powermail-discuss Digest #2873 - Sunday, August 24, 2008
Re: reason for HTML-only?
by "Tim Lapin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: reason for HTML-only?
by "Michael J. Hußmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: reason for HTML-only?
by "Michael Lewis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: reason for HTML-only?
by "Tim Lapin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: reason for HTML-only?
by "Richard Hart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: reason for HTML-only?
by "Tim Lapin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: reason for HTML-only?
by "Michael J. Hußmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: reason for HTML-only?
by "Tim Lapin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: reason for HTML-only?
by "Matthias Schmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re(2): reason for HTML-only?
by "Peter Lovell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: reason for HTML-only?
by "MB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: reason for HTML-only?
by "Michael J. Hußmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
HTML capabilities (was: "reason for HTML-only?)
by "MB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: reason for HTML-only?
by "Michael Lewis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: reason for HTML-only?
by "Michael Lewis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re(3): reason for HTML-only?
by "Bill Schjelderup" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: PM6 hopes.. was:: reason for HTML-only?
by "Dave N" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: reason for HTML-only?
From: "Tim Lapin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 13:58:56 -0400
On Saturday, August 23, 2008, Michael Lewis sent forth:
>Matthias Schmidt sez:
>
>>So yes, it gets more and more difficult t stick with PM.
>
>Can you not use the button at the bottom to switch to HTML view or view
>the message in a web browser. If neither of those work, than the email
>has crappy HTML code and it isn't PM's fault.
>
>--
>Michael Lewis
>Off Balance Productions
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>www.offbalance.com
>
>
You miss the point, I think. These messages cannot be displayed by PM
in any mode. I have received a few myself.
If mail is increasingly of the HTML-only variety, then using PM becomes
increasingly a chore as the very automatic nature of viewing email is
changed. What it means is that more and more we will have to go down to
the icon at the bottom of the page and click on that little globe,
invoking a second program to do what the first program should have done
but couldn't. I like text based email, you like text based email.
Unfortunately, it seems relatively few other groups do. :-(
As far as whose fault it is, such arguments are futile at best. If you
really press the point, people will then point to the fact that other
email clients can read the stuff, so why can't PM?
A second problem is with the database and backups. I just upgraded to
Leopard because of, among other things, Time Machine. I bought a LaCie
2 big Triple 1 TB drive (2 x 500 GB physical drives) and set the second
drive as a mirror of the first. Combined with Time Machine, I now have
redundant backups plus a whack of extra storage space.
PowerMail, however, is the fly in the ointment with its monolithic
structure. I know it is not alone in this and Apple clearly had
Mail.app in mind when designing Time Machine but neither is Mail.app
alone. Thunderbird can be set up so that its parent folders become
separate databases; each one allowing a 4 GB file or database in
effect. Eudora, though now in legacy mode, is another. The smaller
files result in a less onerous automated backup by Time Machine. I can
only be thankful that my database is small by the standards of some
users here (? 150 MB and growing) through careful pruning of messages
that are important in the moment but have no lasting value.
It should be pointed out that the same problem would exist with any
backup regime but I point to Time Machine as most of us have it and
probably more than a few of us are either using it or thinking of using
it. It is a slick, automated, no fuss product. Besides, free is good. :-)
--
Tim Lapin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Intel iMac OS 10.5.1 PowerMail 5.6.1 1 GB RAM 250 GB HD
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: reason for HTML-only?
From: "Michael J. Hußmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 20:28:52 +0200
Tim Lapin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> You miss the point, I think. These messages cannot be displayed by PM
> in any mode. I have received a few myself.
So far, this thread was about HTML-only mails, and PM has no problems
displaying HTML-only mails that I am aware of. There is an issue with
mails containing multiple HTML parts or combinations of HTML and plain
text parts, but that's a different matter. In those cases, the
individual parts can only be displayed in a web browser.
> PowerMail, however, is the fly in the ointment with its monolithic
> structure.
Hmm .. actually, I prefer monolithic databases, if only for the fact
that monolithic files copy much much faster than folders containing a
myriad of small files.
But then, I don't use Time Machine. Even when PM's mail database was
dissolved into many small files, other databases, virtual disks and such
won't be going away.
- Michael
Michael J. Hußmann
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW (personal): http://michael-hussmann.de
WWW (professional): http://digicam-experts.de
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: reason for HTML-only?
From: "Michael Lewis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 13:36:16 -0500
Tim Lapin sez:
>You miss the point, I think. These messages cannot be displayed by PM
>in any mode. I have received a few myself.
I don't think that point was made. The original message only asked about
HTML-only messages not being sent with text parts. If they aren't
formatting the multipart emails properly, then they may be creating
improper HTML code, too. I can only reply to the info I have. :)
--
Michael Lewis
Off Balance Productions
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.offbalance.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: reason for HTML-only?
From: "Tim Lapin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 14:48:00 -0400
On Saturday, August 23, 2008, Michael J. Hußmann sent forth:
>Tim Lapin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
>> You miss the point, I think. These messages cannot be displayed by PM
>> in any mode. I have received a few myself.
>
>So far, this thread was about HTML-only mails, and PM has no problems
>displaying HTML-only mails that I am aware of. There is an issue with
>mails containing multiple HTML parts or combinations of HTML and plain
>text parts, but that's a different matter. In those cases, the
>individual parts can only be displayed in a web browser.
>
What are you talking about? RE-READ the part you quoted. I have
received some HTML-only e-mails that did NOT open in PowerMail. Not
often, mind you but more than once.
The whole point is to NOT open them in a second application, IMHO.
--
Tim Lapin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Intel iMac OS 10.5.1 PowerMail 5.6.1 1 GB RAM 250 GB HD
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: reason for HTML-only?
From: "Richard Hart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 11:52:13 -0700
Tim Lapin wrote:
>These messages cannot be displayed by PM
>in any mode. I have received a few myself.
Are you sure you meant to write that? I believe you might be
experiencing problems, but I have never received a message in PowerMail
that "cannot be displayed". What does that mean: "cannot be displayed"?
Richard Hart
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: reason for HTML-only?
From: "Tim Lapin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 15:06:38 -0400
On Saturday, August 23, 2008, Richard Hart sent forth:
>Tim Lapin wrote:
>
>>These messages cannot be displayed by PM
>>in any mode. I have received a few myself.
>
>Are you sure you meant to write that? I believe you might be
>experiencing problems, but I have never received a message in PowerMail
>that "cannot be displayed". What does that mean: "cannot be displayed"?
>
>Richard Hart
>
>
Exactly what I and others have written.
When one opens the message, one gets a blank window with an HTML
attachment. Opening the HTML attachment forces the opening of a web
browser application window containing the message. Other people have
noted that such messages open properly in Apple Mail and I can attest
that they open in Thunderbird. So, why not PowerMail?
Look back in this list and you will see others have written about the
same thing.
The fact that it might be spam is irrelevant.
The fact that it might be objectionable on principle to some here
(including me, BTW) is irrelevant.
If I have to see that message, I don't appreciate my e-mailer telling me
in effect to piss off and use another product. I like PM but unless
issues like this get addressed, I might have to reconsider.
--
Tim Lapin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Intel iMac OS 10.5.1 PowerMail 5.6.1 1 GB RAM 250 GB HD
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: reason for HTML-only?
From: "Michael J. Hußmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 21:32:08 +0200
Tim Lapin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Exactly what I and others have written.
This thread started with the question:
> Do anyone here have clue on what possible reasons there could be to
> choosing to send HTML-only messages, instead of mixed messages without a
> pure text part as well?
Then the thread got hijacked and now you are complaining about the well-
known issue of PM being unable to make multiple HTML parts into
something it can display. It might have been better to start a new
thread if you want to discuss this (although I don't think anything has
changed since Jérôme explained CTM's take the issue on 6/20/2008).
- Michael
Michael J. Hußmann
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW (personal): http://michael-hussmann.de
WWW (professional): http://digicam-experts.de
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: reason for HTML-only?
From: "Tim Lapin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 15:42:24 -0400
On Saturday, August 23, 2008, Michael J. Hußmann sent forth:
>Tim Lapin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
>> Exactly what I and others have written.
>
>This thread started with the question:
>
>> Do anyone here have clue on what possible reasons there could be to
>> choosing to send HTML-only messages, instead of mixed messages without a
>> pure text part as well?
>
>Then the thread got hijacked and now you are complaining about the well-
>known issue of PM being unable to make multiple HTML parts into
>something it can display. It might have been better to start a new
>thread if you want to discuss this (although I don't think anything has
>changed since Jérôme explained CTM's take the issue on 6/20/2008).
>
>- Michael
>
>
>Michael J. Hußmann
>
>E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>WWW (personal): http://michael-hussmann.de
>WWW (professional): http://digicam-experts.de
>
>
Ah, my mistake. Apologies. I have a summer head cold and clearly, I am
not reading things carefully enough.
As to the original question, I don't know, given that such messages are
more likely to be considered spam.
--
Tim Lapin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Intel iMac OS 10.5.1 PowerMail 5.6.1 1 GB RAM 250 GB HD
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: reason for HTML-only?
From: "Matthias Schmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 22:52:33 +0200
Am/On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 12:05:52 -0500 schrieb/wrote Michael Lewis:
>Matthias Schmidt sez:
>
>>So yes, it gets more and more difficult t stick with PM.
>
>Can you not use the button at the bottom to switch to HTML view or view
>the message in a web browser. If neither of those work, than the email
>has crappy HTML code and it isn't PM's fault.
of course I can view html messages usually.
But replying to them is sometimes ... let's say uncomfortable, because I
have to mark the text.
The other point is, that some messages just contain in the text part
something, like "the service ... requires html in the moment".
Regarding the database, weather people prefer monolithic databases or
not, it doesn't matter. The current backup technology doesn't prefer
this structure.
Same thing with priority and some other features. All mail clients do
support that stuff, PM doesn't ...
PM doesn't define the standards, the major players do, so PM should
stick with it.
Thanks and all the best
Matthias
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re(2): reason for HTML-only?
From: "Peter Lovell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 17:00:23 -0400
> Do anyone here have clue on what possible reasons there could be to
> choosing to send HTML-only messages, instead of mixed messages without a
> pure text part as well?
...
>As to the original question, I don't know, given that such messages are
>more likely to be considered spam.
Actually, I see quite a few that are all, or almost all, html and don't
display well, or at all.
There are also some that are not very well formed - the usual ones I see
of these are airline tickets and confirmations. So I wouldn't consider
them all to be spam. Some maybe, but not all.
Regards.....Peter
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: reason for HTML-only?
From: "MB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2008 02:11:34 +0200
Richard Hart said:
>Are you sure you meant to write that? I believe you might be
>experiencing problems, but I have never received a message in PowerMail
>that "cannot be displayed". What does that mean: "cannot be displayed"?
Well, if the HTML-message ends up in an attached file and there's no
pure text part, there's no way to view that message withing PowerMail as
the message body itself contain no data except for the headers. You'll
have to open the attachment in a web browser.
If there was a HTML-only message that was contained also inside
PowerMail as usually is the case, PM could possibly utilize its ability
to turn HTML to text. Something it does a great job at this from time to
time, though not always of course.
For clarity, what I asked about intially was if you people could think
of reasons for not sending messages with a pure text part. I'd prefer if
the focus remained on that.
For professional opt-in mailers, this manner of mailing out messages
doesn't make sense to me, because I'm unaware of any general non-PM
technical reasons for omitting the pure text part.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: reason for HTML-only?
From: "Michael J. Hußmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2008 02:13:50 +0200
Matthias Schmidt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Regarding the database, weather people prefer monolithic databases or
> not, it doesn't matter. The current backup technology doesn't prefer
> this structure.
>
> Same thing with priority and some other features. All mail clients do
> support that stuff, PM doesn't ...
>
> PM doesn't define the standards, the major players do, so PM should
> stick with it.
Years ago, I switched to PM because (coming from Claris Emailer) I felt
immediately at home with it. I still do. For a while, I had been forced
to use Outlook, which I despised, and I've tried Apple's Mail, which I
thought was a bit strange. PM is still the mail client I like best. Now
from time to time, there are people complaining about how PM isn't more
like mail client X, Y, or Z. But if I preferred X, Y, or Z, I would have
switched to one of those a long time ago. As it happens, I like the
basic philosophy behind PM. There is certainly room for improvement, no
doubt about that, but basically, PM's just fine. I would hate it to turn
into a replica of one of the competing clients. Diversity is a good
thing, and certainly preferrable to following standards that aren't even
standards.
- Michael
Michael J. Hußmann
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW (personal): http://michael-hussmann.de
WWW (professional): http://digicam-experts.de
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: HTML capabilities (was: "reason for HTML-only?)
From: "MB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2008 05:29:25 +0200
Michael J. Hußmann said:
>PM's just fine. I would hate it to turn
>into a replica of one of the competing clients. Diversity is a good
>thing, and certainly preferrable to following standards that aren't even
>standards.
Improving PowerMails HTML-capabilities is hardly a call for anything of
what you suggest here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: reason for HTML-only?
From: "Michael Lewis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 23:42:23 -0500
Tim Lapin sez:
>What are you talking about? RE-READ the part you quoted. I have
>received some HTML-only e-mails that did NOT open in PowerMail. Not
>often, mind you but more than once.
What are you talking about? I responded to another message. Not yours.
The original message said some HTML-only messages can't be viewed in
PowerMail. It did notsay if those HTML-only messages were properly
formatted HTML, but the fact they are HTML-only and not multipart HTML
and Text like the RFC requires, indicates to me they could just as well
be improperly formatted HTML.
Again, I can only reply to the information I am given. Extrapolating
that the HTML-only messages are proper ones and the PM should be
rendering them was not possible from the information I had.
And my last word on this is:
<http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20080822>
--
Michael Lewis
Off Balance Production
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.offbalance.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: reason for HTML-only?
From: "Michael Lewis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 23:44:49 -0500
Tim Lapin sez:
>Ah, my mistake. Apologies. I have a summer head cold and clearly, I am
>not reading things carefully enough.
:) I sent out my last message before reading through the thread. Tried
not to seem snarky, but may have come across that way anyway, especially
after this had already wound down. My bad, and my apologies, too.
I sitll like the cartoon at <http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?
id=20080822> though. :)
--
Michael Lewis
Off Balance Productions
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.offbalance.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re(3): reason for HTML-only?
From: "Bill Schjelderup" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2008 10:54:07 -0600
Although trying to deal with HTML email is not as smooth as it could be,
MY major problem with PM right now is that when I configure PM to view
HTML email, I get frequent crashes as a skim through these messages.
It was REALLY bad when I installed Safari v4 beta - but even after I
reverted, the crash rate is irritating. When I turn off viewing of HTML
email, the crashes go away....But then my messages are a pain to read.
I dislike HTML email, but the hard fact is that MANY people use it -
including many of my employees, even after I TRY to get them to use
plain text. It's a battle I'm tried of fighting. Family, friends,
customers, spam -- it doesn't matter who we curse, Microsoft or Apple --
it's a fact of life and our tools need to deal with it correctly.
I sure hope Powermail v6 is a real product and not vaporware....and that
one of it's major enhancements is better integration of HTML email. I
don't want to SEND HTML email -- and I control that, but receiving
it...please make it as easy as plain text....
Bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: PM6 hopes.. was:: reason for HTML-only?
From: "Dave N" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2008 10:40:13 -0700
Since I have (finally) started to use the 3 pane view, I noticed that PM
doesn't allow you to edit unsent emails in the 3rd pane. Even if you
save an email & reopen it in the 3rd pane later, you may view, but not
edit there. Sort of odd that you must open the unsent email in a
separate window to work on it. This is a minor complaint, but one easily
fixed in PM6 perhaps.
Along with the usual feature requests of:
*"Normal" Printing (with a print dialog box, message headers, choice of
html or text versions, etc)
* the infamous html issues
* Find/Replace function in the email being edited.
* Smart folders (saved searches)
* Pop-up menu to file incoming emails AND outgoing emails.
* More choices of toolbar functions.
* Lift the 2 gb db limit.
* Even more robust Filter criteria, to include IF this AND that, OR IF
the other thing, then...
* Continued support for the existing great features of PM for Power users.
Best,
Dave N
in reply to ([EMAIL PROTECTED]), Bill Schjelderup's message of 9:54
AM, 8/24/08
>I sure hope Powermail v6 is a real product and not vaporware....and that
>one of it's major enhancements is better integration of HTML email.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of powermail-discuss Digest
