Re: (SOT) Re: HTML-mail
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello Sean! On 2 Dec 2001 at 05:38:06 you wrote: To my the problem isn't HTML, per-se...it's the fact that the features of HTML can be misused by more unsavory types The biggest problems for me are: 1. People send HTML but *don't* use the HTML features, making messages unnecessarily big. Those are the messages that look exactly the same in HTML and PT. 2. People find out about the features of HTML and use them unnecessarily. Those are the messages that could/should have been sent in PT but look like the most stupidly designed web sites from which you can get - quite literally - a seizure. It is actually some spammers and the commercial newsletters (like PCWelt's) that make really good use of HTML. To them even GET makes sense, even if their NL are completely void of contents when I see them with TB!. - -- Dierk Haasis http://www.Write4U.de PGP keys available: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=SendMyPGPkeys The Bat 1.54 Beta/14 on Windows 95 4.0 67306684 C Es ist viel einfacher, Kritik zu üben, als etwas anzuerkennen. (Benjamin Disraeli) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 6.5.8ckt Comment: Privacy is the core element to Freedom! iQA/AwUBPAnjuPTo1oA8g8dLEQJWgQCfWg02Ei32cHxJLQPh7HZvCJb5L7IAnjJ1 Q1gpSxSd+3XH4ynnqPNRDolo =WHqa -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Latest Vers: 1.53d FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com
Re: (SOT) Re: HTML-mail
Saturday, December 01, 2001, 10:51:35 PM, Thomas F wrote: Hello N., On Sat, 1 Dec 2001 21:38:06 -0700 GMT (02/12/2001, 12:38 +0800 GMT), N. Sean Timm wrote: NST To my the problem isn't HTML, per-se... To me it is. HTML blows the message up 2 or 3 times. My favorite is when someone sends HTML mail, I click on the message.htm tab on the bottom of the viewer pane, and their message is just regular black text, Times New Roman, on a white background. Especially when I know darn well that they *never* add any additional formatting to their mail, not even boldface or italics. For the record, I see little reason for HTML use in email. RTF'd or HTML documents can be sent attached separately if necessary. Windows comes with Internet Explorer, and WordPad to view such attachments. Obviously, there are viewers for other platforms as well. Necessity is my issue with this HTML integration we're talking about with TB! It just seems like unnecessary code for TB! program. But that's just me. Zach -- Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Latest Vers: 1.53d FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com
Re: (SOT) Re: HTML-mail
Hello Dierk, Sunday, December 02, 2001, 4:17:59 AM, you wrote: Dierk The biggest problems for me are: Dierk 1. People send HTML but *don't* use the HTML features, making Dierk messages unnecessarily big. Those are the messages that look Dierk exactly the same in HTML and PT. Yes and in that, I really like the way TB handles such messages. Even for the ones containing useless stationery. I'm not really bashing stationery but referring to those who have it set for every message by default. I don't fault the software for having the feature, however. But fixing this is akin to convincing my great Aunt to quit sending chain letters. But seriously, I like the way TB handles most HTML messages, giving you the power to delete the HTML portion while still saving the text for later review. Dierk 2. People find out about the features of HTML and use them Dierk unnecessarily. Those are the messages that could/should have been Dierk sent in PT but look like the most stupidly designed web sites from Dierk which you can get - quite literally - a seizure. Yes again. And this is somewhat understandable on the Web at least. People still learning are eager to try anything flashy. Yet I don't think such features should be removed from e-mail clients. There are valid uses for almost everything...almost. Dierk It is actually some spammers and the commercial newsletters (like Dierk PCWelt's) that make really good use of HTML. To them even GET makes Dierk sense, even if their NL are completely void of contents when I see Dierk them with TB!. Good last point. Some organizations seem to find it easier to compose a message as one large set of sliced graphics and / or objects. yet, as you say, the message body contains nothing in the way of content. This is something many of us wouldn't ever know had we never come across TB. The main thing I like about HTML messages are link formatting and structure. For instance, sending a rather lengthy link which contains strings like htm?view=01189432 at the end are troublesome for many e-mail clients. Of course, HTML formatted links don't share this problem. And even the best of tricks are not fool proof. The only decent solution is to set up a redirect link with a shorter URL for every link contained in a message. ECom newsletters considered, this can be a laborious task to say the least. In this way, I have had to make decisions to leave some content out of text-only versions while HTML versions are complete and as intended. Secondly, structure is important at least internally. I'm sure most of us have by now received a transaction receipt in text that is horribly wrapped. Some solid companies do their best to adjust for standard column lengths. But they never seem to work perfectly. While I wouldn't recommend sending customer invoices in HTML alone, I'd consider using the dual method. And I certainly share internal documents of this type with table structures via HTML. This is almost necessary due to some office members using 640 x 480 on 14 monitors. But these can't be confidential documents as encrypting HTML documents is a mystery to me. Dierk - -- Dierk Dierk Haasis Dierk http://www.Write4U.de Dierk PGP keys available: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=SendMyPGPkeys Dierk The Bat 1.54 Beta/14 on Windows 95 4.0 67306684 C Dierk Es ist viel einfacher, Kritik zu üben, als etwas anzuerkennen. Dierk (Benjamin Disraeli) Dierk -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Dierk Version: PGP 6.5.8ckt Dierk Comment: Privacy is the core element to Freedom! Dierk iQA/AwUBPAnjuPTo1oA8g8dLEQJWgQCfWg02Ei32cHxJLQPh7HZvCJb5L7IAnjJ1 Dierk Q1gpSxSd+3XH4ynnqPNRDolo Dierk =WHqa Dierk -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Best regards, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Environment: theBat! version 1.54 Beta/9 Windows Windows NT 5.0 build 2195 Service Pack 2 -- Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Latest Vers: 1.53d FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com
Re[2]: (SOT) Re: HTML-mail
Hello, I also have a question about HTML : I know that I can't create a HTML message, but what do I have to do when I want to reply to a HTML message, or when I want to forward it? Then the HTML structure is lost, and all that is left is plain text, so the receiver will not see the original contents of the mail. Is there any other way to make sure the receivers sees the original message? Greetings, Cyclon -- Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Latest Vers: 1.53d FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com
Re[3]: (SOT) Re: HTML-mail
Saturday, December 01, 2001, 9:38:06 PM, I wrote: NST Hello James, NST Saturday, December 01, 2001, 8:54:39 PM, you wrote: JS On viruses and external images...from the business end JS it would be ridiculous to expect customers to put up with JS embedded images. Keeping them external at least gives the JS customer a chance to delete the message before all the JS downloading begins. Please don't think of HTML e-mail as an JS evil business tool used by spammers alone. In my case I'd much JS rather send text since I can send them ten times faster. But JS our subscriber base prefers HTML. They sign up for it, it is JS not chosen for them. The problem with viruses is well JS documented but it is certainly not the norm. And one shouldn't JS shy away from HTML because of them just as you wouldn't abstain JS from using the 'Net for fear of infection. NST To my the problem isn't HTML, per-se...it's the fact that the features NST of HTML can be misused by more unsavory types (such as spammers, who, NST by merely including an external image, can determine whether or not your NST email address is valid.) However, there are also perfectly valid NST reasons to want/need HTML. However, in these cases, the receipient NST usually expects HTML from a certain source. I think it'd be great if NST The Bat! allowed you to set up a list of people (or a filter?) that NST were allowed to send you HTML, and it would display the images NST automatically for mail from those addresses. Oh...and let's not forget those who, rather than being able to rationally argue their point of view, have to attempt to send someone a virus to try and prove their point (You know who you are, and I don't appreciate it in this kind of forum.) I stand by my statement that there can and are valid uses of HTML email that are not malicious, and anything that can be done to enable these, while protecting against the misuse of it (such as only allowing it from those you specify) is a Good Thing. - Sean T. -- Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Latest Vers: 1.53d FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com
Re: (SOT) Re: HTML-mail
Sean, I got the same. But I think that was an auto generated send from the trojan. Possibly not. But that would be my first guess seeing how it was the BadTrans worm that was attached. Apparently it scans inboxes for new prospects. I think people in this list are far above that sort of behavior. Sunday, December 02, 2001, 1:40:27 PM, you wrote: N. Oh...and let's not forget those who, rather than being able to N. rationally argue their point of view, have to attempt to send someone N. a virus to try and prove their point (You know who you are, and I N. don't appreciate it in this kind of forum.) I stand by my statement N. that there can and are valid uses of HTML email that are not malicious, and N. anything that can be done to enable these, while protecting against N. the misuse of it (such as only allowing it from those you specify) is N. a Good Thing. N. - Sean T. -- Best regards, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Environment: theBat! version 1.54 Beta/9 Windows Windows NT 5.0 build 2195 Service Pack 2 -- Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Latest Vers: 1.53d FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com
Re: (SOT) Re: HTML-mail
Hi Cyclon, Sunday, December 02, 2001, 1:35:06 PM, you wrote: Kris Hello, I also have a question about HTML : I know that I can't create Kris a HTML message, but what do I have to do when I want to reply to a Kris HTML message, or when I want to forward it? Then the HTML structure Kris is lost, and all that is left is plain text, so the receiver will not Kris see the original contents of the mail. Is there any other way to make Kris sure the receivers sees the original message? Depending on how well the original e-mail was formatted, you may find these work arounds useful. 1) Open the message and hit Ctrl-A or select all text, then choose Specials and reply quoting selected text. If the structure was formatted well, it might appear pretty much intact. 2) Alternatively, you could either forward the message or redirect it. Of course, you'd have to edit the to and from lines. But the HTML portion should be included as an attachment this way. Thereby, you could say something like, see attachment for original message. 3) There are other ways that would appear more 'normal' but they'd be too time consuming for just one message unless it was terribly important. Personally, I'd redirect the message to one of the e-mail accounts I use on Becky or Outlook and deal with it from there. But the same could be done with a hotmail account too. But there may be far better suggestions from others more knowledgeable than I. Kris Greetings, Kris Cyclon -- Best regards, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Environment: theBat! version 1.54 Beta/9 Windows Windows NT 5.0 build 2195 Service Pack 2 -- Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Latest Vers: 1.53d FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com
Re: (SOT) Re: HTML-mail
Sunday, December 02, 2001, 11:50:17 AM, James Senick wrote: Sean, I got the same. But I think that was an auto generated send from the trojan. Possibly not. But that would be my first guess seeing how it was the BadTrans worm that was attached. Apparently it scans inboxes for new prospects. I think people in this list are far above that sort of behavior. This is true. Details here: http:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I would have received it as well if Norton Antivirus hadn't nailed it before it even reached the inbox. -- Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Latest Vers: 1.53d FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com
Re[2]: (SOT) Re: HTML-mail
Hello Zach, Sunday, December 02, 2001, 12:15:08 PM, you wrote: ZR Sunday, December 02, 2001, 11:50:17 AM, James Senick wrote: I got the same. But I think that was an auto generated send from the trojan. Possibly not. But that would be my first guess seeing how it was the BadTrans worm that was attached. Apparently it scans inboxes for new prospects. I think people in this list are far above that sort of behavior. ZR This is true. Details here: ZR http:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ZR I would have received it as well if Norton Antivirus hadn't nailed it ZR before it even reached the inbox. I'm glad to find out that it wasn't a malicious attempt to counter my opinion. :) Fortunately, I, too saved by both The Bat! and Norton Antivirus...what a wonderful combination. :) - Sean T. -- Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Latest Vers: 1.53d FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com
Re[3]: (SOT) Re: HTML-mail
Sunday, December 02, 2001, 12:25:55 PM, I wrote: NST opinion. :) Fortunately, I, too saved by both The Bat! and Norton I, too saved? That's twice in less than 24 hours that I've found myself unable to speak grammatically correct English! I better do a little less programming and a little more getting out. :) - Sean T. -- Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Latest Vers: 1.53d FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com
Re: (SOT) Re: HTML-mail
Hi Kris, On Sun, 2 Dec 2001 19:35:06 +0100GMT (03/12/2001, 02:35 +0800GMT), Kris Vermandere wrote: KV Hello, I also have a question about HTML : I know that I can't create KV a HTML message, but what do I have to do when I want to reply to a KV HTML message, or when I want to forward it? In order to reply, you can try hitting the reply button. In order to forward a message, trying the forward button is a good idea. KV Then the HTML structure is lost, and all that is left is plain KV text, Yes, you have understood the whole point. :-) KV so the receiver will not see the original contents of the mail. Is KV there any other way to make sure the receivers sees the original KV message? If you want to send it to spamcops, you mean? (I wouldn't know any other reason.) If course, just MIME forward the message. -- Cheers, Thomas. Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste. Anmeldung unter: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message reply created with The Bat! 1.53t under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build 1998 on a Pentium II/350 MHz. -- Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Latest Vers: 1.53d FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com
Re: (SOT) Re: HTML-mail
Hi N., On Sun, 2 Dec 2001 11:40:27 -0700GMT (03/12/2001, 02:40 +0800GMT), N. Sean Timm wrote: NST To my the problem isn't HTML, per-se...it's the fact that the features NST of HTML can be misused by more unsavory types NST I stand by my statement that there can and are valid uses of HTML NST email that are not malicious, and anything that can be done to NST enable these, while protecting against the misuse of it (such as NST only allowing it from those you specify) is a Good Thing. I agree. Some newsletters are in HTML and that's not a bad idea. (Note that these are newsletters , not HTML-Email. HTML has nothing to do with Email, except maybe for an occasional attachment, even though newsletters are sent via the same ports and protocols as newsletters.) Here is a suggestion: Make an option to allow GET commands for emails from trustful sender addresses, or to download images from trustful servers. This way, the sender of the newsletter can leave the graphics on his server and does not need to send billions of additional bytes through the internet to each recipient. Does this make sense? -- Cheers, Thomas. Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste. Anmeldung unter: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message reply created with The Bat! 1.53t under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build 1998 on a Pentium II/350 MHz. -- Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Latest Vers: 1.53d FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com
(SOT) Re: HTML-mail
Don wrote: As much as some of us hate it, html mail is here to stay, and any mail client that doesn't offer the option to compose in this format is doomed in the long run. I despise tacky Outlook html templates but people love using them. The Bat *needs* to be able to compose in html format. As far as viewing html mails, we should have the option of using the Bat's built-in limited viewer (which is enought for my own needs, anyhow) or selecting Microsoft's viewer if we want to see the mail with images, etc. For what it's worth, my opinion is that TB! is doing the right thing (read but not write). The problem is that home and business have radically different requirements. People at home write HTML, quite often without knowing it, and are very lax in handling emails; I am a member of two musicians' lists (the participants being very much users of a PC as a means to an end, as opposed to users of a PC) and viruses were turning up almost weekly until I persuaded the list owner to set up their software to strip out attachments. People at work tend not to write HTML. There is often almost an over-reaction to viruses; many companies I work with strip out HTML and check for viruses at the server as well as on the desktop, but some go further. One client strips out all attachments bar PDF (Word documents and PowerPoint presentations have to be converted before sending or they bounce), strips out HTML, plasters disclaimers everywhere, sets up NT to prevent any software installation or alteration at all and reduces Internet access to the intranet and one external site (news.bbc.co.uk) :) I have a feeling that strong feeling against viruses will spread, particularly as broadband connections become common, and there will be a fork; email will be for plain ASCII and attachments, whereas the bells and whistles will move to instant messaging. Given all this, I would not encourage people to use HTML in emails, but they have to be able to read it (or remove it) :) Alastair -- Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Latest Vers: 1.53d FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com
Re: (SOT) Re: HTML-mail
Hi Alastair, On samedi 1 décembre 2001 at 10:50:43, you wrote : AS Given all this, I would not encourage people to use HTML in emails, but AS they have to be able to read it (or remove it) :) Yes. I do agree with you. An option is the best for everyone. But there's another point in the reading HTML capabilites with The Bat!. I can't see external gif or jpeg in most of the newsletters I receive. All other software I tried (Pegasus, Eudora, Pocomail...) let me see all external gif or jpeg included in HTML messages... What's the problem ? -- Regards, Ericmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Using The Bat! v1.54/10 on Windows NT 5.1 Build 2600 -- Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Latest Vers: 1.53d FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com
Re: (SOT) Re: HTML-mail
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Eric, On 01 December 2001 at 12:23:24 [GMT+0100] (which was 11:23 where I live) Eric Malausséna wrote to Alastair Scott and made these points: EM But there's another point in the reading HTML capabilites with The EM Bat!. I can't see external gif or jpeg in most of the EM newsletters I receive. Correct. EM All other software I tried (Pegasus, Eudora, Pocomail...) let me EM see all external gif or jpeg included in HTML messages... Shame on them! Is this as an option? Even if it's optional, it's not right: EM What's the problem ? This is covered in the FAQ. TB shows in-line images (those sent with the messages) but only browsers or HTML message renderers that are linked to browsing code will GET images will show out-of-line images. Email is supposed to be a collect and read off-line experience. Browsing is supposed to be an on-line experience. It is the cross-over and corruption of this *fact* that is making a mess of the whole email genre. It has led to security holes, back doors, bloat, virus infection and invasions of privacy to name but a few of the bad things about it. Any mail client that does other than TB in its internal rendering is asking for trouble and is (IMHO) just plain wrong. Even making it optional is still wrong. The user has to make the decision on a per-message basis as to whether or not it is safe to fully render *that* message. There is always the option to launch an HTML version of the message into a real browser if you simply *must* see the message in it's full gory (sic). In the case of TB, just double-click the HTML attachment and it's done. This isn't about Canute holding back the inevitable tide of progress. More and more people are beginning to see the light and understand just how appallingly this HTML silliness has rendered so many naive users vulnerable to exploitation. Sad. - -- Cheers -- .\\arck D. Pearlstone -- List moderator ~~~ \ BrainStorm - free thinking - www: http://www.brainstormsw.com / \ PGP Key ID: 0x929DCDA0 | www: http://www.silverstones.com / ' TB! v1.54 Beta/14-14F4B4B2 on Windows NT 5.0.2195 Service Pack 2 ' -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (MingW32) Comment: GPG Sealed for freshness iD8DBQE8CMNUOeQkq5KdzaARAmDVAKDMV5vv6N/67jArHmKJv5E0bK70cQCff2lC 57nnEHWKw85s8l6ZWIdV5jA= =vhfA -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Latest Vers: 1.53d FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com
Re[2]: (SOT) Re: HTML-mail
Hi Marck, On samedi 1 décembre 2001 at 12:47:31, you wrote : EM All other software I tried (Pegasus, Eudora, Pocomail...) let me EM see all external gif or jpeg included in HTML messages... MDP Shame on them! Is this as an option? Even if it's optional, it's not MDP right: IMHO, The Bat! is the only one which can't display external images (Becky! shows them too) EM What's the problem ? MDP In the case of TB, just double-click the HTML attachment and it's MDP done. Shame on me :-( I did NOT know it was possible !!! First, thanks for your long answer. Two, I really DO agree with all what you said now I know it's very easy to see the plain html message... for me, security is a very important point (I'm connected with ADSL). I tried a lot of other mailers because I didn't know it was possible seeing html with external images just double clicking on the HTML attachement... BTW, I had returned yet to The Bat! because, for me, it's the best... Thank you very much -- Regards, Ericmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Using The Bat! v1.54/10 on Windows NT 5.1 Build 2600 -- Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Latest Vers: 1.53d FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com
Re[3]: (SOT) Re: HTML-mail
Hello Eric, 1. december 2001, 13:29:48, you wrote: EM IMHO, The Bat! is the only one which can't display external images EM (Becky! shows them too) Correct me, if I'm wrong, but IIRC, Becky uses IE to display HTML messages... -- Jernej Simoncic, [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www2.arnes.si/~sopjsimo/ ICQ: 26266467 [The Bat! v1.54 Beta/14 on Windows 98 4.10.67766222. ] Highways in the worst need of repair naturally have low traffic counts, which results in low priority for repair work. -- Cleveland's Highway Law -- Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Latest Vers: 1.53d FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com
Re[4]: (SOT) Re: HTML-mail
Hi Jernej, On samedi 1 décembre 2001 at 19:27:12, you wrote : EM IMHO, The Bat! is the only one which can't display external images EM (Becky! shows them too) JS Correct me, if I'm wrong, but IIRC, Becky uses IE to display HTML JS messages... Becky shows HTML messages in its own message viewer. BTW, it needs IE. See HTML information in the Help File : HTML messages Becky! can display e-mail messages written in HTML format in the window. This is made possible by using an ActiveX component of Microsoft Internet Explorer. So, you have to install Internet Explorer, at least ver.3.0 or higher to get it to work, although it is not recommended using older than ver.4.0 because of the security vulnerabilities. To view HTML messages, make sure Use MSIE component option in General SetupMessage View is ticked. It is strongly recommended to tick Invalidate Executable Tags, too. While you are reading HTML messages with space bar, you will find that you can't go to a next unread message by hitting space bar. This is because that Becky! has no way to know entire HTML message is shown. In that case, hit Ctrl+space. You can also edit HTML messages in the compose window. For HTML editing, you need MSIE 5.0 or higher installed. Note that many people hates receiving HTML messages. Especially on the mailing list, HTML messages are thought to be offending sometimes, and that can cause worthless flames. Please refrain from sending HTML messages unless you really need to do. -- Regards, Ericmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Using The Bat! v1.54/10 on Windows NT 5.1 Build 2600 -- Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Latest Vers: 1.53d FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com
Re: (SOT) Re: HTML-mail
Alastair, Saturday, December 01, 2001, 4:50:43 AM, you wrote: Alastair For what it's worth, my opinion is that TB! is doing the right thing Alastair (read but not write). Alastair The problem is that home and business have radically different Alastair requirements. Good call. I'm glad to hear someone finally say it. But I think you are referring to inter-office messaging rather than business e-mail. And no, this doesn't mean spam. Not every message from a commercial entity is spam. That's another area where people get carried away. HTML e-mail is most useful as a business tool rather than a glitzy informal message. I'd love to use theBat as my sole business e-mail tool but it is quite a hassle to attach an html file to 10,000+ messages then export them, make necessary changes (and no, changing the content type to multipart/alternative is not the only change necessary) and finally import them all back into the Outbox. The fact is that theBat is and hopefully always will be a step above other e-mail clients. So, simply adding the ability to compose html messages would not be enough. One would still want to be able to personalize mass e-mail messages and further more embed an ascii version for anyone not able to view html. No other e-mail client provides this functionality to my knowledge. Even Becky only allows for sending mass html messages via the BCC line which many servers will toss out on sight. Why? Again that fear that any message with numerous addresses in the BCC line is Spam. On viruses and external images...from the business end it would be ridiculous to expect customers to put up with embedded images. Keeping them external at least gives the customer a chance to delete the message before all the downloading begins. Please don't think of HTML e-mail as an evil business tool used by spammers alone. In my case I'd much rather send text since I can send them ten times faster. But our subscriber base prefers HTML. They sign up for it, it is not chosen for them. The problem with viruses is well documented but it is certainly not the norm. And one shouldn't shy away from HTML because of them just as you wouldn't abstain from using the 'Net for fear of infection. But I digress...I think the reason why theBat has yet to implement HTML composing is simply because when RitLabs does something they try to do it right. I don't think it is because they are part of some end all html e-mail movement. I am not speaking from insider knowledge here. These are just my thoughts on the subject. Alastair I have a feeling that strong feeling against viruses will spread, Alastair particularly as broadband connections become common, and there will be a Alastair fork; email will be for plain ASCII and attachments, whereas the bells Alastair and whistles will move to instant messaging. Again, this is from the home-user standpoint. E-commerce requires the use of HTML e-mail to some degree. And at least some customers ask for it specifically. Attachments were all the rage way back when but now people fear them. I guess I can't blame them...at least they've come that far in avoiding viruses. I prefer the dual html / ascii method. I like to choose. But so far theBat is the only client that handles it near perfect in my experience. Alastair Given all this, I would not encourage people to use HTML in emails, but Alastair they have to be able to read it (or remove it) :) I guess I can't really argue with that except to expand on it. I wouldn't discourage the use of any form of communication. However, I would highly encourage the use of theBat. That move alone would solve many of the concerns expressed in these two threads. Even though we all may consider theBat to be beyond mainstream quality, the masses may not feel this way until HTML composing and improved handling is implemented. Again, I trust this is already in the works, as Marck has stated. It's probably just being done the right way! One only needs to be patient I suppose. -- Best regards, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Environment: theBat! version 1.54 Beta/9 Windows Windows NT 5.0 build 2195 Service Pack 2 -- Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Latest Vers: 1.53d FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com
Re[2]: (SOT) Re: HTML-mail
Hello James, Saturday, December 01, 2001, 8:54:39 PM, you wrote: JS On viruses and external images...from the business end JS it would be ridiculous to expect customers to put up with JS embedded images. Keeping them external at least gives the JS customer a chance to delete the message before all the JS downloading begins. Please don't think of HTML e-mail as an JS evil business tool used by spammers alone. In my case I'd much JS rather send text since I can send them ten times faster. But JS our subscriber base prefers HTML. They sign up for it, it is JS not chosen for them. The problem with viruses is well JS documented but it is certainly not the norm. And one shouldn't JS shy away from HTML because of them just as you wouldn't abstain JS from using the 'Net for fear of infection. To my the problem isn't HTML, per-se...it's the fact that the features of HTML can be misused by more unsavory types (such as spammers, who, by merely including an external image, can determine whether or not your email address is valid.) However, there are also perfectly valid reasons to want/need HTML. However, in these cases, the receipient usually expects HTML from a certain source. I think it'd be great if The Bat! allowed you to set up a list of people (or a filter?) that were allowed to send you HTML, and it would display the images automatically for mail from those addresses. - Sean T. -- Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Latest Vers: 1.53d FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com
Re: (SOT) Re: HTML-mail
Hello James, On Saturday, December 1, 2001 at 22:54 GMT -0500, a creature mimicking James Senick [JS] wrote: JS One would still want to be able to personalize mass e-mail JS messages and further more embed an ascii version for anyone not JS able to view html. TB has a version of a mass mailing function. 1. a) Create your message/template in a quick template b) Select Use for New Messages/Mass Mailing 2. Go into your Address Book, a) Select the addresses/group b) File - Mass Mailing using Template - Template It has been reported that this feature can be somewhat buggy when working with large numbers of addresses. I personally can't comment as I never use the feature. Also, I can't be sure that the problems are in the current release, they may have been from the 1.53 beta days. Again, I'm not sure because I don't use it. The point is, you should probably test the feature on a known test group before using it on your customers. -- Thanks for writing, Januk Aggarwal Using The Bat! 1.54 Beta/14 under Windows 98 4.10 Build 67766446 A All science is either physics or stamp collecting. -- E. Rutherford -- Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Latest Vers: 1.53d FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com
Re: (SOT) Re: HTML-mail
Hello N., On Sat, 1 Dec 2001 21:38:06 -0700 GMT (02/12/2001, 12:38 +0800 GMT), N. Sean Timm wrote: NST To my the problem isn't HTML, per-se... To me it is. HTML blows the message up 2 or 3 times. -- Cheers, Thomas. Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste. Ad: Stock up and save. Limit: one. Message reply created with The Bat! 1.54/10 under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build A using an AMD Athlon K7 1.2GHz, 128MB RAM -- Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Latest Vers: 1.53d FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com
Re: (SOT) Re: HTML-mail
Hi Januk, Sunday, December 02, 2001, 12:31:38 AM, you wrote: Januk Hello James, Januk On Saturday, December 1, 2001 at 22:54 GMT -0500, a creature mimicking Januk James Senick [JS] wrote: JS One would still want to be able to personalize mass e-mail JS messages and further more embed an ascii version for anyone not JS able to view html. Januk TB has a version of a mass mailing function. Yes. I was really referring to the personalization of HTML e-mail messages on a mass scale. It can still be done; just not nicely done. The ascii portions can be personalized. And too, I am referring to personalization of the message body rather than just the to address or subject line. The html cannot since it begins as an attached file. Januk It has been reported that this feature can be somewhat buggy when Januk working with large numbers of addresses. I personally can't comment as Januk I never use the feature. Also, I can't be sure that the problems are Januk in the current release, they may have been from the 1.53 beta days. Januk Again, I'm not sure because I don't use it. The point is, you should Januk probably test the feature on a known test group before using it on Januk your customers. I have used it on semi large ascii mass mailings and with the multipart/alternative version as well. I haven't noticed any bugs to date. It is slow during that process but I would expect that of any program processing such a large request. It should also be noted though that I use a local mail server for this type of thing. So the send isn't nearly as lengthy as it could be. And there is no need to send in batches. If I sent them all at once to an external mail server I'd likely run into a memory error. Thanks for the advice though. -- Best regards, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Environment: theBat! version 1.54 Beta/9 Windows Windows NT 5.0 build 2195 Service Pack 2 -- Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Latest Vers: 1.53d FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com
