Hi!
James Colannino [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm very against HTML mail, just for the record. That being said,
aren't there HTML filters for command line mail clients that will strip
tags from your view of the text and make it more readable? Just
wondering.
I'm using Gnus in emacs to
fire-eyes wrote:
On Sun, 2005-05-22 at 20:17 -0700, James Colannino wrote:
I'm very against HTML mail, just for the record. That being said,
aren't there HTML filters for command line mail clients that will strip
tags from your view of the text and make it more readable? Just wondering.
On 05/21/05 22:02, David Stanek wrote:
On Sat, May 21, 2005 at 07:52:59PM -0400, Peng wrote:
On 05/21/05 16:26, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
On Monday 02 May 2005 04:33 pm, Neil Bothwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2005 21:00:30 +, Alex A. Smith MCP wrote:
Time straped
On 22/05/05, Peng [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 05/21/05 22:02, David Stanek wrote:
As far as security, if the browser supports Java or JavaScript then
bad things can happen. Or possibly an exploit for the HTML rendering
engine. Many more chances for bad things to happen...thats why I use
On Sun, 22 May 2005, Peng wrote:
Meh. I do not have JavaScript enabled in Thunderbird, and I don't even
know if it can have Java support. And I'm just not too worried about an
HTML vulnerability. And if there is one, I'm quite sure Mozilla will fix
it promptly.
I dont know why people are
On Sunday 22 May 2005 19:21, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| I dont know why people are even discussing this. Posting in HTML is an
| absolute NO NO. It ignores those people that dont have (or want) HTML
| support in their email software and is poor netiquette.
They're discussing it because no-one
On 01:15 Mon 23 May , Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
that means, if someone (like me) requests blocking of html-mails on the
list-servers, this discussion will be gone? (well of course.. when no
html-mails are coming through, nobody can dsiscuss them...)
Then I request blocking all
Then I request blocking all html-mails!
Take that, stupid discussion!
I think the chances of anyone from infra reading this thread (or still
reading it after it's been dragged out for so long) are pretty unlikely.
Feel free to create a bug at bugs.gentoo.org about it though
damn, I
On 05/22/05 12:40, Qian Qiao wrote:
On 22/05/05, Peng [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 05/21/05 22:02, David Stanek wrote:
As far as security, if the browser supports Java or JavaScript then
bad things can happen. Or possibly an exploit for the HTML rendering
engine. Many more chances for bad
On 05/22/05 13:10, A. Khattri wrote:
On Sun, 22 May 2005, Peng wrote:
Meh. I do not have JavaScript enabled in Thunderbird, and I don't even
know if it can have Java support. And I'm just not too worried about an
HTML vulnerability. And if there is one, I'm quite sure Mozilla will fix
it
Qian Qiao wrote:
Have you had any chance to read your emails under a command line
environment? I bet you won't like it, :P
I'm very against HTML mail, just for the record. That being said,
aren't there HTML filters for command line mail clients that will strip
tags from your view of the
I'm very against HTML mail, just for the record. That being said,
aren't there HTML filters for command line mail clients that will strip
tags from your view of the text and make it more readable? Just wondering.
You can do it with procmail, but it's a lot less painful to just clobber
the
On 05/21/05 16:26, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
On Monday 02 May 2005 04:33 pm, Neil Bothwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2005 21:00:30 +, Alex A. Smith MCP wrote:
Time straped as it is, I'll type in what ever my Default Email prog
wants me to, asking people to turn it off
The problem with this will be getting *all* the email readers updated
with this *entire* feature, -and- getting everyone to update to said
newer versions *or* programs if/When! -their- favorite didn't get
updated for this.
That said, it sounds like a FINE idea to me.
Now, where'd I put that
Kris wrote:
Exactly ... but it's still has some amusement value
Kristopher W. Baker
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Cliff Rowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 10:37 AM
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] No HTML in posts?
Trey
Travis Rousseau wrote:
On 5/3/05, Calvin Spealman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/3/05, Travis Rousseau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snipWhy not the sender's for now?
Why not the recipient's for now?
If the sender disables HTML, no one gets it. If the recipient disables
HTML, then
Going by the same reasons of client differences, one could argue we
never should have extended HTML beyond the first version of Mosaic.
This is insane, of course. Progress is a driving force of technology.
I use HTML to style code samples in my postings, and to add some pizaz
when e-mailing
On Tue, 3 May 2005, Calvin Spealman wrote:
I will remember to use plain text for this list, but let it be known
that I don't want to and I shouldn't have to. If i knew I wouldn't get
banned for no good reason at all (and it would be no good reason at
all, mind you), I'd turn the HTML right back
Progress should not be held back
by the few who think there is any value in plain text.
1. Its bandwidth, while not much it does add up with fast mailing
lists like this.
2. I like to cheap out on computers $20 or less, i find it alot faster
with out a GUI.
Instead of
everyone keeping track of
Hi!
Many ML subscribers are getting hundreds of posts every day. So looking
through them takes time / is often a pain in the ass. Everything that
decreases the screening process has great chances to be skipped,
trashed, ignored.
If my brain has to filter lots of stuff to get to the actual
On Tue, 2005-05-03 at 00:37 +0200, Holly Bostick wrote:
Done (just had to do it myself, since I've *finally* got Gentoo
reinstalled --who missed me ? :)
Yeah I was just thinking a couple of days ago, where has that stroppy
Holly gone?
why the reinstall?
--
Nick Rout [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
On Mon, 02 May 2005 23:16:34 +, Alex A. Smith MCP wrote:
Humm but when you need HTML email cause you get them, A little bit of a
pain to disable them. Also working 19-20 hour days means I can do
without (IMHO) needless things like turning off a function that I use.
So don't. Just turn it
On Mon, 2005-05-02 at 17:32 -0500, kashani wrote:
Is there something especially complicated about going into your
settings
in Thunderbird and setting gentoo.org as a domain that prefers text
emails?
He doesn't want to, it's his choice. It is also my choice to filter
mails from him which are
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 05:16:10AM -0400, fire-eyes wrote:
On Mon, 2005-05-02 at 17:32 -0500, kashani wrote:
Is there something especially complicated about going into your
settings
in Thunderbird and setting gentoo.org as a domain that prefers text
emails?
He doesn't want to, it's
On Tuesday 03 May 2005 00:37, Holly Bostick wrote:
Greg Donald wrote:
On 5/2/05, Alex A. Smith MCP [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Time straped as it is, I'll type in what ever my Default Email prog
wants me to
Laziness is no excuse. Takes all of 2 seconds to turn it off.
Just to prove
ASCII? OK... talking about plain text is one thing, but ASCII? That's
just dumb. If you are going to use plain text, at least agree that we
need something better than ASCII. There are people speaking other
languages you know. Thinking we should stick to ASCII is even more a
sign of your
On 5/3/05, Travis Rousseau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why not the sender's for now?
Why not the recipient's for now? One could almost argue free speech
for expressing one's self in HTML, but I won't go there.
If the sender disables HTML, no one gets it. If the recipient disables
HTML, then
If the sender disables HTML, no one gets it. If the recipient disables
HTML, then everyone gets what everyone wants.
and you're still wasting the bandwidth of the server and users.
granted, for the individual user, the bandwidth used isn't that much,
but think about the thousands of messages
On 5/3/05, Calvin Spealman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/3/05, Travis Rousseau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why not the sender's for now?
Why not the recipient's for now? One could almost argue free speech
for expressing one's self in HTML, but I won't go there.
Sorry i should have said that
Trey Gruel wrote:
and you're still wasting the bandwidth of the server and users.
granted, for the individual user, the bandwidth used isn't that much,
but think about the thousands of messages that the server has to send
out for each mail it gets in. it adds up quick there.
This whole thread is
I'm sorry if this disagreement has escalated more than it should have,
but I'm actually very partial to my end of this discussion. I know all
the reasons people have to argue against my point of view here, but I
just find it to be a rather arrogent point of view.
On 5/3/05, Neil Bothwick [EMAIL
Calvin Spealman wrote:
Let's be honest, that's a fault of e-mail itself, which is inherently
a horrible protocol anyway. I'm just saying lets do the best we can
with what we've got. it isn't like the bandwidth is anything at all
compared to the bloated headers and redundant repeating of messages
I believe this tradition, and other's like it which hold on to old
idioms for little sensible reason, are more of a challenge to the
community values than anything I can say.
On 5/3/05, Covington, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The bottom line is that on any technical mailing list, it's
On 5/3/05, Calvin Spealman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
but I
just find it to be a rather arrogent point of view.
Maybe so, but it doesn't change the fact that HTML is not acceptable
on this list.
Go ironfroggy, play with your MS buddies.. leave the arrogance to us.
--
Greg Donald
Zend
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 04:40:52PM +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
8) some people hear 'html mails' and think automatically of the worst outlook
and aol users ... ;o)
Beg to differ here, but most of the emails I got from my friends
using AOL have properly used MIME-Multipart/Alternative so
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 03:00:34PM +, Calvin Spealman wrote:
On 5/3/05, Travis Rousseau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why not the sender's for now?
Why not the recipient's for now? One could almost argue free speech
for expressing one's self in HTML, but I won't go there.
let's not let
On Tuesday 03 May 2005 17:38, Covington, Chris wrote:
The bottom line is that on any technical mailing list, it's tradition
not to use HTML. You can't argue against it using technical reasons,
people aren't going to change their minds about it. And there might not
even be strong technical
MS? What makes you think I have anything to do with Microsoft or
Microsoft software? My HTML messages are sent straight from good-ole
gmail.
On 5/3/05, Greg Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/3/05, Calvin Spealman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
but I
just find it to be a rather arrogent point of
On 5/3/05, Neil Bothwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is arrogant about saying when in Rome...? Every forum has its
conventions of accepted behaviour. For this forum. those conventions
include non-HTML postings in English.
And what did they do in Rome if you did not do as in Rome? They burned
Calvin Spealman wrote:
MS? What makes you think I have anything to do with Microsoft or
Microsoft software? My HTML messages are sent straight from good-ole
gmail.
sarcasmTypical blinkered response Calvin. You're either with us or
against us. I'm sure I've heard that before somewhere.../sarcasm
Keziah W wrote:
Yes, it is. HTML wastes bandwidth for every message though.
True, I was just trying to inject some light humour into the otherwise
pointless situation :)
flog deadhorse
Don't you mean flog deadhorse?
:P
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Exactly ... but it's still has some amusement value
Kristopher W. Baker
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Cliff Rowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 10:37 AM
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] No HTML in posts?
Trey
Because a lot of Linux users use a text-only mail package, and the html
stuff makes it *hard* to read. (I use graphical...)
--Because this is what thy're used to /or they have limited memory
-AND/OR- becase this is the Safe! way to do email.
-- -- (Just look at all those *loverly* security
On 15:45 Mon 02 May , Dave Nebinger wrote:
I know people say it, but why?
It's an extreme waste and provides no value.
We're here to post questions and responses, not to create pretty pictures
with colored fonts, etc.
Not to mention the fact that not everyone is using a client that
Calvin Spealman wrote:
I know people say it, but why?
On 5/2/05, Neil Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And please turn of HTML for posts in mailing lists.
Be lucky,
Neil
Because it tends to look like crap in any other mail client other than
the one it was composed in. Or any other resolution. Or
On Mon, 02 May 2005 21:00:30 +
Alex A. Smith MCP wrote:
Time straped as it is, I'll type in what ever my Default Email prog
That'd be the one without a spell checker? :-)
Frankly I think your approach is arrogant. Mail is a text medium, if you
want to do html, make a web page.
As the old
On Mon, 02 May 2005 21:00:30 +, Alex A. Smith MCP wrote:
Time straped as it is, I'll type in what ever my Default Email prog
wants me to, asking people to turn it off wont work much, better to make
a better argument and ask the developers to dist it without html as
default.
Remember that
Humm but when you need HTML email cause you get them, A little bit of a
pain to disable them. Also working 19-20 hour days means I can do
without (IMHO) needless things like turning off a function that I use.
I dunno, next we'll be told to stop using HTML on our sites
And I'd prefer if you
Alex A. Smith MCP wrote:
Humm but when you need HTML email cause you get them, A little bit of a
pain to disable them. Also working 19-20 hour days means I can do
without (IMHO) needless things like turning off a function that I use. I
dunno, next we'll be told to stop using HTML on our sites
Greg Donald wrote:
On 5/2/05, Alex A. Smith MCP [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Time straped as it is, I'll type in what ever my Default Email prog wants
me to
Laziness is no excuse. Takes all of 2 seconds to turn it off.
Just to prove it in Thunderbird:
Edit=Account
On Mon, 02 May 2005 23:16:34 +
Alex A. Smith MCP wrote:
Humm but when you need HTML email cause you get them,
I cannot understand *why* you need to send html mail in order to receive
it? Thats a non-sequitur.
A little bit of a
pain to disable them. Also working 19-20 hour days means I
On 5/2/05, Alex A. Smith MCP [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Humm but when you need HTML email cause you get them, A little bit of a
pain to disable them. Also working 19-20 hour days means I can do without
(IMHO) needless things like turning off a function that I use. I dunno, next
we'll be told to
Welcome back - wondered where you were! Well said - and who wants to
receive a virus breeding ground in the mail G - no HTML!
On Tue, 3 May 2005, Holly Bostick wrote:
Greg Donald wrote:
On 5/2/05, Alex A. Smith MCP [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Time straped as it is, I'll type in what ever my
53 matches
Mail list logo
