Re(2): bug or feature ?

[computer artwork by subhash]

[Michael Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb am 19.4.2007 um 15:28 Uhr:]

>But I don't care. I said I print through my web browser when I want to
>print an HTML mail. And that is very rarely.

Me too. Nothing could be more uninteresting for me. I do not print
mails. I rarely print at all.

lG
Subhash

-- 
Digitale Bildnerei von Subhash:
Retusche, Restauration, Compositing
>>> NEU: TOD AM KANAL <
http://www.subhash.at/foto/tod_am_kanal.php

Re(2): bug or feature ?

[Winston Weinmann]

Michael Lewis wrote:

>I'm just providing my experience and a possible
>workaround if you really wish to continue using PM for whatever features
>you do like while waiting for CTM to fix this one. (A clue: they rarely
>say what they are working on. They aren't a large company. They may or
>may not be working on the printing issue you mention...)


Which I appreciate. Thanks for the comment about CTM's not saying much
about future plans. Some companies like to list bugs ("known issues")
and note when they are being fixed, and others don't. Sometimes it is
useful to get a warning about existing problems. I can't find anything
about the HTML printing problem in the manual or the PM FAQs.

CTM - would you consider having a "known issues" list on your web site?

Thanks.

- Winston

Re: bug or feature ?

[Michael Lewis]

Winston Weinmann sez:

>You should care because if you are like many people, your email is an
>important part of your life. If CTM does not consider such a basic
>feature worth fixing, don't you worry about how CTM will deal with less
>obvious but perhaps more consequential problems?

But I don't care. I said I print through my web browser when I want to
print an HTML mail. And that is very rarely. No, I don't have four kids
or whatever you said requires so much printing of HTML mail. I just
deleted about 10 messages from my dad that is just forwarded humor spam
with stupid jokes and silly gif images throughout it. All the rest of
the HTML mail I've gotten to day went straight to the Spam trash thanks
to Spamsieve. I'm not you. PM does what I want, and the printing issue
is easy: click the button to view in a web browser. Done.

And PM has fixed many issues, some I wanted fixed and several I hadn't
thought of or used. I don't have a problem with CTM dealing with issues.

Obviously you do. That's fine, too. I'm not saying you're wrong or need
to shut up or anything. I'm just providing my experience and a possible
workaround if you really wish to continue using PM for whatever features
you do like while waiting for CTM to fix this one. (A clue: they rarely
say what they are working on. They aren't a large company. They may or
may not be working on the printing issue you mention...) OR you could
use a different email client, get the printing you like, but probably
end up with other tradeoffs. I haven't found an email client yet that I
didn't have to make tradeoffs in order to use. Like Wayne said, nothing
is ever 100% satisfactory to everyone.

-- 
Michael Lewis
Off Balance Productions
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.offbalance.com

Viewing winmail.dat files

[Winston Weinmann]

I've had trouble with the occasional email coming as a winmail.dat
attachment, which my Mac (i.e. PowerMail) can't read. I recently ran
across a program which can open them, "TNEF's Enough". From the ReadMe:

>TNEF's Enough allows Macs to read and extract files from Microsoft TNEF
>stream files. The files are usually received by SMTP based e-mail
>programs from Microsoft Exchange and Microsoft Outlook users. The SMTP
>based e-mail program will usually either receive a MIME attachment named
>"winmail.dat" or a MIME attachment with the type "application/ms-tnef."



Free, but the author asks for a donation if it's useful.



While I'm wishing, could PowerMail deal with winmail.dat files? :-)
- Winston

Re: Wake from sleep message checking fixed!

[A-NO-NE Music]

Winston Weinmann / 2007/04/19 / 02:52 PM wrote:

>After my upgrade from Mac OS 10.3.9 to 10.4.9 PowerMail now waits until
>my wireless connection is re-established before it checks for new mail.
>No more error messages because PM tries to check mail before AirPort was
>up. (PowerMail 5.5.3)

Really?!
My  AlBook goes with me everywhere.  If I closed the lid right before PM
start to check but not yet checking, next time when I open the lid in a
different location, PM start to check before AirPort connection was
established, and I get beep chorus greetings 18 times :-(

So, I always wait to close the lid until PM finish checking.  If I close
it right after checking, that means I have 2 min to get next connection
established in the new location.

-- 

- Hiro

Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA
 

Re(2): bug or feature ?

[Winston Weinmann]

Wayne Brissette wrote:

>And as an old timer myself. I'm just as tired of people trying to make
>PM an HTML email client. Having a text email client has so many
>advantages that I'm not sure where to begin. Probably the two most
>important are that there is no way of faking people out and trying to
>make it seem like the link they are clicking on belongs to one place
>when it actually goes somewhere else. The other major advantage is it's
>hard to embed any type of virus code except as an attachment. 
>
>I think the bottom line is no matter what path is chosen nobody is ever
>100% happy. 
>
>As for the future of PM, who knows. People have written this company and
>product off for years, yet it still lives on. 
>
>Wayne

Please note that I am not asking for PowerMail to become an HTML-based
program. I just want it to print the way one expects.

I agree with you on the security issues. On web browsers I keep the
Status Bar active. Then when I put the cursor on a link it shows me
where the link goes before I click.

- Winston

Wake from sleep message checking fixed!

[Winston Weinmann]

After my upgrade from Mac OS 10.3.9 to 10.4.9 PowerMail now waits until
my wireless connection is re-established before it checks for new mail.
No more error messages because PM tries to check mail before AirPort was
up. (PowerMail 5.5.3)

I don't know whether to thank CTM, Apple or both, but thanks!

- Winston

Re(2): bug or feature ?

[Winston Weinmann]

Michael Lewis wrote:

>Why should I care if my email program can print HTML as long as
>one click takes me to a browser that does?

PowerMail pretends to print HTML email properly, and does not warn users
that it does not. I am not complaining that PM does not print HTML. I am
complaining that PowerMail appears to be able to print HTML email, but
can't do it right.

Printing is a basic feature. In non-beta software (email or not) I
expect it to work properly.

You should care because if you are like many people, your email is an
important part of your life. If CTM does not consider such a basic
feature worth fixing, don't you worry about how CTM will deal with less
obvious but perhaps more consequential problems?


- Winston

Re: PowerMail vs. Thunderbird

[Tim Hodgson]

On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 4:59 pm -0700, Barbara Needham wrote:

>I prefer text e-mails so that is another factor with me pro PowerMail.

I don't think any of the people asking for better HTML support are
saying they _prefer_ HTML mail; simply that they have to live with
receiving it.
-- 
TimH

PowerMail 5.5.2 (build 4475) | OS X 10.4.8 | PowerBook FW/500 | 1GB RAM

Re: bug or feature ?

[Wayne Brissette]

>That's not written in stone: 
>And the issue wasn't this, but printing what you can display. To not be
>able to do that is very un-maclike.
>
>Mikael

The working standards group has been at this for 8 years now and they still 
haven't been able to convince people to make this a RFC standard. When that 
happens, then I'll accept it as a standard. There are way too many 
quasi-standards out there.

And as an old timer myself. I'm just as tired of people trying to make PM an 
HTML email client. Having a text email client has so many advantages that I'm 
not sure where to begin. Probably the two most important are that there is no 
way of faking people out and trying to make it seem like the link they are 
clicking on belongs to one place when it actually goes somewhere else. The 
other major advantage is it's hard to embed any type of virus code except as an 
attachment. 

I think the bottom line is no matter what path is chosen nobody is ever 100% 
happy. 

As for the future of PM, who knows. People have written this company and 
product off for years, yet it still lives on. 

Wayne

Re: bug or feature ?

[Michael Lewis]

Barbara Needham sez:

>>Also, I do not think it makes CTM look professional to have such an
>>obvious bug. It certainly prevents me from recommending PowerMail to
>>others, even if I keep using it. The problem is too quirky for new users
>>to have to deal with.
>
>Apparently it doesn't bother a lot of us, new users or old.

Doesn't bother me, either. If I need to print an HTML mail, I click the
little button to view it in a web browser and let the program designed
to handle HTML do it. New users I've shown PM to have no problem with a
quirky think like choosing to view in a web browser or not.

I don't care if my word processor plays movies. Why should I care if my
email program can print HTML as long as one click takes me to a browser
that does? 95% of my HTML is spam anyway -- Spamsieve either dumps it or
I do. I don't need to read their crap. Any friends sending me HTML mail
is coming through fine, probably because their email client properly
includes a text version of their stuff. The only mail that does not
generally is some of that junk forwarded five million times with cutesy
pictures of dogs and kittens or hateful bigoted messages about Muslims
or politicians that I also couldn't care less to read. They get junked, too.

I understand some people not wanting to click one extra button, but I
don't want that. If I did, I wouldn't be using PM. And if PM adds it in,
then the only thing it has going for it is its search engine, and I
actually kind of like Apple Mail's built-in picture viewer that allows
me to add photos straight to iPhoto from a slideshow, so I might as well
switch to it fully then. (I have a mac.com address I use Mail with and
don't give out to much more than friends and family.)

-- 
Michael Lewis
Off Balance Productions
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.offbalance.com

Re: bug or feature ?

[Mikael Byström]

Wayne Brissette said:

>HTML mail is not a mac standard. In fact, it is NOT an email standard
>at. 
That's not written in stone: 
And the issue wasn't this, but printing what you can display. To not be
able to do that is very un-maclike.

Mikael

Tech facts:
PM 5.5.3 Swedish | OS X 10.4.5 | Powerbook G4/550Mhz | 1GB RAM | 80GB HD

Re: OS 10.4.9, PowerMail 5.5.3 - still can't print HTML email

[Mikael Byström]

Marlyse Comte said:

>I am sorry to see that you think of this as an error and something that
>needs to be fixed because in fact it is a feature request that you have

No, it's not. It's a bug fix request, not a feature. Get over it.

Mikael

Tech facts:
PM 5.5.3 Swedish | OS X 10.4.5 | Powerbook G4/550Mhz | 1GB RAM | 80GB HD

Re: bug or feature ?

[Mikael Byström]

Marlyse Comte said:

>maybe I am getting old or maybe I am getting just tired of the old same
>old same "why is this not an html email application"... because it's not
>and never has been and I just feel if that is what people want to begin
>with, well why do they even get powermail in the first place and don't
>just stick with apple's Mail or any other html mail application?


The world is changing. People use HTML-based email There are 2 choices
for CTM, either PowerMail adapts to the world or not. If not, I'm pretty
sure it will not survive in the long run. This is no biggie for you, I get it?

 Wayne said:
>Most of us using Powermail as mentioned, do so because we like not
>having RTF and HTML email. 
I thought it was because we wanted to keep life simple and to be able to
focus on email?
If PowerMail doesn't help to do that when people do send HTML-messages
then what good is it? 

I'd be satisfied if messages were optionally  de-HTMLified when they
arrived, but meanwhile I'm happy PowerMail can display HTML-messages.
Proper printing of those is not asking too much actually. Let be people
ask for what features they need, is my suggestion.

This "either use another application or shut up" business coming up form
certain individuals from time to time when this HTML-issues are raISED
is getting really tiresome, for us oldies.

Mikael

Tech facts:
PM 5.5.2 Swedish | OS X 10.4.5 | Powerbook G4/550Mhz | 1GB RAM | 80GB HD

Re: OS 10.4.9, PowerMail 5.5.3 - still can't print HTML email

[Mikael Byström]

Winston Weinmann said:

>If PowerMail sent all HTML email to a web browser for reading I could
>live with that. But if it can display HTML email, and print it, it
>should do so in the same way as every other Mac program. What it does
>now is neither standard nor intuitive.

This is stating the obvious, Winston. I leave it to CTM to decide when
and what to fix, but pretending it's not a bug to not be able to print
what you can display, is just too silly. Sorry, Marlese.

>HTML support is
>not the issue, printing is the issue.

Exactly.

Mikael

Tech facts:
PM 5.5.3 Swedish | OS X 10.4.5 | Powerbook G4/550Mhz | 1GB RAM | 80GB HD

Re: bug or feature ?

[Mikael Byström]

Wayne Brissette said:

> improving or fixing other issues rather than HTML email. 

But the issue is *printing* HTML-messages, nothing else. And since when
is it useful to discuss what CTM should use time for or not? We can
discuss the merits of any approach, but its CTM's call what to
prioritize, really now.

Mikael

Tech facts:
PM 5.5.3 Swedish | OS X 10.4.5 | Powerbook G4/550Mhz | 1GB RAM | 80GB HD

Re(2): bug or feature ?

[Winston Weinmann]

I can print text emails. I know how to switch to text from HTML. I trash
most all-image emails (even from places like schools) without looking at
them. I'd rather have all-text email.

But PowerMail still does not properly print what it can display, and the
way it does it is less than helpful. That's all there is to the issue.

- Winston
 

Barbara Needham wrote:

>
>Apparently it doesn't bother a lot of us, new users or old.
>And I don't know why, but I haven't had any problem printing. Esp. 
>properly formatted html mails that have their text equivalent.
>
>I print itineraries from Orbitz. I don't remember how.. I'll have to look
>and post back how I do it.
>-- 
>Barbara Needham
>
>

Re: PowerMail vs. Thunderbird

[Matthias Schmidt]

Am/On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 08:59:48 -0700 schrieb/wrote Barbara Needham:

>Winston Weinmann on 4/19/07 said
>
>>Has anyone compared PowerMail to Thunderbird?
>
>Yes, I ran both together for a month or two. I am now running PowerMail
alone.
>
>Thunderbird: free PM: costs $
>
>Thunderbird: shows html or pictures according to your preferences by each
>folder/account.
>PM: must choose to show html [or choose in preferences]. I keep it off
>and decide to show on individual basis. the html rendering is much better
>than it used to be.

and it's better than TBs rendering.

>
>Thunderbird & PM: both have space bar read through mail and go to next
>mail. If run out of mail in folder, TB will ask to go to next folder. 
>
>PowerMail: search function tops all. I can always find a mail I'm looking
>for with even a vague remembrance of what it is.
>
>Filters: Thunderbird is pretty good at this but PowerMail is better, with
>ease of setting up filters. 
>
>Spam: SpamSieve works seamlessly with PowerMail. As far as I can see, it
>does not work with Thunderbird.

the last version does.

Thanks and all the best

Matthias

Re(2): bug or feature ?

[Winston Weinmann]

I don't carry a PDA and don't carry my iBook with me everywhere. Nor do
I hang it on the refrigerator or on one of the clips we use for each
child. Again, I am concerned with PowerMail printing, not how I organize
the rest of my life.

- Winston



Barbara Needham wrote:

>Winston Weinmann on 4/19/07 said
>
>>You must not have four children in three schools all of whom attend
>>various games, practices, parties, classes and other events in obscure
>>locations. Or live in a city where directions are needed often.
>>
>>Then there are school instructions, lists of dates for the above
>>activities, invitations, contact lists, event notices, travel
>>itineraries, etc. These need to be posted or responded to (for example,
>>by sending a check in for payment), or kept for easy reference. 
>>
>>Yes, we print a lot of email, and for good reason.
>
>Sounds like an organizer program may be more what you want...
>Used to be Claris organizer. Not sure what may be best now.
>-- 
>Barbara Needham
>
>

Re: PowerMail vs. Thunderbird

[Michael Tsai]

On Apr 19, 2007, at 11:59 AM, Barbara Needham wrote:

Spam: SpamSieve works seamlessly with PowerMail. As far as I can  
see, it

does not work with Thunderbird.


SpamSieve 2.6 does work with Thunderbird. However, the accuracy of  
the spam filtering will be a bit higher if you use it with PowerMail.


--
Michael Tsai 

Re: bug or feature ?

[Barbara Needham]

Winston Weinmann on 4/19/07 said

>You must not have four children in three schools all of whom attend
>various games, practices, parties, classes and other events in obscure
>locations. Or live in a city where directions are needed often.
>
>Then there are school instructions, lists of dates for the above
>activities, invitations, contact lists, event notices, travel
>itineraries, etc. These need to be posted or responded to (for example,
>by sending a check in for payment), or kept for easy reference. 
>
>Yes, we print a lot of email, and for good reason.

Sounds like an organizer program may be more what you want...
Used to be Claris organizer. Not sure what may be best now.
-- 
Barbara Needham

Re: bug or feature ?

[Barbara Needham]

Winston Weinmann on 4/19/07 said

>Wayne wrote:
>>I doubt that a ton of effort is going to be spent on this issue
>>because most of us don't really use that feature often and I, and I'm
>>sure others, would rather see CTM Dev spend their time improving or
>>fixing other issues rather than HTML email. 
>
>That is a valid point. CTM should definitely work on the issues of
>greatest concern to its user base. I am curious how many other PM users
>find the HTML printing problems more than just a minor annoyance. 
>
>I waste paper and ink with blank printouts, or printouts with more pages
>than needed. (Yes, I re-use the pages printed with only a header.)
>Sometimes I find (for example) directions I had printed not ready as I
>am going out the door.
>
>I can learn to live with the problem, but I am not happy. It would be OK
>to get an error notice or warning which says I have to go to my web
>browser to print HTML mail. Then at least I'd get what I expect.
>
>
>Also, I do not think it makes CTM look professional to have such an
>obvious bug. It certainly prevents me from recommending PowerMail to
>others, even if I keep using it. The problem is too quirky for new users
>to have to deal with.

Apparently it doesn't bother a lot of us, new users or old.
And I don't know why, but I haven't had any problem printing. Esp. 
properly formatted html mails that have their text equivalent.

I print itineraries from Orbitz. I don't remember how.. I'll have to look
and post back how I do it.
-- 
Barbara Needham

Re: bug or feature ?

[Bill Lane]

I've been watching this discussion with interest.  I've been using
PowerMail for a while now, and I've recommended it to many people, but
I'm gradually making the transition to Thunderbird -- I've got it on my
laptop now -- still using PowerMail on my desktop.  The two main reasons...

1. Inability to deal with html (printing or forwarding)

2. Inability to deal with IMAP servers

I live in Toronto, Canada, and more and more of the mail that I'm
receiving is html these days.  I can see why some users might want to
stay with plain text, but that doesn't work so well if you're receiving
a lot of html.  And the newest of my three active accounts is IMAP.

I think there are more than enough good mail programs for a Mac user to
choose from, so I guess users can make their own choices based on their
needs.  Perhaps there's no reason why everybody has to agree on what's
most important.  But I can't imagine that PowerMail would not be losing
some faithful users, if they choose not to provide the flexibility and
functionality that other programs can offer.

BILL.

Re: PowerMail vs. Thunderbird

[Barbara Needham]

Winston Weinmann on 4/19/07 said

>Has anyone compared PowerMail to Thunderbird?

Yes, I ran both together for a month or two. I am now running PowerMail alone.

Thunderbird: free PM: costs $

Thunderbird: shows html or pictures according to your preferences by each
folder/account.
PM: must choose to show html [or choose in preferences]. I keep it off
and decide to show on individual basis. the html rendering is much better
than it used to be.

Thunderbird & PM: both have space bar read through mail and go to next
mail. If run out of mail in folder, TB will ask to go to next folder. 

PowerMail: search function tops all. I can always find a mail I'm looking
for with even a vague remembrance of what it is.

Filters: Thunderbird is pretty good at this but PowerMail is better, with
ease of setting up filters. 

Spam: SpamSieve works seamlessly with PowerMail. As far as I can see, it
does not work with Thunderbird.

PM: has that 2 gb limit but not counting attachments. I'm not too close
yet, with mail for about 4 years. Other people have larger databases
which can be a problem.

I prefer text e-mails so that is another factor with me pro PowerMail.


-- 
Barbara Needham

Re(2): bug or feature ?

[Winston Weinmann]

You must not have four children in three schools all of whom attend
various games, practices, parties, classes and other events in obscure
locations. Or live in a city where directions are needed often.

Then there are school instructions, lists of dates for the above
activities, invitations, contact lists, event notices, travel
itineraries, etc. These need to be posted or responded to (for example,
by sending a check in for payment), or kept for easy reference. 

Yes, we print a lot of email, and for good reason.

- Winston



Matthias Schmidt wrote:

>well, my 80-year old parents are happily using PM as well as my wife.
>I have no problem recommending PM to anyone.
>But I'm wondering why some people need to print some many emails?
>Isn't it enough to archive the important stuff and have a backup strategy?
>
>Thanks and all the best
>
>Matthias
>
>
>Am/On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 10:04:24 -0400 schrieb/wrote Winston Weinmann:
>
>>Wayne wrote:
>>>I doubt that a ton of effort is going to be spent on this issue
>>>because most of us don't really use that feature often and I, and I'm
>>>sure others, would rather see CTM Dev spend their time improving or
>>>fixing other issues rather than HTML email. 
>>
>>That is a valid point. CTM should definitely work on the issues of
>>greatest concern to its user base. I am curious how many other PM users
>>find the HTML printing problems more than just a minor annoyance. 
>>
>>I waste paper and ink with blank printouts, or printouts with more pages
>>than needed. (Yes, I re-use the pages printed with only a header.)
>>Sometimes I find (for example) directions I had printed not ready as I
>>am going out the door.
>>
>>I can learn to live with the problem, but I am not happy. It would be OK
>>to get an error notice or warning which says I have to go to my web
>>browser to print HTML mail. Then at least I'd get what I expect.
>>
>>
>>Also, I do not think it makes CTM look professional to have such an
>>obvious bug. It certainly prevents me from recommending PowerMail to
>>others, even if I keep using it. The problem is too quirky for new users
>>to have to deal with.
>

Re: bug or feature ?

[Matthias Schmidt]

Am/On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 10:04:24 -0400 schrieb/wrote Winston Weinmann:

>Wayne wrote:
>>I doubt that a ton of effort is going to be spent on this issue
>>because most of us don't really use that feature often and I, and I'm
>>sure others, would rather see CTM Dev spend their time improving or
>>fixing other issues rather than HTML email. 
>
>That is a valid point. CTM should definitely work on the issues of
>greatest concern to its user base. I am curious how many other PM users
>find the HTML printing problems more than just a minor annoyance. 
>
>I waste paper and ink with blank printouts, or printouts with more pages
>than needed. (Yes, I re-use the pages printed with only a header.)
>Sometimes I find (for example) directions I had printed not ready as I
>am going out the door.
>
>I can learn to live with the problem, but I am not happy. It would be OK
>to get an error notice or warning which says I have to go to my web
>browser to print HTML mail. Then at least I'd get what I expect.
>
>
>Also, I do not think it makes CTM look professional to have such an
>obvious bug. It certainly prevents me from recommending PowerMail to
>others, even if I keep using it. The problem is too quirky for new users
>to have to deal with.

well, my 80-year old parents are happily using PM as well as my wife.
I have no problem recommending PM to anyone.
But I'm wondering why some people need to print some many emails?
Isn't it enough to archive the important stuff and have a backup strategy?

Thanks and all the best

Matthias

Re(4): bug or feature ?

[Winston Weinmann]

Wayne wrote:
>I doubt that a ton of effort is going to be spent on this issue
>because most of us don't really use that feature often and I, and I'm
>sure others, would rather see CTM Dev spend their time improving or
>fixing other issues rather than HTML email. 

That is a valid point. CTM should definitely work on the issues of
greatest concern to its user base. I am curious how many other PM users
find the HTML printing problems more than just a minor annoyance. 

I waste paper and ink with blank printouts, or printouts with more pages
than needed. (Yes, I re-use the pages printed with only a header.)
Sometimes I find (for example) directions I had printed not ready as I
am going out the door.

I can learn to live with the problem, but I am not happy. It would be OK
to get an error notice or warning which says I have to go to my web
browser to print HTML mail. Then at least I'd get what I expect.


Also, I do not think it makes CTM look professional to have such an
obvious bug. It certainly prevents me from recommending PowerMail to
others, even if I keep using it. The problem is too quirky for new users
to have to deal with.


- Winston



>>do you think users would accept this behavior from any other
>>mainstream Mac program without complaining? What if Word could not print
>>RTF files correctly, since they are not Word format files? 
>
>Of course you picked the wrong file format for the wrong product. ;-)
>
>RTF is of course a MS creation and was one of the original Word formats
>(and still is). 
>
>However, I understand your point. I guess because I've lived with the
>limitation for so long and because I tend to view the few HTML email I
>want in a web browser, I don't consider this a huge issue. I agree it's
>an issue, but not the four-alarm type. 
>
>In all fairness, if you're receiving a lot of HTML and RTF mail, you
>really shouldn't use PowerMail. It's an awesome email program, but it's
>really designed for text. All the HTML efforts have been limited because
>that's not what it was designed to be. 
>
>You really have two options at this point. Either use the workaround of
>viewing and printing in a web browser, or switch to another email
>client. I doubt that a ton of effort is going to be spent on this issue
>because most of us don't really use that feature often and I, and I'm
>sure others, would rather see CTM Dev spend their time improving or
>fixing other issues rather than HTML email. 
>
>Wayne
>
>

Re(2): Replying with a quote

[Winston Weinmann]

Thanks. I'd missed that.

- Winston

>Am/On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 08:19:32 -0400 schrieb/wrote Winston Weinmann:
>>How are you able to quote with the "header" above the quote showing
>>date, time and sender? Is this done with an AppleScript?
>
>No, I use AppleScript only to teach the bayes database of my mailserver ;-)
>
>you go to preferences -> replies
>there you can configure it as you like.
>
>Thanks and all the best
>
>Matthias

Re: PowerMail vs. Thunderbird

[Winston Weinmann]

Exactly. That's why the printing problem is so glaring a defect.

- Winston

>Winston, if you jump over the html issue, PM is one of the best, if not
>THE best mail-client for the Mac.
>And I recently tested them all, because I had to implement a mail-client
>in a database.
>
>Thanks and all the best
>
>Matthias

Re: bug or feature ?

[T.L. Miller]

On 4/19/07, at 8:28 AM, Wayne Brissette [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:

>You really have two options at this point. Either use the workaround of
>viewing and printing in a web browser, or switch to another email
>client. I doubt that a ton of effort is going to be spent on this issue
>because most of us don't really use that feature often and I, and I'm
>sure others, would rather see CTM Dev spend their time improving or
>fixing other issues rather than HTML email. 

If I have an urgent need regarding HTML messages, I switch to Mail, get
it done and then immediately switch back to PowerMail. 


Tom Miller
..
"The only time we see the middle of the road is as  
we run from side to side." R.O.Clark 
...

Re: Re(2): bug or feature ?

[Wayne Brissette]

>do you think users would accept this behavior from any other
>mainstream Mac program without complaining? What if Word could not print
>RTF files correctly, since they are not Word format files? 

Of course you picked the wrong file format for the wrong product. ;-)

RTF is of course a MS creation and was one of the original Word formats (and 
still is). 

However, I understand your point. I guess because I've lived with the 
limitation for so long and because I tend to view the few HTML email I want in 
a web browser, I don't consider this a huge issue. I agree it's an issue, but 
not the four-alarm type. 

In all fairness, if you're receiving a lot of HTML and RTF mail, you really 
shouldn't use PowerMail. It's an awesome email program, but it's really 
designed for text. All the HTML efforts have been limited because that's not 
what it was designed to be. 

You really have two options at this point. Either use the workaround of viewing 
and printing in a web browser, or switch to another email client. I doubt that 
a ton of effort is going to be spent on this issue because most of us don't 
really use that feature often and I, and I'm sure others, would rather see CTM 
Dev spend their time improving or fixing other issues rather than HTML email. 

Wayne

Re(2): bug or feature ?

[Winston Weinmann]

This is not an issue of whether HTML mail is or is not an email
standard. The issue is that PowerMail does not print correctly something
it can display. If PowerMail displayed JPEGs, PDFs or PowerPoint slides
I'd expect it to print them correctly (not that I need or want PowerMail
to display those things).

I don't care whether HTML is an email standard or not. PowerMail does
not follow Mac standards for /printing/.

HTML is not the issue, except incidentally. Not printing correctly is
the issue. Do you think users would accept this behavior from any other
mainstream Mac program without complaining? What if Word could not print
RTF files correctly, since they are not Word format files? Or if iPhoto
could display RAW images, but not print them? Would that be acceptable?

- Winston


>>After reviewing CTM's web site I can't find any reference to HTML at all.
>>
>>My comments relate to not following Mac standards, and confusing
>>operation. They have nothing to do with "as advertised", but with the
>>program I am using.
>>
>
>HTML mail is not a mac standard. In fact, it is NOT an email standard
>at. I do understand a lot of people use mail programs that use HTML
>mail. And I receive my fair share. However, I find that most of the HTML
>email is simply fluff that can be done away with and doesn't really help
>most email between correspondents. Where it does help is in advertising
>and newsletter style emails. 
>
>However, don't mix up HTML with an email standard, it is not, and you
>can look at the RFC standards to confirm that. 
>
>Most of us using Powermail as mentioned, do so because we like not
>having RTF and HTML email. 
>
>Wayne
>
>-- 
>"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake." 
>- Napoleon Bonaparte
>
>
>

Re: Replying with a quote

[Matthias Schmidt]

Am/On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 08:19:32 -0400 schrieb/wrote Winston Weinmann:
>How are you able to quote with the "header" above the quote showing
>date, time and sender? Is this done with an AppleScript?

No, I use AppleScript only to teach the bayes database of my mailserver ;-)

you go to preferences -> replies
there you can configure it as you like.

Winston, if you jump over the html issue, PM is one of the best, if not
THE best mail-client for the Mac.
And I recently tested them all, because I had to implement a mail-client
in a database.

Thanks and all the best

Matthias

Re: PowerMail vs. Thunderbird

[Matthias Schmidt]

Am/On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 08:24:45 -0400 schrieb/wrote Winston Weinmann:

>Has anyone compared PowerMail to Thunderbird?

not directly. I use TB sometime for testing or for imap.
TB has some advantages, like a GnuPGP Plugin, a bit better imap
implementation and html mail, if one likes that blinky pinky stuff.
But it always feels like a beta-version, PM is much more stable.
About search I can't say anything, because I do most of my mail-stuff
with PM and keep all the mails in the PM databases. I also don't know
how TB behaves with big mbox files. But if it's still as it was with
Netscape (OK, that's a long time ago), then PM is incomparable better.
Stability and search is for me quite important, because I quite often
look for some information in some mails and my mailapp is one of the
most important tools in my daily work. Imho search is one of the big
pluses of PM. I also like the simple and clean GUI from PM better than
the one from TB.

all the best

Matthias

Re: bug or feature ?

[Wayne Brissette]

>After reviewing CTM's web site I can't find any reference to HTML at all.
>
>My comments relate to not following Mac standards, and confusing
>operation. They have nothing to do with "as advertised", but with the
>program I am using.
>

HTML mail is not a mac standard. In fact, it is NOT an email standard
at. I do understand a lot of people use mail programs that use HTML
mail. And I receive my fair share. However, I find that most of the HTML
email is simply fluff that can be done away with and doesn't really help
most email between correspondents. Where it does help is in advertising
and newsletter style emails. 

However, don't mix up HTML with an email standard, it is not, and you
can look at the RFC standards to confirm that. 

Most of us using Powermail as mentioned, do so because we like not
having RTF and HTML email. 

Wayne

-- 
"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake." 
- Napoleon Bonaparte

PowerMail vs. Thunderbird

[Winston Weinmann]

Has anyone compared PowerMail to Thunderbird?

Thanks.

- Winston

Replying with a quote

[Winston Weinmann]

Matthias -

How are you able to quote with the "header" above the quote showing
date, time and sender? Is this done with an AppleScript?

>Am/On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 00:10:41 -0400 schrieb/wrote Winston Weinmann:
>
>>How much would that be? Dollars, Euros or Kuna? (or Swiss Francs?)


- Winston



>Am/On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 00:10:41 -0400 schrieb/wrote Winston Weinmann:
>
>>How much would that be? Dollars, Euros or Kuna? (or Swiss Francs?)
>
>a lot of course ... in Schweizer Franken on a numbered account
>and the Euros you can send to me :-D
>
>
>Thanks and all the best
>
>Matthias
>
>

Re(2): bug or feature ?

[Winston Weinmann]

After reviewing CTM's web site I can't find any reference to HTML at all.

My comments relate to not following Mac standards, and confusing
operation. They have nothing to do with "as advertised", but with the
program I am using.

- Winston


>I am not going to big into this thread, sorry.
>
>but one thing I really would like to get understood is that I am saying
>"as advertised" - you are obviously glancing constantly over this point
>I am making.
>
>for me it's end of the discussion here, just not worth the effort, and
>by that I mean no offense to you or anybody else who feels it important
>to discuss, it's just not important enough to me.
>
>---marlyse
>
>
> former message(s) quotes: -
>
>
>>I think you just proved my point that the HTML printing problem is a bug.
>>
>>>a bug is something which is said to be functional in a certain way and
>>>it is not as advertised
>>
>>Right. And PowerMail can print HTML email, just not the way it is
>>supposed to work on a Mac. Any Mac program which cannot print using
>>standard Mac commands, and in fact prints incorrectly using standard
>>procedure, has a bug in it. I expect EVERY Mac program to use Apple's
>>standard setup for printing. So do most Mac users.
>>
>>PowerMail leaves printing activated when in fact it does not work.
>>That's a bug, not a feature.
>>
>>- Winston
>>
>>>as this is actually a funny thread  yes, us discussing the fact if
>>>it's a bug or feature is somewhat funny because the person who want's it
>>>printed in the end probably does not care how it is called in the first
>>>place, but on the other hand, 2 people calling something a bug when it's
>>>not really one and somewhat referring to my earlier comment without
>>>quoting my exact statement, well this tickles me enough as to respond
>>>anyways :
>>>
>>>simple reason why such html would print white is that PM basically
>>>renders the html as a curtsey for people who can't live without the
>>>pictures and colorful fonts and whatnots and who want to see the html
>>>rendered page - but that is all that it does. I see the html stuff as an
>>>attachment or a skin to the email and for this reason it will not print
>>>or not show in a reply. I've heard a lot of people state the fact about
>>>a white mail when trying to reply to an html message, well and this is
>>>the same issue when printing, and thus it is not actually a loss of user
>>>data, it is just trying to use PM in a way it was never designed for.
>>>PowerMail IS a power mail application but it is NOT an HTML handler and
>>>never said to be. this is how I understand the working of it, but then
>>>again, i do not use html rendering and I never have to print it and if I
>>>would I just would put it to be viewed in the browser and then print it
>>>from there..
>>>
>>>and to be clear what MY point of bug versus feature was, here again :
>>>
>>>a bug is something which is said to be functional in a certain way and
>>>it is not as advertised. a missing feature is some behavior somebody
>>>would LIKE to see or THINKS it should be in an application but which is
>>>not (yet) at a current point in time.
>>>
>>>I do agree though with the fact that it would be wise to implement a
>>>dialog box as Bruce suggested :-)
>>>
>>>maybe I am getting old or maybe I am getting just tired of the old same
>>>old same "why is this not an html email application"... because it's not
>>>and never has been and I just feel if that is what people want to begin
>>>with, well why do they even get powermail in the first place and don't
>>>just stick with apple's Mail or any other html mail application?
>>>
>>>guess I AM getting old AND I am tired.
>>>
>>>---marlyse
>>>
>>>
>>> former message(s) quotes: -
>>>
>>>
Just my 2 cents...
  If I'm looking an a email and tell it to print, and the printer produces
a blank page (as reported by Winston ) that's a bug.

  Now if I were to print and be greeted with "Sorry that's and HTML email
and we can't/don't print those, you'll have to print from a browser."
That's a "feature."

  I would call the behavior as described by Winston a "loss of user data"
bug and mark it serious if it were my product.

All that having been said, this is not a problem I've usually seen.
Guess I don't print much HTML.

Bruce
-- 
Bruce BarrettSee my website at: http://www.brucebarrett.com 





>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>