Hi!
James Colannino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm very against HTML mail, just for the record. That being said,
> aren't there HTML filters for command line mail clients that will strip
> tags from your view of the text and make it more readable? Just
> wondering.
I'm using Gnus in emacs t
fire-eyes wrote:
>On Sun, 2005-05-22 at 20:17 -0700, James Colannino wrote:
>
>
>
>>I'm very against HTML mail, just for the record. That being said,
>>aren't there HTML filters for command line mail clients that will strip
>>tags from your view of the text and make it more readable? Just wond
On Sun, 2005-05-22 at 20:17 -0700, James Colannino wrote:
> I'm very against HTML mail, just for the record. That being said,
> aren't there HTML filters for command line mail clients that will strip
> tags from your view of the text and make it more readable? Just wondering.
A major point is t
I'm very against HTML mail, just for the record. That being said,
aren't there HTML filters for command line mail clients that will strip
tags from your view of the text and make it more readable? Just wondering.
You can do it with procmail, but it's a lot less painful to just clobber
the
Qian Qiao wrote:
>Have you had any chance to read your emails under a command line
>environment? I bet you won't like it, :P
>
>
I'm very against HTML mail, just for the record. That being said,
aren't there HTML filters for command line mail clients that will strip
tags from your view of the
On 05/22/05 13:10, A. Khattri wrote:
On Sun, 22 May 2005, Peng wrote:
Meh. I do not have JavaScript enabled in Thunderbird, and I don't even
know if it can have Java support. And I'm just not too worried about an
HTML vulnerability. And if there is one, I'm quite sure Mozilla will fix
it promp
On 05/22/05 12:40, Qian Qiao wrote:
On 22/05/05, Peng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 05/21/05 22:02, David Stanek wrote:
As far as security, if the browser supports Java or JavaScript then
bad things can happen. Or possibly an exploit for the HTML rendering
engine. Many more chances for bad th
> >
> > Then I request blocking all html-mails!
> >
> > Take that, stupid discussion!
>
> I think the chances of anyone from infra reading this thread (or still
> reading it after it's been dragged out for so long) are pretty unlikely.
>
> Feel free to create a bug at bugs.gentoo.org about it thou
On 01:15 Mon 23 May , Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> that means, if someone (like me) requests blocking of html-mails on the
> list-servers, this discussion will be gone? (well of course.. when no
> html-mails are coming through, nobody can dsiscuss them...)
>
> Then I request blocking all ht
On Sunday 22 May 2005 19:21, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | I dont know why people are even discussing this. Posting in HTML is an
> | absolute NO NO. It ignores those people that dont have (or want) HTML
> | support in their email software and is poor netiquette.
>
> They're discussing it because no-
On Sun, 22 May 2005 13:10:57 -0400 (EDT) "A. Khattri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| On Sun, 22 May 2005, Peng wrote:
| > Meh. I do not have JavaScript enabled in Thunderbird, and I don't
| > even know if it can have Java support. And I'm just not too worried
| > about an HTML vulnerability. And if t
On Sun, 22 May 2005, Peng wrote:
> Meh. I do not have JavaScript enabled in Thunderbird, and I don't even
> know if it can have Java support. And I'm just not too worried about an
> HTML vulnerability. And if there is one, I'm quite sure Mozilla will fix
> it promptly.
I dont know why people are
On 22/05/05, Peng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 05/21/05 22:02, David Stanek wrote:
> >
> > As far as security, if the browser supports Java or JavaScript then
> > bad things can happen. Or possibly an exploit for the HTML rendering
> > engine. Many more chances for bad things to happen...thats w
On 05/21/05 22:02, David Stanek wrote:
On Sat, May 21, 2005 at 07:52:59PM -0400, Peng wrote:
On 05/21/05 16:26, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
On Monday 02 May 2005 04:33 pm, Neil Bothwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2005 21:00:30 +, Alex A. Smith MCP wrote:
Time straped
On Sat, May 21, 2005 at 07:52:59PM -0400, Peng wrote:
> On 05/21/05 16:26, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> >On Monday 02 May 2005 04:33 pm, Neil Bothwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>On Mon, 02 May 2005 21:00:30 +, Alex A. Smith MCP wrote:
> >>>Time straped as it is, I'll type in what ever my
On 05/21/05 16:26, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
On Monday 02 May 2005 04:33 pm, Neil Bothwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2005 21:00:30 +, Alex A. Smith MCP wrote:
Time straped as it is, I'll type in what ever my Default Email prog
wants me to, asking people to turn it off
On Monday 02 May 2005 04:33 pm, Neil Bothwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 02 May 2005 21:00:30 +, Alex A. Smith MCP wrote:
> > Time straped as it is, I'll type in what ever my Default Email prog
> > wants me to, asking people to turn it off wont work much, better to
> > make a better a
The problem with this will be getting *all* the email readers updated
with this *entire* feature, -and- getting everyone to update to said
newer versions *or* programs if/When! -their- favorite didn't get
updated for this.
That said, it sounds like a FINE idea to me.
Now, where'd I put that bla
I know I said I was out of this conversation, but this off the
original topic so I want to make myself clear on what I actually meant
here.
E-mails have unique identifiers, and replies include information in
the header as to the identifier(s) of the original messages. Thus, if
you have the message
Travis Rousseau wrote:
On 5/3/05, Calvin Spealman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/3/05, Travis Rousseau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Why not the sender's for now?
Why not the recipient's for now?
If the sender disables HTML, no one gets it. If the recipient disables
HTML, then ev
Calvin Spealman wrote:
it isn't like the bandwidth is anything at all
compared to the bloated headers and redundant repeating of messages in
every reply.
-- is a good way to control redundancy factor
And sometimes someone skips the original(s), and the later msgs become
interesting, and "some
Kris wrote:
Exactly ... but it's still has some amusement value
Kristopher W. Baker
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Cliff Rowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 10:37 AM
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] No HTML in posts?
Exactly ... but it's still has some amusement value
Kristopher W. Baker
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Cliff Rowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 10:37 AM
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] No HTML in posts?
Keziah W wrote:
Yes, it is. HTML wastes bandwidth for every message though.
True, I was just trying to inject some light humour into the otherwise
pointless situation :)
flog > deadhorse
Don't you mean "flog >> deadhorse"?
:P
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
On 5/3/05, Cliff Rowley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This whole thread is a waste of bandwidth ;-)
>
Yes, it is. HTML wastes bandwidth for every message though.
> flog > deadhorse
>
Don't you mean "flog >> deadhorse"?
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Calvin Spealman wrote:
MS? What makes you think I have anything to do with Microsoft or
Microsoft software? My HTML messages are sent straight from good-ole
gmail.
Typical blinkered response Calvin. "You're either with us or
against us". I'm sure I've heard that before somewhere...
I've watched
On 5/3/05, Calvin Spealman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MS? What makes you think I have anything to do with Microsoft or
> Microsoft software? My HTML messages are sent straight from good-ole
> gmail.
Can we end this thread?
Calvin, the rules of the list are: plain text messages in english.
Please
On 5/3/05, Calvin Spealman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MS? What makes you think I have anything to do with Microsoft or
> Microsoft software?
The fact that you're a top poster. The fact that you defend HTML emails.
--
Greg Donald
Zend Certified Engineer
http://destiney.com/
--
gentoo-user@g
On 5/3/05, Neil Bothwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What is arrogant about saying "when in Rome..."? Every forum has its
> conventions of accepted behaviour. For this forum. those conventions
> include non-HTML postings in English.
And what did they do in Rome if you did not do as in Rome? They
MS? What makes you think I have anything to do with Microsoft or
Microsoft software? My HTML messages are sent straight from good-ole
gmail.
On 5/3/05, Greg Donald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/3/05, Calvin Spealman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > but I
> > just find it to be a rather arrogent
On Tuesday 03 May 2005 17:38, Covington, Chris wrote:
> The bottom line is that on any technical mailing list, it's tradition
> not to use HTML. You can't argue against it using technical reasons,
> people aren't going to change their minds about it. And there might not
> even be strong technical
Hi,
On Tuesday 03 May 2005 18:51, Willie Wong wrote:
> On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 04:40:52PM +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> > 8) some people hear 'html mails' and think automatically of the worst
> > outlook and aol users ... ;o)
>
> Beg to differ here, but most of the emails I got from my fri
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 03:00:34PM +, Calvin Spealman wrote:
> On 5/3/05, Travis Rousseau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Why not the sender's for now?
>
> Why not the recipient's for now? One could almost argue free speech
> for expressing one's self in HTML, but I won't go there.
let's not l
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 04:40:52PM +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> 8) some people hear 'html mails' and think automatically of the worst outlook
> and aol users ... ;o)
Beg to differ here, but most of the emails I got from my friends
using AOL have properly used MIME-Multipart/Alternative s
On 5/3/05, Calvin Spealman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> but I
> just find it to be a rather arrogent point of view.
Maybe so, but it doesn't change the fact that HTML is not acceptable
on this list.
Go ironfroggy, play with your MS buddies.. leave the arrogance to us.
--
Greg Donald
Zend Certi
Calvin, say hello to my kill file. Kill file, say hello to Calvin.
> On 5/3/05, Travis Rousseau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Why not the sender's for now?
>
> Why not the recipient's for now? One could almost argue free speech
> for expressing one's self in HTML, but I won't go there.
>
> If t
On Tue, 3 May 2005 15:37:52 +, Calvin Spealman wrote:
> I'm sorry if this disagreement has escalated more than it should have,
> but I'm actually very partial to my end of this discussion. I know all
> the reasons people have to argue against my point of view here, but I
> just find it to be a
I think there's one thing that Outlook has done correctly. If you set it
to compose text messages, the style bars and all that are still there.
If you click bold or italic, it asks you if you want to compose this
message in HTML instead. If Thunderbird and other email clients made it
so easy to
I believe this tradition, and other's like it which hold on to old
idioms for little sensible reason, are more of a challenge to the
community values than anything I can say.
On 5/3/05, Covington, Chris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The bottom line is that on any technical mailing list, it's tradit
Calvin Spealman wrote:
Let's be honest, that's a fault of e-mail itself, which is inherently
a horrible protocol anyway. I'm just saying lets do the best we can
with what we've got. it isn't like the bandwidth is anything at all
compared to the bloated headers and redundant repeating of messages in
Let's be honest, that's a fault of e-mail itself, which is inherently
a horrible protocol anyway. I'm just saying lets do the best we can
with what we've got. it isn't like the bandwidth is anything at all
compared to the bloated headers and redundant repeating of messages in
every reply.
On 5/3/0
The bottom line is that on any technical mailing list, it's tradition
not to use HTML. You can't argue against it using technical reasons,
people aren't going to change their minds about it. And there might not
even be strong technical reasons for it anymore: just about all browsers
and email cli
I'm sorry if this disagreement has escalated more than it should have,
but I'm actually very partial to my end of this discussion. I know all
the reasons people have to argue against my point of view here, but I
just find it to be a rather arrogent point of view.
On 5/3/05, Neil Bothwick <[EMAIL P
Trey Gruel wrote:
and you're still wasting the bandwidth of the server and users.
granted, for the individual user, the bandwidth used isn't that much,
but think about the thousands of messages that the server has to send
out for each mail it gets in. it adds up quick there.
This whole thread is
On 5/3/05, Calvin Spealman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/3/05, Travis Rousseau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Why not the sender's for now?
>
> Why not the recipient's for now? One could almost argue free speech
> for expressing one's self in HTML, but I won't go there.
>
Sorry i should have
> If the sender disables HTML, no one gets it. If the recipient disables
> HTML, then everyone gets what everyone wants.
and you're still wasting the bandwidth of the server and users.
granted, for the individual user, the bandwidth used isn't that much,
but think about the thousands of messages
On Tue, 3 May 2005 14:58:45 +, Calvin Spealman wrote:
> ASCII? OK... talking about plain text is one thing, but ASCII? That's
> just dumb. If you are going to use plain text, at least agree that we
> need something better than ASCII. There are people speaking other
> languages you know.
I kno
On 5/3/05, Travis Rousseau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why not the sender's for now?
Why not the recipient's for now? One could almost argue free speech
for expressing one's self in HTML, but I won't go there.
If the sender disables HTML, no one gets it. If the recipient disables
HTML, then ever
ASCII? OK... talking about plain text is one thing, but ASCII? That's
just dumb. If you are going to use plain text, at least agree that we
need something better than ASCII. There are people speaking other
languages you know. Thinking we should stick to ASCII is even more a
sign of your stubborness
On Tuesday 03 May 2005 00:37, Holly Bostick wrote:
> Greg Donald wrote:
> > On 5/2/05, Alex A. Smith MCP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Time straped as it is, I'll type in what ever my Default Email prog
> >> wants me to
> >
> > Laziness is no excuse. Takes all of 2 seconds to turn it off.
>
> Ju
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 05:16:10AM -0400, fire-eyes wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-05-02 at 17:32 -0500, kashani wrote:
> > Is there something especially complicated about going into your
> > settings
> > in Thunderbird and setting gentoo.org as a domain that prefers text
> > emails?
>
> He doesn't want t
On Tue, 2005-05-03 at 06:12 +, Calvin Spealman wrote:
> I will remember to use plain text for this list, but let it be known
> that I don't want to and I shouldn't have to.
Nor should I have to tolerate seeing it, and will filter html mail to
this list to the trash.
Which of course means one
On Mon, 2005-05-02 at 17:32 -0500, kashani wrote:
> Is there something especially complicated about going into your
> settings
> in Thunderbird and setting gentoo.org as a domain that prefers text
> emails?
He doesn't want to, it's his choice. It is also my choice to filter
mails from him which a
On Mon, 02 May 2005 23:16:34 +, Alex A. Smith MCP wrote:
> Humm but when you need HTML email cause you get them, A little bit of a
> pain to disable them. Also working 19-20 hour days means I can do
> without (IMHO) needless things like turning off a function that I use.
So don't. Just turn i
On Tue, 2005-05-03 at 00:37 +0200, Holly Bostick wrote:
> Done (just had to do it myself, since I've *finally* got Gentoo
> reinstalled --who missed me ? :)
Yeah I was just thinking a couple of days ago, where has that stroppy
Holly gone?
why the reinstall?
--
Nick Rout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
Hi!
Many ML subscribers are getting hundreds of posts every day. So looking
through them takes time / is often a pain in the ass. Everything that
decreases the screening process has great chances to be skipped,
trashed, ignored.
If my brain has to filter lots of stuff to get to the actual
informa
> Progress should not be held back
> by the few who think there is any value in plain text.
1. Its bandwidth, while not much it does add up with fast mailing
lists like this.
2. I like to cheap out on computers $20 or less, i find it alot faster
with out a GUI.
> Instead of
> everyone keeping track
On Tue, 3 May 2005, Calvin Spealman wrote:
I will remember to use plain text for this list, but let it be known
that I don't want to and I shouldn't have to. If i knew I wouldn't get
banned for no good reason at all (and it would be no good reason at
all, mind you), I'd turn the HTML right back on.
Going by the same reasons of client differences, one could argue we
never should have extended HTML beyond the first version of Mosaic.
This is insane, of course. Progress is a driving force of technology.
I use HTML to style code samples in my postings, and to add some pizaz
when e-mailing friend
Welcome back - wondered where you were! Well said - and who wants to
receive a virus breeding ground in the mail - no HTML!
On Tue, 3 May 2005, Holly Bostick wrote:
Greg Donald wrote:
On 5/2/05, Alex A. Smith MCP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Time straped as it is, I'll type in what ever my Defaul
On 5/2/05, Alex A. Smith MCP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Humm but when you need HTML email cause you get them, A little bit of a
> pain to disable them. Also working 19-20 hour days means I can do without
> (IMHO) needless things like turning off a function that I use. I dunno, next
> we'll be to
On Mon, 02 May 2005 23:16:34 +
Alex A. Smith MCP wrote:
> Humm but when you need HTML email cause you get them,
I cannot understand *why* you need to send html mail in order to receive
it? Thats a non-sequitur.
>A little bit of a
> pain to disable them. Also working 19-20 hour days means I
Greg Donald wrote:
> On 5/2/05, Alex A. Smith MCP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Time straped as it is, I'll type in what ever my Default Email prog wants
>>me to
>
>
> Laziness is no excuse. Takes all of 2 seconds to turn it off.
>
>
Just to prove it in Thunderbird:
Edit=>Account Prefe
Alex A. Smith MCP wrote:
Humm but when you need HTML email cause you get them, A little bit of a
pain to disable them. Also working 19-20 hour days means I can do
without (IMHO) needless things like turning off a function that I use. I
dunno, next we'll be told to stop using HTML on our sites ¬¬
Humm but when you need HTML email cause you get them, A little bit of a
pain to disable them. Also working 19-20 hour days means I can do
without (IMHO) needless things like turning off a function that I use.
I dunno, next we'll be told to stop using HTML on our sites ¬¬
And I'd prefer if you
kashani wrote:
> Calvin Spealman wrote:
>
>> I know people say it, but why?
>>
>> On 5/2/05, Neil Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> And please turn of HTML for posts in mailing lists.
>>>
>>> Be lucky,
>>>
>>> Neil
>>
>
> Because it tends to look like crap in any other mail client other
On Mon, 02 May 2005 21:00:30 +, Alex A. Smith MCP wrote:
> Time straped as it is, I'll type in what ever my Default Email prog
> wants me to, asking people to turn it off wont work much, better to make
> a better argument and ask the developers to dist it without html as
> default.
Remember t
On 5/2/05, Alex A. Smith MCP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Time straped as it is, I'll type in what ever my Default Email prog wants
> me to
Laziness is no excuse. Takes all of 2 seconds to turn it off.
--
Greg Donald
Zend Certified Engineer
http://destiney.com/
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mai
On Mon, 02 May 2005 21:00:30 +
Alex A. Smith MCP wrote:
> Time straped as it is, I'll type in what ever my Default Email prog
That'd be the one without a spell checker? :-)
Frankly I think your approach is arrogant. Mail is a text medium, if you
want to do html, make a web page.
As the old
Calvin Spealman wrote:
I know people say it, but why?
On 5/2/05, Neil Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And please turn of HTML for posts in mailing lists.
Be lucky,
Neil
Because it tends to look like crap in any other mail client other than
the one it was composed in. Or any other resolution. Or
Time straped as it is, I'll type in what ever my Default Email prog
wants me to, asking people to turn it off wont work much, better to
make a better argument and ask the developers to dist it without html
as default.
My 2 cent's
Alex A. Smith MCP
ASMHosting.com Owner
Calvin Spealman wrote:
On 15:45 Mon 02 May , Dave Nebinger wrote:
> > I know people say it, but why?
>
> It's an extreme waste and provides no value.
>
> We're here to post questions and responses, not to create pretty pictures
> with colored fonts, etc.
>
Not to mention the fact that not everyone is using a clie
Because a lot of Linux users use a text-only mail package, and the html
stuff makes it *hard* to read. (I use graphical...)
--Because this is what thy're used to &/or they have limited memory
-AND/OR- becase this is the Safe! way to do email.
-- -- (Just look at all those *loverly* security alert
> I know people say it, but why?
It's an extreme waste and provides no value.
We're here to post questions and responses, not to create pretty pictures
with colored fonts, etc.
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
I know people say it, but why?
On 5/2/05, Neil Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Calvin Spealman wrote:
>
> > So its automatic detection of the features if possible, but USE flags if
> > otherwise.
>
> No. There is no detection. Just assumption that AMD65 will support
> certain extensions.
>
75 matches
Mail list logo
