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
6/17/2014 10:02 AM
Hi Fred,
On 6/17/2014 Fred wrote:
Your contribution to this topic was zero. But thanks for the effort.
F I disagree with your measure of contribution and am disappointed by your
F sarcasm. The discussion has been (well, at least to me) quite interesting,
F with good input
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,
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
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
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
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
7 matches
Mail list logo
