Re: Reply text insertion
Hello MFPA, Monday, June 16, 2014, 12:42:51 AM, among other things, you wrote: M I have that ability in plaintext, via the M fairly-universally-understood convention of:- M *bold* M /italics/ M _underlined_ How do you do this with TB? I have not found any way so far. -- Best regards, Roger Current version is 6.1.8 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Reply text insertion
Hello MFPA, Monday, June 16, 2014, 12:42:51 AM, among other things, you wrote: M I have that ability in plaintext, via the M fairly-universally-understood convention of:- M *bold* M /italics/ M _underlined_ Further to my earlier message I now realise that you are just showing the usual conventions for simulating the various fonts, not actually being able to use them. Sorry to have bothered you!! -- Best regards, Roger Current version is 6.1.8 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Reply text insertion
Hi On Wednesday 18 June 2014 at 6:31:38 AM, in mid:51385.20140618003...@charter.net, Jack S. LaRosa wrote: Well, if in fact all those things will affect the way the text is displayed, then I guess I really don't know how the text appears to them. I never checked, just assumed. Any of those things could potentially affect what they see. I see a difference between the same website viewed on IE or Firefox on Windows or Firefox on Linux. And my default for reading HTML mail in TB! is white text on a black background (same as my default for reading plaintext). -- Best regards MFPAmailto:2014-667rhzu3dc-lists-gro...@riseup.net None are so fond of secrets as those who do not mean to keep them Using The Bat! v4.0.38 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 3 Current version is 6.1.8 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Reply text insertion
Your contribution to this topic was zero. But thanks for the effort. I disagree with your measure of contribution and am disappointed by your sarcasm. The discussion has been (well, at least to me) quite interesting, with good input from both sides of the HTML email issue (including most of the rest of your email). -- Fred Using TheBat V.4.2.44.2 for POP3 mail with Windows 7 Service Pack 1 Current version is 6.1.8 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Reply text insertion
Hi On Monday 16 June 2014 at 2:13:56 PM, in mid:1523550743.20140616201...@thebat.net, Thomas Fernandez wrote: That either depends of the line of work you are in, or the century you live in. And on what you are comfortable with aesthetically, and your preferred method of working. No, please do not send me attachments unless really necessary. On the contrary: if it is necessary to use fancy formatting to get the message across, please think of a simpler way to say it in words. Or put it in an attachment. I was talking about the recipient of the message. You hadn't said whether you meant more efficient for the sender or for the recipient, so I covered the sender, the recipient who reads email in plaintext, and the recipient who reads email in HTML. I receive 200-300 emails in my business emails a day, and having to open attachments for things that could be in the preview pane is highly inefficient. I guess it depends on what proportion of the emails you would have to do this for, and on how long it takes to open the attachment. And how much slower your MUA displays messages in HTML than in plaintext. (At work I have to use Outlook, and the speed difference is noticeable.) I perfectly understand attached kindly find the table as an Excel file when it consists of only two rows and two columns. Obviously, a very small table like that would sensibly just be included in the plaintext of the email. If it was big enough to justify being an excel spreadsheet, I want it attached: my preview pane would not cope with it anyway. And if the data is to be used rather than just seen, I find an attached spreadsheet more efficient than a table that needs to be copied from an email body. Those mouse-clicks, and waiting for the application to open, waste hours in a work day. I find opening an attachment is usually a very short wait, because I don't tend to receive many different types of attachment. So for most of the day the application is already open. And the odd one that takes longer gives the chance to sip my coffee. (-; One or two clicks and the recipient can be reading the table in their HTML viewer. No efficiency gain or loss between opening an attached table with a couple of clicks versus switching to HTML viewer with a couple of clicks. It is a big efficiency loss. To open an attached table: a couple of clicks. To switch to HTML viewer: a couple of clicks. To me, that looks like no difference. I wonder how many emails you receive per day, Typically 100-150. and how often these have an attachment that could easily be inserted into the body of the message. Only a handful contain attachments that it would be acceptable to insert into message bodies. About half of the emails actually contain attachments, but most of the attachments are needed intact as documents for audit. There is a *huge* difference in efficiency, and that is my point. Horses for courses. I find plaintext messages, with attachments where necessary, to be much more efficient. It also makes your inserts appear more important, as the reader who clicks to open them is likely to pay attention than the reader who casts there eye over them when reading the body of an email. Sure. Please do not try to make yourself important by making me waste my time having to open attachments. I did not mean it makes the sender look important. It does not; it just makes the attached information appear more significant compared to the rest of that message. To make myself clear: I do not wish to receive messages in different fonts or fancy colour, or with animated GIFs. Glad to hear it. But a lot of those who use HTML in email can't seem to resist garish colours or fonts from time to time. However, HTML makes sense in business, depending on what business you are in. I stand by my assertion that, for me, only a very few emails benefit from using HTML. I typically need to switch to the HTML viewer only about once in five or six weeks - usually to find content that could have been presented perfectly well in plaintext, meaning that there was no benefit to using HTML. Some businesses like HTML because they can include company logos or use corporate templates. Some businesses even make use of HTML email in a way that adds value in the form of increased efficiency. Others seem to use it just because they can, and with no clear idea why they are using HTML there is a frequently-realised danger of style overwhelming the message. -- Best regards MFPAmailto:2014-667rhzu3dc-lists-gro...@riseup.net Of course it's a good idea - it's mine! Using The Bat! v4.0.38 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 3 Current version is 6.1.8 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Reply text insertion
Hi On Monday 16 June 2014 at 2:17:52 PM, in mid:352736560.20140616201...@thebat.net, Thomas Fernandez wrote: In business, they actually are not. I guess that depends on the people you contact in the course of that business. That's why I asked MFPA in my other message just now what business he is in: I can imagine that there is still a world out there consisting of FORTRAN programmers. My job is nothing to do with programming in FORTRAN (or any other language). The bulk of my work email correspondence is with people who either work in commercial road haulage or work for the government. The /italics/ convention perhaps a little geeky. *Bold* and _underline_ were/are widely used in handwritten notes, so are understood by most people as an indication of emphasis. (I frequently use *s in my own handwritten notes, and often see _s in the notes other people make.) -- Best regards MFPAmailto:2014-667rhzu3dc-lists-gro...@riseup.net Pain is inevitable, but misery is optional. Using The Bat! v4.0.38 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 3 Current version is 6.1.8 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Reply text insertion
Hi On Monday 16 June 2014 at 3:44:06 PM, in mid:468134244.20140616214...@thebat.net, Thomas Fernandez wrote: You don't get this problem with plain text. Every plain text message is always legible. No, it isn't. Even MFPA admits that tables are not legible in plaintext. I actually said that when the sender has placed a formatted table in the message body, the recipient sometimes sees an unformatted mess of table entries one per line in their plaintext viewer. That is an HTML email not being legible in plaintext; a table created in a plaintext email would not be formatted. HTML in email raises immediate this is spam suspicions for many people. Who is many people? The Nigerian spams I receive are all in plaintext. My local bus company for one. Until quite recently they bounced HTML emails with a message about unsuitable or suspicious content. But the same text in a plaintext email would get through and be answered. -- Best regards MFPAmailto:2014-667rhzu3dc-lists-gro...@riseup.net Act normal and the crowd will accept you. Act deranged and they will make you their leader. Using The Bat! v4.0.38 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 3 Current version is 6.1.8 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Reply text insertion
Hi On Monday 16 June 2014 at 12:14:42 AM, in mid:16731904.20140615181...@charter.net, Jack S. LaRosa wrote: I used this Gmail account to BCC myself on several HTML messages so that I could see what my recipients were seeing. I take it you *know* they view their mail exclusively on the google website, without any themes being available that might affect the display formatting, and you also looked at it on the google website using the same browser version as they use and the same browser settings, on the same platform. Use a MUA, or a different browser, or a mobile phone and all bets are off. As I recall the formatting came through ok. I fear that most of my recipients would not understand the asterisks, slashes and underscores if I switched to plaintext for them. I don't know your recipients, obviously. But for a random sample, I would expect nearly everybody who saw the asterisks in an email to understand them, and probably ~60% with the underscores. But asking them in the abstract without showing them, far fewer would claim to know. -- Best regards MFPAmailto:2014-667rhzu3dc-lists-gro...@riseup.net Always borrow money from a pessimist - they don't expect it back Using The Bat! v4.0.38 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 3 Current version is 6.1.8 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Reply text insertion
Hello MFPA, On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 you wrote: M Hi M On Monday 16 June 2014 at 12:14:42 AM, in M mid:16731904.20140615181...@charter.net, Jack S. LaRosa wrote: I used this Gmail account to BCC myself on several HTML messages so that I could see what my recipients were seeing. M I take it you *know* they view their mail exclusively on the google M website, without any themes being available that might affect the M display formatting, and you also looked at it on the google website M using the same browser version as they use and the same browser M settings, on the same platform. Use a MUA, or a different browser, or M a mobile phone and all bets are off. Well, if in fact all those things will affect the way the text is displayed, then I guess I really don't know how the text appears to them. I never checked, just assumed. As I recall the formatting came through ok. I fear that most of my recipients would not understand the asterisks, slashes and underscores if I switched to plaintext for them. M I don't know your recipients, obviously. But for a random sample, I M would expect nearly everybody who saw the asterisks in an email to M understand them, and probably ~60% with the underscores. But asking M them in the abstract without showing them, far fewer would claim to M know. You're probably right, it's just that in my mind there's some visceral emotion that italics, bold and underline convey that asterisks, slashes and underscores fail to deliver. -- Best Regards, Jack LaRosa :usflag: Central Alabama Using The Bat! ver: 5.2. Running Windows 7 Pro ver 6 build 7601 Service Pack 1 Current version is 6.1.8 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Reply text insertion
Hello MFPA, On Sun, 15 Jun 2014 11:50:57 +0100 GMT (15-Jun-14, 17:50 +0700 GMT), MFPA wrote: Most emails (like the text messages here) do not require HTML and should be sent as plaintext. I would say that no email requires HTML, only a very few emails benefit from it's use, That either depends of the line of work you are in, or the century you live in. and most of those would be better served by putting the formatted presentation in an attachment. No, please do not send me attachments unless really necessary. However, please do not put tables or small pictures in the attachments. It is much more efficient to put them into the body of the email. I disagree. I see. For inserting into the email, the process is identical or very similar (in most email clients I have ever used) for attaching a file to a plaintext email or inserting it into an HTML email. So there is no efficiency gain or loss for the sender. I was talking about the recipient of the message. I receive 200-300 emails in my business emails a day, and having to open attachments for things that could be in the preview pane is highly inefficient. For the reader who views emails in plaintext, there is the ongoing efficiency gain of not wasting time looking at such attachments unless they find the message cannot be understood without: people often include such things without needing to. I perfectly understand attached kindly find the table as an Excel file when it consists of only two rows and two columns. And if the attachment needs to be seen, it is usually just a couple of mouse-clicks away. Those mouse-clicks, and waiting for the application to open, waste hours in a work day. When a sender includes pictures in their email body, this recipient finds them in their proper place as attachments, so no efficiency gain or loss. The recipient doesn't need to open the attachment if the picture (for example of the damages cargo) is already in the email body. When the sender has placed a formatted table in the message body, the recipient sometimes sees an unformatted mess of table entries one per line in their plaintext viewer, instead of an attachment. Right. That's why TB! luckily has an HTML viewer, and we don't need Outlook any more. One or two clicks and the recipient can be reading the table in their HTML viewer. No efficiency gain or loss between opening an attached table with a couple of clicks versus switching to HTML viewer with a couple of clicks. It is a big efficiency loss. I wonder how many emails you receive per day, and how often these have an attachment that could easily be inserted into the body of the message. There is a *huge* difference in efficiency, and that is my point. Placing the extras as attachments rather than inline in your HTML affords the same efficiency saving to your readers who view in HTML as are gained on an ongoing basis by those who choose to read emails in plaintext. It is the same for the sender; it is the recipient who benefits - but of course, only if he views HTML mails in HTML. If you insist on viewing only in plaintext (as we did in the last century), you will not understand it. Again my question: what line of business are you in? It also makes your inserts appear more important, as the reader who clicks to open them is likely to pay attention than the reader who casts there eye over them when reading the body of an email. Sure. Please do not try to make yourself important by making me waste my time having to open attachments. To make myself clear: I do not wish to receive messages in different fonts or fancy colour, or with animated GIFs. However, HTML makes sense in business, depending on what business you are in. -- Cheers, Thomas. http://thomas.fernandez.hat-gar-keine-homepage.de/ Message reply created with The Bat! 6.4.6 under Windows 7 6.1 Build 7601 Service Pack 1 Current version is 6.1.8 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Reply text insertion
Hello Jack, On Sun, 15 Jun 2014 18:14:42 -0500 GMT (16-Jun-14, 06:14 +0700 GMT), Jack S. LaRosa wrote: All excellent points. I must confess to not knowing that your descriptions of *bold*, /italics/ and _underline_ were commonly accepted methods of expressing those features in plaintext. In business, they actually are not. That's why I asked MFPA in my other message just now what business he is in: I can imagine that there is still a world out there consisting of FORTRAN programmers. -- Cheers, Thomas. http://thomas.fernandez.hat-gar-keine-homepage.de/ Message reply created with The Bat! 6.4.6 under Windows 7 6.1 Build 7601 Service Pack 1 Current version is 6.1.8 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Reply text insertion
Monday, June 16, 2014, 12:42:51 AM, you wrote: And even if the recipient views in HTML, their viewing settings may be wildly different to your own, so they don't see what you imagine they might. Not to mention all those crazy colours that make a lot of HTML mails extremely difficult to read or even legible at all and of course the wastedbandwidth,particularly for people with smartphones, tablets, 3G modems and data roaming charges. You don't get this problem with plain text. Every plain text message is always legible. HTML in email raises immediate this is spam suspicions for many people. Adrian .. Current version is 6.1.8 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Reply text insertion
Monday, June 16, 2014, 1:14:42 AM, you wrote: I too have a Gmail account which I seldom use because TB! far exceeds Gmail. I have a gmail account as well. The only time I went to the website was to create that address in the first place (or to resolve those pesky web login required errors when my IP address changes). Gmail has its own POP and SMTP servers- Works fine with Eudora, TheBat and Thunderbird at the very least of the possible email clients Adrian .. Current version is 6.1.8 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Reply text insertion
Hello Adrian, On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 16:30:12 +0200 GMT (16-Jun-14, 21:30 +0700 GMT), Adrian Godfrey wrote: And even if the recipient views in HTML, their viewing settings may be wildly different to your own, so they don't see what you imagine they might. Not to mention all those crazy colours that make a lot of HTML mails extremely difficult to read or even legible at all and of course the wastedbandwidth,particularly for people with smartphones, tablets, 3G modems and data roaming charges. Wasted bandwidth: Not an issue in the 21st century. 3G modems: Fast enough. I often don't even switch my smartphone from 3G to wifi. Data roaming charges: They are the same, whether the picture (for example) is an attachemnt you have to download and open with additional effort and time, or whether it is embedded without additional effort and time. You don't get this problem with plain text. Every plain text message is always legible. No, it isn't. Even MFPA admits that tables are not legible in plaintext. HTML in email raises immediate this is spam suspicions for many people. Who is many people? The Nigerian spams I receive are all in plaintext. Your contribution to this topic was zero. But thanks for the effort. -- Cheers, Thomas. http://thomas.fernandez.hat-gar-keine-homepage.de/ Message reply created with The Bat! 6.4.6 under Windows 7 6.1 Build 7601 Service Pack 1 Current version is 6.1.8 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Reply text insertion
Monday, June 16, 2014, 4:44:06 PM, you wrote: Wasted bandwidth: Not an issue in the 21st century. Of course it's a waste. Why send the same message twice? Even without roaming charges, many providers have daily volume limits. Plain text is more than adequate. I agree attachments don't belong on mailing lists though. Most lists bounce such posts or remove the attachment. Many do the same for HTML posts, but unfortunately not all. The USA (except near Canada and Mexico) doesn't have the problem of data roaming charges, but Europe does. How many European countries (even the large ones like France and Spain) fit into ONE state in the USA? I don't read email on a smartphone, but I do have a 3G modem for my laptop if I cannot find wifi or even better an Ethernet cable connection. Adrian .. -- Current version is 6.1.8 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Reply text insertion
Hello Jack, Sunday, June 15, 2014, 1:10:22 AM, among other things, you wrote: JSL Well, it helps only in making me realize **once again** that if I continue to use JSL HTML (in all correspondence except those to TB!) I'm gonna have these JSL weird problems. These problems all go away if I just switch to JSL something other than HTML. JSL So, it seems to be a problem of my own making that I'll just have to JSL live with. JSL Thanks Roger. I have never replied with html but I use a security firm which sends me newsletters in html and I have just done an experimental reply insert in one of them. This opened a new line as you described but it stays in position. It does not jump up the page or obscure any of the original message. It does not seem to matter what combination of choices I make about using TB or OS html or wnether I use TB rules or not,the completed 'reply' shows the insert in the proper place. However it does not fit with the original line length. In other words it appears as a separate sub-pane between two pieces of the original message, with a different line length. -- Best regards, Roger Current version is 6.1.8 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Reply text insertion
Hi On Sunday 15 June 2014 at 5:36:58 AM, in mid:1534452431.20140615113...@thebat.net, Thomas Fernandez wrote: Most emails (like the text messages here) do not require HTML and should be sent as plaintext. I would say that no email requires HTML, only a very few emails benefit from it's use, and most of those would be better served by putting the formatted presentation in an attachment. However, please do not put tables or small pictures in the attachments. It is much more efficient to put them into the body of the email. I disagree. For inserting into the email, the process is identical or very similar (in most email clients I have ever used) for attaching a file to a plaintext email or inserting it into an HTML email. So there is no efficiency gain or loss for the sender. For the reader who views emails in plaintext, there is the ongoing efficiency gain of not wasting time looking at such attachments unless they find the message cannot be understood without: people often include such things without needing to. And if the attachment needs to be seen, it is usually just a couple of mouse-clicks away. When a sender includes pictures in their email body, this recipient finds them in their proper place as attachments, so no efficiency gain or loss. When the sender has placed a formatted table in the message body, the recipient sometimes sees an unformatted mess of table entries one per line in their plaintext viewer, instead of an attachment. One or two clicks and the recipient can be reading the table in their HTML viewer. No efficiency gain or loss between opening an attached table with a couple of clicks versus switching to HTML viewer with a couple of clicks. Placing the extras as attachments rather than inline in your HTML affords the same efficiency saving to your readers who view in HTML as are gained on an ongoing basis by those who choose to read emails in plaintext. It also makes your inserts appear more important, as the reader who clicks to open them is likely to pay attention than the reader who casts there eye over them when reading the body of an email. -- Best regards MFPAmailto:2014-667rhzu3dc-lists-gro...@riseup.net I don't suffer from insanity I enjoy every minute of it. Using The Bat! v4.0.38 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 3 Current version is 6.1.8 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Reply text insertion
Hi On Sunday 15 June 2014 at 8:43:22 AM, in mid:181370465.20140615094...@dbnmail.co.za, Roger Phillips wrote: It does not seem to matter what combination of choices I make about using TB or OS html or wnether I use TB rules or not,the completed 'reply' shows the insert in the proper place. However it does not fit with the original line length. In other words it appears as a separate sub-pane between two pieces of the original message, with a different line length. That sounds odd, but I guess your reply is in your formatting, sandwiched between quotes from their newsletter that are in their formatting. -- Best regards MFPAmailto:2014-667rhzu3dc-lists-gro...@riseup.net If it aint broke, fix it till it is broke! Using The Bat! v4.0.38 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 3 Current version is 6.1.8 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Reply text insertion
Hi On Sunday 15 June 2014 at 12:10:22 AM, in mid:546075068.20140614181...@charter.net, Jack S. LaRosa wrote: Well, it helps only in making me realize **once again** that if I continue to use HTML (in all correspondence except those to TB!) I'm gonna have these weird problems. These problems all go away if I just switch to something other than HTML. Just out of interest, what do your messages gain from the use of HTML? There must be some trade-off for the weird problems. (-; -- Best regards MFPAmailto:2014-667rhzu3dc-lists-gro...@riseup.net You're only young once; you can be immature forever Using The Bat! v4.0.38 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 3 Current version is 6.1.8 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Reply text insertion
Hello MFPA, Sunday, June 15, 2014, 12:53:20 PM, among other things, you wrote: M Hi M On Sunday 15 June 2014 at 8:43:22 AM, in M mid:181370465.20140615094...@dbnmail.co.za, Roger Phillips wrote: It does not seem to matter what combination of choices I make about using TB or OS html or whether I use TB rules or not,the completed 'reply' shows the insert in the proper place. However it does not fit with the original line length. In other words it appears as a separate sub-pane between two pieces of the original message, with a different line length. M That sounds odd, but I guess your reply is in your formatting, M sandwiched between quotes from their newsletter that are in their M formatting. You are probably right. I have no personal interest in persuing html as I rarely use it. I was just trying to help Jack establish what might be wrong with his setup. However, thank you for responding. -- Best regards, Roger Current version is 6.1.8 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Reply text insertion
Hello MFPA, On Sunday, June 15, 2014 you wrote: M Hi M On Sunday 15 June 2014 at 12:10:22 AM, in M mid:546075068.20140614181...@charter.net, Jack S. LaRosa wrote: Well, it helps only in making me realize **once again** that if I continue to use HTML (in all correspondence except those to TB!) I'm gonna have these weird problems. These problems all go away if I just switch to something other than HTML. M Just out of interest, what do your messages gain from the use of HTML? M There must be some trade-off for the weird problems. (-; There is. Please see my reply to Adrian. -- Best Regards, Jack LaRosa :usflag: Central Alabama Using The Bat! ver: 5.2. Running Windows 7 Pro ver 6 build 7601 Service Pack 1 Current version is 6.1.8 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Reply text insertion
Hello Adrian, On Saturday, June 14, 2014 you wrote: AG Sunday, June 15, 2014, 1:10:22 AM, you wrote: Well, it helps only in making me realize **once again** that if I continue to use HTML (in all correspondence except those to TB!) I'm gonna have these weird problems AG HTML doesn't belongin email in the first place (if AG that formatting is actually important, put it in an attachment, e.g. AG PDF) and particularly not on mailing lists. Same goes for mail AG from do not reply and no reply addresses. Well personally I like to have the ability to more accurately express myself with bold or italics or even underline. In my original query I am forced to use asterisks to emphasize text which, in my opinion, should be italicized. I think that if HTML doesn't belong in email then I have to wonder why the coders included it in such a powerful and versatile email client like TB!. I'll bet a lot of coding time went into including HTML. If you were using MS Word or some other word processor or even (cough, cough) **Gmail!**, you'd always have those formatting choices available. Why should email be denied those options? Perhaps some arcane, outdated protocol? As Thomas said: Welcome to the 21st century. -- Best Regards, Jack LaRosa :usflag: Central Alabama Using The Bat! ver: 5.2. Running Windows 7 Pro ver 6 build 7601 Service Pack 1 Current version is 6.1.8 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Reply text insertion
Hi On Sunday 15 June 2014 at 2:06:02 PM, in mid:1523432040.20140615080...@charter.net, Jack S. LaRosa wrote: Well personally I like to have the ability to more accurately express myself with bold or italics or even underline. I have that ability in plaintext, via the fairly-universally-understood convention of:- *bold* /italics/ _underlined_ Or I could emphasise with CAPITALS. And all of the above gets through whether the recipient views in plaintext or HTML. All the fancy formatting of an HTML message was a complete waste of time if the recipient reads it in a plaintext view. And even if the recipient views in HTML, their viewing settings may be wildly different to your own, so they don't see what you imagine they might. In my original query I am forced to use asterisks to emphasize text which, in my opinion, should be italicized. I don't see that in any of your messages in this thread. But it does the job (and whether to use bold or italics for emphasis is merely a stylistic preference). I think that if HTML doesn't belong in email then I have to wonder why the coders included it in such a powerful and versatile email client like TB!. I'll bet a lot of coding time went into including HTML. If you were using MS Word or some other word processor or even (cough, cough) **Gmail!**, you'd always have those formatting choices available. I also wonder why invest so much time and effort into coding your own HTML editor rather than writing an API that interpreted the formatting of rich text messages composed using a word processor. Why should email be denied those options? Why *should* these formatting options be available in an email body? They seldom add to the message and there is no reasonable expectation the recipient sees the same formatting as the sender. An email is a message, not a presentation. Anybody wishing to send a presentation can attach it to their email, or send a link. -- Best regards MFPAmailto:2014-667rhzu3dc-lists-gro...@riseup.net Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much Using The Bat! v4.0.38 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 3 Current version is 6.1.8 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Reply text insertion
Hello MFPA, On Sunday, June 15, 2014 you wrote: M Hi M On Sunday 15 June 2014 at 2:06:02 PM, in M mid:1523432040.20140615080...@charter.net, Jack S. LaRosa wrote: Well personally I like to have the ability to more accurately express myself with bold or italics or even underline. M I have that ability in plaintext, via the M fairly-universally-understood convention of:- M *bold* M /italics/ M _underlined_ M Or I could emphasise with CAPITALS. M And all of the above gets through whether the recipient views in M plaintext or HTML. All the fancy formatting of an HTML message was a M complete waste of time if the recipient reads it in a plaintext view. M And even if the recipient views in HTML, their viewing settings may be M wildly different to your own, so they don't see what you imagine they M might. In my original query I am forced to use asterisks to emphasize text which, in my opinion, should be italicized. M I don't see that in any of your messages in this thread. But it does M the job (and whether to use bold or italics for emphasis is merely a M stylistic preference). I think that if HTML doesn't belong in email then I have to wonder why the coders included it in such a powerful and versatile email client like TB!. I'll bet a lot of coding time went into including HTML. If you were using MS Word or some other word processor or even (cough, cough) **Gmail!**, you'd always have those formatting choices available. M I also wonder why invest so much time and effort into coding your own M HTML editor rather than writing an API that interpreted the formatting M of rich text messages composed using a word processor. Why should email be denied those options? M Why *should* these formatting options be available in an email body? M They seldom add to the message and there is no reasonable expectation M the recipient sees the same formatting as the sender. M An email is a message, not a presentation. Anybody wishing to send a M presentation can attach it to their email, or send a link. All excellent points. I must confess to not knowing that your descriptions of *bold*, /italics/ and _underline_ were commonly accepted methods of expressing those features in plaintext. In my defence (feeble that it is) the bulk of my email correspondence is with people who use Gmail exclusively. I too have a Gmail account which I seldom use because TB! far exceeds Gmail. I used this Gmail account to BCC myself on several HTML messages so that I could see what my recipients were seeing. As I recall the formatting came through ok. I fear that most of my recipients would not understand the asterisks, slashes and underscores if I switched to plaintext for them. So I shall continue to use HTML for those contacts and those contacts only, tolerating the new line jumping to the top of the window. In my dotage it's a comfort to know I can still learn from those more knowledgeable than I. -- Best Regards, Jack LaRosa :usflag: Central Alabama Using The Bat! ver: 5.2. Running Windows 7 Pro ver 6 build 7601 Service Pack 1 Current version is 6.1.8 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Reply text insertion
Hello Roger, On Saturday, June 14, 2014 you wrote: RP Hello Jack, RP Friday, June 13, 2014, 9:56:34 PM, among other things, you wrote: JSL Hello TBUDLs, JSL I have a question regarding inserting reply text into the quoted body JSL of the original email. If I see something to which I should reply JSL midway in the body of the original email, I'll hit RETURN to give me a JSL new line to insert my text. The original text will be broken at that JSL point and a new, blank line created, but the new line immediately rises to JSL the top of the window thus obscuring the original text to which I'm JSL trying to reply. I have to scroll everything down in order to see JSL that original text again. RP My setup does not do that. I just selected the beginning of this line, RP presed 'Enter' and started typing. JSL I find this most annoying and was wondering if there was a setting JSL somewhere to prevent this from happening. I can see no apparent JSL reason for it to happen, it just does. I'm using VIEW | WINDOW SPLIT JSL MODE | FULL-WIDTH PREVIEW PANE for everything. JSL Any ideas? RP I don't really know the answer and can only suggest that it is caused by RP somesettingthatyouhavechosen,or not chosen, in RP Options/Preferences/Editor/'Veiwer/Editor'/Editor preferences. RP I use the MicroEd with, among other settings, the following items selected: RP 1.Free caret positionming 2.Find text at caret positioning 3. Persistent RP selection. RP I hope this might help. Well, it helps only in making me realize **once again** that if I continue to use HTML (in all correspondence except those to TB!) I'm gonna have these weird problems. These problems all go away if I just switch to something other than HTML. So, it seems to be a problem of my own making that I'll just have to live with. Thanks Roger. -- Best Regards, Jack LaRosa :usflag: Central Alabama Using The Bat! ver: 5.2. Running Windows 7 Pro ver 6 build 7601 Service Pack 1 Current version is 6.1.8 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Reply text insertion
Sunday, June 15, 2014, 1:10:22 AM, you wrote: Well, it helps only in making me realize **once again** that if I continue to use HTML (in all correspondence except those to TB!) I'm gonna have these weird problems HTML doesn't belongin email in the first place (if that formatting is actually important, put it in an attachment, e.g. PDF) and particularly not on mailing lists. Same goes for mail from do not reply and no reply addresses. Adrian .. Current version is 6.1.8 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Reply text insertion
HTML doesn't belong in email in the first place (if that formatting is actually important, put it in an attachment, e.g. PDF) and particularly not on mailing lists. Same goes for mail from do not reply and no reply addresses. Unfortunately the wold went in a different direction. HTML email is the rule and I use it quite a bit -- Rick A myriad bubbles were floating on the surface of a stream. 'What are you?' I cried to them as they drifted by. 'I am a bubble, of course' nearly a myriad bubbles answered, and there was surprise and indignation in their voices as they passed. But, here and there, a lonely bubble answered, 'We are this stream', and there was neither surprise nor indignation in their voices, but just a quiet certitude. - Wei Wu Wei v6.4.6 on Windows 6.2 Build 9200 Using all POP accounts I download all images Current version is 6.1.8 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Reply text insertion
Hello Adrian, On Sun, 15 Jun 2014 02:47:42 +0200 GMT (15-Jun-14, 07:47 +0700 GMT), Adrian Godfrey wrote: Sunday, June 15, 2014, 1:10:22 AM, you wrote: Well, it helps only in making me realize **once again** that if I continue to use HTML (in all correspondence except those to TB!) I'm gonna have these weird problems HTML doesn't belongin email in the first place (if that formatting is actually important, put it in an attachment, e.g. PDF) and particularly not on mailing lists. Same goes for mail from do not reply and no reply addresses. Most emails (like the text messages here) do not require HTML and should be sent as plaintext. However, please do not put tables or small pictures in the attachments. It is much more efficient to put them into the body of the email. Welcome to the 21st century. -- Cheers, Thomas. http://thomas.fernandez.hat-gar-keine-homepage.de/ Message reply created with The Bat! 6.4.0.5 under Windows 7 6.1 Build 7601 Service Pack 1 Current version is 6.1.8 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Reply text insertion
Hello Jack, Friday, June 13, 2014, 9:56:34 PM, among other things, you wrote: JSL Hello TBUDLs, JSL I have a question regarding inserting reply text into the quoted body JSL of the original email. If I see something to which I should reply JSL midway in the body of the original email, I'll hit RETURN to give me a JSL new line to insert my text. The original text will be broken at that JSL point and a new, blank line created, but the new line immediately rises to JSL the top of the window thus obscuring the original text to which I'm JSL trying to reply. I have to scroll everything down in order to see JSL that original text again. My setup does not do that. I just selected the beginning of this line, presed 'Enter' and started typing. JSL I find this most annoying and was wondering if there was a setting JSL somewhere to prevent this from happening. I can see no apparent JSL reason for it to happen, it just does. I'm using VIEW | WINDOW SPLIT JSL MODE | FULL-WIDTH PREVIEW PANE for everything. JSL Any ideas? I don't really know the answer and can only suggest that it is caused by somesettingthatyouhavechosen,or not chosen, in Options/Preferences/Editor/'Veiwer/Editor'/Editor preferences. I use the MicroEd with, among other settings, the following items selected: 1.Free caret positionming 2.Find text at caret positioning 3. Persistent selection. I hope this might help. -- Best regards, Roger Current version is 6.1.8 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
