Send Opera-users mailing list submissions to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://list.opera.com/mailman/listinfo/opera-users
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Opera-users digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re[6]: [OU] Re: HTML mail vs. plain text (Douglas Hinds)
2. Re: Re[6]: [OU] Re: HTML mail vs. plain text (Peter Hucker)
3. Remember choice not remembered (Peter Hucker)
4. Re: Cannot send email for OperaMail Premium Acct with Opera 7 M2 (freexone)
5. I'm here to read about browsers, not e-mail ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
6. Re: page is incorrect in 7.03 but correct in 6.05 (J. King)
7. Re: Bookmarks Menu (freexone)
8. Re: Frequent freezes (freexone)
9. Re: Remember choice not remembered (Josef W. Segur)
10. A question about the list itself (J. King)
11. Re: Frequent freezes (freexone)
12. Re: A question about the list itself (Sue Sims)
13. Re: Bookmarks Menu (Doug Essinger-Hileman)
14. Re: Opera 7.11 (harry12)
15. I could use some help (Sue Sims)
16. Re: page is incorrect in 7.03 but correct in 6.05 (Raleigh Hugh Burns)
17. Re: page is incorrect in 7.03 but correct in 6.05 (FlightSimGuy)
18. Re: I'm here to read about browsers, not e-mail (Peter Hucker)
19. Re: Remember choice not remembered (Peter Hucker)
20. Re: I'm here to read about browsers, not e-mail (Jim Poston)
21. Re: Remember choice not remembered (FlightSimGuy)
22. Re: A question about the list itself (J. King)
23. Re: Remember choice not remembered (Josef W. Segur)
24. Re: page is incorrect in 7.03 but correct in 6.05 (Chavchanidze Giorgi)
25. Re[8]: [OU] Re: HTML mail vs. plain text (Douglas Hinds)
26. Re: Re[6]: [OU] Re: HTML mail vs. plain text (FlightSimGuy)
27. Re: I could use some help (Peter Hucker)
28. Re: Remember choice not remembered (Peter Hucker)
29. Re: Remember choice not remembered (Peter Hucker)
30. Re[8]: [OU] Re: HTML mail vs. plain text (Douglas Hinds)
31. Re: Re[8]: [OU] Re: HTML mail vs. plain text (Peter Hucker)
32. Re: Re[6]: [OU] Re: HTML mail vs. plain text (Peter Hucker)
33. Re: page is incorrect in 7.03 but correct in 6.05 (loro)
34. Re: Re[8]: [OU] Re: HTML mail vs. plain text (Peter Hucker)
35. Re: Re[6]: [OU] Re: HTML mail vs. plain text (Harry Lake)
36. Opera 3.62 (Douglas Hinds)
37. Opera 3.62 (Douglas Hinds)
38. Opera 3.62 (Douglas Hinds)
39. Re: Re[6]: [OU] Re: HTML mail vs. plain text (Peter Hucker)
40. Re: I could use some help (Sue Sims)
41. Re: Re[6]: [OU] Re: HTML mail vs. plain text (Ray Kerley)
--__--__--
Message: 1
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 05:03:01 -0500
From: Douglas Hinds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re[6]: [OU] Re: HTML mail vs. plain text
To: Peter Hucker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: CeDeCoR, A.C.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello Peter and other Opera-list members following this thread,
Sunday, July 13, 2003, 3:49 AM, Peter wrote:
PH> Attachments are not dangerous.
Attachments can contain malicious code. Plain text can't.
PH> Users are dangerous. Email clients are dangerous.
Other users and their mail clients form a necessary part of email
correspondence. That is not the case with HTML text.
>> FURTHERMORE, a number of conventions have been established for
>> providing _emphasis_ to a given word or phrase *if desired* using
>> plain text. (I just used three of them).
PH> But they look geeky, are less effective, and get in the way of
PH> other stuff.
They do a decent job of conveying the writers intentions. Once you
get used to them, capturing their meaning becomes automatic. IAC,
the benefits of the tradeoff far outweigh the deficits, particularly
for discussion groups. For personal correspondence, unless they're
using aol as their ISP, I simply ask the correspondent to
reconfigure his or her text editor.
Otherwise, thanks for the tip regarding Opera 7.2. However,
according to Opera's v 7 Installation FAQ, all beta versions need to
be completely un-installed before installing a final v. 7 version,
so I'll probably wait for the public release.
Douglas Hinds
--__--__--
Message: 2
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Re[6]: [OU] Re: HTML mail vs. plain text
From: Peter Hucker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: Chaos
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 11:41:53 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 05:03:01 -0500, Douglas Hinds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hello Peter and other Opera-list members following this thread,
>
> Sunday, July 13, 2003, 3:49 AM, Peter wrote:
>
> PH> Attachments are not dangerous.
>
> Attachments can contain malicious code. Plain text can't.
Funny, code doesn't run in my mail client or my browser. If you have a dangerous
system then
you can just as easily get malicious code on web sites. It's up to the user to
protect their
PC adequately.
>>> FURTHERMORE, a number of conventions have been established for
>>> providing _emphasis_ to a given word or phrase *if desired* using
>>> plain text. (I just used three of them).
>
> PH> But they look geeky, are less effective, and get in the way of
> PH> other stuff.
>
> They do a decent job of conveying the writers intentions. Once you
> get used to them, capturing their meaning becomes automatic. IAC,
> the benefits of the tradeoff far outweigh the deficits, particularly
> for discussion groups. For personal correspondence, unless they're
> using aol as their ISP, I simply ask the correspondent to
> reconfigure his or her text editor.
Yes they are good enough sometimes, but it doesn't mean the poster shouldn't use HTML
is they
feel it is necessary. It's like saying all cars should be sold so they won't exceed
80mph.
> Otherwise, thanks for the tip regarding Opera 7.2. However,
> according to Opera's v 7 Installation FAQ, all beta versions need to
> be completely un-installed before installing a final v. 7 version,
> so I'll probably wait for the public release.
Oops. Why would this be the case though?
--
*****************************************************************
1.5 GB of insane video clips! http://www.insanevideoclips.com
100s of photos of my parrots and 1000s of other photos from my digital camera
http://www.petersparrots.com
"Th on my k yboard has stopp d working"
--__--__--
Message: 3
To: Opera users mailing list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: Peter Hucker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: Chaos
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 12:41:09 +0100
Subject: [OU] Remember choice not remembered
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
When viewing a news article, I click on the jpeg at the bottom, and get this dialog
box:
File Air combat Art 1730.jpg
Server Unknown Server
Type picture/jpeg
Opens with Paintshop Pro 7
I tick the "remember choice" then click "open", but it doesn't remember the choice!
--
*****************************************************************
1.5 GB of insane video clips! http://www.insanevideoclips.com
100s of photos of my parrots and 1000s of other photos from my digital camera
http://www.petersparrots.com
If a cow laughs, does milk come out of its nose?
--__--__--
Message: 4
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OU] Cannot send email for OperaMail Premium Acct with Opera 7 M2
From: freexone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:55:39 +1000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 10:37:46 -0400, Julie Tittler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I recently acquired an OperaMail Premium account, and set my settings
> following the guidelines below:
>
> Username : [username:operamail.com#operamail.com] Incoming Mail Server:
> [pop3.operamail.com] Outgoing Mail Server: [smtpx.operamail.com]
>
> I can receive email just fine. But, if I try to send email, I get an
> error message telling me that the SMTP server may not be setup correctly.
> Can someone please tell me how to set this account up in Opera 7 M2 so I
> can send email using my OperaMail Premium account?
>
> Thanks, Julie
You may have to adjust the new "Authentication" panel in the "Servers"
section of the "Manage accounts" preferences from Mail on the main menu.
For my Operamail Premium account it is set to;
"plaintext" in the incoming or top authentication panel.
and
"AUTH LOGIN" for the outgoing or bottom authentication panel.
Actually it seems to try and do the job itself if it is set to "auto",
However one of my accounts {Yahoo premium I think it was}
had to be changed manually.
HTH
--
freexone
#
"obscurum per obscurius"
--__--__--
Message: 5
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 08:08:48 -0500
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [OU] I'm here to read about browsers, not e-mail
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fellow Opera Users:
The discussion of the past several days regarding forms of e-mail, reminded
me that a year or two ago, I raised the question of whether this list could
be divided into two parts, one for those interested in Opera as a browser
and could care less about its e-mail features (preferring to use whatever,
Eudora in my case), and the other for those who are concerned about the
e-mail features of Opera.
Nothing I have read, and I'll admit it's been cursory, has suggested that
there is ANY overlap in the topics. That is, I have seen nothing which has
claimed that any feature or glitch in Opera qua browser, has any impact on
its functioning as an e-mail client. Nor vice-versa.
So maybe it's time, at last, to divide the list?
Or at least we could provide truth in subject lines. They could begin
either [Browser] or [E-mail], so that we could more quickly find the
messages which interested us.
Greg
PS -- David Pogue in Thursday's New York Times's Circuits, addressed the
HTML question under a general discussion of e-mail etiquette. You might
still be able to link to it
at
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/10/technology/circuits/10POGUE-EMAIL.html
. I particularly liked his last three paragraphs:
"It's certainly true that some people go hog wild with hideous formatting.
But "never" is a very strong word. I've also seen some gorgeous, tasteful
HTML-formatted e-mail -- messages that use no other formatting than the
selection of an attractive font and the occasional italicized word for
emphasis.
"There are plenty of e-mail etiquette points that I consider unassailable.
Don't type your whole message in capitals. Don't fill up the entire screen
with one giant paragraph. Don't send multi-megabyte attachments without
asking first. Don't forward chain letters. Don't buy anything from spam.
"But it's a big world out there, and it's more gray than black-and-white.
When used in moderation and good taste, there's room for all kinds of email
styles."
--__--__--
Message: 6
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 09:10:50 -0400
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OU] page is incorrect in 7.03 but correct in 6.05
From: "J. King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: Dark Phantasy
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 10:13:25 +0200 (MET DST), Chavchanidze Giorgi
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Note also that you should not use <!-- --> comments in CSS, use /* */
> instead.
Well, in fact, he shouldn't use the comment at all, because the padding is
definitely applied in Opera.
Offhand, it's very, very, very odd how IE handles body border. I'd say
that the body box is the worst interpretation of CSS rules I've ever come
out of IE...
--
J. King
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://dark-phantasy.com/
http://snap.dark-phantasy.com/
--__--__--
Message: 7
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:15:06 +1000
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OU] Bookmarks Menu
From: freexone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 10:55:18 -0400, Doug Essinger-Hileman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10 Jul 2003 at 21:11, freexone wrote:
>
>> Yeah that happens when you import your bookmarks.
>
> Yup.
>
>> What I did was create or re-name as many top level views/folders as I
>> wanted and select-all/copy or drag my bookmarks into those new
>> top-level and new sub-level folders. Then just delete all the empties
>> and defaults or bookmarks you don't require. Not perfect but works
>> effectively. a bit like me... :-) --
>
> I was trying to avoid that. But if I have to . . . .
>
> If there's anyone listening in here who has the ears of the developers,
> perhaps they could pass on that this is a pain in the pittutie (sp?).
>
> Doug
>
You can also just delete all those new default bookmarks if you want to and
then just re-name your imports. I haven' read the instructions yet,
but I think you can still make any folder be the Personal Bar?
It didn't take too long to sort it out.
-- freexone
#
"obscurum per obscurius"
--__--__--
Message: 8
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OU] Frequent freezes
From: freexone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:33:31 +1000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 18:46:29 +0100, Colin Fine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
[...]
>
> Does anybody recognise this? Or have a suggestion for how to investigate
> it? I am running out of patience with it, and may end up going back to
> MSIE (horrors! - I've got Mozilla, but it's so slow).
>
Don't go that mad!
Yes I recognise the symptoms very well and right through versions 4 to 6 I
always had these mystery freezes, but as with you they never left a trace
of what caused them and it seemed no-one else was experiencing it.
Since the Opera 7 series started I have still had a few crashes, but the
freezes had at least stopped, and now that I am using the new version 7.20
I have had no crashes at all yet either.
I had been hoping that those mystery freezes may have been fixed too.
Are you using the new version yet?
--
freexone
#
"obscurum per obscurius"
--__--__--
Message: 9
From: "Josef W. Segur" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 09:37:02 -0400
Subject: Re: [OU] Remember choice not remembered
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 13 Jul 03, at 12:41, Peter wrote:
> When viewing a news article, I click on the jpeg at the bottom, and get
> this dialog box:
>
> File Air combat Art 1730.jpg
> Server Unknown Server
> Type picture/jpeg
> Opens with Paintshop Pro 7
>
> I tick the "remember choice" then click "open", but it doesn't remember
> the choice!
True, that check box won't add a bogus innovative MIME type. You need
to use the "Change..." button for that.
Of course, pointing out to the site author that the IANA registered
MIME type for JPEG images is image/jpeg would be helpful.
--
Joe
--__--__--
Message: 10
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: "J. King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: Dark Phantasy
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 09:38:10 -0400
Subject: [OU] A question about the list itself
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Is it really necessary for the list handler to insert its own signature?
If you've signed up to the list, then you should know where things are, and
since we're supposed to receive periodic reminders, that seems like a
better place for the content of the signature. As it is, it's just wasted
bytes, and a lot of them if you consider the volume of the list.
--
J. King
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://dark-phantasy.com/
http://snap.dark-phantasy.com/
--__--__--
Message: 11
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OU] Frequent freezes
From: freexone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:56:34 +1000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 18:46:29 +0100, Colin Fine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I can't see anything about this in the archive, so let's ask here ....
>
> Opera often freezes my PC. It happened sometimes on Opera 6, but it seems
> to be more frequent since I installed Opera 7 - almost every Opera
> session ends with a forced reboot.
[...]
Hello again Colin and friends..
One other thing which I have a sneaking suspicion about; is that many
people have retained parts of the old Norton System Works 3.0 including
"System Doctor" (which was really a Windows 95 app) but we still keep it so
that we can retain the benefits of the defrag. application "Speed Disk".
I believe somehow the benefits of one application may be causing problems
with some of our more modern applications and left us with some niggling
little problems elsewhere? I too have that set, and in fact System Doctor
no longer works because of updated system files and causes a crash if I try
and use it, but I still keep the suite so I can have "Speed Disk".
Sometimes I think this combo. is causing more problems than a lot of us
realise? ? ?.
Comments? ?
--
freexone
#
"obscurum per obscurius"
--__--__--
Message: 12
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 10:52:08 -0400
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OU] A question about the list itself
From: Sue Sims <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 09:38:10 -0400, J. King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Is it really necessary for the list handler to insert its own signature?
> If you've signed up to the list, then you should know where things are,
> and since we're supposed to receive periodic reminders, that seems like a
> better place for the content of the signature. As it is, it's just
> wasted bytes, and a lot of them if you consider the volume of the list.
Well, I'd really like to retain at least the "unsubscribe" portion,
although I agree that the other two lines can go away...
Sue "testing it now" Sims
--__--__--
Message: 13
From: "Doug Essinger-Hileman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 17:38:21 -0400
Subject: Re: [OU] Bookmarks Menu
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 12 Jul 2003 at 22:17, Peter Hucker wrote:
> >> If you open the hotlist panel, you should be able to move things to
> >> where you want them by dragging and dropping, in a similar way to
> >> windows explorer.
> >
> > Nope. In the hotlist panel, there is a trashcan at the top of the
> > list. Then there is a folder called "Bookmarks." If there is a way
> > to move things outside this folder, I haven't found it. But as I
> > experiment, I see that I can create new folders that are outside the
> > "Bookmarks" folder. I guess I could create new folders with the
> > names I want, then move thing into them. I'd still like to find a
> > way to move the folders to outside the "Bookmarks" folder.
>
> I have mine in "full view" - view menu right above the bookmark list.
> I can drag an item from withing a folder which is expanded to the
> space at the bottom of the list, which pullls it to the top level, no
> longer inside any folder.
Aha! I never thought that I could do this in "full view" when I
couldn't do it in another view.
Doug
--__--__--
Message: 14
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: "harry12" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [OU] Opera 7.11
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 23:30:09 -0700 (PDT)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 09:53:56 -0500, Douglas Hinds wrote:
>
>
> Hello fellow opera-users,
>
> I'm still using Opera 6.05. Is Opera 7.11 (the most
> recent non-beta
> version) stable? Would those using it recommend my
> upgrading at this
> time?
>
> If so, would installing it in a separate directory be
> wiser than
> installing it over Opera 6.x? (I've read Opera's FAQ
> regarding this
> issue, but would appreciate some first hand experience
> from this
> group).
>
> Thanks in advance for your responses.
>
> Douglas Hinds
>
>=====================================
I use Opera v7.11 (Win XP) and find it very stable.
When installing, I do 'clean' installs.
harry12
________________________________________________
PeoplePC: It's for people. And it's just smart.
http://www.peoplepc.com
--__--__--
Message: 15
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 12:06:39 -0400
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Sue Sims <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [OU] I could use some help
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I keep getting "bounce" messages from the following listed subscribers:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
None of these are subscribed to opera-users using the above e-mail
addresses.
Of any of you know how to get in touch with them, *please* let me know off
list.
Thanks!
Sue
--__--__--
Message: 16
From: Raleigh Hugh Burns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 12:08:12 -0700
Subject: Re: [OU] page is incorrect in 7.03 but correct in 6.05
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If the markup is incorrect, then why does the same "align right" error not occur in
6.05, as it does occur in 7.03?
7/13/2003 12:53:53 AM, Chavchanidze Giorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>You use incorrect markup, the problem is caused by tag <h2 align=right>
>that appears in head of html document and is not closed. Clean up markup.
>Use valid html and everything will be OK.
>> My personal web site appears normal when viewed in 6.05.
>> But, in 7.03 the "Articles" are in larger font and right-justified.
>> What's happening in 7.03?
>
>
>--
>Opera-users: http://list.opera.com/mailman/listinfo/opera-users
>More lists: http://list.opera.com/mailman/listinfo/
>Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
--__--__--
Message: 17
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OU] page is incorrect in 7.03 but correct in 6.05
From: FlightSimGuy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 11:46:01 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If your HTML is nonstandard, every browser is free to interpret it however
it sees fit. If you want it interpreted properly, use proper HTML. ;)
- FlightSimGuy
On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 12:08:12 -0700, Raleigh Hugh Burns
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If the markup is incorrect, then why does the same "align right" error
> not occur in
> 6.05, as it does occur in 7.03?
>
>
> 7/13/2003 12:53:53 AM, Chavchanidze Giorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> You use incorrect markup, the problem is caused by tag <h2 align=right>
>> that appears in head of html document and is not closed. Clean up
>> markup.
>> Use valid html and everything will be OK.
>>> My personal web site appears normal when viewed in 6.05.
>>> But, in 7.03 the "Articles" are in larger font and right-justified.
>>> What's happening in 7.03?
>>
>>
>> -- Opera-users: http://list.opera.com/mailman/listinfo/opera-users
>> More lists: http://list.opera.com/mailman/listinfo/
>> Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>
>
>
>
--__--__--
Message: 18
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OU] I'm here to read about browsers, not e-mail
From: Peter Hucker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: Chaos
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 17:56:51 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 08:08:48 -0500, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Fellow Opera Users:
>
> The discussion of the past several days regarding forms of e-mail, reminded me that
> a year or
> two ago, I raised the question of whether this list could be divided into two parts,
> one for
> those interested in Opera as a browser and could care less about its e-mail features
> (preferring to use whatever, Eudora in my case), and the other for those who are
> concerned
> about the e-mail features of Opera.
>
> Nothing I have read, and I'll admit it's been cursory, has suggested that there is
> ANY
> overlap in the topics. That is, I have seen nothing which has claimed that any
> feature or
> glitch in Opera qua browser, has any impact on its functioning as an e-mail client.
> Nor
> vice-versa.
>
> So maybe it's time, at last, to divide the list?
>
> Or at least we could provide truth in subject lines. They could begin either
> [Browser] or
> [E-mail], so that we could more quickly find the messages which interested us.
People would never remember. Easier as you said to have two lists.
> Greg
>
> PS -- David Pogue in Thursday's New York Times's Circuits, addressed the HTML
> question under
> a general discussion of e-mail etiquette. You might still be able to link to it at
> http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/10/technology/circuits/10POGUE-EMAIL.html . I
> particularly
> liked his last three paragraphs:
>
> "It's certainly true that some people go hog wild with hideous formatting. But
> "never" is a
> very strong word. I've also seen some gorgeous, tasteful HTML-formatted e-mail --
> messages
> that use no other formatting than the selection of an attractive font and the
> occasional
> italicized word for emphasis.
>
> "There are plenty of e-mail etiquette points that I consider unassailable. Don't
> type your
> whole message in capitals. Don't fill up the entire screen with one giant paragraph.
> Don't
> send multi-megabyte attachments without asking first. Don't forward chain letters.
> Don't buy
> anything from spam.
>
> "But it's a big world out there, and it's more gray than black-and-white. When used
> in
> moderation and good taste, there's room for all kinds of email styles."
I agree with that statement.
--
*****************************************************************
1.5 GB of insane video clips! http://www.insanevideoclips.com
100s of photos of my parrots and 1000s of other photos from my digital camera
http://www.petersparrots.com
Follow your dream! Unless it's the one where you're at work in
your underwear during a fire drill.
--__--__--
Message: 19
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 18:00:33 +0100
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OU] Remember choice not remembered
From: Peter Hucker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: Chaos
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 09:37:02 -0400, Josef W. Segur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 13 Jul 03, at 12:41, Peter wrote:
>
>> When viewing a news article, I click on the jpeg at the bottom, and get
>> this dialog box:
>>
>> File Air combat Art 1730.jpg
>> Server Unknown Server
>> Type picture/jpeg
>> Opens with Paintshop Pro 7
>>
>> I tick the "remember choice" then click "open", but it doesn't remember
>> the choice!
>
> True, that check box won't add a bogus innovative MIME type. You need
> to use the "Change..." button for that.
>
> Of course, pointing out to the site author that the IANA registered
> MIME type for JPEG images is image/jpeg would be helpful.
But I have the default setting in opera "determine type by file extension if mime type
is
unreliable". Perhaps there should be an option to ALWAYS use file type, as Opera
seems to be
screwing up on mime type. The setting I have surely means that if Opera doesn't
understand the
mime type, then it ueses the file type (which was correct - .jpg).
--
*****************************************************************
1.5 GB of insane video clips! http://www.insanevideoclips.com
100s of photos of my parrots and 1000s of other photos from my digital camera
http://www.petersparrots.com
Eighty percent of married men cheat in America.
The rest cheat in Europe.
--__--__--
Message: 20
From: "Jim Poston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: The Information Dirt Road
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 10:05:26 -0700
Subject: Re: [OU] I'm here to read about browsers, not e-mail
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 13 Jul 2003 at 8:08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> ... could care less about its e-mail features (preferring to use
> whatever, Eudora in my case),
I'm in the same situation. I use Pegasus and it's unlikely that I'll be
changing soon.
> Or at least we could provide truth in subject lines. They could begin
> either [Browser] or [E-mail], so that we could more quickly find the
> messages which interested us.
For me, POPfile has learned the difference between the email discussions
within the list. It might miss one or two but at least I don't have to
sort through all of them.
--
Jim
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<< He's not a dog! He's a 'Canine-American!' >>
--__--__--
Message: 21
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OU] Remember choice not remembered
From: FlightSimGuy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 12:08:43 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 18:00:33 +0100, Peter Hucker
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 09:37:02 -0400, Josef W. Segur
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On 13 Jul 03, at 12:41, Peter wrote:
>>
>>> When viewing a news article, I click on the jpeg at the bottom, and get
>>> this dialog box:
>>>
>>> File Air combat Art 1730.jpg
>>> Server Unknown Server
>>> Type picture/jpeg
>>> Opens with Paintshop Pro 7
>>>
>>> I tick the "remember choice" then click "open", but it doesn't remember
>>> the choice!
>>
>> True, that check box won't add a bogus innovative MIME type. You need
>> to use the "Change..." button for that.
>>
>> Of course, pointing out to the site author that the IANA registered
>> MIME type for JPEG images is image/jpeg would be helpful.
>
> But I have the default setting in opera "determine type by file extension
> if mime type is unreliable". Perhaps there should be an option to ALWAYS
> use file type, as Opera seems to be screwing up on mime type. The
> setting I have surely means that if Opera doesn't understand the mime
> type, then it ueses the file type (which was correct - .jpg).
>
The Proxomitron has a "fix mime types" option which will do just that. You
setup a list of extentions and their proper mime types (there's a basic
list to get you going) and it'll modify them on the fly.
- FlightSimGuy
--__--__--
Message: 22
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 13:34:35 -0400
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OU] A question about the list itself
From: "J. King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: Dark Phantasy
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 10:52:08 -0400, Sue Sims <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, I'd really like to retain at least the "unsubscribe" portion,
> although I agree that the other two lines can go away...
/me bows.
A sensible compromise. :)
--
J. King
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://dark-phantasy.com/
http://snap.dark-phantasy.com/
--__--__--
Message: 23
From: "Josef W. Segur" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 14:14:33 -0400
Subject: Re: [OU] Remember choice not remembered
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 13 Jul 03, at 18:00, Peter wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 09:37:02 -0400, Josef W. Segur
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On 13 Jul 03, at 12:41, Peter wrote:
> >
> >> When viewing a news article, I click on the jpeg at the bottom, and get
> >> this dialog box:
> >>
> >> File Air combat Art 1730.jpg
> >> Server Unknown Server
> >> Type picture/jpeg
> >> Opens with Paintshop Pro 7
> >>
> >> I tick the "remember choice" then click "open", but it doesn't remember
> >> the choice!
> >
> > True, that check box won't add a bogus innovative MIME type. You need to
> > use the "Change..." button for that.
> >
> > Of course, pointing out to the site author that the IANA registered MIME
> > type for JPEG images is image/jpeg would be helpful.
>
> But I have the default setting in opera "determine type by file extension
> if mime type is unreliable". Perhaps there should be an option to ALWAYS
> use file type, as Opera seems to be screwing up on mime type. The setting
> I have surely means that if Opera doesn't understand the mime type, then
> it ueses the file type (which was correct - .jpg).
There are two "unreliable" MIME types; application/octet-stream and
text/plain. They are considered unreliable because a server which has
not been set up to give a specific Content-type header for a resource
it is sending will fall back to one of those. The rare case where a
server does not send a Content-type header will also trigger the
"unreliable" logic.
The HTTP standards say clients should determine what a returned
resource is by the Content-type header. Providing a workaround for
the fairly common case where a server adminstrator was forgetful is
not too bad. Trying to guess what is meant for a deliberately chosen
unknown type is better left to the user, as you've seen Opera does.
--
Joe
--__--__--
Message: 24
From: Chavchanidze Giorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:28:35 +0200 (MET DST)
Subject: Re: [OU] page is incorrect in 7.03 but correct in 6.05
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> If the markup is incorrect, then why does the same "align right" error
> not occur in 6.05, as it does occur in 7.03?
One can judge how correct markup should be rendered correctly, but how
incorrect markup should handled correctly is not defined by W3C specs and
browsers are free to handle it in any way they prefer to do it. Its really
hard to say how the construction below should be interpreted.
<head>
<style>
CSS rules go here
<!-- comment-->
CSS rules go here
</style>
<h2 align=right> Header
<head/>
<style>
CSS rules go here
<!-- comment-->
CSS rules go here
</style>
<head>
> 7/13/2003 12:53:53 AM, Chavchanidze Giorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>>You use incorrect markup, the problem is caused by tag <h2 align=right>
>>that appears in head of html document and is not closed. Clean up
>>markup. Use valid html and everything will be OK.
>>> My personal web site appears normal when viewed in 6.05.
>>> But, in 7.03 the "Articles" are in larger font and right-justified.
>>> What's happening in 7.03?
--__--__--
Message: 25
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 14:01:10 -0500
From: Douglas Hinds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re[8]: [OU] Re: HTML mail vs. plain text
To: Peter Hucker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: CeDeCoR, A.C.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello Peter and other opera-list subscribers following this tread,
Sunday, July 13, 2003 Peter responded to my saying:
>> Attachments can contain malicious code. Plain text can't.
PH> Funny, code doesn't run in my mail client or my browser.
Your email client receives text and attachments. If you then double
click on it, you may be in store for an unexpected surprise.
PH> If you have a dangerous system
All systems are subject to Viri, Trojans and Direct attacks to a
greater or lesser extent.
PH> then you can just as easily get malicious code on web sites.
True. That's why I'm choosy about which sites I visit and use a
firewall also. I also have TB! configured to show me the text
message that TB! extracts from HTML text by default, not the HTML
simulation that TB! uses to lessen unwanted ActiveX and JavaScript
actions. Using TB! is a big help.
PH> It's up to the user to protect their PC adequately.
Correct. But only a fool takes unnecessary risks. (Didn't you defend
in an earlier post your right to smash into someone driving another
car carelessly? There are two different principles at issue here:
The legal issue and the moral issue. Remember that there may be
innocent women and children riding in the car you feel justified in
smashing into. BTW, did you happen to be in Mai Lai or someplace
where a similar massacre occurred by any chance? I'm trying to
understand your logic).
The legal issue depends on how wise voters proved to be when electing
their legislators.
Some legislators represent corporate interests, while others (alas,
too few) are more concerned about the public interest.
>>>> FURTHERMORE, a number of conventions have been established for
>>>> providing _emphasis_ to a given word or phrase *if desired* using
>>>> plain text. (I just used three of them).
>>
>> PH> But they look geeky, are less effective, and get in the way of
>> PH> other stuff.
>>
>> They do a decent job of conveying the writers intentions. Once you
>> get used to them, capturing their meaning becomes automatic. IAC,
>> the benefits of the tradeoff far outweigh the deficits, particularly
>> for discussion groups. For personal correspondence, unless they're
>> using aol as their ISP, I simply ask the correspondent to
>> reconfigure his or her text editor.
PH> Yes they are good enough sometimes, but it doesn't mean the
PH> poster shouldn't use HTML is they feel it is necessary.
Well, that doesn't the rest of us have to welcome it or remain
silent about it.
What do you feel constitutes a valid situation in which the poster
may feel it is necessary to use HTML?
Did you read an earlier post of mine in which I outlined four distinct
types of uses for email?
PH> It's like saying all cars should be sold so they won't exceed
PH> 80mph.
Is it really?
>> Otherwise, thanks for the tip regarding Opera 7.2. However,
>> according to Opera's v 7 Installation FAQ, all beta versions need to
>> be completely un-installed before installing a final v. 7 version,
>> so I'll probably wait for the public release.
PH> Oops. Why would this be the case though?
Ask Sue Sims. Here's the url: (Sorry, I looked for it but
evidently didn't save it).
IAC, there must be some significant differences
between the beta and public release versions.
PH> "Th on my k yboard has stopp d working"
Try taking off the "E" key's shell and cleaning it.
--
Douglas Hinds
--__--__--
Message: 26
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 14:40:53 -0500
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Re[6]: [OU] Re: HTML mail vs. plain text
From: FlightSimGuy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 05:03:01 -0500, Douglas Hinds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Hello Peter and other Opera-list members following this thread,
>
> Sunday, July 13, 2003, 3:49 AM, Peter wrote:
>
> PH> Attachments are not dangerous.
>
> Attachments can contain malicious code. Plain text can't.
Are you sure? I can send you a plaintext email telling you to "pick up a
baseball bat and destroy your computer." Does that mean that you would do
it? Nope. Are you worried that someone will send you such an email, and
you'll have to follow those instructions? Nope.
I think malicious attachments are no different; I could send them all I
want, but as long as nobody runs them, no damage is done.
- FlightSimGuy
--__--__--
Message: 27
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 21:06:37 +0100
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OU] I could use some help
From: Peter Hucker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: Chaos
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 12:06:39 -0400, Sue Sims <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I keep getting "bounce" messages from the following listed subscribers:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> None of these are subscribed to opera-users using the above e-mail addresses.
>
> Of any of you know how to get in touch with them, *please* let me know off list.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Sue
I presume these are redirects? If so, isn't it in the headers? I'm not sure but it
might be.
For example I emailed from [EMAIL PROTECTED] to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (which redirects
back to [EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Note the line "To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]" although I don't know if this will be present
anywhere as you are talking about a mailing list server as the source.
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivery-Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 18:26:23 +0100
Received: from brora.stir.ac.uk by dswu195 with SMTP (XT-PP) with ESMTP; Sun, 13 Jul
2003
18:26:13 +0100
Received: from halladale.stir.ac.uk (halladale.stir.ac.uk [139.153.13.35])
by brora.stir.ac.uk (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian-6.4) with ESMTP id h6DHFea7007739
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 18:15:40 +0100
Received: from falloch.ad.stir.ac.uk (falloch.stir.ac.uk [139.153.12.55])
by halladale.stir.ac.uk (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian-6.4) with ESMTP id h6DHEAwv025778
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 18:14:10 +0100
Received: by falloch.ad.stir.ac.uk with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
id <LN3KYBH3>; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 18:14:10 +0100
Received: from halladale.stir.ac.uk ([139.153.13.35]) by falloch.ad.stir.ac.uk with
SMTP
(Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13)
id LN3KYBHM; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 18:14:07 +0100
Received: from brora.stir.ac.uk (brora.stir.ac.uk [139.153.12.54])
by halladale.stir.ac.uk (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian-6.4) with ESMTP id h6DHCrgf025432
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 18:14:07 +0100
Received: from dswu83.btconnect.com (dswu83.btconnect.com [193.113.154.14])
by brora.stir.ac.uk (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian-6.4) with SMTP id h6DH4Ua7007199
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 18:04:30 +0100
Received: from blue (actually host btosat-217-159-17-176.btopenworld.com) by dswu83
with SMTP-
CUST (XT-PP) with ESMTP; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 18:06:57 +0100
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: test redirect headers
From: Peter Hucker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: Chaos
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-15
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 18:04:08 +0100
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
User-Agent: Opera7.20/Win32 M2 build 2981
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-0.5, required 5,
BAYES_30, NO_COST, SIGNATURE_LONG_SPARSE, USER_AGENT), not spam, SpamAssassin
(score=-0.5,
required 5,
BAYES_30, NO_COST, SIGNATURE_LONG_DENSE, USER_AGENT)
X-Filter-Info: UoS MailScan 0.1 [D 1]
X-MailScanner-Information: See www.mailscanner.info for information
blah
--
*****************************************************************
1.5 GB of insane video clips! http://www.insanevideoclips.com
100s of photos of my parrots and 1000s of other photos from my digital camera
http://www.petersparrots.com
A penny saved is a government oversight.
--__--__--
Message: 28
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OU] Remember choice not remembered
From: Peter Hucker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: Chaos
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 21:16:08 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 12:08:43 -0500, FlightSimGuy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 18:00:33 +0100, Peter Hucker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 09:37:02 -0400, Josef W. Segur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 13 Jul 03, at 12:41, Peter wrote:
>>>
>>>> When viewing a news article, I click on the jpeg at the bottom, and get
>>>> this dialog box:
>>>>
>>>> File Air combat Art 1730.jpg
>>>> Server Unknown Server
>>>> Type picture/jpeg
>>>> Opens with Paintshop Pro 7
>>>>
>>>> I tick the "remember choice" then click "open", but it doesn't remember
>>>> the choice!
>>>
>>> True, that check box won't add a bogus innovative MIME type. You need
>>> to use the "Change..." button for that.
>>>
>>> Of course, pointing out to the site author that the IANA registered
>>> MIME type for JPEG images is image/jpeg would be helpful.
>>
>> But I have the default setting in opera "determine type by file extension if mime
>> type is
>> unreliable". Perhaps there should be an option to ALWAYS use file type, as Opera
>> seems to
>> be screwing up on mime type. The setting I have surely means that if Opera doesn't
>> understand the mime type, then it ueses the file type (which was correct - .jpg).
>>
>
> The Proxomitron has a "fix mime types" option which will do just that. You setup a
> list of
> extentions and their proper mime types (there's a basic list to get you going) and
> it'll
> modify them on the fly.
I think that's the program I tried before, and it screwed something up, so I
uninstalled it.
--
*****************************************************************
1.5 GB of insane video clips! http://www.insanevideoclips.com
100s of photos of my parrots and 1000s of other photos from my digital camera
http://www.petersparrots.com
"The knack to flying is learning how to
throw yourself at the ground and miss."
--__--__--
Message: 29
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OU] Remember choice not remembered
From: Peter Hucker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: Chaos
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 21:18:16 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 14:14:33 -0400, Josef W. Segur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 13 Jul 03, at 18:00, Peter wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 09:37:02 -0400, Josef W. Segur
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > On 13 Jul 03, at 12:41, Peter wrote:
>> >
>> >> When viewing a news article, I click on the jpeg at the bottom, and get
>> >> this dialog box:
>> >>
>> >> File Air combat Art 1730.jpg
>> >> Server Unknown Server
>> >> Type picture/jpeg
>> >> Opens with Paintshop Pro 7
>> >>
>> >> I tick the "remember choice" then click "open", but it doesn't remember
>> >> the choice!
>> >
>> > True, that check box won't add a bogus innovative MIME type. You need to
>> > use the "Change..." button for that.
>> >
>> > Of course, pointing out to the site author that the IANA registered MIME
>> > type for JPEG images is image/jpeg would be helpful.
>>
>> But I have the default setting in opera "determine type by file extension
>> if mime type is unreliable". Perhaps there should be an option to ALWAYS
>> use file type, as Opera seems to be screwing up on mime type. The setting
>> I have surely means that if Opera doesn't understand the mime type, then
>> it ueses the file type (which was correct - .jpg).
>
> There are two "unreliable" MIME types; application/octet-stream and
> text/plain. They are considered unreliable because a server which has
> not been set up to give a specific Content-type header for a resource
> it is sending will fall back to one of those. The rare case where a
> server does not send a Content-type header will also trigger the
> "unreliable" logic.
>
> The HTTP standards say clients should determine what a returned
> resource is by the Content-type header. Providing a workaround for
> the fairly common case where a server adminstrator was forgetful is
> not too bad. Trying to guess what is meant for a deliberately chosen
> unknown type is better left to the user, as you've seen Opera does.
If the type is unknown, surely looking at the ".jpg" gives a small clue?
--
*****************************************************************
1.5 GB of insane video clips! http://www.insanevideoclips.com
100s of photos of my parrots and 1000s of other photos from my digital camera
http://www.petersparrots.com
Dreaming frees the soul, energizes the spirit and allows you to do
things that would get your ass thrown in jail if you really tried them.
--__--__--
Message: 30
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 14:51:26 -0500
From: Douglas Hinds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re[8]: [OU] Re: HTML mail vs. plain text
To: Peter Hucker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: CeDeCoR, A.C.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello Peter and other opera-list subscribers following this tread,
Sunday, July 13, 2003 Peter responded to my saying:
>> Attachments can contain malicious code. Plain text can't.
PH> Funny, code doesn't run in my mail client or my browser.
Your email client receives text and attachments. If you then double
click on it, you may be in store for an unexpected surprise.
PH> If you have a dangerous system
All systems are subject to Viri, Trojans and Direct attacks to a
greater or lesser extent.
PH> then you can just as easily get malicious code on web sites.
True. That's why I'm choosy about which sites I visit and use a
firewall also. I also have TB! configured to show me the text
message that TB! extracts from HTML text by default, not the HTML
simulation that TB! uses to lessen unwanted ActiveX and JavaScript
actions. Using TB! is a big help.
PH> It's up to the user to protect their PC adequately.
Correct. But only a fool takes unnecessary risks. (Didn't you defend
in an earlier post your right to smash into someone driving another
car carelessly? There are two different principles at issue here:
The legal issue and the moral issue. Remember that there may be
innocent women and children riding in the car you feel justified in
smashing into. BTW, did you happen to be in Mai Lai or someplace
where a similar massacre occurred by any chance? I'm trying to
understand your logic).
The legal issue depends on how wise voters proved to be when electing
their legislators.
Some legislators represent corporate interests, while others (alas,
too few) are more concerned about the public interest.
>>>> FURTHERMORE, a number of conventions have been established for
>>>> providing _emphasis_ to a given word or phrase *if desired* using
>>>> plain text. (I just used three of them).
>>
>> PH> But they look geeky, are less effective, and get in the way of
>> PH> other stuff.
>>
>> They do a decent job of conveying the writers intentions. Once you
>> get used to them, capturing their meaning becomes automatic. IAC,
>> the benefits of the tradeoff far outweigh the deficits, particularly
>> for discussion groups. For personal correspondence, unless they're
>> using aol as their ISP, I simply ask the correspondent to
>> reconfigure his or her text editor.
PH> Yes they are good enough sometimes, but it doesn't mean the
PH> poster shouldn't use HTML is they feel it is necessary.
Well, that doesn't the rest of us have to welcome it or remain
silent about it.
What do you feel constitutes a valid situation in which the poster
may feel it is necessary to use HTML?
Did you read an earlier post of mine in which I outlined four distinct
types of uses for email?
PH> It's like saying all cars should be sold so they won't exceed
PH> 80mph.
Is it really?
>> Otherwise, thanks for the tip regarding Opera 7.2. However,
>> according to Opera's v 7 Installation FAQ, all beta versions need to
>> be completely un-installed before installing a final v. 7 version,
>> so I'll probably wait for the public release.
PH> Oops. Why would this be the case though?
Ask Sue Sims. Here's the url: (Sorry, I looked for it but
evidently didn't save it).
IAC, there must be some significant differences
between the beta and public release versions.
PH> "Th on my k yboard has stopp d working"
Try taking off the "E" key's shell and cleaning it.
--
Douglas Hinds
--__--__--
Message: 31
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 21:26:00 +0100
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Re[8]: [OU] Re: HTML mail vs. plain text
From: Peter Hucker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: Chaos
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 14:01:10 -0500, Douglas Hinds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hello Peter and other opera-list subscribers following this tread,
>
> Sunday, July 13, 2003 Peter responded to my saying:
>
>>> Attachments can contain malicious code. Plain text can't.
>
> PH> Funny, code doesn't run in my mail client or my browser.
>
> Your email client receives text and attachments. If you then double
> click on it, you may be in store for an unexpected surprise.
I don't double click on attachments such as "click this for perverted incest.html"
which if I
did would open in Opera's browser which is not susceptible to nasty scripts.
> PH> If you have a dangerous system
>
> All systems are subject to Viri, Trojans and Direct attacks to a
> greater or lesser extent.
>
> PH> then you can just as easily get malicious code on web sites.
>
> True. That's why I'm choosy about which sites I visit and use a
> firewall also. I also have TB! configured to show me the text
> message that TB! extracts from HTML text by default, not the HTML
> simulation that TB! uses to lessen unwanted ActiveX and JavaScript
> actions. Using TB! is a big help.
A little overkill? Norton AV plus Opera never let anything nasty in here.
> PH> It's up to the user to protect their PC adequately.
>
> Correct. But only a fool takes unnecessary risks. (Didn't you defend
> in an earlier post your right to smash into someone driving another
> car carelessly? There are two different principles at issue here:
> The legal issue and the moral issue. Remember that there may be
> innocent women and children riding in the car you feel justified in
> smashing into.
That's why I said I slow down and just bump them to cause damage only to the panels.
> BTW, did you happen to be in Mai Lai or someplace
> where a similar massacre occurred by any chance? I'm trying to
> understand your logic).
Never heard of it.
> The legal issue depends on how wise voters proved to be when electing
> their legislators.
>
> Some legislators represent corporate interests, while others (alas,
> too few) are more concerned about the public interest.
>
>>>>> FURTHERMORE, a number of conventions have been established for
>>>>> providing _emphasis_ to a given word or phrase *if desired* using
>>>>> plain text. (I just used three of them).
>>>
>>> PH> But they look geeky, are less effective, and get in the way of
>>> PH> other stuff.
>>>
>>> They do a decent job of conveying the writers intentions. Once you
>>> get used to them, capturing their meaning becomes automatic. IAC,
>>> the benefits of the tradeoff far outweigh the deficits, particularly
>>> for discussion groups. For personal correspondence, unless they're
>>> using aol as their ISP, I simply ask the correspondent to
>>> reconfigure his or her text editor.
>
> PH> Yes they are good enough sometimes, but it doesn't mean the
> PH> poster shouldn't use HTML is they feel it is necessary.
>
> Well, that doesn't the rest of us have to welcome it or remain
> silent about it.
If you can't receive html, you miss emails. That's your problem. I accept everything
and
transmit sensibly.
> What do you feel constitutes a valid situation in which the poster
> may feel it is necessary to use HTML?
Where there are lots of things to emphasize, or perhaps add pictures in certain places.
> Did you read an earlier post of mine in which I outlined four distinct
> types of uses for email?
>
> PH> It's like saying all cars should be sold so they won't exceed
> PH> 80mph.
>
> Is it really?
Yes, drivers should be able to choose for themselves what speed to travel at. Posters
should
be able to post in whatever format they feel is sensible.
>>> Otherwise, thanks for the tip regarding Opera 7.2. However,
>>> according to Opera's v 7 Installation FAQ, all beta versions need to
>>> be completely un-installed before installing a final v. 7 version,
>>> so I'll probably wait for the public release.
>
> PH> Oops. Why would this be the case though?
>
> Ask Sue Sims. Here's the url: (Sorry, I looked for it but
> evidently didn't save it).
>
> IAC, there must be some significant differences
> between the beta and public release versions.
>
> PH> "Th on my k yboard has stopp d working"
>
> Try taking off the "E" key's shell and cleaning it.
Nah, more fun to flood the thing with WD40!
--
*****************************************************************
1.5 GB of insane video clips! http://www.insanevideoclips.com
100s of photos of my parrots and 1000s of other photos from my digital camera
http://www.petersparrots.com
ADULT: A person who has stopped growing at both ends and is now growing in the middle.
--__--__--
Message: 32
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 21:30:34 +0100
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Re[6]: [OU] Re: HTML mail vs. plain text
From: Peter Hucker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: Chaos
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 14:40:53 -0500, FlightSimGuy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 05:03:01 -0500, Douglas Hinds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hello Peter and other Opera-list members following this thread,
>>
>> Sunday, July 13, 2003, 3:49 AM, Peter wrote:
>>
>> PH> Attachments are not dangerous.
>>
>> Attachments can contain malicious code. Plain text can't.
>
> Are you sure? I can send you a plaintext email telling you to "pick up a baseball
> bat and
> destroy your computer." Does that mean that you would do it? Nope. Are you worried
> that
> someone will send you such an email, and you'll have to follow those instructions?
> Nope.
>
> I think malicious attachments are no different; I could send them all I want, but as
> long as
> nobody runs them, no damage is done.
Agreed. Does anyone here follow these sort of instructions?
-------------------------------------------------
Hello, my name is Peter and I suffer from the guilt of not forwarding 50
billion f***ing chain letters sent to me by people who actually believe
that if you send them on, a poor 6-year-old girl in Arkansas with a breast
on her forehead will be able to raise enough money to have it removed
before her redneck parents sell her to a travelling freak show.
Do you honestly believe that Bill Gates is going to give you, and everyone
to who you send "his" Email, $1000? How stupid are we?
"Oh, looky here! If I scroll down this page and make a wish, I'll get laid
by every good looking model in the magazine!" What a bunch of bulls***.
Basically, this message is a big KISS MY A*** to all the people out there
who have nothing better to do than to send me stupid chain mail forwards.
Maybe the evil chain letter leprechauns will come into my house and
sodomise me in my sleep for not continuing a chain that was started by
Peter in 5 AD and brought to this country by midget pilgrims on the
Mayflower.
F*** them if you're going to forward something, at least send me something
mildly amusing. I've seen all the "send this to 10 of your closest
friends, and this poor, wretched excuse for a human being will somehow
receive a nickel from some omniscient being" forwards about 900 times!
I don't f***ing care.
Show a little intelligence and think about what you're actually
contributing to by sending out these forwards. Chances are, it's your own
unpopularity.
The point being if you get some chain letter that's threatening to leave
you shagless or luckless for the rest of your life, delete it. If it's
funny, send it on. Don't piss people off by making them feel guilty about a
leper in Botswana with no teeth who has been tied to a dead elephant for
27 years and whose only salvation is the 5 cents per letter he'll receive
if you forward this Email.
Now forward this to everyone you know. Otherwise, tomorrow morning your
underwear will turn carnivorous and will consume your genitals.
----------------------------------------------------
I sent this to everyone at work who forwarded me chain letters (minus the asterisks)
and they
stopped quicksmart.
--
*****************************************************************
1.5 GB of insane video clips! http://www.insanevideoclips.com
100s of photos of my parrots and 1000s of other photos from my digital camera
http://www.petersparrots.com
Loose or missing nuts. Spank the monkey (Y/N)?
--__--__--
Message: 33
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:45:56 +0200
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: loro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [OU] page is incorrect in 7.03 but correct in 6.05
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>If the markup is incorrect, then why does the same "align right" error
>not occur in
>6.05, as it does occur in 7.03?
Evolution?
Lotta
--__--__--
Message: 34
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Re[8]: [OU] Re: HTML mail vs. plain text
From: Peter Hucker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: Chaos
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:02:17 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I've seen this post before!
On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 14:51:26 -0500, Douglas Hinds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hello Peter and other opera-list subscribers following this tread,
>
> Sunday, July 13, 2003 Peter responded to my saying:
>
>>> Attachments can contain malicious code. Plain text can't.
>
> PH> Funny, code doesn't run in my mail client or my browser.
>
> Your email client receives text and attachments. If you then double
> click on it, you may be in store for an unexpected surprise.
>
> PH> If you have a dangerous system
>
> All systems are subject to Viri, Trojans and Direct attacks to a
> greater or lesser extent.
>
> PH> then you can just as easily get malicious code on web sites.
>
> True. That's why I'm choosy about which sites I visit and use a
> firewall also. I also have TB! configured to show me the text
> message that TB! extracts from HTML text by default, not the HTML
> simulation that TB! uses to lessen unwanted ActiveX and JavaScript
> actions. Using TB! is a big help.
>
> PH> It's up to the user to protect their PC adequately.
>
> Correct. But only a fool takes unnecessary risks. (Didn't you defend
> in an earlier post your right to smash into someone driving another
> car carelessly? There are two different principles at issue here:
> The legal issue and the moral issue. Remember that there may be
> innocent women and children riding in the car you feel justified in
> smashing into. BTW, did you happen to be in Mai Lai or someplace
> where a similar massacre occurred by any chance? I'm trying to
> understand your logic).
>
> The legal issue depends on how wise voters proved to be when electing
> their legislators.
>
> Some legislators represent corporate interests, while others (alas,
> too few) are more concerned about the public interest.
>
>>>>> FURTHERMORE, a number of conventions have been established for
>>>>> providing _emphasis_ to a given word or phrase *if desired* using
>>>>> plain text. (I just used three of them).
>>>
>>> PH> But they look geeky, are less effective, and get in the way of
>>> PH> other stuff.
>>>
>>> They do a decent job of conveying the writers intentions. Once you
>>> get used to them, capturing their meaning becomes automatic. IAC,
>>> the benefits of the tradeoff far outweigh the deficits, particularly
>>> for discussion groups. For personal correspondence, unless they're
>>> using aol as their ISP, I simply ask the correspondent to
>>> reconfigure his or her text editor.
>
> PH> Yes they are good enough sometimes, but it doesn't mean the
> PH> poster shouldn't use HTML is they feel it is necessary.
>
> Well, that doesn't the rest of us have to welcome it or remain
> silent about it.
>
> What do you feel constitutes a valid situation in which the poster
> may feel it is necessary to use HTML?
>
> Did you read an earlier post of mine in which I outlined four distinct
> types of uses for email?
>
> PH> It's like saying all cars should be sold so they won't exceed
> PH> 80mph.
>
> Is it really?
>
>>> Otherwise, thanks for the tip regarding Opera 7.2. However,
>>> according to Opera's v 7 Installation FAQ, all beta versions need to
>>> be completely un-installed before installing a final v. 7 version,
>>> so I'll probably wait for the public release.
>
> PH> Oops. Why would this be the case though?
>
> Ask Sue Sims. Here's the url: (Sorry, I looked for it but
> evidently didn't save it).
>
> IAC, there must be some significant differences
> between the beta and public release versions.
>
> PH> "Th on my k yboard has stopp d working"
>
> Try taking off the "E" key's shell and cleaning it.
--
*****************************************************************
1.5 GB of insane video clips! http://www.insanevideoclips.com
100s of photos of my parrots and 1000s of other photos from my digital camera
http://www.petersparrots.com
A Smith and Wesson beats four Aces.
--__--__--
Message: 35
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 00:24:12 +0200
From: Harry Lake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Re[6]: [OU] Re: HTML mail vs. plain text
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--Boundary_(ID_Ag6MKLdI9b5VJL6qo1Q+Rw)
Content-type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-326DEC5; charset=us-ascii;
format=flowed
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Fwiw, I would like to see Mr Hucker removed from this list.
Harry Lake
--Boundary_(ID_Ag6MKLdI9b5VJL6qo1Q+Rw)--
--__--__--
Message: 36
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 14:52:02 -0500
From: Douglas Hinds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Organization: CeDeCoR, A.C.
Subject: [OU] Opera 3.62
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello fellow opera-list subscribers,
One thing I did go ahead and do is download and install Opera 3.62
on this TP R31 running WinXP. (That makes 5 browsers installed).
Unfortunately, it won't navigate. It tries to connect and isn't able
to do so.
I recall that this issue was raised raised some years ago, when v.
3.x still ruled the day. What I don't recall is which elements of
the configuration I need to change (I never had any problems with
Opera running Win95).
Any explanation that allows me to resolve this problem will be
greatly appreciated.
--
Thanks in advance for your responses.
Douglas Hinds
--__--__--
Message: 37
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 14:43:40 -0500
From: Douglas Hinds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Organization: CeDeCoR, A.C.
Subject: [OU] Opera 3.62
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello fellow opera-list subscribers,
One thing I did go ahead and do is download and install Opera 3.62
on this TP R31 running WinXP. (That makes 5 browsers installed).
Unfortunately, it won't navigate. It tries to connect and isn't able
to do so.
I recall that this issue was raised raised some years ago, when v.
3.x still ruled the day. What I don't recall is which elements of
the configuration I need to change (I never had any problems with
Opera running Win95).
Any explanation that allows me to resolve this problem will be
greatly appreciated.
--
Thanks in advance for your responses.
Douglas Hinds
--__--__--
Message: 38
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 15:08:41 -0500
From: Douglas Hinds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Organization: CeDeCoR, A.C.
Subject: [OU] Opera 3.62
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello fellow opera-list subscribers,
One thing I did go ahead and do is download and install Opera 3.62
on this TP R31 running WinXP. (That makes 5 browsers installed).
Unfortunately, it won't navigate. It tries to connect and isn't able
to do so.
I recall that this issue was raised raised some years ago, when v.
3.x still ruled the day. What I don't recall is which elements of
the configuration I need to change (I never had any problems with
Opera running Win95).
Any explanation that allows me to resolve this problem will be
greatly appreciated.
--
Thanks in advance for your responses.
Douglas Hinds
--__--__--
Message: 39
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Re[6]: [OU] Re: HTML mail vs. plain text
From: Peter Hucker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: Chaos
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:33:16 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 00:24:12 +0200, Harry Lake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Fwiw, I would like to see Mr Hucker removed from this list.
Looks like you can't discuss things if you can't get your own way.
--
*****************************************************************
1.5 GB of insane video clips! http://www.insanevideoclips.com
100s of photos of my parrots and 1000s of other photos from my digital camera
http://www.petersparrots.com
For 93 million miles, there is nothing between the sun and my shadow
except me. I'm always getting in the way of something...
--__--__--
Message: 40
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 18:35:53 -0400
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OU] I could use some help
From: Sue Sims <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
> I presume these are redirects? If so, isn't it in the headers? I'm not
> sure but it might be.
I presume the same.
No, it isn't in the headers I get from the bounce program:
**********************************************************************************
From: Mail Delivery Service <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Subject: Delivery
Status NotificationTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Sun, 13 Jul 2003
23:22:03 +0100
- These recipients of your message have been processed by the mail server:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; Failed; 5.2.2 (mailbox full)
Final-Recipient: rfc822; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Action: Failed
Status: 5.2.2 (mailbox full)
**********************************************************************************
That is the extent of the mail I receive...every time someone posts a
message to the list. I tried subscribing and subsequently unsubscribing,
using those three e-mail addresses, but it did no good.
*sigh* Oh, how I would love a decent filter possibility for instances like
this :-(
Sue
--__--__--
Message: 41
From: "Ray Kerley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Re[6]: [OU] Re: HTML mail vs. plain text
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 17:00:11 -0600
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Amen!
-----------------------------------
Ray Kerley
Murray, UT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Harry Lake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2003 4:24 PM
Subject: Re: Re[6]: [OU] Re: HTML mail vs. plain text
> Fwiw, I would like to see Mr Hucker removed from this list.
>
> Harry Lake
>
--__--__--
--
Opera-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://list.opera.com/mailman/listinfo/opera-users
End of Opera-users Digest
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: VM Ware
With VMware you can run multiple operating systems on a single machine.
WITHOUT REBOOTING! Mix Linux / Windows / Novell virtual machines at the
same time. Free trial click here: http://www.vmware.com/wl/offer/345/0
_______________________________________________
Mahogany-Users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mahogany-users
