, but, but...most water-cooler conversation is about sports, the
opposite sex, and pissing and moaning about what you don't like.  Sure,
it's a massive waste of time and energy -- but that's what "being
social" is all about.

(Not that I claim to be THAT house-broken.)

Re: Top Posting Was: Re: plaintext email?

[Brian Kantor]

> > Why must there be a hard rule about top posting?

It is my belief that whether to 'top post' or 'bottom post' may
largely depend on the characteristics of the medium.

In USENET, bottom posting was preferred because messages often
arrived out of order, and occasionally did not arrive at all, thus
supplying the context of the reply before the reply itself would
argueably increase the chance that a reply would be fully understood.
Conversations might span days with only a very few contributions
each day, and the context could be helpful.

In modern Internet email, messages rarely are delayed very much,
and rarely are lost in transit.  In that environment, top posting
allows someone who has been following the discussion closely may
continue to follow it without the distraction of having to page
past repeated text which he or she has already read and digested.

But against simply omitting that context, at the bottom, it is there
for those who would like to refresh their memory of previously-discussed
points or for whom the mail did not arrive, or arrived late or out
of order.

Interleaved posting, such as might be used in a question-and-answer
message, has a number of advantages over strict adherence to 'top'
or 'bottom' exclusively.

Conclusion: it pays to be versatile.
- Brian

Re: plaintext email?

[Stephen Satchell]

On 1/14/19 9:40 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> I'm not away of any languages or writing systems that work from
> bottom to top, so that's pretty much everybody.

Typography for at least one pictograph-based language allows for, um,
interesting stunts one can pull to spice up gray matter.  Starting in
the middle of the paragraph and spiraling around, for example.  Nothing
which applies to e-mail, but now you know.

Re: plaintext email?

[Tei]

Email for personal use is turning rare. And people need to use *bold*
in text more than not. So most clients are configured to send html by
default, and people have no reasons to change that.

I think LISTSERV software used to require plain text to send commands
like subscribe, but I think they made their parser accept html mails
and still find the commands.

On 2019, nobody cares if you uses plain text or html in emails.

If somebody write a bot that accept commands through email (like a
GETWEB gateway) is very easy to make it accept html and flat it to
text.

-- 
--
ℱin del ℳensaje.

Re: plaintext email?

[Grant Taylor via NANOG]

On 01/14/2019 10:24 PM, b...@theworld.com wrote:

I'd like to go on record as saying that I PREFER top-posting.


To each his / her own preference.


Why dig through what you've already read to see the new comments?


So that the comments are in context (item followed by comment about 
item) of what they are about.


Actually in an ideal world previous included bits would be links which 
could optionally be expanded…


Well formatted text can be expanded and collapsed with proper MUA plugins.

This means that a long inline message can be viewed as one (collapsed) 
line of quoted text followed by multiple lines of reply.  Lather, rinse, 
repeat as necessary.



…via one shared remote copy but lo I wander.


That's a nice idea.  But you start to get into even more complications. 
Many of which are related to security and capability to access central 
shared copy.  Such isn't possible with email accessed via UUCP sneaker 
net, where as quoted text is.  ;-)


You should try some of the internet governance (I know, oxymoron) 
lists where people will inline a megabyte of discussion to add just 
"+1!" or "I agree!" or "congrats!" in the middle or bottom.


Arguably the fact that they have done that is in and of itself an abuse, 
specifically around the quote to new content ratio.


If you use quote collapsing, then it would appear as one line followed 
by the reactionary response with the possibility of one line below.


A couple of analogies:

How well do you think a teacher would respond if a student stapled a 
sheet of paper with their answers to all the questions without numbers 
to the top of the quiz with room to answer the questions in line?


How would you like to receive edits / comments / suggestions to a paper 
that you wrote as one lump at the top or bottom without any reference to 
page / paragraph / sentence / word that the comment is about?


Both of these methods do technically provide the answer to the 
questions.  But they impart much more load on the recipient to identify 
and / or locate the relevant section that they are in response to.


Conversely, if Question and Answer documents are in multiple sets of 
that order, Question followed by Answer, it's quite easy to find 
associated items.


Finally, set the example that you want others to follow.



--
Grant. . . .
unix || die



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Top Posting Was: Re: plaintext email?

[James R Cutler]

Why must there be a hard rule about top posting?

If the replied to message(s) comprise a long logical sequence, the OCD among us 
experience cognitive dissonance if the order is “un-natural”. Thus bottom 
posting continues the “natural” sequence and makes life easier for many of us 
who otherwise would have difficulty maintaining context.

If a quoted message is concise, either by origin or by quoting only a salient 
point, top posting is not inappropriate. Context is nearby.

If the quoted message asks a series of questions, interspersed answers provide 
bottom posting on a per question basis which clearly indicates the relation of 
each reply segment to the appropriate segment.  Again, this assists many of us 
in maintaining context.

If the reply is done from a tiny-screen as on an iPhone, context of long 
messages is impossible to maintain and, anyway, top posting is the default.

This whole argument is analogous to rigorously not aligning braces in C code 
because Ritchie did it. Or rigorously aligning braces in C code to make 
comprehending easier.

This reply is deliberately top posted with the reference material as a short 
appendix. It is in plain text so rendering has no browser dependancies and the 
archived version remains readable.

James R. Cutler
james.cut...@consultant.com
GPG keys: hkps://hkps.pool.sks-keyservers.net


On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 8:39 PM mailto:valdis.kletni...@vt.edu>> wrote:
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

And now you're sitting here wondering what possible relevance that might have
to some line or other - the only context you have at this point is that it's a
reply to something you wrote. Actually, at this point you don't even have that.

So you may have read this entire thing and now you're still wondering what
possible relevance it may have to the thread.

On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 00:24:30 -0500, b...@theworld.com 
 said:
> Why dig through what you've already read to see the new comments?

Or you can put the comment after, so everybody who reads text top to bottom has
the context.  I'm not away of any languages or writing systems that work from
bottom to top, so that's pretty much everybody.  And if people trimmed the
quoted material so only the parts being replied to are left, there's not much
digging involved.

Re: plaintext email?

[Royce Williams]

And just imagine what email threading might be like today ...

... if early email clients had defaulted to displaying the *bottom* of the
thread (as if you'd scrolled there).

Thoughtful UX design matters.

-- 
Royce Williams
Tech Solvency


On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 8:39 PM  wrote:

> A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
> Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
> A: Top-posting.
> Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
>
> And now you're sitting here wondering what possible relevance that might
> have
> to some line or other - the only context you have at this point is that
> it's a
> reply to something you wrote. Actually, at this point you don't even have
> that.
>
> So you may have read this entire thing and now you're still wondering what
> possible relevance it may have to the thread.
>
> On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 00:24:30 -0500, b...@theworld.com said:
> > Why dig through what you've already read to see the new comments?
>
> Or you can put the comment after, so everybody who reads text top to
> bottom has
> the context.  I'm not away of any languages or writing systems that work
> from
> bottom to top, so that's pretty much everybody.  And if people trimmed the
> quoted material so only the parts being replied to are left, there's not
> much
> digging involved.
>
>

Re: plaintext email?

[Richard]

On 1/14/19 11:40 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> And if people trimmed the
> quoted material so only the parts being replied to are left, there's not much
> digging involved.

    That would really be nice, but people are inherintly lazy and will
not invest the few seconds to make reading easier.

    I know if I see a bunch of quotes I am more inclined to delete the
email than read it. Port 26...

Re: plaintext email?

[valdis . kletnieks]

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

And now you're sitting here wondering what possible relevance that might have
to some line or other - the only context you have at this point is that it's a
reply to something you wrote. Actually, at this point you don't even have that.

So you may have read this entire thing and now you're still wondering what
possible relevance it may have to the thread.

On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 00:24:30 -0500, b...@theworld.com said:
> Why dig through what you've already read to see the new comments?

Or you can put the comment after, so everybody who reads text top to bottom has
the context.  I'm not away of any languages or writing systems that work from
bottom to top, so that's pretty much everybody.  And if people trimmed the
quoted material so only the parts being replied to are left, there's not much
digging involved.

Re: plaintext email?

[bzs]

I'd like to go on record as saying that I PREFER top-posting.

Why dig through what you've already read to see the new comments?

Actually in an ideal world previous included bits would be links which
could optionally be expanded via one shared remote copy but lo I
wander.

You should try some of the internet governance (I know, oxymoron)
lists where people will inline a megabyte of discussion to add just
"+1!" or "I agree!" or "congrats!" in the middle or bottom. It's like
Alice's Restaurant.

"The purpose of time is to prevent everything from happening at once"

Somehow that seems to apply to this.

On January 14, 2019 at 16:28 morrowc.li...@gmail.com (Christopher Morrow) wrote:
 > well we COULD argue about 'inline comment' or 'top posting' ... 

-- 
-Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die| b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD   | 800-THE-WRLD
The World: Since 1989  | A Public Information Utility | *oo*

Re: plaintext email?

[Christopher Morrow]

On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 3:52 PM John Levine  wrote:

> In article  fa0eo8znihuta1m9ac...@mail.gmail.com> you write:
> >
> >Isn't the underlying assumption with non-plaintext that: "I know what will
> >work better for you than you do" ...
>
> No, it's that every MUA in the world has handled html mail for a decade
> and it's a waste of time to piss into the wind.
>

the breeze is so nice though.


> I send most of my mail as unformatted text, but my MUA (alpine)
> renders incoming HTML just fine.  Time to get over it and waste time
> arguing about something else pointless, like when to capitalize internet.
>
>
well we COULD argue about 'inline comment' or 'top posting' ...

Re: plaintext email?

[John Levine]

In article  
you write:
>
>Isn't the underlying assumption with non-plaintext that: "I know what will
>work better for you than you do" ...

No, it's that every MUA in the world has handled html mail for a decade
and it's a waste of time to piss into the wind.

I send most of my mail as unformatted text, but my MUA (alpine)
renders incoming HTML just fine.  Time to get over it and waste time
arguing about something else pointless, like when to capitalize internet.

R's,
John

Re: plaintext email?

[Steve Atkins]

/me gestures at this thread

If you needed more reason that NANOG might not be the place to discuss email 
issues at any higher level than port numbers, this is it.

(I especially liked the "I use plain text everywhere!" message sent as HTML).

mailop lives at the perpetually-TLS-challenged 
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

ietf-smtp lives at https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp

Cheers,
  Steve

Re: plaintext email?

[Brian Kantor]

On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 12:12:34PM -0500, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> Isn't the underlying assumption with non-plaintext that: "I know what will
> work better for you than you do"

I suspect that the increasing use of very long lines in the expectation
that the recipient's mail client will wrap them "appropriately"
leads to mail clients reformatting and wrapping lines in complete
disregard for the formatting that the sender used.

For example, the previous paragraph was sent consisting of four
lines.  If it didn't display that way for you, your mail client
may have reformatted it.  Had I wanted to use the formatting to
convey some information, that would have been lost.

A quote from many years ago that I feel is still relevant:

"Good spelling, punctuation, and formatting are essentially the on-line
equivalent of bathing."   -- Elf Sternberg

- Brian

Re: plaintext email?

[Randy Bush]

> Isn't the underlying assumption with non-plaintext that: "I know what
> will work better for you than you do"

as i said in the '90s, mime, a syntax for encoding incompatibility.

> (comic-sans, colors, contrasting...)

hey!  if it will do magenta comic sans, i may have to recant!  :)

randy

Re: plaintext email?

[Christopher Morrow]

On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 11:58 AM Randy Bush  wrote:

> >> People use plain-text e-mail on purpose?
> > Yes.
>
> only if you want other people to be able to read it
>

Isn't the underlying assumption with non-plaintext that: "I know what will
work better for you than you do"
(comic-sans, colors, contrasting...) Don't email users configure their
client to display such that it helps them process mail more easily? why
would you force your ideas of contrast/color-blindness/etc on other folks?
:( There are several folk I refuse mail from at this point because they
just don't get "I can't see your html email".

oh well... I suppose procmail does exist for a reason.
-chris

Re: plaintext email?

[James R Cutler]

On Sun, Jan 13, 2019 at 01:50:58PM -0600, Mike Hammett wrote:
> People use plain-text e-mail on purpose? 


Yes.

James R. Cutler
james.cut...@consultant.com
GPG keys: hkps://hkps.pool.sks-keyservers.net

Re: plaintext email?

[Jason Hellenthal via NANOG]

Haha nice troll

-- 
 J. Hellenthal

The fact that there's a highway to Hell but only a stairway to Heaven says a 
lot about anticipated traffic volume.

> On Jan 13, 2019, at 14:01, Christoffer Hansen  
> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On 13/01/2019 20:57, Brian Kantor wrote:
>> Are you trying to start another flame war?
> 
> I certainly hope to avoid this discussion currently!
> 
> (back to 1) @NETFLIX: Anybody willing to listen to previous stated
> comment and take action on it?
> 
>- Christoffer
> 

Re: plaintext email?

[Mike Hammett]

Check with the contacts listed on their PeeringDB entry. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

From: "Christoffer Hansen"  
To: br...@ampr.org, na...@ics-il.net 
Cc: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2019 2:01:20 PM 
Subject: Re: plaintext email? 



On 13/01/2019 20:57, Brian Kantor wrote: 
> Are you trying to start another flame war? 

I certainly hope to avoid this discussion currently! 

(back to 1) @NETFLIX: Anybody willing to listen to previous stated 
comment and take action on it? 

- Christoffer 

Re: plaintext email?

[Christoffer Hansen]

On 13/01/2019 20:57, Brian Kantor wrote:
> Are you trying to start another flame war?

I certainly hope to avoid this discussion currently!

(back to 1) @NETFLIX: Anybody willing to listen to previous stated
comment and take action on it?

- Christoffer



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: plaintext email?

[Brian Kantor]

On Sun, Jan 13, 2019 at 01:50:58PM -0600, Mike Hammett wrote:
> People use plain-text e-mail on purpose? 

Are you trying to start another flame war?

But to answer your question, yes.
- Brian