i'm glad i brought this up! i think. the argument that PM might not be right for me if i want to use html is a bit like saying "you're either for us or against us!" first off, i'm not convinced i want to be a member of that 'club'. it's an email client, not a way of life. it either suits my needs or it doesn't. since this inability to respond to html emails is a 'feature', that's a problem area for me. i can either find another email client, or i can ask politely for this feature to be implemented.
there's nothing sacred about text-only emails. they're fine normally, and i use emails that way pretty regularly. but haven't you ever wanted to underline a word? or perhaps make it bold? oh come on, i know you have! and _hey_look_i'm_underlining! looks a bit ugly. and occasionally i'm sent emails where i'm supposed to edit the text into something more coherent, and i do that by assigning my changes a color. the color red! (the text-only crowd is no squirming uncontrollably) wanting to underline a word in email doesn't mean you're a moron, or a spammer, or some newbie/fashionista. it's just practical. and given the competition in email clients, including Apple Mail which is free, having to jump through hoops to reply to an html email is bad news. that said, i shall try this script and see if it's a sufficiently small 'hoop' for my purposes. thanks for the info and lively commentary! :) (hey...how about PM supporting smilies?? nah, just kidding) >Wow -- aren't email lists great. Apart from issues they are set up to >discuss, they are good for both whining and more aggressive behaviour, >helping to get the accumulated stress ions from a bad day out of one's >system. > >I hope you feel more relaxed now, Jeffrey, > >Max G > > >At Tue, 29 Jun 2004 09:58:20 -0500 (CET), Jeffrey Thorstad ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> Jeffrey, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: >>> >>> >If that's how you want your email, you probably need to >>> >use a different program >>> >>> This is not a useful response. I absolutely hate it when some >>> people respond to a problem like that. The user can't be >>> blaimed for the format of mail that is sent to him/her. >> >>It is a 100% useful response. If you want HTML mail, PM is not the >>client for you. What can be more clear and concise? I absolutely hate it >>when non-newbies start whining about HTML. You've obviously used >>computers, email, the internet and PM for some time now, figure it out! >> >>> If HTML encoded inoming mail should be second class citizens >>> in PM, then PM should have the option to automatically decode >>> the message to clear text, built-in or come with the >>> appropriate scripts and software ready to use. That such are >>> downloadable is not enough. >> >>I'll sorta concede to PM needing to get along. Except it already does, >>as mentioned every month on this board and repeatedly in this thread. >>Again, if you don't like its implementation of HTML (or windows, or >>shortcuts, or the toolbar buttons), buy something else. What is the big >>deal????? If you dislike Coke and like Pepsi, do you drink Coke every >>day and write Coke saying you should make your beverage taste like >>Pepsi? It's a big market, use what you want and learn what you use. >> >>And, since I know what comes next, don't bother telling me, "I like the >>other features, just not this one. So why can't I whine about it?" The >>answer is, people are sick of the whining. Obviously, anybody "on the >>fence" needs to reassess their wants and needs and either learn to like >>PM or learn to like one of the other clients. >> >>> HTML/XML mail or similar will >>> sooner or later supersede the pure text messages of today, no >>> matter what PM users think about it. >> >>So what? It's today, not tomorrow. Get the appropriate email client >>tomorrow when tomorrow arrives. >> >>> Personally, however, I prefer pure text. >> >>Make up your mind, Mikael. Do you want text or HTML? >> >>Jeff T >> >> > > > > >
