Re: Re[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 16:23:11 +0200, Marek Mikus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In 2.01 version will be possible to selecect HTML as default in Preferences and AFAIK macros for selecting message type are planned. Thank you for this info. The macros would do well too (I didn't think of that option), but the default on is not my style - and IMHO that shouldn't be supported by TB!'s either. Although, speaking business-wise that might open a larger share of the e-mail client market. Grtz, Cory Current version is 2.00.6 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[4]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
In 2.01 version will be possible to selecect HTML as default in Preferences and AFAIK macros for selecting message type are planned. CaC Thank you for this info. When I first installed TB as an eval (v2.00) I was completely unable to send (or queue) any email if composed with HTML option. Reinstalling (was ver 2.00.06?) fixed this BUT now the problem is back!! I again fixed it by again reinstalling TB. I can again send (or queue) HTML/plain text (or HTML only) email. -- Current version is 2.00.6 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 18:30:16 +0200, Jurgen Haug [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But a per address book entry setting would be great! _If someone from Ritlabs is reading my 2 cents: Can't we have that???_ Add to that a per-account (or even per-folder, inheritance selectable) setting which enables a HTML-on/off -default to off- in the editor. IMHO, this would do right to the notion of avoiding HTML as much as possible, and still enable those who need the formatting to fairly easily choose to enable it. Simply showing the enable HTML-button in the editor would do too, but that would make HTML a little too accessible ;) And -I realise while typing the above- needs a huge Undo-buffer also; if not there certainly would arise complaints about TB! not being able to support the free choice of yes or no HTML (Yes indeed, I'm 99% against HTML e-mail.) -- BR, Cory (using Forté Agent to follow TBUDL, and who would love to see Forté and RitLabs team up to combine the best of both products in an unbeatable mail/news agent) Current version is 2.00.6 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
Hi Thomas Wednesday, September 10, 2003, 2:38:04 PM, you wrote: TF The internet was designed for plain-text emails only. MIME attachments TF (allowing HTML) was added much later and under much protest. Check it TF out on the internet. The internet was not designed *for* email at all. The ARPANET, its predecessor, was meant to be a US DoD network that could survive a nuclear attack. If you mean that the initial conception did not involve MIME etc., then that's correct. But claiming that it was designed specifically for plaintext email isn't correct. It was SMTP that was designed with support for only 7-bit ASCII in mind. Was that what you meant? TF It always amazes me that many people think the internet was invented TF by Outlook or AOL 6 or Al Gore... Internet invented by outlook? I must meet this person :) Gore, on the other hand, seems to have actively perpetuated that myth himself during the time he stood for election. Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Friday, September 12, 2003 12:50:16 PM (GMT -05:00) RE: HTML as default on v2.00 ...? Greetings MAU, On Wednesday, September 10, 2003, 7:13:30 AM, you wrote: MAU As you may have read a few days ago in a thread with subject My new 20 MAU lines filter, you better start your text before line 20 or I will not MAU read any of your messages (provided you care at all if I read them or MAU not) ;-) Ahh well. I don't feel the need to format my messages based on your criteria. I quote what I feel is necessary to clearly represent the thread and the basis of my reply. Sorry. Anyway ... - -- Regards, DG Raftery Sr. You're only young once; you can be immature f'ever. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 9.0b1 Comment: KeyID: 0xECFE3F95 Comment: Fingerprint: 8ABE 6728 1CB9 E231 B2C8 C29D BC22 D3D1 ECFE 3F95 iQA/AwUBP2IIebwi09Hs/j+VEQKEYgCg+S9OkWEpsuNC+zUlgZ3q/Lkro3EAn0WE q5Chd2Zg1Uigi+wR9Y72r7aQ =x4Gf -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
Hello DG, Ahh well. I don't feel the need to format my messages based on your criteria. 'Course DG! :) I quote what I feel is necessary to clearly represent the thread and the basis of my reply. 'Course again DG! But it is not just the quoted lines that add up :)) -- Best regards, Miguel A. Urech (El Escorial - Spain) Using The Bat! v1.62i Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
Wednesday, September 10, 2003, 8:23:15 PM, Allie wrote: A We are in the know and they're not. :) You put a smiley there, but you're right! When Mosaic came out, I was one of the first to stop using Gopher and Archie; the new way was so much easier and quickly became more appealing. A We know the problems with HTML and they don't. None of those typical end-users created the clients; a techy did - because there was a market for it. People wanted to send something other than boring-looking plain text e-mail. A It's an entirely different matter to have the problems A presented to someone and they still advocate HTML!! ducking A and running Man, where's a smelly old fish when you need one? :) My position is not one of advocating HTML, but a more practical rather than an ivory tower view of the world. Pandora opened her HTML e-mail and it's here to stay. We techies have to figure out a way to deal with it. TB! is one - filter the meat and ignore the fluff. Works for me, but I don't have a shortage of b/w. Side note - In the vast majority of cases, the issue of bandwidth is a red herring in this argument. Not that bandwidth doesn't matter, but SPAM has become so overwhelming that its percentage use of bandwidth far exceeds the cost of HTML. If b/w is the main concern, SPAM needs to get the attention. The battle of HTML vs. plain text is comparable to the religious wars of Windows vs. Mac, Motif vs. OpenLook, etc. People have an opinion, and they have facts to support their side. The other side has just has many facts, too. It comes down to what a person believes and values. If you have a lot of b/w, paying 3K for a 1K message is not a big deal and the waving palms aren't that bothersome other than aesthetically. If you don't, then _paying_ 3K for 1K hurts! PS - I've not posted this much of my opinions in 10 years - in this post and others recently. It must be pent up and overflowing! Maybe more fiber would help. :) -- Dave Kennedy Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: WARNING(virus check bypassed): Re[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........? -- anyone else seeing this 'WARNING' prefix?
On Thursday, September 11, 2003, Pixie wrote... JA I don't use my comcast account for emails, I run my own server, JA so it's easier to monkey with what I want. There is a possibility JA that it Do you happen to run that on a 'home' service? I've been thinking of throwing a server back up. Their AUP is very wishy washy with regard to servers. I used to when I was using Coserv DSL. Unfortunately when I moved, I checked with comcast they said that hosting was forbidden. So it's hosted where I work. -- Jonathan Angliss ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) All true wisdom is found on T-shirts. --And in taglines. pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
Hello Dave, Wednesday, September 10, 2003, 7:49:12 AM, you wrote: DK The Internet is becoming to be treated in the same manner as DK automobiles. I.e. I just want it to work and don't care how it DK works. *Exactly*!! and Exactly why this is a Bad Thing (tm). When I drive my car, and if I run over someone, I am personally held liable for my actions in court. If I use my computer and it becomes infected with a virus because I like to open every attachment (because somebody said they love me), which in turn sends nasty little virus laden e-mails to everyone in my address book, I'm not held accountable except by maybe one of my recipients. We as techies have the unfortunate burden of trying to educate the masses on what is good and bad, and until the day comes where a user can be held liable for their mis-actions on a machine, everyone suffers. See: http://www.msnbc.com/news/961943.asp?0dm=C14MTcp1=1 and http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A25845-2003Sep4?language=printer I've cross-posted this to TBOT so we can continue, it's definitely becoming a dead horse on TBUDL.. Thanks. -- Leif (TB list moderator and fellow end user). Using The Bat! 2.00 under Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 3 on a Pentium 4 2GHz with 512MB Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
Hello MAU, Wednesday, September 10, 2003, 5:13:30 AM, you wrote: M As you may have read a few days ago in a thread with subject My M new 20 lines filter, you better start your text before line 20 or M I will not read any of your messages (provided you care at all if I M read them or not) ;-) Somebody is about --(this close) to being beaten to a bloody pulp by three trouts simultaneously. ;-) -- Leif (TB list moderator and fellow end user). Using The Bat! 2.00 under Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 3 on a Pentium 4 2GHz with 512MB Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
Hello Marck, Tuesday, September 9, 2003, 3:11:20 PM, you wrote: MDP HTML was *never* developed or intended for use as a formatting MDP system for email. It is a presentation system for served pages, MDP intended for transmission with the HyperText Transfer Protocol MDP (HTTP, yes?). Mail is simple text intended for transmission with the MDP Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP, yes?). The fusion of the two MDP has led to over-use of bandwidth, bad taste and imposition on the MDP recipient, whose choice it *should* be! You're turning things around here. With all communications, the presentation and formatting lies with the originator. This is true for newspapers, slide show presentations, snail mail letters, email, etc.. With the introduction of HTML, the contents and its presentation were separated and it became possible for the recipient to have control over the presentation. The use of tags like body, h1, h2 leave it completely open on how to display the text. So, I would agree with the bandwidth issue but if you want recipient choice, then HTML is the better way. Concerning bad taste, people can write horribly in plain ASCII too. Frank -- Best regards, FJ de Bruin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Tuesday, September 09, 2003 4:23:19 PM (GMT -05:00) RE: HTML as default on v2.00 ...? Greetings David, On Tuesday, September 9, 2003, 2:54:05 PM, you wrote: TF Your choice is costing me money. D And exactly how much extra is it costing you? David I regret the tone of my reply (D) above. Certainly in some parts of David the world this may be a very real issue. I wanted to defend myself David against TF who seemed to be accusing me of costing him money, which I David am not. David My point was that one should look at the facts, and discern the best David course of action to take based on those facts, rather than evoking David arguments to rationalise one's prejudicial viewpoint. Sorry for the excessive quoting moderators but Thomas is right. It depends solely on how you pay for your connection. Some broadband (cable and DSL) providers, here in the U.S., have gone to a tiered system where so much over MB or GB per month incur a cost above and beyond the monthly charge. Also a business or individual running a T1, T2 or T3 line pay a monthly charge on line cost and further pay a bandwidth charge. With hundreds of HTML formatted e-mail messages arriving monthly this builds up in in cost. Thomas is absolutely correct as you have no clue what the receiver is running for a connection and what they pay for such a connection. Sorry. Anyway ... - -- Regards, DG Raftery Sr. I.R.S.: We've got what it takes to take what you've got! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 9.0b1 Comment: KeyID: 0xECFE3F95 Comment: Fingerprint: 8ABE 6728 1CB9 E231 B2C8 C29D BC22 D3D1 ECFE 3F95 iQA/AwUBP145V7wi09Hs/j+VEQImOwCeJlyKKpYjbK4K2V5hWX4ekkKWeUYAn1PJ jEoPN8dwz+t06xeDSxJ5K54R =lzTI -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
Hello DG Raftery Sr., As you may have read a few days ago in a thread with subject My new 20 lines filter, you better start your text before line 20 or I will not read any of your messages (provided you care at all if I read them or not) ;-) -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Tuesday, September 09, 2003 4:23:19 PM (GMT -05:00) RE: HTML as default on v2.00 ...? Greetings David, On Tuesday, September 9, 2003, 2:54:05 PM, you wrote: TF Your choice is costing me money. D And exactly how much extra is it costing you? David I regret the tone of my reply (D) above. Certainly in some parts of David the world this may be a very real issue. I wanted to defend myself David against TF who seemed to be accusing me of costing him money, which I David am not. Note to moderators: Top-posting done on purpose so my own message would comply with my 20 lines filter after quoting first 20 lines of DG's message :) -- Best regards, Miguel A. Urech (El Escorial - Spain) Using The Bat! v1.62i Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: WARNING(virus check bypassed): Re[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........? -- anyone else seeing this 'WARNING' prefix?
Hallo Pixie, On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 06:56:57 -0400GMT (10-9-03, 12:56 +0200, where I live), you wrote: MW Anyway, in digest mode the header on my message looks fine to me. P Does there happen to exist a command I can grab digests for the P last day or two? Not automatically. But you could ask someone to forward those digests. I you'd like to receive them, I could forward the digests to you. Only if you ask me to, of course. It wouldn't be nice for you if several of us send you all digests since Monday. Depends a bit on your connectivity whether that would be a mere nuisance or severe problems. ;-) -- Groetjes, Roelof Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
Hallo MAU, On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 13:13:30 +0200GMT (10-9-03, 13:13 +0200, where I live), you wrote: M Note to moderators: Top-posting done on purpose I suppose that's even worse than doing out of ignorance. g -- Groetjes, Roelof Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
Hello Roelof, On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 13:13:30 +0200GMT (10-9-03, 13:13 +0200, where I live), you wrote: Hey! Don't the minutes have seconds where you live? ;-) -- Best regards, Miguel A. Urech (El Escorial - Spain) Using The Bat! v1.62i Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[3]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
Tuesday, September 9, 2003, 9:50:52 PM, Vishal wrote: V Right. People like us on this list don't appreciate that. But V we aren't really representative of the majority. That is such a great point! (I wish I had made it. :) ) We techies so often forget that our view of the world is different than the typical end user. 10 years ago it was a true technical accomplishment to have an Internet connection and LAN in your own home. (I think I just strained my arm patting myself on the back. :) ) Nowadays, it's a complete no-brainer that anyone can do and the vast majority of Internet users are not technically savvy. The Internet is becoming to be treated in the same manner as automobiles. I.e. I just want it to work and don't care how it works. V Many reasons, but I know a lot of people who *like* receiving V messages with fancy stationery. Me, too. That's one of the reasons why I use TB! so that much of the HTML nonsense is filtered for me. That's my choice. Many, if not most, enjoy the background gif of a notebook, the sand on a beach, waving palms, on and on ad nauseam. -- Dave Kennedy Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
Tuesday, September 9, 2003, 5:43:27 PM, Allister wrote: A And if you can think of a case where this is so, could it be A better handled by posting a web page, or PDF file, or A attaching a PDF file to the email? 1. Acrobat Reader is not as universal as HTML even if it is a free download. 2. Posting something to a web page changes the paradigm from a push to a pull. If I have something I need people to see, I have to send an e-mail to people (push) and then get them to click a link (pull). If someone d/l's their e-mail to handle off-line, it's really painful for them. -- Dave Kennedy Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[3]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
Wednesday, September 10, 2003, 4:29:36 AM, FJ wrote: F You're turning things around here. With all communications, F the presentation and formatting lies with the originator. This F is true for newspapers, slide show presentations, snail mail F letters, email, etc.. Ding, ding, ding!!! We have a winner! Nicely said. F Concerning bad taste, people can write horribly in plain ASCII F too. Remember the phase about 7 years ago or so where the use of ASCII art became so overdone? The uproar over its use in conjunction with excessive .sigs, and we've got people on this list who sure do go overboard with theirs, was about the same as the noise about the evils of HTML e-mail. -- Dave Kennedy Here's my title Here's my place of business Here's my address Here's my clever saying Here's my e-mail version Here's my OS version and service pack Here's my ICQ Here's my secondary e-mail address Here's my tertiary e-mail address Here's my current winamp song Here's my phone number Here's my fax number Here's my cell phone number Here's my advertisement for my speaking engagement Here's my PGP signature Oh yeah, here's my web site Gets a bit much, huh? :) Notice that at least I put all this nonsense after the -- delimiter. But, hey, if you read this far you must have found it a little bit funny! :) And all of these examples I've pulled from people on TBUDL - a somewhat technical crowd. Oh, well Have a great day! Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
On Wednesday, September 10, 2003, 2:49:12 PM, Dave Kennedy wrote: The Internet is becoming to be treated in the same manner as automobiles. I.e. I just want it to work and don't care how it works. This fits in quite well with the following bit of research: - A staggering one in seven technologically challenged employees needs help even switching their computers on and off, according to research commissioned by City Guilds. The UK vocational awarding body's study of 405 random UK financial directors revealed that, despite the fact that PCs have been around for over thirty years, getting to grips with the devices is totally beyond many British office workers. A fifth were found to struggle to save a document, more than one in five need assistance printing, while a quarter cannot understand a spreadsheet. http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/67/32742.html for the details --- Julian -- Using The Bat! v2.00 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
Hello David, On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 19:54:05 +0100 GMT (10/09/2003, 01:54 +0700 GMT), David Boggon wrote: TF Your choice is costing me money. D And exactly how much extra is it costing you? BBTE Does it matter? Doing something that you know costs someone else money is BBTE rude, even if it's no more than one cent. I regret the tone of my reply (D) above. Appreciated. Certainly in some parts of the world this may be a very real issue. I wanted to defend myself against TF who seemed to be accusing me of costing him money, which I am not. You are contradicting yourself. Leif has already quantified it, I will chip in with my figures. There are about 41 Thai Baht to 1 US$. An hour of internet usage used to cost me 60 Baht. The market is now down to 10 Baht/hr, but that doesn't change the concept. We used to have 33K/s download speed, now it's 56K on most ISPs, except my main one. An HTLM message is on average 2-3 times bigger than a plaintext email, and I receive around 200 messages per day. You do the math. Now let's talk about Cambodia and Mozambique, compared to which the internet cost here are dirt cheap... My point was that one should look at the facts, and discern the best course of action to take based on those facts, rather than evoking arguments to rationalise one's prejudicial viewpoint. I am talking facts. What are you talking? -- Cheers, Thomas. Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste. Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in hospitals dying of nothing. -- Redd Foxx Message reply created with The Bat! 2.00.6 under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build A using a Pentium P4 1.7 GHz, 128MB RAM Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
Hello Dave, On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 09:49:12 -0400 GMT (10/09/2003, 20:49 +0700 GMT), Dave Kennedy wrote: The Internet is becoming to be treated in the same manner as automobiles. I.e. I just want it to work and don't care how it works. That is unfortunately true. See your own message about a certain Ford model on TBOT. V Many reasons, but I know a lot of people who *like* receiving V messages with fancy stationery. Me, too. That's one of the reasons why I use TB! so that much of the HTML nonsense is filtered for me. That's my choice. Many, if not most, enjoy the background gif of a notebook, the sand on a beach, waving palms, on and on ad nauseam. Send me a message with waving palms on the beach, and I'll blacklist you... LOL! And then I'll probably suggest you come and visit Thailand. ;-) -- Cheers, Thomas. Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste. Neulich ist ein Statistiker gestorben. Er hinterlaesst eine Frau und zweieinhalb Kinder. Message reply created with The Bat! 2.00.6 under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build A using a Pentium P4 1.7 GHz, 128MB RAM Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
Hello FJ, On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 10:29:36 +0200 GMT (10/09/2003, 15:29 +0700 GMT), FJ de Bruin wrote: MDP HTML was *never* developed or intended for use as a formatting MDP system for email. You're turning things around here. No, he isn't. What he says is historical truth. Check google for Tim Burners Lee (but don't tust my spelling, I get his name wrong every time). -- Cheers, Thomas. Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste. Mothers all want their sons to grow up to be President, but they don't want them to become politicians in the process. (John F. Kennedy) Message reply created with The Bat! 2.00.6 under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build A using a Pentium P4 1.7 GHz, 128MB RAM Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
Hello Bill, On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 19:28:01 -0400 GMT (10/09/2003, 06:28 +0700 GMT), Bill Blinn Technology Editor wrote: I'm one of the let's-avoid-HTML-mail folks, but I know that in those instances when I want to send mail that is formatted for presentation, HTML is the *only* way I can do it and hope for it to be readable by a nearly everyone who reads it. I agree with this, but the instances when HTML mail makes sense are rare. Most mails do not need HTML. -- Cheers, Thomas. Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste. Um zu antworten, bitte die From-Zeile mit ROT13 bearbeiten. Danach mit MD5 hashen, zeichenweise den ASCII-Code um 2 erhoehen (mod 57) und erneut um 63 erhoehen. Dann mit der urspruenglichen Adresse x-oren. Schliesslich am Ergebnis erfreuen und so antworten wie gewohnt. Message reply created with The Bat! 2.00.6 under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build A using a Pentium P4 1.7 GHz, 128MB RAM Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
Hello Dave, On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 10:04:02 -0400 GMT (10/09/2003, 21:04 +0700 GMT), Dave Kennedy wrote: 1. Acrobat Reader is not as universal as HTML even if it is a free download. It's only the reader than is free. 2. Posting something to a web page changes the paradigm from a push to a pull. If I have something I need people to see, I have to send an e-mail to people (push) and then get them to click a link (pull). I do the same. In the beginning, I used to attach files to email, only get many bounces: over quota. Now I just upload the files to my website, send a text message where they can download, and all is fine. If someone d/l's their e-mail to handle off-line, it's really painful for them. Most of the people I am talking about use Hotmail and read their mail online anyway... -- Cheers, Thomas. Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste. THE RED LION pub at Lacock in Wiltshire offers whisky-flavoured condoms for sale. The small print at the bottom of the machine advises: Warning-Do not drive while using this product. Message reply created with The Bat! 2.00.6 under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build A using a Pentium P4 1.7 GHz, 128MB RAM Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
Hello Sheldon, On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 16:39:53 -0700 GMT (10/09/2003, 06:39 +0700 GMT), Sheldon Schuster wrote: In my opinion, I believe there is nothing intrinsically wrong with HTML *if*, and *only if* it is used correctly according to the intent of its designers. The internet was designed for plain-text emails only. MIME attachments (allowing HTML) was added much later and under much protest. Check it out on the internet. It always amazes me that many people think the internet was invented by Outlook or AOL 6 or Al Gore... Are you still using the text based UNIX e-mail of the early '90's? Well, yes, *I* am using email. Not Hypertext messages without any sensible hyperlinks. -- Cheers, Thomas. Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste. No electrons were harmed in the creation, transmission or reading of this email. However, many were excited and some may well have enjoyed the experience. Message reply created with The Bat! 2.00.6 under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build A using a Pentium P4 1.7 GHz, 128MB RAM Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
David Boggon, [DB] wrote: DB My point was that one should look at the facts, Many seem to resist the facts of the matter. :/ We speak about bandwidth, problems with accurate reproducability at the recipients end, the fact that the recipient is forced to read using fonts and font sizing that they may not like or literally find difficult to read. At least in Opera, I can quickly zoom in on text I find difficult to read, or just use the CSS support to change the text styles. Not so with HTML mail. You're just stuck! I don't know how much more facts are needed. People say HTML is here to stay, and I say, so is crime. Does that make crime a good thing or something we should all embrace?? DB and discern the best course of action to take based on those facts, DB rather than evoking arguments to rationalise one's prejudicial DB viewpoint. It's not a prejudice. We have practical concerns and unfortunately, it would seem that the scope and validity of these concerns aren't *really* appreciated unless one is really experiencing them. DB As my last contribution to this thread, I just want to say I have DB found the discussion informative, but that I do not wish to be DB identified (demonised) as someone who advocates HTML... I wouldn't go as far as to demonize anyone who advocates using HTML mail. I do see a place for it but only in the case of a few exceptions and where the HTML mail composer fully understands the issues and uses an appropriate client. Some HTML formatted newsletters I receive are nicely done. However, private HTML mail is usually more a problem than a solution. I'm subscribed to a busy mailing list where about 40% of the e-mail is HTML formatted. I just wish I could have you sit beside me and take a look at the mail on my monitor and with my resolution. It's tedious to the point of completely unreasonable to read the HTML versions. Thank goodness that TB! is capable of always presenting me with a plain text version. DB I sense a lot of strong feeling on the list about this. Yeah. Because we've had to deal with the problems with it. It's not just about colour. We do like colours and nice fonts. DB I do advocate informed choice. Indeed. It's my strong opinion, but an opinion anyway, that the decision to use HTML formatted mail by default, isn't an informed one. The fact that so many people are using it doesn't make it a good format. The fact that so many people use Win9x doesn't make it the better OS to use. DB Since coming to TB! I have been somewhat converted to plain text DB myself, and like many who have contributed, find it more than DB adequate for most of my mail. It still seems obvious to me that DB Ritlabs is making a judgement about HTML in the way it has DB configured TB!, and if this is a considered stance based on the DB principal of the thing, I applaud it wholeheartedly. Here, here!!! -- -= allie_M =- | List Moderator PGPKeys: http://www.ac-martin.com/pgpkeys.html _ pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
David Boggon, [DB] wrote: DB With respect, the way a thing is presented is never usually the DB responsibility of the person to whom it is presented. We are always DB presenting ourselves and what we do in a particular way, whether we DB (or anyone else) likes it or not. Hmmm. I usually try to present myself in a way that will not be frowned upon by others. I don't simply present myself any way I wish to. I have to consider what will make my audience uncomfortable and avoid those things if I can. I'm sure you do the same thing and I think this is what Marck is referring to. DB The power the recipient has is in choosing to receive it or not. Not only that. The recipient should have the power to make the text he reads, a size that is comfortable for him to read. The recipient should have the power to choose a font that he prefers to read with. I hear Jamie saying that he hates Comic Sans. I know others who really like it. If one of those others send an HTML message containing tags to use Comic Sans when displaying the message, is that fair to Jamie? When using plain text, this is never an issue. You compose with what font you like and we read your message with what font we like. -- -= allie_M =- | List Moderator PGPKeys: http://www.ac-martin.com/pgpkeys.html _ pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
Dave Kennedy, [DK] wrote: DK That is such a great point! (I wish I had made it. :) ) DK We techies so often forget that our view of the world is different DK than the typical end user. And you know why? We are in the know and they're not. :) We know the problems with HTML and they don't. They have an excuse for abusing it in that they don't know better. I usually sympathize and I never really get annoyed with it. I even read them. :) It's an entirely different matter to have the problems presented to someone and they still advocate HTML!! ducking and running -- -= allie_M =- | List Moderator PGPKeys: http://www.ac-martin.com/pgpkeys.html _ pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
Am I missing something, or is it not possible for the HTML editor in v2.00 to be set as the default? I was expecting much fuller HTML editing support in v2.00 ... i.e. HTML default editor HTML templates. I don't want to open a can of worms here (or maybe I do) but what is wrong with using HTML in email? what is behind TB's relegation of HTML to the backburner? I've heard the purists talk of 'bloatmail'/bandwidth issues, but why is this such an issue? Surely the enormous formatting flexibility available with HTML email outweighs the bandwidth issue. After all, we're not on the brink of bandwidth rationing, are we? I appreciate some of us pay for the bandwidth we use, but text only HTML emails will use a negligible amount of extra bandwidth compared to plain text ones. Isn't this correct? Is it a reaction to the practices of spammers the influence of MS? or something more technical? I can make plain text messages look OK in TB! but I'm aware whenever I send mail that the P.T. usually looks pretty dreadful on recipient's machines. woops! ... gone a bit OT. -- David Boggon [EMAIL PROTECTED] The International Centre for Nonviolent Communication: http://www.cnvc.org Using The Bat! 2.00 on Windows 2000 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
David Boggon, [DB] wrote: DB Am I missing something, or is it not possible for the HTML editor in DB v2.00 to be set as the default? It's not possible. DB I was expecting much fuller HTML editing support in v2.00 ... i.e. DB HTML default editor HTML templates. HTML mail really aught to be composed only in exceptional circumstances. In those circumstances, manually enabling it isn't tedious. I think Ritlabs likely supports a similar view. The problem with HTML mail is its overwhelming abuse. The ability to make it the default editor encourages such abuse. DB I've heard the purists talk of 'bloatmail'/bandwidth issues, but why DB is this such an issue? The default use of HTML mail does increase bandwidth use. If one person does so it's negligible. When the whole internet community decides to do so, it's an enormous increase in bandwidth use. DB Surely the enormous formatting flexibility available with HTML email DB outweighs the bandwidth issue. In all but a few exceptions, I'd think not. DB After all, we're not on the brink of bandwidth rationing, are we? For many, bandwidth is still a serious consideration in terms of cost and in terms of download speeds. DB I appreciate some of us pay for the bandwidth we use, but text only DB HTML emails will use a negligible amount of extra bandwidth compared DB to plain text ones. Isn't this correct? In the main, yes, but there are other problems. DB Is it a reaction to the practices of spammers the influence of MS? DB or something more technical? HTML formatted mail takes away the control from your readers. I hate when HTML mail forces me to read it with a particular font and font size. Not to mention that HTML mail is notorious for looking different from what the sender intended. There are a lot of past threads looking at this issue of HTML mail. I suggest running a search for them on the TBUDL archives. DB I can make plain text messages look OK in TB! but I'm aware whenever I DB send mail that the P.T. usually looks pretty dreadful on recipient's DB machines. Would you explain this further? -- -= allie_M =- | List Moderator PGPKeys: http://www.ac-martin.com/pgpkeys.html _ pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
David, On 09-09-2003 12:59, you [D] wrote in mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: D I've heard the purists talk of 'bloatmail'/bandwidth issues, but why D is this such an issue? Because an HTML mail is at least 3 times the size of a plain text mail. -- greeting Best regards /greeting author Peter Fjelsten /author thebat version 2.00.6 /thebat version os Windows XP 5.1.2600 Service Pack 1/os Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
Hello David, On 09/09/2003, 12:59:41 (My Time), you wrote: DB Surely the enormous formatting flexibility available with HTML DB email outweighs the bandwidth issue. After all, we're not on the DB brink of bandwidth rationing, are we? Some users connect their laptops using GPRS Phones, and they pay for received/sent packets, not for connection time. They *hate* HTML because it increases their bills, and that outweighs formatting flexibility for sure. -- Chema Berian ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Moderator, Spanish The Bat! User Discussion List (GDUTB) More info Here: http://www.gdutb.org Using SecureBat! 1.62s on Windows XP Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
Hi Allie, DB I can make plain text messages look OK in TB! but I'm aware whenever I DB send mail that the P.T. usually looks pretty dreadful on recipient's DB machines. AM Would you explain this further? I was thinking back to my Outlook Express days ... plain text messages looked, well, plain. I either didn't know or didn't care that I could configure the display font, and the different colours for lines of reply which TB is capable of was not so in OE, for instance. Many end users don't know enough/have enough time/have the inclination to delve into the plain text display settings of their client, and so plain text messages with fixed width fonts and no bold italics and font sizes/colours look very plain indeed beside their HTML counterparts. AM The problem with HTML mail is its overwhelming abuse. The ability to AM make it the default editor encourages such abuse. Hmmm. While some people who use HTML mail may abuse it, it is the spammers etc themselves who are at fault, not HTML, I think. AM I hate when HTML mail forces me to read it with a particular font and font AM size. Well yes, that's precisely my point. TB too makes it difficult for people to exercise the choice of HTML over plain text, for those prefering HTML who are also responsible users. But this is a political issue as well as a preferential one. Having said all this, if it really is an issue of principle, I applaude TB! for not selling out. The purist attitude to me does seem a little groupy, though ... and I wonder how sustainable it is in reality. -- David Boggon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Narcissism is a necessary transitional phase during the consolidation of the ego. - Eric Neumann Using The Bat! 2.00 on Windows 2000 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
It seems that David Boggon said ... D Many end users don't know enough/have enough time/have the inclination D to delve into the plain text display settings of their client, and so D plain text messages with fixed width fonts and no bold italics and D font sizes/colours look very plain indeed beside their HTML D counterparts. If the goal is COMMUNICATION, plain text wins. If the goal is making it pretty, HTML wins. I receive a lot of HTML messages that look like ransom notes. If I have 557 fonts, then I'm going to use every one of them in every message, the user seems to think, and at least 7,000,000 of the 16.7 million available to me. Yecch. -- Bill Blinn Technology Editor ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - 9/9/2003 at 8:56 AM Technology Editor, Newsradio 610 WTVN, Columbus, Ohio Using The Bat! v2.00.6 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 Random thought: Trust I seek and I find in you, everyday to eat something new. Featured speaker at PowerPoint Live - Tucson, Arizona October 12-15, 2003 - http://www.pptlive.com/ Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
On Tuesday, September 9, 2003, 6:59:41 AM, David Boggon wrote: DB I don't want to open a can of worms here (or maybe I do) but what is DB wrong with using HTML in email? what is behind TB's relegation of DB HTML to the backburner? DB I've heard the purists talk of 'bloatmail'/bandwidth issues, but why DB is this such an issue? It's an issue for those who have to pay for it. That means those who pay for internet access by the bandwidth used, or who have a limit placed on their bandwidth usage by their ISP, or who pay by the minute (because more bandwidth = longer download times). DB Surely the enormous formatting flexibility available with HTML email DB outweighs the bandwidth issue. After all, we're not on the brink of DB bandwidth rationing, are we? I appreciate some of us pay for the DB bandwidth we use, but text only HTML emails will use a negligible DB amount of extra bandwidth compared to plain text ones. Isn't this DB correct? An email in HTML is always at least twice the size of the same thing in plain-text, since it includes both the plain-text version the same message with HTML tags. So while it might be negligible for each small, individual email, it's certainly not negligible for large emails or for lots of emails added together. Other disadvantages of HTML: - HTML slows the recipient's computer - not always noticeably, but it always does. - HTML email doesn't work for all recipients - HTML email can connect to the internet by itself. If an email in HTML includes reference to external pages, the user's computer will try to download those images as soon as the message is selected, unless the software allows the user the option not to do so, the user has selected that option. - The images within HTML can be used to set and retrieve cookies. - HTML email renders slowly. In some email readers, the page can take a long time to render. Some people won't wait. - If you send HTML email to an email list, it may appear on some systems, or in digests, with all its HTML tags - which makes it virtually unreadable. - HTML cannot be forwarded intact. Advantages of HTML: - You can put pretty pictures backgrounds font-colours in your messages. -- Deborah Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
Hi Dajabo, @9-Sep-2003, 13:39 David Boggon [D] in mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said to Allie: D Many end users don't know enough/have enough time/have the D inclination to delve into the plain text display settings of D their client, and so plain text messages with fixed width fonts D and no bold italics and font sizes/colours look very plain D indeed beside their HTML counterparts. ... so, for the (possible) aesthetic pleasure of those (few) users, you want to wrench the capability from the hands of all others by imposing your preferred formatting on *their* mail? No fair! AM The problem with HTML mail is its overwhelming abuse. The AM ability to make it the default editor encourages such abuse. D Hmmm. While some people who use HTML mail may abuse it, it is the D spammers etc themselves who are at fault, not HTML, I think. That is not correct. The fault lies in the ability to write over-formatted messages. It's like Kid + Candy store = dog's dinner. One man's meat is another man's poison. Just because a puce background with bright green text and an orange polka-dot margin looks *great* to Ian when he sent the message, trust me, most recipients are gonna throw up! HTML was *never* developed or intended for use as a formatting system for email. It is a presentation system for served pages, intended for transmission with the HyperText Transfer Protocol (HTTP, yes?). Mail is simple text intended for transmission with the Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP, yes?). The fusion of the two has led to over-use of bandwidth, bad taste and imposition on the recipient, whose choice it *should* be! AM I hate when HTML mail forces me to read it with a particular AM font and font size. Precisely. D Well yes, that's precisely my point. It's not. It's the opposite of your point! D TB too makes it difficult for people to exercise the choice of D HTML over plain text, for those prefering HTML who are also D responsible users. On the whole, no. Most people who write HTML mail do so to impose formatting and presentation on the recipient. That is already an abuse of responsibility. D But this is a political issue as well as a preferential one. Not really. The HTTP vs SMTP is political, maybe. The HTML allows me to present how *I* want is a violation of the receiver's right to read with the presentation *I* want. D Having said all this, if it really is an issue of principle, I D applaude TB! for not selling out. The purist attitude to me does D seem a little groupy, though ... and I wonder how sustainable it D is in reality. Very. There are enormous swathes of folk that subscribe to the many Keep it ASCII campaigns. Having said that, I will dive straight for HTML format when I want to send a map or two and directions to someone. But *never* when I just have a textual message to write. *Bold* /Italic/ and _underline_ text is a simple convention, just a couple of keystrokes of overhead and very clear and easy to read. -- Cheers -- .\\arck D Pearlstone -- List moderator TB! v2.00.6 on Windows XP 5.1.2600 Service Pack 1 pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[3]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
Tuesday, September 9, 2003, 8:59:49 AM, Bill wrote: B If the goal is COMMUNICATION, plain text wins. If the goal is You are trying to emphasize COMMUNICATION, right? That's why it's capitalized? I wonder if HTML would have been able to present that across better by using italics or bold font? B making it pretty, HTML wins. That's kind of a simple-minded view. Presentation counts. There have been a few snipes recently about how FoxMail does a lousy job at wrapping lines, etc. That's presentation and it clearly matters to even us plain-text techy types. B I receive a lot of HTML messages that look like ransom notes. Great simile! B If I have 557 fonts, then I'm going to use every one of them B in every message, Agreed. It's just like the early days of the Apple LaserWriter and all those hideous print newsletters that came out with 557 fonts all over it. Still, we survived those days. I'm disappointed to learn that the HTML editor on TB is as weak as being presented and that you can't make it the default. These discussions kind of remind me of Mac users defending their black white screens when Windows came out with color screen. Who needs color? It just slows things down and doesn't add anything! Having gone through many of these cycles, it's clear there will always be some who fight the progress that is inexorable and others who adapt. Lest you think that I'm a big HTML fan, I'm really not. I made out quite well with nroff/troff. However, there is this thing called momentum that HTML surely has. Even the fact that RIT has provided, however reluctantly, an HTML editor shows how much demand there is for it. -- Dave Kennedy Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
David Boggon, [DB] wrote: DB Having said all this, if it really is an issue of principle, I DB applaude TB! for not selling out. The purist attitude to me does DB seem a little groupy, though ... and I wonder how sustainable it is DB in reality. The direction of conventions/standards as these are largely based on user demands. This is why, despite all the problems, HTML mail is here. I'm not really against rich text formatting. HTML is just not the way to go about it. It causes problems and it's not efficient. -- -= allie_M =- | List Moderator PGPKeys: http://www.ac-martin.com/pgpkeys.html _ pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[4]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
It seems that Dave Kennedy said ... D That's kind of a simple-minded view. Presentation counts. There D have been a few snipes recently about how FoxMail does a lousy D job at wrapping lines, etc. That's presentation and it clearly D matters to even us plain-text techy types. That's because I'm a simple-minded curmudgeon, but I'm also a marketing guy and I contend that MOST messages can be communicated at least as well with plain text (and without the double or triple overhead) as with HTML. When presentation requires HTML, I use it; most of the time, it's needed and wanted about as much as my cat needs and wants a tuxedo and top hat. -- Bill Blinn Technology Editor ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - 9/9/2003 at 9:51 AM Technology Editor, Newsradio 610 WTVN, Columbus, Ohio Using The Bat! v2.00.6 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 Random thought: Bad officials are elected by good citizens who do not vote. - George Jean Nathan. Featured speaker at PowerPoint Live - Tucson, Arizona October 12-15, 2003 - http://www.pptlive.com/ Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
Hello David, Tuesday, September 9, 2003, 11:59:41 AM, you wrote: DB I don't want to open a can of worms here (or maybe I do) but what DB is wrong with using HTML in email? I'm a broadband user so I don't care about bandwidth so it's a most point for me. Most people are never going to be graphic designers because they have no artistic ability or colour sense. However, these people feel a terrible urge to inflict their eye destroying fonts and colours on me. It's usually the case that the less ability a person has to choose colours, the more likely their mails are to have them. I'm also terribly prejudiced against fonts, if you want me to think you're a 5 year old feel free to use Comic Sans, otherwise use a businesslike font. It's a pain for me to have to set things up so that stupid unreadable fonts are displayed correctly. The next point is the fact that e-mails don't need fancy formatting 99% of the time. Most of the non mailing list mails I receive are devoid of punctuation and are usually written in one CASE OR THE OTHER. Oh, html mail, not I can see some AOLer shouting in blue text on a fluorescent pink background. If you mail isn't important enough to be written correctly, why do you need formatting? I know not everyone misuses html mail, but enough do and I can see no real benefits for it. If you're formatting is so wonderful, convert it to a pdf and send it as an attachment, then I won't lose any of it's wonderfulness. -- Jamie Dainton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Leaders of the world's richest nations meet in Cancun on September 10th 2003. Oxfam is presenting them with a petition to make trade fair. Be sure your voice is heard. Sign the 'Big Noise' petition to make trade fair at: http://www.maketradefair.com/go/join/?p=omf1 Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
Hi Marck, on 9/9/03 we wrote: AM I hate when HTML mail forces me to read it with a particular AM font and font size. MDP Precisely. D Well yes, that's precisely my point. MDP It's not. It's the opposite of your point! My point is freedom of choice D TB too makes it difficult for people to exercise the choice of D HTML over plain text, for those prefering HTML who are also D responsible users. MDP On the whole, no. Most people who write HTML mail do so to impose MDP formatting and presentation on the recipient. That is already an MDP abuse of responsibility. With respect, the way a thing is presented is never usually the responsibility of the person to whom it is presented. We are always presenting ourselves and what we do in a particular way, whether we (or anyone else) likes it or not. The power the recipient has is in choosing to receive it or not. This seems like a complex issue, and I appreciate the technical background to it, but the widespread usage and general appeal of HTML messaging means it isn't going to go away in a hurry. The more relevant question, which Allie has just alluded to, seems to me how we can make HTML-type mailing better, addressing the issues some of us have raised here. -- David Boggon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Using The Bat! 2.00 on Windows 2000 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
Tuesday, September 9, 2003, 10:08:21 AM, Jamie wrote: I'm also terribly prejudiced against fonts, if you want me to think you're a 5 year old feel free to use Comic Sans, otherwise use a businesslike font. It's a pain for me to have to set things up so that stupid unreadable fonts are displayed correctly. Interesting, I happen to really dislike left/right justification of fixed-width fonts. It's very distracting to read. Actually, it's only mildly annoying, kind of like that Comic Sans, which I also dislike. The point is that different people have different preferences. I would _never_ send out a left right justified e-mail, you must think it's kind of cool. (Wrong! :) ) I like TB!'s handling of HTML e-mails where it strips out the meat of the message and ignores the rest. If I want to see the message in all its glory I click on a tab and there it is (minus the dangerous stuff). I'd still like for TB! to allow me as the end-user to select the HTML editor as my default editor. I mean. really, there is an option to turn on/off the little menu navigator thingy that I ignored for at least a year until learning to how turn it off yesterday. Can't we have one little-itty-bitty check-box that says Use HTML Editor as Default? 'Nuff said. -- Dave Kennedy Where is nroff when you need it? Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
Hi Deborah Tuesday, September 9, 2003, 9:01:10 AM, you wrote: DW - HTML slows the recipient's computer - not always noticeably, but it DW always does. Would you elaborate on this? Rendering might be slower, but the computer as a whole? The rendering does not take up so much extra CPU power that the computer as a whole would be observed to slow down. Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
Hi Marck Tuesday, September 9, 2003, 9:11:20 AM, you wrote: D Hmmm. While some people who use HTML mail may abuse it, it is the D spammers etc themselves who are at fault, not HTML, I think. MDP That is not correct. The fault lies in the ability to write MDP over-formatted messages. I think it *is* correct. The ability is not at fault. If someone chooses to take it over the edge, that's his prerogative, and his fault, not the system's. HTML provides a capability - either use it or abuse it. That said, I'm a fan of plain text email myself. Most tasks can be accomplished easily with it and it definitely seems cleaner. Very rarely do I see the need for HTMl mail. The only reason I'd want to do something like that would be to change the font to, say, Verdana which has great on-screen legibility. Nothing outlandish. Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
Hi Dhrakol, @9-Sep-2003, 11:03 -0400 (16:03 UK time) Vishal [D] in mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said to Marck: D Hmmm. While some people who use HTML mail may abuse it, it is D the spammers etc themselves who are at fault, not HTML, I D think. MDP That is not correct. The fault lies in the ability to write MDP over-formatted messages. D I think it *is* correct. You believe the statement HTML spam is the reason that HTML mail is despised is correct? Surely not! D The ability is not at fault. I didn't say it was. The ability to *write over-formatted messages* - thus to *use* the facility /freely/ - is at fault, not the ability itself - the provision of the facility. The selective quote is leading to a misunderstanding. I should probably have made myself clearer. D If someone chooses to take it over the edge, that's his D prerogative, and his fault, not the system's. That's a paraphrase of what I actually said. Although I don't consider it his prerogative, since his intent is to impose it on me. There is a responsibility issue there. D HTML provides a capability - either use it or abuse it. The problem is that more abuse than use, when even just the use is widely unwelcome. Widely? Well, ISTM the truth of the matter is the vast majority are *completely indifferent* on this issue - they use OE - it gives them HTML - they use it and have no idea whether they like to or not. Of those expressing a preference you will find the majority of them *against* the indiscriminate use of HTML in email. D That said, I'm a fan of plain text email myself. Most tasks can D be accomplished easily with it and it definitely seems cleaner. Precisely. D Very rarely do I see the need for HTMl mail. As I have already said, I have had such occasion myself. But that's one mail in maybe a couple of hundred. D The only reason I'd want to do something like that would be to D change the font to, say, Verdana which has great on-screen D legibility. Nothing outlandish. I would never do that. The person receiving my message has a favourite reading font. They have told their mail program Display my incoming mail in this way. Note: My incoming mail. Not Your message. Once he's received it, it's his, to view as he considers optimal. That's the main point that HTML mail (oxymoron) ignores. -- Cheers -- .\\arck D Pearlstone -- List moderator TB! v2.00.6 on Windows XP 5.1.2600 Service Pack 1 pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
Hello David, On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 15:17:11 +0100 GMT (09/09/2003, 21:17 +0700 GMT), David Boggon wrote: MDP It's not. It's the opposite of your point! My point is freedom of choice Your choice is costing me money. But I'm still lucky; the days of paying extremely high prices per minute of internet online time at 33K modem speed with unreliable connections are finally over, the internet has become affordable in Thailand. Nevertheless, a mail in HTML is 2-3 times bigger than a plain text mail, and I have got 56K speed on my modem only recently. But my friend is in Mozambique, and if his internet connection wasn't on company cost... If you send messages only to countries in which broadband flatrates are the norm, I don't care (except that HTML mails are ugly, and if there is no formatting on your side, I really don't see any point at all. And if you choose to highlight in pink with a yellow background, I won't be able to reply before puking). But only a minority of internet users has broadband anyway. so why do you advocate HTML mails? -- Cheers, Thomas. Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste. 10. A computer program will always do what you tell it to do, but rarely what you want it to do. Message reply created with The Bat! 2.00.6 under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build A using a Pentium P4 1.7 GHz, 128MB RAM Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
Hi Thomas, on 9/9/03 you wrote: My point is freedom of choice TF Your choice is costing me money. And exactly how much extra is it costing you? TF so why do you advocate HTML mails? I never said I did. -- David Boggon [EMAIL PROTECTED] The UN estimates that the world's poorest countries are denied $700 billion because of unfair trade rules. (source: Christian Aid) http://kickaas.typepad.com http://www.maketradefair.com Using The Bat! 2.00 on Windows 2000 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
It seems that David Boggon said ... TF Your choice is costing me money. D And exactly how much extra is it costing you? Does it matter? Doing something that you know costs someone else money is rude, even if it's no more than one cent. -- Bill Blinn Technology Editor ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - 9/9/2003 at 1:50 PM Technology Editor, Newsradio 610 WTVN, Columbus, Ohio Using The Bat! v2.00.6 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 Random thought: Bureaucrat, n.: A person who cuts red tape sideways. Featured speaker at PowerPoint Live - Tucson, Arizona October 12-15, 2003 - http://www.pptlive.com/ Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
Hello David, Tuesday, September 9, 2003, 11:40:14 AM, you wrote: DB And exactly how much extra is it costing you? The point isn't so much how much you individually are costing someone, but the collective of all e-mail, and what it costs everyone. 1. Let's say it costs 2 cents for someone to receive an HTML e-mail vs. 1 cent to receive a plaintext e-mail. Now let's take someone who averages 50 e-mail a day (spam included). Now let's take that per year. 1 year of HTML e-mail = $365.00 1 year of plaintext e-mail = $182.50 I can think of a million things I'd like to spend that money on rather than HTML e-mail because someone likes cutesy colors and fat fonts. Now, I chose 1 and 2 cents arbitrarily, but as we become more mobile, and want our e-mail with us everywhere, cost can become a big issue. Luckily, I'm in the U.S. where I pay a flat fee regardless of how much, or how little e-mail I get on my Cable connection. Conversely, when I'm mobile, it costs a *great* deal more. Paying $40.00 for 500 minutes, HTML mail gobbles my airtime. In the U.S. rates are pretty cheap. In other countries, even their home internet access costs them money. Minutes are consumables, just like toner and paper in a fax machine, and the reason they passed the junk FAX law. When I have unlimited airtime for a flat fee, then I might reconsider. Now take the HTML mail to a global scale. $365 x millions and eventually billions of people per year. Yeah, that's a serious waste of money. 2. Most mobile devices have limited space. Why would I want an HTML message twice the size of a plaintext one with no value added eating up all my available memory. Download 10 messages, delete 8 HTML messages, download 8 or 9 more, delete 7 HTML messages ad-infinitum. There's a time and place for HTML e-mail. There are some discounter outdoors companies that send me HTML e-mail showing their latest and greatest deals with pics of the items for me to see. I like that, I asked to receive them. However, I don't need a one line e-mail from a friend saying they'll be over in an hour with some animated background image of trees swaying. -- Leif (TB list moderator and fellow end user). Using The Bat! 2.00 under Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 3 on a Pentium 4 2GHz with 512MB Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
Hello Leif, The point isn't so much how much you individually are costing someone, but the collective of all e-mail, and what it costs everyone. snipped However, I don't need a one line e-mail from a friend saying they'll be over in an hour with some animated background image of trees swaying. CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! Fully agree. :) -- Best regards, Miguel A. Urech (El Escorial - Spain) Using The Bat! v1.62i Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
Tuesday, September 9, 2003, 1:14:57 PM, Thomas wrote: T Your choice is costing me money. Outlandish HTML e-mail (with the dangerous stuff filtered by TB!) is mildly annoying. However, SPAM causes me much more heartache. In the past 6 months, I've received ~15,000 e-mails. Of those ~7,000 are SPAM. That uses more bandwidth by far than the HTML e-mails. I'd like to see a way to identify these suckers on the server and blow them away! -- Dave Kennedy Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
TF Your choice is costing me money. D And exactly how much extra is it costing you? BBTE Does it matter? Doing something that you know costs someone else money is BBTE rude, even if it's no more than one cent. I regret the tone of my reply (D) above. Certainly in some parts of the world this may be a very real issue. I wanted to defend myself against TF who seemed to be accusing me of costing him money, which I am not. My point was that one should look at the facts, and discern the best course of action to take based on those facts, rather than evoking arguments to rationalise one's prejudicial viewpoint. As my last contribution to this thread, I just want to say I have found the discussion informative, but that I do not wish to be identified (demonised) as someone who advocates HTML...I sense a lot of strong feeling on the list about this. I do advocate informed choice. Since coming to TB! I have been somewhat converted to plain text myself, and like many who have contributed, find it more than adequate for most of my mail. It still seems obvious to me that Ritlabs is making a judgement about HTML in the way it has configured TB!, and if this is a considered stance based on the principal of the thing, I applaud it wholeheartedly. -- David Boggon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Developed nations constitute only 20% of the world's population, yet consume 86% of the world's goods. (source: UNHDR 2000/2001) Using The Bat! 2.00 on Windows 2000 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
09-Sep-2003 15:01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - HTML cannot be forwarded intact. That depends on the mailer. At work I'm forwarding HTML messages intact all the time (with Outlook - not that I like Outlook as a mailer!). -- Best regards, Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.de) Dilbert's Words of Wisdom: Last night I lay in bed looking up at the stars in the sky and I thought to myself, Where the heck is the ceiling?! Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
ON Tuesday, September 9, 2003, 8:17:47 PM, you wrote: LG There's a time and place for HTML e-mail. There are some discounter LG outdoors companies that send me HTML e-mail showing their latest and LG greatest deals with pics of the items for me to see. I like that, I LG asked to receive them. However, I don't need a one line e-mail from a LG friend saying they'll be over in an hour with some animated background LG image of trees swaying. Hi Leif, Anything can be used in a right and a wrong way. If you receive one line e-mail from a friend saying they'll be over in an hour with some animated background image of trees swaying, it has more to do with your friend and your choice of friends then his email program. -- Best regards, Gerard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= A golf course is the epitome of all that is purely transitory in the universe, a space not to dwell in, but to get over as quickly as possible. Using The Bat! v1.62r on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
On Tuesday, 9 September 2003, at 10:59:41 p.m., David Boggon wrote: I don't want to open a can of worms here (or maybe I do) but what is wrong with using HTML in email? what is behind TB's relegation of HTML to the backburner? Well, the can is well and truly opened! In my opinion, I believe there is nothing intrinsically wrong with HTML *if*, and *only if* it is used correctly according to the intent of its designers. Elsewhere in this thread are mentions of abusing HTML in emails. Let's face it, HTML is abused far more on the web than in email. I think everyone in this thread who is supporting the use of HTML in emails should read the HTML 4.01 specification - all of it. Then you will understand that HTML is a /semantic/ markup language. It is _*NOT*_ a presentation tool. And, more importantly, you will understand *why* this is the case. If you want pretty emails (if only in your own eyes) then use RTF which is designed to pretty-up text. It is only the sheer popularity of HTML (due to the web) and the short-sightedness of popular email client vendors (and, I suppose latterly, market forces) that led to HTML emails in the first place. If you are about to say RTF isn't supported in emails, you'd be half right. HTML isn't intrinsically supported by the SMTP protocol is it? It's your client that does things differently. So you *can* have RTF in emails. Back to my opening point, if you want to use HTML, then it must be for reasons of semantics. There is no bold or italic any more, there is emphasis and strong emphasis - which the recipient can choose how they want to display. Also, tables contain tabulated data (yes, really!) and not graphics that join up, and have (th) heading and (td) data cells. Now, sometimes, presentation is important. For instance, when you want to sell something (oops, did somebody mention SPAM?). Thinking really hard, how often is presentation *important* for the contents of an email that is not SPAM. And if you can think of a case where this is so, could it be better handled by posting a web page, or PDF file, or attaching a PDF file to the email? If anything, then, should we be asking RIT Labs for CSS support? Oh, and if you cry 'not practical' to HTML+CSS because of poor support in mainstream products, that is no excuse. If everybody didn't bother because of this, we'd not be as far down the track as we are today. You *are* the masses. Go with standards! -- Regards, Allister. Using The Bat! v2.00.6 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
Hello Gerard, Tuesday, September 9, 2003, 3:08:30 PM, you wrote: G Anything can be used in a right and a wrong way. If you receive one G line e-mail from a friend saying they'll be over in an hour with G some animated background image of trees swaying, it has more to do G with your friend and your choice of friends then his email program. Oh, I absolutely agree with you 100%. Except, when an e-mail client has HTML e-mail turned on by default, I can guarantee you 99% of the end users will abuse HTML e-mail. That's a guarantee!!! I should know, I manage the SMTP gateway and mail servers for nearly 5,000 people in a corporate environment which is based off Lotus Notes which has HTML e-mail enabled by default. The end users don't know any better. It drives me completely insane how many people send little one liners with big background pics, cutesy HTML fonts and colors. Things like going away parties, retirement parties, birthday parties, furniture up for grabs (they usually embed pics of this stuff) etc.. It just doesn't quit. -- Leif (TB list moderator and fellow end user). Using The Bat! 2.00 under Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 3 on a Pentium 4 2GHz with 512MB Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
At 5:43 PM on 9/9/2003, Allister Jenks typed ... A I think everyone in this thread who is supporting the use of HTML in A emails should read the HTML 4.01 specification - all of it. Then you A will understand that HTML is a /semantic/ markup language. It is A _*NOT*_ a presentation tool. And, more importantly, you will A understand *why* this is the case. (Something tells me this has veered into TBOT territory, so this is my final post -- here or there -- on the topic ) HTML is a semantic/markup language in the same way that a rhinoceros is a paperweight. The HTML spec was flawed from the beginning and has been modified over the years so that it's now even worse. I wouldn't design a website without CSS and I'm beginning to follow XHTML standards on sites I'm involved with because enough browsers follow enough of the standards well enough that following the standards works. It's true that HTML wasn't intended for use in e-mail programs, but the world is full of instances of things being used for tasks they're not intended to accomplish. Why? Because they do what people want to do well enough. Besides that, as a list owner, I can tell you that HTML-laden posts cause a lot less trouble than RTF-filled posts. I'm one of the let's-avoid-HTML-mail folks, but I know that in those instances when I want to send mail that is formatted for presentation, HTML is the *only* way I can do it and hope for it to be readable by a nearly everyone who reads it. -- Bill Blinn Technology Editor ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - 9/9/2003 at 7:26 PM Technology Editor, Newsradio 610 WTVN, Columbus, Ohio Using The Bat! v2.00.6 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 Random thought: CAT (n): 1. Furry keyboard cover 2. Alarm clock. 3. A walking ego with fur. Featured speaker at PowerPoint Live - Tucson, Arizona October 12-15, 2003 - http://www.pptlive.com/ Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
In my opinion, I believe there is nothing intrinsically wrong with HTML *if*, and *only if* it is used correctly according to the intent of its designers. Elsewhere in this thread are mentions of abusing HTML in email. Let's face it, HTML is abused far more on the web than in email. I think everyone in this thread who is supporting the use of HTML in emails should read the HTML 4.01 specification - all of it. Then you will understand that HTML is a /semantic/ markup language. It is _*NOT*_ a presentation tool. And, more importantly, you will understand *why* this is the case. If you want pretty emails (if only in your own eyes) then use RTF which is designed to pretty-up text. It is only the sheer popularity of HTML (due to the web) and the short-sightedness of popular email client vendors (and, I suppose latterly, market forces) that led to HTML emails in the first place. If you are about to say RTF isn't supported in emails, you'd be half right. HTML isn't intrinsically supported by the SMTP protocol is it? It's your client that does things differently. So you *can* have RTF in emails. Back to my opening point, if you want to use HTML, then it must be for reasons of semantics. Hello, Allister Jenks, When did you become a member of the Gestapo HMTL police? HTML is not a static entity--it is a dynamic changing standard that changes as new user interests and technology develope. Are you still using the text based UNIX e-mail of the early '90's? === At 2003-09-10, 09:43:00 you wrote: === Best regards. Sheldon Schuster [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2003-09-09 Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
Hi Leif Tuesday, September 9, 2003, 2:17:47 PM, you wrote: LGNow take the HTML mail to a global scale. $365 x millions and LGeventually billions of people per year. Yeah, that's a serious LGwaste of money. Assuming, of course, that your estimations were correct. You said yourself that they were arbitrary, so a claim that HTML mail costs hundreds of millions extra a year isn't really valid. Add to that the fact that many people consider a fair amount of those emails useful, and the damage doesn't look so bad. LG 2. Most mobile devices have limited space. Why would I want an HTML LGmessage twice the size of a plaintext one with no value added LGeating up all my available memory. I wouldn't say they have no value added. A lot of people like HTML mail. For them that's value. LGHowever, I don't need a one line e-mail from a LG friend saying they'll be over in an hour with some animated background LG image of trees swaying. Right. People like us on this list don't appreciate that. But we aren't really representative of the majority. People think of email in different ways. The average end user thinks about how to make his messages look good, perhaps tries to relieve some of the monotony of plain email, perhaps have some fun doing something which isn't always fun when you deal with a lot of it. Many reasons, but I know a lot of people who *like* receiving messages with fancy stationery. I don't see that changing. Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
Hi Marck Tuesday, September 9, 2003, 12:13:35 PM, you wrote: D Hmmm. While some people who use HTML mail may abuse it, it is D the spammers etc themselves who are at fault, not HTML, I D think. MDP That is not correct. The fault lies in the ability to write MDP over-formatted messages. D I think it *is* correct. MDP You believe the statement HTML spam is the reason that HTML mail is MDP despised is correct? Surely not! Nope. I believe the statement While some people who use HTML mail may abuse it, it is the spammers etc themselves who are at fault, not HTML, I think is correct. It is the spammers who are at fault, not HTML, like the original poster said. Your post seemed to say that the spammers are *not* at fault. Looks like a miscommunication to me :) D The ability is not at fault. MDP I didn't say it was. The ability to *write over-formatted messages* MDP - thus to *use* the facility /freely/ - is at fault, not the MDP ability itself - the provision of the facility. The selective MDP quote is leading to a misunderstanding. I should probably have made MDP myself clearer. You're saying that if HTML mail weren't so easy to use, it would be ok? I still disagree. I don't think the ability to use it freely is at fault. The actual fault lies with the *person* who abuses this capability. If HTML weren't so easy to use (and thereby abuse), we'd have web developers up in arms. D If someone chooses to take it over the edge, that's his D prerogative, and his fault, not the system's. MDP That's a paraphrase of what I actually said. It didn't seem like that. miscommunication indeed :) MDP Although I don't MDP consider it his prerogative, since his intent is to impose it on me. MDP There is a responsibility issue there. I agree. D HTML provides a capability - either use it or abuse it. MDP The problem is that more abuse than use, when even just the use is MDP widely unwelcome. Widely? Well, ISTM the truth of the matter is the MDP vast majority are *completely indifferent* on this issue - they use MDP OE - it gives them HTML - they use it and have no idea whether they MDP like to or not. Exactly. MDP Of those expressing a preference you will find the MDP majority of them *against* the indiscriminate use of HTML in email. I wouldn't know. I've never talked to people about this. D The only reason I'd want to do something like that would be to D change the font to, say, Verdana which has great on-screen D legibility. Nothing outlandish. MDP I would never do that. The person receiving my message has a MDP favourite reading font. Not always. Most people stick with what the default is. A lot wouldn't know that Verdana might make their life a little easier. I think of it as a harmless and possibly beneficial suggestion. But I agree that they should be free to use what they want, which is why I don't use HTML mail. Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: WARNING(virus check bypassed): Re[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........? -- anyone else seeing this 'WARNING' prefix?
Pixie- Cool. I sneaked in under your virus check software? Got my mojo working today... Anyway, in digest mode the header on my message looks fine to me. -- -Mark Wieder Using The Bat! v1.63 Beta/7 on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 2 Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: WARNING(virus check bypassed): Re[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........? -- anyone else seeing this 'WARNING' prefix?
Wednesday, September 10, 2003, 1:27:47 AM, Pixie wrote: P about an hour or so ago a couple messages came in with this modified P subject. Not just the thread I ripped the subject from but also 1 P or 2 others has it. P ..just trying to see if my ISP has been monkeying with something on P their servers or if others on the list are also seeing the same. I've not seen any messages like that at all on the list -- Cheers, Anne Flying high with The Bat! v2.00.6 on Windows 98 4.10 Build Visit The Bat! Users' Unofficial Help Forum http://the-bat-forums.donzeigler.com Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
On Wednesday, 10 September 2003, at 11:39:53 a.m., Sheldon Schuster wrote: When did you become a member of the Gestapo HMTL police? HTML is not a static entity--it is a dynamic changing standard that changes as new user interests and technology develope. Are you still using the text based UNIX e-mail of the early '90's? U. From the W3C HTML 4.01 Specification: W3C Recommendation 24 December 1999. Granted XHTML is around, but that is purely phrasing HTML in XML terms. Now, in this industry, you can't get much more static than that! What is *changing* is people's _use_ of this standard. The only major thing wrong with the original HTML spec was the lack of a separate presentation mechanism. That was recognised and corrected nearly *seven* years ago (CSS 1 = December 1996). It is really only poor browser technology that has held back the standards revolution. Just because graphic tables are mainstream, doesn't make them right. And *yes I am* using 'text based Unix email'! So are you!! Where do you think TCP/IP, POP and SMTP came from?? Under the covers it is still doing the same thing. It's still there because it works. Just putting some HTML in there doesn't change the underlying transport layers. Elsewhere it has been said this is going quite OT. I tend to agree. But then certain moderators are leaping into the fray with vigour. I shall continue on-list unless moderated otherwise. -- Regards, Allister. Using The Bat! v2.00.6 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: WARNING(virus check bypassed): Re[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........? -- anyone else seeing this 'WARNING' prefix?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tuesday, September 09, 2003, Pixie wrote... ..just trying to see if my ISP has been monkeying with something on their servers or if others on the list are also seeing the same. I don't use my comcast account for emails, I run my own server, so it's easier to monkey with what I want. There is a possibility that it has been done at their end as nobody else seems affected by the issue (in light of the klez/sobig/etc viruses). However, they can probably be caught with a lot of legal issues by modifying the content of mail, at least in such a visible way. Most people wouldn't notice it in the headers. - -- Jonathan Angliss ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) What happens when you get scared half to death.twice? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQA/AwUBP16l0iuD6BT4/R9zEQIAyACgpSr6h/GcTtu4VhUWErbeJ+3UG/YAoKUb dUPdK/Bg5QE4tc6PdJCkbdcb =Xau6 -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
