Mark wrote:
> These days, with the variety of mail clients and personal tastes, it's
> hard to please everyone. However, what I'm attempting to do is
> configure Mozilla mail to send an HTML formatted sig with my HTML format
> messages. I send messages in both HTML and text (that might be
> violating some sort of netiquette in and of itself), and I don't like
> the idea/appearance of a non-hyperlinked sig (containing e-mail address
> and web page). This probably opens up a can of worms as to what's
> right, what's polite, etc, and at this point, I'm all ears. I've spent
> a long time using "The Bat", and now PocoMail for e-mail, and as time's
> passed, I now prefer sending and receiving e-mail HTML formatted. It
> just _looks_ nicer.
> Now, as for newsgroup posts, that's a different thing, and I understand
> that I probably _should_ send in text format. How much of an issue is
> that these days?
> Anyway, the point of my post is this:
> I composed a sig file using the "mailto" tag and simple formatting,
> saved it as an HTM file, and have selected that via Mozilla as my
> signature file. I've used the same sig here, so you can bash, er . .
> assess what I've done. For e-mail purposes, is this horribly bad form?
> Should I drop the HTML tags, and assume that the recipient's mail
> client will recognize the e-mail address/URL as such and do on the
> recieving end what I'm trying to do at composition? Help! :)
> Thanks!
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> web: http://www.marksmitka.com
>
You should NOT send HTML messages to newsgroups. If the person's
newsreader supports [EMAIL PROTECTED] style email addresses, then they
can click it. If their client doesn't, and it bothers them, it's their
job to get a new client. Same with web links. If I use such an
outdated email client that it doesn't hyperlink http:// , and that
bothers me, it's my job to get a new client. Not yours to send me a
big, bulky, HTML file instead
