----- Original Message ----- From: "Rodent of Unusual Size" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2001 5:15 PM Subject: Re: "Under God" (Was Re: Tragedy in Israel)
> Robert Seeberger wrote: > > > > > Maybe because MUAs aren't the sole clients? There are > > > digests, and archived lists available through the Web, > > > and ... > > > > This deserves discussion. > > Call me stupid, but whats a MUA? > > Not stupid at all. 'MUA' == 'Mail User Agent', the interface > used by sentient to access mail. As opposed to MTA, Mail Transfer > Agent, which is something that moves mail from hither to yon. > Common MUAs include Netscape, MS Outbreak, mutt, pine, elm, ... > There are fewer MTAs, such as sendmail, qmail, et cetera. Ahhhhhh....the nails, bailing wire, clothespins, springs, gears, oversized screws, used condoms, nuts, wood scraps, bolts, and string that hides behind my user interface in the mail program on *my* computer. Thats what I thought! <G> > > > > As for the 'biggest ISP in the world,' well, they want > > > everyone to bow to their *opinions* simply because of > > > their size. A few years ago they blocked almost half the > > > Web sites on the planet from access by their users because > > > in AOL's *opinion* the servers weren't speaking HTTP > > > correctly. They were, of course, wrong. > > > > Yes, I recall that event with much amusement. > > <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/info/aol-http.html> for those not > familiar with it. Particularly click on the 'shortcut to "what's > the big deal"' link. It's relevant here. AOL certainly stepped in it. I wonder if they ever managed to wipe it all off. <G> > > > Great reply Ken! > > I think the idea that some want to keep email in the form it > > held in the past is what I find aggravating. > > I can go along with that. Most HTML-capable MUAs will try > to be helpful by sending HTML messages as 'multipart/mixed', > with one part containing the message in text/html and another > part including it as text/plain -- this is an appropriate > migration path that does no-one (except the network bandwidth) > any harm. Text-only MUAs can read the text/plain part, and > more capable ones have a choice of which to display. (Whether > they pass the ability to make a choice along to the user is > another rant..) In a perfect world all user interfaces should have the same minimum set of capabilities. > > I just wish my MUAs could be told 'if you get multipart/mixed > that only contains text, show me the plaintext part; only show > me HTML if there's no alternative.' Because replying to an HTML > message from an HTML-capable MUA typically causes the the reply > to be HTML as well. I just happen to prefer text/plain for mail > that doesn't require richness. Since a lot of what I read/send > in email is source code, constant-width aids readability. I always find it irritating that it is so difficult to change http text into plain text. It makes a thread difficult to follow at times. I notice Bob and Gautam having to manually mark the portions they write and the portions others others wrote in order to make a post decipherable; this is greatly appreciated at times; but it should not be neccessary in 2001. > > YMMV. > > 0100100100100000011000010110110100100000011000010010000001101101 > 0110010101101101011000100110010101110010001000000110111101100110 > 0010000001100001001000000110001101101001011101100110100101101100 > 0110100101110011011000010111010001101001011011110110111000101110 Number 7,546,671 of the nine billion names of God. or The lyrics to an old Rush song. <G> xponent ignorance incarnate rob
