Re[2]: HTML Messages

[Stuart Cuddy]

Hello O.,
  A reminder of what O. Martin Moran typed on:
  Tuesday, November 11, 2008 at 12:47:02 GMT -0700

OMM> Thanks for the reply.  I have both of those set to HTML only and it still 
doesn't
OMM> work.  Any other ideas?

On a message that has is HTML there should be a little globe with a question 
mark on it in the header area. Click on it and select Show URL Manager. Once 
open you can select which images you want to allow to be downloaded. Once 
allowed they will open from then on. You can do this manually each time or 
select Show this Window Automatically at the bottom. 

The idea behind this is to stop bad things form loading in Spam etc.  In those 
cases you will deny them opening an outside images.

-- 
Best regards,
 Stuartmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Using The Bat! v4.0.34.3
 On Windows XP 5.1 Build #2600



Current version is 4.0.24.0 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[2]: html fonts resize

[Maggie Meister]

Hi Chris,

On Wednesday, 15 November, 2006 at 9:54:36 PM you wrote:

>> So I learned that while holding Ctrl+Enter, the mail that's in
>> focus is sent. Whoops!

> I have re-mapped Ctrl+Enter to "Put in outbox" and Shift+F2 to "Send
> Now" for that reason (among other).

Well, I should have left well enough alone. That remapping thing is
like spaghetti. While attempting to re-map the Ctrl+Enter I somehow
changed the size of the glyphs on the toolbar. Don't ask, I don't know
how. Wow, those guys at Ritlabs must be teeny-boppers with 20/15
vision! I went to Miroslav's page and downloaded the glyphs there, but
a re-start of TB! shows the same tiny icons. Is there a how-to
somewhere on this? I have read the thread Alternate Icon Sets here
http://www.mail-archive.com/tbbeta@thebat.dutaint.com/msg53808.html
and made sure the .png and .ini were copied to Program Files\The Bat!

-- 

Regards,
  Maggie


Authors like cats because they are such quiet, lovable, wise
creatures, and cats like authors for the same reasons. -Robertson
Davies
 
   



Current version is 3.85.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[2]: html fonts resize

[Maggie Meister]

Hi Chris and List,

Sorry for the email with no comment. I was trying out the ctrl + to
increase the font size and hit the enter key by mistake. So I learned
that while holding Ctrl Enter, the mail that's in focus is sent.
Whoops!

-- 

Regards,
  Maggie


Someone asked someone who was about my age: "How are you?" The answer
was, "Fine. If you don't ask for details." -Katharine Hepburn
 
   



Current version is 3.85.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[2]: html fonts resize

[Maggie Meister]

Hi George,

On Wednesday, 15 November, 2006 at 4:32:34 PM you wrote:

> Thomas Fernandez wrote:

TF>> Put your cursor in the mail and hit <+>. This will increase
TF>> the size.

> Well.  That's much easier than what I proposed.  I actually tried
> variations like that but they don't work on my laptop.  Unless I hold
> the Function key and use the numeric keypad equivalents.  Which it
> never occurs to me to do.

> Reverting to lurk mode...


  

-- 

Regards,
  Maggie


Physics tells us that for every action, there is an equal and opposite 
reaction. They hate us, we hate them, they hate us back. And so, here we are, 
victims of mathematics! -Londo Mollari
 
   



Current version is 3.85.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[2]: HTML + pictures

[Vili]

>> How can I display/insert a picture automatically? I'm not talking about
>> the attachment macro but really showing it. I can doe this manually by
>> starting a new message and selecting type HTML. From the toolbar that
>> then appears I can use the insert function.
ASK> You can not use HTML in templates, only plain text. To really show a
ASK> picture you would need an HTML template.

It  is  true.  Maybe  a little trick will solve Tony's immediate need,
partly:  create  a  new HTML mail, that includes the pic, also. Make a
new folder and store it there. Anytime you need this kind of mail just
copy  a  copy  :))  of that mail into your outbox and start editing...

Yes,  you  cannot  apply  macros,  but  at  least you have a HTML type
"template"...

-- 
Vili





Current version is 3.5.0.17 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[2]: HTML replies to HTML messages

[Andrew]

Hello Alexander,

Friday, January 14, 2005, 11:23:27 AM, you wrote and sent the following:

> Nothing. Its a long standing bug. Very annoying.
> See https://www.ritlabs.com/bt/view.php?id=1807
> ...submitted October 2003 *sigh*

That's a shame.

--
Andrew


Using The Bat! 3.0.1.33
On Windows XP, 5.1 Build: 2600

I like kids, but I don't think I could eat a whole one.



Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[2]: HTML templates

[Marek Mikus]

Hello all,
Marc>> Is it possible to create HTML templates?

> No, which is a PITA.

> But we've got smileys, which is clearly what you want in an email client
> rather than actual functionality...

Do You really think, changing core of templates system is easier than
smileys support? This will be implemented, but it is not such easy
like You probably think.

-- 

Bye

Marek Mikus
Czech support of The Bat!
http://www.thebat.cz

Using the best The Bat! 2.13 "Lucky" Beta/7
under Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1
Notebook Acer, Pentium4-M 2.2 GHz, 512 MB RAM, ADSL line

 



Current version is 2.12.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[2]: HTML templates

[Marek Mikus]

Hello all,

>> > Is it possible to create HTML templates?. I need to add an image (logo)
>> > in my signature. AFAIK it's only possible to create plain text templates,
>> > but maybe (I hope) I missed something.
>> 
>> this is not possible right now, but HTML templates are planned.

> Any idea when?. Within a "few" months or not until next year?.

probably until this year.

-- 

Bye

Marek Mikus
Czech support of The Bat!
http://www.thebat.cz

Using the best The Bat! 2.13 "Lucky" Beta/6
under Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1
Notebook Acer, Pentium4-M 2.2 GHz, 512 MB RAM, ADSL line

 



Current version is 2.12.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[2]: HTML backgrounds?

[Mark Partous]

Hello Roelof,

Tuesday, July 6, 2004, 5:00:24 PM, you wrote:

RO> You can't use html sjablones for TB.

Any idea if this is planned and/or even possible to implement?



-- 
Best Wishes,
Mark
using The Bat! 2.12 Beta/7




Current version is 2.11.02 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[2]: HTML Links

[John Cunnane]

Hi Robin,

raoca> This didn't occur, but because you didn't send your message as HTML. I
raoca> have experienced it often, that a message written in HTML and containing
raoca> the & character (coded as & in the HTML) loses this in the reply. In
raoca> general TB! is not good at quoting text that was in HTML in the original.

Thanks for pointing this out. This is exactly my problem. Replying to a HTML mail
with the MicroEd editor makes the & character disappear from any HTML link.

Using The Bat! v2.10.03 on Windows 2000 5.0 Build  2195
Service Pack 4



Current version is 2.10.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[2]: HTML Links

[John Cunnane]

Hi All,

I believe that we can agree with my first point that clicking on a
HTML link in the preview pane takes you to the top of the message on
the first click and then opens the browser on the second. I assume
that this is a bug and not a feature?

As for the '&' characters in a HTML link when Reply is used, I would
be grateful if you could reply to this message and check the following
link in the quoted text. If the bug is present, the '&' characters in
the link will be replaced by spaces and the link will no longer work.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=41559&item=4190830767&rd=1

-- 

Best regards

John

Using The Bat! v2.10.03 on Windows 2000 5.0 Build  2195
Service Pack 4



Current version is 2.10.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[2]: HTML Links

[John Cunnane]

Hi All,

JC> 1. If I click on an html link in the message preview window, it simply
JC> goes to the top of the message. If I click on the link a second time,

JC> 2. If I reply to a message which contains a html link and quote the
JC> original text, then all instances of the '&' character (without the
JC> quotes) in the original link get replaced by the space character in

Both look like a bug i your version of TB. In my 2.04.03 both function
correctly.

Does anyone else see these problems in v2.10.03?

-- 

Regards
John

Using The Bat! v2.10.03 on Windows 2000 5.0 Build  2195
Service Pack 4



Current version is 2.10.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[2]: HTML Messages don't get sent

[Mamuka Khantadze]

Hello Ian,

You wrote:
Ian A. White> Mamuka,

Ian A. White> On Wednesday, May 12, 2004, 7:40:12 PM,
Ian A. White> you (Mamuka Khantadze) wrote:

MK>> Hello People,

MK>> I  have  very  wierd  (to  me)  situation.  I've  set up HTML to be my
MK>> defaulght  email  editor.  It works fine but the Bat doesn't send HTML
MK>> messages. If I change the format to plain, then it works fine.

Ian A. White> There was a problem with an earlier
Ian A. White> release where if you prepared a
Ian A. White> HTML message you could not pick the send
Ian A. White> button or menu option or even
Ian A. White> use the put in outbox options. The only
Ian A. White> option was to pick the save
Ian A. White> button or option and then close the
Ian A. White> message editor. The in the out box
Ian A. White> you had to remove the draft icon on the
Ian A. White> message and it would get sent.

Ian A. White> One other thing. Put a cut mark before your signature ;-)

1. Did anything change in new version? ( I don't think so as I've tried 2.10.03 and 
same results)

2. Thanks for the advice re:cut marks. Taken into consideration.

-- 
 
Sincerely,


Mamuka Khantadze
Finance & Administration Director
Healthy Women in Georgia Program (http://healthywomen.ge)
John Snow (JSI) Research & Training Institute, Inc. (http://jsi.com)
25 Gogebashvili street, 4600, Kutaisi, Georgia
Tel./Fax: +995-331 45363. 45364, 45717
Mobile: +995-99 929297, E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Current version is 2.10.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[2]: html email failure

[daveiw]

Hi Alexander,

Wednesday, February 25, 2004, 9:27:37 AM, you wrote:

dcn>> My problem is this; I am running the latest version of TB! 2 and I still
dcn>> can't send html messages. Whenever I create a new message and choose either of
dcn>> the html format options all is fine until I press send.

AL> Please download latest 2.04.07 with fix applied

Excellent! I have installed the latest version and all seems fine, many thanks, all is 
well with the Bat! world again. :-)

--
Best regards,

Dave Wilson. 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

(E-mail me subject: 'public key' and I will send it to you)
  

pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Current version is 2.04.04 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[2]: html email failure

[daveiw]

Hi Simon,

Sunday, February 22, 2004, 2:33:46 PM, you wrote:

SF> I see the same issue, cannot send or save for send later.  If
SF> you have the option "Spell Check On Send" enabled, turn it off.

SF> When I turned off the spell checker - message sent immediately. Does this work for 
you?

Spot on! Excellent, thank you, it's a weird one and one that I would have thought 
would be a relativcely quick fix for Ritlabs...

--
Thanks again,

Dave Wilson. 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

(E-mail me subject: 'public key' and I will send it to you)


pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Current version is 2.04.04 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[2]: html email failure

[daveiw]

Hi Allie,

Sunday, February 22, 2004, 11:20:56 AM, you wrote:

AM> When do you choose the format?

AM> What I did was to open the editor and the first thing I did was to go
AM> to the Options menu and select "Message Format//HTML only"

AM> I filled in the header information, tabbed into the message body
AM> editor field, typed my message and hit the send button. The message
AM> was sent.

AM> I don't know if you're doing things a little differently. It could be
AM> a configuration thing in that with your setup it happens but not with
AM> mine.

No matter how I choose the html option, either in options for message pane or the 
prefs on the main window, it doesn't work. This is a little annoying, it hasn't worked 
for me at all, surely there is a simple fix for this?

--
Best regards,

Dave Wilson. 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

(E-mail me subject: 'public key' and I will send it to you)


pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Current version is 2.04.04 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[2]: html email help?

[Stuart Cuddy]

Hello daveiw,
Friday, December 19, 2003, 10:26:17 AM, you wrote:

dcn>> Hi all,

dcn>> I am now using the xmas edition of v2 and would like to
dcn>> send out some snazzy emails to my kids, but everytime I create an
dcn>> email using html and click 'send' - nothing happens, I mean I can
dcn>> see that the button has been clicked, but the message is not sent.
dcn>> As you can see, text only works fine, what's going on?


dcn>> Many thanks in advance,

dcn>> Dave Wilson.
dcn>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]  

dcn>> (E-mail me subject: 'public key' and I will send it to you)

dcn> Surely someone on this list can advise me on this please?

Are you sure the message is not being sent. This is the bug that has
been reported, where the message is actually sent, but the window that
contains the massage does not close. Check to make sure that your
recipients didn't get messages or maybe they got 2,3,4,5,6 or more.

-- 
Best regards,
 Stuartmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Using The Bat! v2.03.10 on Windows 98 4.10 Build   A 



Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[2]: html email help?

[daveiw]

Hi Mark,

Thursday, December 18, 2003, 2:13:28 PM, you wrote:




MP> Hello dave,

MP> Thursday, December 18, 2003, 1:39:26 PM, you wrote:

dcn>> Many thanks in advance,


MP> Now, does this reach you the way it should?



MP> Only adding some animated gifs and playing with colors...


MP> Stillsome work to do though, before the editor will work the way it should...


MP>   Bye!  




Yes, yours is fine, how do I get mine to work?

--
Best regards,

Dave Wilson. 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

(E-mail me subject: 'public key' and I will send it to you)


pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Current version is 2.02.3 CE | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Re[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

[Corne' (aka Cory)]

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[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

[Marek Mikus]

Hello all,
Friday, October 3, 2003, Corne' (aka Cory) 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.)

In 2.01 version will be possible to selecect HTML as default in
Preferences and AFAIK macros for selecting message type are planned.

-- 

Bye

Marek Mikus
Czech support of The Bat!
http://www.thebat.cz

Using the best The Bat! 2.00.22
under Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1
AMD ThunderBird 1,2 GHz, 512 MB RAM



Current version is 2.00.6 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[2]: HTML Mail selective image display?

[Antje Lehmann]

Hi,

Leif Gregory wrote:

> Please trim replies to context.

Oops, sorry, accidentally forgot to trim it this time...


Antje

Using The Bat! v2.00.6 on Windows 98 4.10 Build    A 
-- 

| Antje Lehmann
| mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]



Current version is 2.00 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[2]: HTML Mail selective image display?

[Antje Lehmann]

Hi Roelof,

> First of all, I didn't test this. ;-)
> Create an incoming filter for your Daily Dilbert Mail that extracts
> the attached file to disk and let the same filter start an external
> program, in this case your browser with a parameter that makes it open
> your attachment.
> Since 'extract attachment' is lower on the actions tab than 'run
> external program' there's a possibility that the browser will be
> called before the file exists. Therefore it might be necessary to do
> this in two filters (enable 'continue processing with other filters on
> the 'options tab' of the first filter)

Thanks Roelof, this way I could be able to autmate the viewing
process. I'll try it out!


Antje

Using The Bat! v2.00.6 on Windows 98 4.10 Build    A 
-- 

| Antje Lehmann
| mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]



Current version is 2.00 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[2]: HTML Mail selective image display?

[Antje Lehmann]

Hi,

Roelof Otten wrote:

> Hallo Joseph,

> On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 10:40:59 -0500GMT (17-9-03, 17:40 +0200, where I
> live), you wrote:

JN>> I didn't test your idea either, but it seems like a brilliant
JN>> approach.

> I think that's a bit too much, but thanks anyhow. ;-)

JN>> If it were packaged in a way to be easily triggered by the user,

> I thought filters are rather easy to trigger. After all TB's main
> feature is it's filtering system. (At least that's why I started to
> use it.)

JN>> and also requiring some user confirmation to avoid automated
JN>> problems, it would be a good feature addition to TB!

> As another feature it would be bloatware. As far as the user
> confirmation, that was the part that Antje wanted to skip (or that's
> how I read the message).

Well, only if I had to confirm every time... as a
once-and-for-all-solution, it would be fine with me. But:

> BTW Please don't suggest that TB should be able to access pics
> anywhere on the internet. Not even as a configurable option. Something
> like that is no function of an e-mail client. Any code inserted to
> make such a feature available makes the program more sluggish (because
> it's bigger), more buggy (there's no such thing as code without
> errors) and more vulnerable.

I understand now that there are different opinions on this issue, and
that's what I wanted to know when I asked what you thought about it.


Antje

Using The Bat! v2.00.6 on Windows 98 4.10 Build    A 
-- 

| Antje Lehmann
| mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]



Current version is 2.00 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[2]: HTML Mail selective image display?

[Antje Lehmann]

Hi Miguel,

> As I say, maybe I didn't understand a word of what this thread is all
> about. But if I did... My goodness! All is needed is a double click!

I know, I know... but I'm a lazy person, you know ;-))) And I simply
thought there might be a way for me to not have to open the browser
every time. Since I use Mozilla on a slow computer, it takes a
while to open and load the mail. And it's not only Daily Dilbert, that
was just to give you an example. I receive lots of mails with HTML
content that I would like to be able to view within TB! and it won't
do that. I understand the purpose of that, as I already said, and it's
actually a feature that gives you more security. But if it was
a selective one in the way I explained I'd be even more happy about
it. :-) 


Antje

Using The Bat! v2.00.6 on Windows 98 4.10 Build    A 
-- 

| Antje Lehmann
| mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]



Current version is 2.00 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[2]: HTML Mail selective image display?

[Joseph N.]

   On Wednesday, September 17, 2003, Roelof Otten wrote in
:

RO> First of all, I didn't test this. ;-) Create an incoming filter
RO> for your Daily Dilbert Mail that extracts the attached file to
RO> disk and let the same filter start an external program, in this
RO> case your browser with a parameter that makes it open your
RO> attachment. Since 'extract attachment' is lower on the actions tab
RO> than 'run external program' there's a possibility that the browser
RO> will be called before the file exists. Therefore it might be
RO> necessary to do this in two filters (enable 'continue processing
RO> with other filters on the 'options tab' of the first filter)

Roelof,

I didn't test your idea either, but it seems like a brilliant
approach.  If it were packaged in a way to be easily triggered by the
user, and also requiring some user confirmation to avoid automated
problems, it would be a good feature addition to TB!

-- 
JN



Current version is 2.00 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

[DG Raftery Sr.]

-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[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

[Vishal]

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: WARNING(virus check bypassed): Re[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........? <-- anyone else seeing this 'WARNING' prefix?

[Jonathan Angliss]

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[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

[Dave Kennedy]

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!!  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[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

[Dave Kennedy]

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: WARNING(virus check bypassed): Re[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........? <-- anyone else seeing this 'WARNING' prefix?

[Roelof Otten]

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[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

[DG Raftery Sr.]

-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[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

[FJ de Bruin]

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 , ,
 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: WARNING(virus check bypassed): Re[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........? <-- anyone else seeing this 'WARNING' prefix?

[Jonathan Angliss]

-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

Re: WARNING(virus check bypassed): Re[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........? <-- anyone else seeing this 'WARNING' prefix?

[Anne]

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: WARNING(virus check bypassed): Re[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........? <-- anyone else seeing this 'WARNING' prefix?

[Mark Wieder]

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[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

[Vishal]

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[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

[Vishal]

Hi Leif

Tuesday, September 9, 2003, 2:17:47 PM, you wrote:


LG>Now take the HTML mail to a global scale. $365 x millions and
LG>eventually billions of people per year. Yeah, that's a serious
LG>waste 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
LG>message twice the size of a plaintext one with no value added
LG>eating 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.

LG>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.

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 ...........?

[Bill Blinn Technology Editor]

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[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

[Dave Kennedy]

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[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

[Bill Blinn Technology Editor]

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[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

[Vishal]

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[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

[Vishal]

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 ...........?

[Dave Kennedy]

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 ...........?

[Bill Blinn Technology Editor]

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[2]: HTML in the editor

[Marek Mikus]

Hello all,
Tuesday, September 9, 2003, Marck D Pearlstone wrote:

> While that may be true, bugs are explored on TBBETA and expunged by
> use of the BugTraq system (I don't know if that's back up yet).

yes, BT is up and running.

-- 

Bye

Marek Mikus
Czech support of The Bat!
http://www.thebat.cz

Using the best The Bat! 2.00.6
under Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1
AMD ThunderBird 1,2 GHz, 512 MB RAM



Current version is 2.00 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[2]: HTML Images not showing!!

[CJC]

Hello Marck,

Sunday, June 1, 2003, 9:05:12 PM, you wrote:

MDP> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
MDP> Hash: SHA1

MDP> Hi Cjc,

MDP> @1-Jun-2003, 20:30 -0400 (01:30 UK time) CJC [C] in
MDP> mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:

C>> The images in HTML messages are not showing.  Just blank boxes with
C>> red X's.. what is wrong?!

MDP> Nothing! TB is a mail reader and not a browser. If the images
MDP> weren't sent in the mail, just embedded links to images on a server
MDP> somewhere, TB won't show them. It doesn't have the mechanism to go
MDP> online and get images not included in the message and instead shows
MDP> red Xs. This may not be as "convenient" as the likes of OE, but it
MDP> is much safer, not giving unseen confirmation of reading to the
MDP> "evil spammer" and other security holes.

MDP> - --
MDP> Cheers -- .\\arck D Pearlstone -- List moderator
MDP> TB! v1.63 Beta/7 on Windows XP 5.1.2600 Service Pack 1

MDP> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
MDP> Version: 6.5.8ckt build 09 beta 3

MDP> iQA/AwUBPtqiyTnkJKuSnc2gEQJuWwCg3dXV5ChIX/5d8J2T6e5j7VzEnqEAoNO8
MDP> R8qiJ4w5na5ONMncF0lF0E24
MDP> =sWU6
MDP> -END PGP SIGNATURE-



MDP> 
MDP> Current version is 1.62r | "Using TBUDL" information:
MDP> http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

thanks!

-- 
Best regards,
 CJCmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]



Current version is 1.62r | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[2]: HTML Attachment

[Pete Holsberg]

Hello Allie,

Saturday, April 12, 2003, 5:57:01 PM, you wrote:

AM> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
AM> Hash: SHA1

AM> Pete Holsberg [PH] wrote:

PH>> Some incoming messages are shown as having an HTML attachment even
PH>> when they do not!

AM> The HTML attachment will appear once a message is sent in HTML format,
AM> dual formatted (in both plain text and HTML format), or when an HTML
AM> document is actually attached.

Um, that's not the problem.

TheBAT! is identifying messages as having HTML attachments when they
do not and also they are not formatted as embedded HTML.

I had the same messages sent to several of my email accounts, a couple
of POP3s and a couple of web-hosted accounts, and only TheBAT! sees
the non-existent attachment.



Current version is 1.62q | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[2]: html mailto bug

[Mark Wieder]

Marck-

Monday, February 24, 2003, 4:15:58 PM, you wrote:

MDP> know. The place to have this discussion is surely TBBETA where
MDP> Stefan can chip in with the facts.

I'll take this as a tame dead horse.

-Mark Wieder

 Using The Bat! v1.63 Beta/4 on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 2
-- 



Current version is 1.62 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[2]: html mailto bug

[Mark Wieder]

Marck-

Monday, February 24, 2003, 7:30:00 AM, you wrote:

MDP> You are quite right. That doesn't work at all. Why not use the link
MDP> to explain the RFC to the webmaster? ;-)

 One point for Marck.

But that *does* get us back on track. Here's what I (currently) think
about this:

Yes, the RFC does quite explicitly state that whitespace characters
can end the field and this is a malformed url and therefore there's
nothing really wrong with the way The Bat! is behaving here. But... OE
*does* pick up the whole string, or so I've been told, not wanting to
venture close enough to that beast to try it for myself.

There's nothing technically hard about grabbing the whole thing -
Windows does it quite easily. Right-click on the Feedback link, copy
it to the clipboard, and paste it into your favorite text editor -
there's the whole subject line, copied from the link, spaces and all.

Grabbing the whole subject line from the link is also not a violation
of the RFC - whitespace *can* end the tag, and technically you're
supposed to translate the spaces to %20s and it's considered bad form
if you don't, but I don't see a problem with TB working the way people
expect it to instead of minimally conforming to the RFC.

If the next version of TB were modified to act on the whole link
instead of just the strict-interpretation subset I don't think it
would break any existing behavior.


And now I'm quite confused about the double-quotes in the registry
thing. I thought this was just the thing it was supposed to fix up. Do
you have a url for one where it does make a difference?

-Mark Wieder

 Using The Bat! v1.63 Beta/4 on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 2
-- 



Current version is 1.62 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[2]: html mailto bug

[Spike]

Hello Marck D Pearlstone,

On or about Monday, February 24, 2003 at 14:19:39GMT + (which was
9:19 AM in the tropics where I live) Marck D Pearlstone posted:

S>> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Las Vegas Website Feedback

MDP> Aha - are you talking about links in emails? That's different. The
MDP> fix only applies to links in HTML pages.

Nope, that's a link on the page!  What I get is the same as a
malformed e-mail link. ;-(

Try it;

http://komp.com/web/feature/home_page.php

FEEDBACK link near top-right.

-- 
Warmest tropical wishes,
Spike

There are 10 types of people: those who understand binary and those
who don't.

/"\   ASCII Ribbon Campaign - Against HTML Mail
\ /   If it aint a webpage it shouldn't be HTML. 
 XSay NO! to bloatmail - ban HTML mail!
/ \   Ask Spikey, he hates everything (HTML).
--
Using TheBat! v1.62i hamstrung by Windows XP 5.1 
Build 2600 Service Pack 1'
--



Current version is 1.62 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[2]: html mailto bug

[Spike]

Hello Marck D Pearlstone,

On or about Sunday, February 23, 2003 at 03:31:17GMT + (which was
10:31 PM in the tropics where I live) Marck D Pearlstone posted:

MDP> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
MDP> Hash: SHA1
S Where EXACTLY in the registry is this entry?

MDP>>> HKCR/mailto/shell/open/command

MW>> However, as I've mentioned before, this has absolutely *no*
MW>> effect on my Win2k system.

MDP> It has exactly the right effect on my Win2k Pro system. It works.

Has absolutely no effect in WIN-XP Home.  Still get only the first
word in the subject line of;

mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Las Vegas Website Feedback
^^^ 
Copies only this ^^ Ignores this

Oh well, next issue!

-- 
Warmest tropical wishes,
Spike

Cannot open file d:\bat\cookies.txt - substitute Oreo - Y/N?

/"\   ASCII Ribbon Campaign - Against HTML Mail
\ /   If it aint a webpage it shouldn't be HTML. 
 XSay NO! to bloatmail - ban HTML mail!
/ \   Ask Spikey, he hates everything (HTML).
--
Using TheBat! v1.62i hamstrung by Windows XP 5.1 
Build 2600 Service Pack 1'
--



Current version is 1.62 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[2]: html mailto bug

[Mark Wieder]

Marck-

Sunday, February 23, 2003, 8:30:39 AM, you wrote:

S>> Where EXACTLY in the registry is this entry?

MDP> HKCR/mailto/shell/open/command

However, as I've mentioned before, this has absolutely *no* effect on
my Win2k system. I posted the question earlier to see if anyone else
could confirm or deny this working but got no response, so it's just
down to you and me now. I'd love to have someone else try this and
post the results here so we can tell if there's something weird with
my system. I haven't seen this hack documented anywhere else - where'd
you come across it? (...if that isn't stretching the memory cells too
far...)

-Mark Wieder

 Using The Bat! v1.63 Beta/4 on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 2
-- 



Current version is 1.62 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[2]: html mailto bug

[Spike]

Hello Marck D Pearlstone,

On or about Sunday, February 23, 2003 at 16:30:39GMT + (which was
11:30 AM in the tropics where I live) Marck D Pearlstone posted:

S>> Where EXACTLY in the registry is this entry?

MDP> HKCR/mailto/shell/open/command

Does this change require a reboot?  I've had the other changes take
place immediately, such as the 'broken' mailto's with other changes I
made.  Of course I did them singly and changed them back immediately
when they didn't work.  I still get only KOMP on the subject line.

-- 
Warmest tropical wishes,
Spike

Wear short sleeves! Support your right to bare arms!

/"\   ASCII Ribbon Campaign - Against HTML Mail
\ /   If it aint a webpage it shouldn't be HTML. 
 XSay NO! to bloatmail - ban HTML mail!
/ \   Ask Spikey, he hates everything (HTML).
--
Using TheBat! v1.62i hamstrung by Windows XP 5.1 
Build 2600 Service Pack 1'
--



Current version is 1.62 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[2]: html mailto bug

[Spike]

Hello Marck D Pearlstone,

On or about Saturday, November 30, 2002 at 09:46:55GMT + (which
was 4:46 AM in the tropics where I live) Marck D Pearlstone posted:

MDP> In the definition lies the solution. There is a simple fix to all of
MDP> this that involves neither TB nor the web site author:

MDP> This is process is handled by the defined mailto: handler as
MDP> specified in the registry. All you have to do is to add delimiting
MDP> quotes to the %1 parameter in the definition.

MDP> Malformed Mailto links work perfectly if the definition of mailto is
MDP> changed in the registry to enclose %1 in double quotes.

Where EXACTLY in the registry is this entry?  I've found 12 references
to 'mailto' in the registry and 9 of them have the %1 value.  I've
tried changing EACH of them, one at a time with no effect, other than
it BROKE the mailto function in some cases.

Please be more specific!

-- 
Warmest tropical wishes,
Spike

"He who eats soup with chopsticks will get only noodles and maybe some
chunks of stuff."

/"\   ASCII Ribbon Campaign - Against HTML Mail
\ /   If it aint a webpage it shouldn't be HTML. 
 XSay NO! to bloatmail - ban HTML mail!
/ \   Ask Spikey, he hates everything (HTML).
--
Using TheBat! v1.62i hamstrung by Windows XP 5.1 
Build 2600 Service Pack 1'
--



Current version is 1.62 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[2]: HTML sectarianism :-)

[Deborah W]

On Sunday, February 9, 2003, 8:12:43 PM, Richard Wakeford wrote:

RW> I know, I've worked in Belfast. In fact the last time I was there they
RW> bombed the Europa hotel (as it was then) the day after we left :-)

It's still the Europa. No barbed wire fence around the front now
though. When were you here?

-- 
Deborah



Current version is 1.62 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[2]: HTML sectarianism :-)

[Spike]

Hello Roelof Otten,

On or about Saturday, February 08, 2003 at 19:55:31GMT +0100
(which was 1:55 PM in the tropics where I live) Roelof Otten
postulated:

RO> OOTC Does anybody know a tool that downloads fidonet mail and
RO> makes it accessible to TB?  Since I've got a local
RO> mailserver, it may use that.

FIDOnet still lives!!

email subscription: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
subject: help
body: list

Plenty of applications to integrate with FIDOnet.


-- 
Warmest tropical wishes,
Spike

How can I miss you if you never go away?

--
/"\   ASCII Ribbon Campaign - Against HTML Mail
\ /   If it aint a webpage it shouldn't be HTML. 
 XSay NO! to bloatmail - ban HTML mail!
/ \   Ask Spikey, he hates everything (HTML).
--
Using TheBat! v1.61 hamstrung by Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195
Service Pack 3
--



Current version is 1.62 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[2]: HTML sectarianism :-)

[Kenneth S. Rhee]

Hello marek,

Saturday, February 8, 2003, 2:25:47 PM, you wrote:

mj> Allow me to respectfully disagree. I believe that before we move on,
mj> "we all" should make independent, informed decisions about whether the
mj> proposed direction is beneficial.

Ah!  Therein lies the problem I see.  I have not seen this happen to any technology I 
have seen in the past.  What becomes popular is more or less independent of informed 
decisions or technological superiority.

My experience has been "resistance is futile."  Whether I like it or not the world 
around me will move on, and I can either reject it or try to shape it so that the 
negative impact is minimal for me.

As far as multimedia is concerned, it's here!  Check out the new cell phones these 
days, and any web-based chatting (w/ video), etc.  More and more folks around me are 
using those to communicate, and if I want to keep in touch, I need to adapt.  My 
prediction is it's going to proliferate even more as more people get on broadband 
connection around the world.  Can't stop the running train by standing in front of it 
however strongly willed you and I might be.


-- 
Best regards,
 Kennethmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]



Current version is 1.62 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[2]: HTML sectarianism :-)

[Kenneth S. Rhee]

Hello Jurgen,

Saturday, February 8, 2003, 1:11:13 PM, you wrote:

JH> LOL in some ways that reminds me of the good old times in the FIDO net
JH> when the Amiga Users and the Atari ST Users were at each others
JH> throats *sigh*

Why does it have to be either or.  I vote for peaceful coexistence.

Whether I or we like it or not, as long as MS creates OL and OE, and everyone seems to 
be enamored with rich text, multimedia e-mails, this will not go away.  In fact, I 
predict that in a couple of years, we all be sending multimedia e-mails to everyone 
(voice, pictures, video, etc).

I believe it's arrogant for people to call "html" evil when there are more immoral 
acts/behaviors going around.

In the old days, windows was evil to many text-oriented computer aficionados, and 
folks used to laugh at Macs when they were first introduced . . .

I guess we all have to move on sometimes.

-- 
Best regards,
 Kennethmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]



Current version is 1.62 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[2]: HTML mail

[Mean Drake]

Tuesday, December 3, 2002, 2:55:07 PM, you wrote:


> I am very glad you didn't write this one here:
> http://ccug.apcug.org/newsApr02.htm ;-)

:-) ... yeah... Imagine the flames it would set up here...rushing for
fireproof clothing.

> Please continue to ask. I encourage you to write one on The Bat!

Coming up soon...December newsletter...or at most Jan.


>Templates in which you can
> use anything from simple macros to a highly complicated scripting
> language. Thus, TB is easy to use for the beginner, who wants to use
> only simple functions, but it also has a myriad of features that
> email-geeks like (you find several people on this list that have
> "Emailaholics International" mentioned as Organisation in their mail
> header).

Macros are what I plan to learn next. I already do VB so it should not
be *too* difficult.

-- 
Best regards,
Mean




Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[2]: HTML mail

[Kevin]

Hello Simon,

Tuesday, December 3, 2002, 1:59:47 PM, you wrote:

S> it would be completely foolish IMO to even begin to consider
S> dumping TB! simply because of the inclusion of an option that you
S> don't wish to make use of yourself.

I'd like to know what other mailer those who say they would dump TB!
if it became capable of creating HTML mail would go to since many
other mailers already have this function.

-- 
Kevin 

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com


Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[2]: HTML mail

[Mean Drake]

Tuesday, December 3, 2002, 5:53:41 AM, you wrote:

> Hello Mean,

> On Tue, 3 Dec 2002 04:04:47 +0530 GMT (03/12/02, 05:34 +0700 GMT),
> Mean Drake wrote:

MD Does the Bat! have any features to compose HTML mail like one would do
MD in Outlooklike have inline pictures or background
MD images...background sounds I know might be too much to ask :-)

>>> Ooooh here we go again
>>> hold on to your hats !

>> Hey I review a lot of software and cannot be a Pro at it all. Need to
>> kow things I can put in my review. Did I step in something mucky here?

> You did. ;-)

> As you have noticed, people on this list (myself included) consider
> "HTML mail" an oximoron. Mail is mail, and HTML (hypertext mark-up
> language) is for hypertext documents, such as web pages. HTML has no
> place in email. If you want people here go really up the walls, say
> something positive about IncrediMail .

> Please ask more about the resons why if you want, but I would suggest
> to do that on TBOT rather than here. Maybe you also want to check out
> the archives, as this was discussed before in lengthy threads.

> Are your software reviews on the internet, so we can read a bit?

Thanks to all of those who replied. Indeed amny of the reviews are
online. I am webmaster and Editor for the Colony Computer User Group.

http://ccug.apcug.org the newsletter section has all my reviews.
Planning to write one on the Bat! I am a recent user still getting my
feet wet...that's why the elementary question.


-- 
Best regards,
 Mean




Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[2]: HTML mail

[Mean Drake]

Tuesday, December 3, 2002, 3:54:30 AM, you wrote:


> Hi TBUDL,
> On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, at 02:46:32 [GMT +0530] you wrote:
MD>> Does the Bat! have any features to compose HTML mail like one would do
MD>> in Outlooklike have inline pictures or background
MD>> images...background sounds I know might be too much to ask :-)


> Ooooh here we go again
> hold on to your hats !

Hey I review a lot of software and cannot be a Pro at it all. Need to
kow things I can put in my review. Did I step in something mucky here?


MD.




Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[2]: html mailto bug

[Mark Wieder]

Thomas-

Monday, December 2, 2002, 7:12:36 AM, you wrote:

TF> Just a silly question: Did you close TB when you doctored the
TF> registry?

Good point. I hadn't (I almost never do). Now I have, in fact I had
that machine off overnight. Brought it up this morning and still no
effect. Has anyone else gotten this to work besides Marck?

-Mark Wieder

 Using The Bat! v1.61 on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 2
-- 



Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[2]: html mailto bug

[Mark Wieder]

Marck-

I tested this with IE 5.00.3315.1000. I would have tried it with
Netscape as well, but I can't remember the javascript hack to get it
to launch an external mail client. Getting the double-quote thing to
work isn't a big priority for me, but it's a good trick to know about
if it works. I'm also always perplexed when something works
differently on two supposedly identical systems...

-Mark Wieder

 Using The Bat! v1.61 on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 2
-- 



Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[2]: html mailto bug

[Mark Wieder]

Marck-

Saturday, November 30, 2002, 5:59:30 PM, you wrote:

MDP> If you are confident with RegEdit, find the "mailto" key in
MDP> HK_CLASSES. Navigate to the Command sub-key and edit the default to
MDP> enclose the %1 parameter at the end of TB command line to be
MDP> enclosed in double quotes.

No, that's what I was saying. I did that and the effect is still the
same. I also changed all the other instances of mailto in the USER
hierarchies just to make sure and it still works the sameer
doesn't work the same.

-Mark Wieder

 Using The Bat! v1.61 on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 2
-- 



Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[2]: html mailto bug

[Mark Wieder]

Marck-

Saturday, November 30, 2002, 1:46:55 AM, you wrote:


MDP> Malformed Mailto links work perfectly if the definition of mailto is
MDP> changed in the registry to enclose %1 in double quotes.

Didn't change anything on my systems. I haven't seen this hack before
- can you be more specific about it? Should this move over to tbtech?

-Mark Wieder

 Using The Bat! v1.61 on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 2
-- 



Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[2]: html mailto bug

[Mark Wieder]

Jonathan-

The quotes *aren't* passed on to TB, it's true. But look at the second
url on the web page - it's formatted correctly with %20 in between the
words instead of spaces. TB does pick up the entire string. It just
doesn't handle the %20s properly.

Try this: right-click on the "hi" url and copy it to the clipboard.
Now create a new shortcut on your desktop and paste it in. It should
show up with a Bat icon. Double-click on the shortcut. There you'll
see the entire message in the subject line.

So TB does handle the mailto: urls in the proper manner sometimes - it
seems that it's just the web-page-to-mail handler that is broken.

Now...right-click on each of the urls on the web page and paste them
into a text editor - you get the entire text between the quotes,
well-formed or not. So, whether it's a good idea or not, the technical
feat of grabbing the whole text of the url from quote to quote isn't
much of a chore.

-Mark Wieder

 Using The Bat! v1.61 on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 2
-- 



Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[2]: html mailto bug

[Mark Wieder]

Bats-

Bringing this back on topic again:

Friday, November 29, 2002, 5:45:50 PM, you wrote:

NJY> You can see http://www.gummibears.nu/test.html for an example of one
NJY> correct mailto, and one incorrect if you'd like to test for yourself.

The correctly formed url still is not handled correctly by TB, so I
*do* think this qualifies as a bug. And while I've quoted the RFC as a
defense of TB's handling of malformed urls, if the correctly formed
one can be handled by TB then it's a short hop to handling the other
one, using the quotes as delimiters.

NJY> This is already a rule the IETF follows (see
NJY> http://www.apacheweek.com/issues/01-03-02 ).

Did I miss something? This doesn't seem to address the issue...

-Mark Wieder

 Using The Bat! v1.61 on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 2
-- 



Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[2]: HTML

[Pete Milne]

Replying to your message of Friday, August 16, 2002, 10:44:05 AM:

TF> No. With the POP protocol, can just download mails (or not). In any
TF> case, a conversion could take place only after download.

Just a thought, it would save some bandwidth and maybe some
vulnerabilities.

-- 

 Pete

 www.milneweb.com
 
 Friday, August 16, 2002
 8:46:05 PM   

 This e-mail is brought to you by:
 The Bat: Version 1.61   
 Windows 2000 build 2195
 Service Pack 3



 Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information: 
 http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[2]: HTML MailTo, Recipient Name + Address Insertion

[Lynn Turriff]

Thursday, June 13, 2002, 9:41:04 AM, you wrote:

PL> Hello Peter,
PL> Thursday, June 13, 2002, 2:41:40 AM, you wrote:

PP>> As you can see in Paddys request there seem to be something left. Or Paddy
PP>> 's using an unfixed 6.0.

PP>> In the latter case Paddy should update Opera and give it another try with
PP>> 'Use Default' _and_ Space.

[snip]

I've never had a problem defaulting Opera to TB mailer,
since v 4 something .. now using Opera 6.02. It's just set
at 'default mailer' TheBat.

I didn't realize there was a later version, better get on
over there and collect it!

Lynn

TB 1.60h
Win2kPro  Build 2195 SP2

-- 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * *Aun Aprendo
I'd rather be WARP'ed* * *  Team OS/2

http://www.sites.onlinemac.com/hawthorne/



Current Ver: 1.60q
FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com 
Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives   : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug Reports: https://bt.ritlabs.com

Re[2]: HTML MailTo, Recipient Name + Address Insertion

[Britt Malka]

Dear Paddy,


Thursday, June 13, 2002 at 6:41:04 PM you wrote:


PL> I am using 6.04.1120.

Is it a beta? I cannot see more than version 6.03 on their homepage.

-- 

Kind regards,

Britt Malka

 |\/|
 | \__/ | 
 \/\/ 
 |  | 
  \\  //  
   \  /   
\/

... Stay thy hand, fair prince. - Who said I'm fair?

... www.malka.it - www.malka.dk - www.supermalka.dk ...

Mailer: Ritlabs SecureBat! v1.60p (7Ba40-6E8D5) under Windows 2000 5.0



Current Ver: 1.60q
FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com 
Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives   : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug Reports: https://bt.ritlabs.com

Re[2]: HTML

[Britt Malka]

Dear Allie,

Monday, June 10, 2002 at 3:48:56 PM you wrote:

ACM> Another way would be to use a MailServer.

I will consider this.

ACM> I don't filter the ones that are
ACM> multipart/mixed since they may contain worthwhile attachments such as
ACM> images.

Oh, okay, thanks... Didn't know that.


-- 

Kind regards,

Britt Malka

 |\/|
 | \__/ | 
 \/\/ 
 |  | 
  \\  //  
   \  /   
\/

... Peer pressure, I'm far too sensitive.

... www.malka.it - www.malka.dk - www.supermalka.dk ...

Mailer: Ritlabs SecureBat! v1.60p (7Ba40-6E8D5) under Windows 2000 5.0



Current Ver: 1.60q
FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com 
Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives   : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug Reports: https://bt.ritlabs.com

Re[2]: HTML

[Britt Malka]

Dear Roelof,

Monday, June 10, 2002 at 12:23:46 AM you wrote:


RO> Check on 'Content-Type:text/html' in the kludges and use as action to
RO> extract the attachments (that's what the html-part is) to a directory,
RO> use the same folder to start a batch file (run external program) that
RO> deletes all html-files in the aforementioned directory.

I tried this (with Content-Type: multipart/mixed;).

The message.htm is saved in the folder I wanted it to, but it is not
deleted from the message. I.e. now I have a copy of the message.htm
file.

How can I delete it from the message?


-- 

Kind regards,

Britt Malka

 |\/|
 | \__/ | 
 \/\/ 
 |  | 
  \\  //  
   \  /   
\/

... To be or not to be... NOT to be!

... www.malka.it - www.malka.dk - www.supermalka.dk ...

Mailer: Ritlabs SecureBat! v1.60p (7Ba40-6E8D5) under Windows 2000 5.0



Current Ver: 1.60q
FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com 
Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives   : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug Reports: https://bt.ritlabs.com

Re[2]: HTML Messages Locking Up TB!

[Don Taylor]

Roelof,

> Does the message show when you're viewing the source-code? (Press )

Yes, I can see both parts of the message in the source window, even
when I'm getting a blank viewer window.

-Don


-- 

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: Re[2]: HTML based emails

[GeekMaster]

1/13/2002 3:56:59 PM, Geordon VanTassle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Hello all.  I'm new to the list, so I figured no better way to join in than to fuel a 
good controversy. :)

>Gee, all I have to do is double-click on the attached HTML document
>and it opens my browser.  You might want to give that a try!  Easy to
>prevent auto-infection that way.  You have to voluntarily open the
>attachment!

I totally agree that this method is totally safe, and *relatively* easy, however:

I preview my mail with PopTray (yes, I know The Bat supports it as well), and also run 
virus protection. 
When I choose to retrieve messages, I have already taken a number of steps to feel 
secure in what I'm 
retrieving.  At that point, I prefer that the mail client *not* do the thinking for 
me, and let me do what I 
want, which is to view an inline HTML message the way it was designed, with zero extra 
steps.  Despite 
all of the very good arguments for sending text only messages, there *are* times when 
I choose to send 
an HTML message.  I purchased The Bat quite a long time ago, and rate it among the 
very best mail 
clients out there, however I don't use it with any regularity at all.  Why?  Because 
The Bat insists on 
telling me what's good for me, instead of providing options (not defaults) for HTML 
composition and true 
"on the fly" inline HTML message rendering.  At this moment, I'm composing this from 
Opera 6's e-mail 
client, because being integrated into the browser, it's so very convenient.  Generally 
though, I use 
PocoMail.  In some ways, it's less powerful than The Bat, but nobody works harder than 
PocoMail's 
author at accomodating user requests in the mail client. HTML is nothing new, and 
despite the wishes of 
some, it's not going to go away.  When The Bat makes the leap into the "new world", I 
will almost 
certainly use it again, as so much of everything else that it does is virtually 
perfect.

Oh, why did I join the list?  To see why the heck there's a beta-a-day.  :)

Mark
--
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 



-- 

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]: HTML based emails

[Geordon VanTassle]

Hello Colin,

Sunday, January 13, 2002, 11:26:44 AM, you wrote:

CG>> Bat looks good except that when receiving emails with HTML
CG>> included (animated gifs etc), Bat shows the fields
CG>> (pics/graphics)within the incoming email as being blank.

CG>> Is this intentional or am I missing something?

Intentional, as far as I can tell: No auto-executing of anything! YAY!

CG> Sorry all, I've sold the problem insofar as I understand Bat cannot
CG> act like a web browser. Shame really but I know there are argumments
CG> for and against.

CG> Parhaps, for the future, a nice touch would be to have a tab/button that
CG> effectively launches iInternet Explorer to view the html.

Gee, all I have to do is double-click on the attached HTML document
and it opens my browser.  You might want to give that a try!  Easy to
prevent auto-infection that way.  You have to voluntarily open the
attachment!

-- 
Best regards,
 Geordonmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 

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]: HTML based emails

[Colin Grant]

Hello David,

Sunday, January 13, 2002, 5:40:12 PM, you wrote:

DvZ> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
DvZ> Hash: SHA1

DvZ> Hello Colin,

DvZ> On 13 Jan 2002 at 17:26:44 +, Colin Grant [CG] wrote concerning
DvZ> 'HTML based emails':
DvZ> ...
CG>> Parhaps, for the future, a nice touch would be to have a
CG>> tab/button that effectively launches iInternet Explorer to view
CG>> the html.

DvZ> That's a feature that's already there. Just double click on the html
DvZ> attachment (message.htm) and it opens in your default browser.

DvZ> - --
DvZ> Best regards,
DvZ>  David

DvZ> ** 007 of Borg:  "Assimilations are Forever." **

DvZ> [TB! 1.54 Beta/28] [Windows NT 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 2]
DvZ>  [Running on a Celeron 800@1176 256 Mb RAM]

DvZ> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
DvZ> Version: PGP 6.5.8ckt Build 06
DvZ> Comment: PGPKeys: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=send_PGP_key

DvZ> iQA/AwUBPEG4cFK9yf5+yp9NEQIjtQCeMdG54KgLnSev7ZUMUTtWyzfzp78AnjcU
DvZ> cTesrk3mGgJYrpggEP1W1wOL
DvZ> =8jZK
DvZ> -END PGP SIGNATURE-



Thanks, David


-- 
Best regards,
Colinmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 

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]: HTML based emails

[Colin Grant]

Hello Thomas,

Sunday, January 13, 2002, 5:36:17 PM, you wrote:

TF> Hello Colin,

TF> On Sun, 13 Jan 2002 17:26:44 + GMT (14/01/02, 01:26 +0800 GMT),
TF> Colin Grant wrote:

CG>> Parhaps, for the future, a nice touch would be to have a tab/button that
CG>> effectively launches iInternet Explorer to view the html.

TF> This button already exists. If you receive a mail in HTML, there is an
TF> HTML icon next to the message you see. Double-click on it, and it will
TF> be shown in your favourite browser; the browser will then download the
TF> off-line images.

TF> If you do not see this HTML icon, activate in the main menu: View /
TF> Attached Files / Show Automatically.


Thanks, Thomas.

I've got it now.

-- 
Best regards,
Colinmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 

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]: HTML based emails

[Colin Grant]

Hello Lars,

Sunday, January 13, 2002, 5:35:33 PM, you wrote:

LG> Hi Colin,
LG> On 13 Jan 2002 at 17:26:44 [GMT +], you wrote:

CG>> Parhaps, for the future, a nice touch would be to have a tab/button
CG>> that effectively launches iInternet Explorer to view the html.

LG> What would you need a tab/button for, if you can simply double click the
LG> HTML file and have it opened in your system default browser?


Hi Lars, you are absolutely right, of course.

I must ba half asleep.

Thanks

-- 
Best regards,
Colinmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 

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]: HTML Problems.../Forwarded E-mail Problems

[Alan Poulton]

Friday, January 11, 2002, 11:22:56 AM, Dierk Haasis wrote:

> Another way would be to double click the HTML attachment - that's why
> I like it displayed - and open it in your browser, which then can
> connect to the Internet and GET the images.

But that doesn't work if it's a .MSG attachment, which is a message that
someone forwarded, but as an attachment.

-- 
  - Alan Poulton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) -
 Using The Bat! v1.53d on Windows 98 4.90 Build 3000  


-- 

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]: HTML email's will not show content?

[Don Zeigler]

On 1/5/2002 at 3:51 PM, Marck D Pearlstone wrote:

> "Sadly" is about how many people go over the top as soon as they get
> their hands on rich text formatting. Suddenly everyone's sending HTML
> mails (and it is HTML mail we're talking about here, not merely RTF,
> which is at the same time both a proprietary and a widely variant
> standard). That's sad - I'd rather it didn't have to be encouraged.

> At the same time, as I say, I see the need.

> The even bigger need here is the need to get a tick in the "features"
> column in comparative reviews. That one I can't argue with, not for
> one second .

And the fact that the Bat doesn't do html is always mentioned as a
weakness in most reviews I've read.

Personally, I can live without the ability to compose those types of
mails, since I always use plaintext. But it would be nice if the Bat!
had a full-fledged html viewer with the ability to toggle on/off
external images. This is one strong feature of Pocomail. I would leave
images off to avoid possible web bugs unless the mail was from a
trusted source, such as a mailing list from a software company.

--
Regards,
Don Zeigler

...Redneck Seven Course Dinner: Possum and a six pack!

This email and tagline brought to you by The Bat! 1.54 Beta/24
running under Windows XP build #2600

www.donzeigler.com
Grand Funk Railroad's "Roadkill" Gallery
Fred on Everything
The Mothman of Point Pleasant
John Edward/Crossing Over
One Eyed Gypsy Official Fan Site
Forums


-- 

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]: HTML email's will not show content?

[Kenneth S. Rhee]

Hello Marck,

5 Jan 2002, 3:58:30 PM, you wrote:

MDP> It is understood that TB V2 may eventually provide an option that
MDP>will cover this.

Am I wrong that we've been waiting for this for a long time?

Love to be able to read Japanese/Korean/Chinese characters

Love to be able to compose rich text e-mails as well.

I don't use those features everyday, but I do occasionally . . .

Well, all those were promised awhile back.

Hopefully in year 2002???

-- 
Best regards,
 Kennethmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]



-- 

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]: html messages in TB viewer

[Don Zeigler]

On 12/24/2001, Lars Geiger wrote:

> Sorry, no setting. It's intended behavior, as showing graphics which
> are not embedded into an email poses a security risc. This can be used
> to track the time when you read a certain email, for example. Or many
> other nasty things.

TB should have an option similar to the one in Pocomail. When viewing an
html message in Poco, images are turned off by default. However, if you
so wish you can click on a button to download the missing images --
useful if the mail is from a source you can trust. This way you don't
risk anything when the source is someone you don't know, but you can still
enjoy your weekly CNet newsletter. :-)
-- 
Regards,
Don Zeigler
...OXYMORON:  Congressional leadership


Irritating tagline brought to you by The Bat! 1.53d
at 3:35:17 PM on Monday, December 24, 2001

www.donzeigler.com
One Eyed Gypsy band info
"Roadkill" Rogue's Gallery
The Mothman of Point Pleasant
Fred Reed
Boards


-- 

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]: HTML-mail

[Eric Malausséna]

Hi Alastair,

On samedi 1 décembre 2001 at 13:39:37, you wrote :

AS> (I'm currently using Becky!; although it has vices, most notably a poor
AS> editor, plugin support is one area in which it is better than TB!
AS> Particularly good is a plugin which supports reading and posting of
AS> news; the integration is seamless).

In fact, BkNews is OK if you have a very low usage of news.

If not, use Forté Agent or XNews... they have real possibilites in
managing lot of newsgroups

-- 
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[2]: HTML-mail

[Geoff Lane]

Saturday, December 01, 2001, 11:23:43 AM, Peter Smitt wrote:

> I agree wholeheartedly. My experience is that 99% of the people who
> use html in their mails even don't know that they do so. They are just
> the victims of the default options of Outlook. Spammers use html
> deliberately, but I don't feel obliged to support them. The Bat!
> shouldn't become an Outlook clone, it is just the difference that
> makes it an attractive and safe alternative. No use for wasting
> resources for an option that is deliberately used only by a few
> percent of the population. Let them muddle with Outlook.

FWIW, I'm currently trialling TB as a replacement for Outlook. This is
because Outlook is the target for too many virus attacks to be safe.
I'm probably not an average Outlook user -- because I set all my
defaults to plain text. I see no reason to send bloat that adds no
value to the content. However, there are times when I want to include
lists or pictures in a message.

TB does a pretty good job of foiling some of spammy's tricks. For
example, TB doesn't show off the page graphics (preventing
"auto-verification" your email address). It's a safe alternative to
Outlook because it doesn't use the MS address book and because it
restricts attachments and off-page resources. Adding a limited HTML
composition ability would not compromise this.

Personally, I feel that the *option* of using HTML would add value to
TB. (... but plain text should be the default:-)

-- 
Geoff Lane
Cornwall, UK
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 


-- 

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]: HTML-mail

[Nick Andriash]

At 12:47 AM 01/12/01, Don Zeigler wrote:

>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.

Negative! If people want to see all that fancy HTML, then they can use a 
Browser to view it, which is what HTML was designed for. I would have to 
disagree with you that TB! 'needs' to be able to do HTML anything. What you 
are proposing is an Outlook 'wannabe', and I for one hope RITLabs never 
entertain going that route.

-- 
Nick

  -=N.J. Andriash | Courtenay, B.C. Canada=-
[ Eudora 5.1/EIS 2.1 | PGP 7.1 | Win 98 SE ]
___


-- 

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]: HTML-mail

[Don Zeigler]

On 11/30/2001, Peter Meyns wrote:

> I don't think so, Nick. There are too many Outlook (Express) users
> around. I do like to be able to see their style, though I despise
> HTML in mails generally. I agree with you in so far as TB! shouldn't
> implement creating HTML mails. This should never be encouraged.

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.
-- 
Regards,
Don Zeigler
..."Bother," said Pooh, as he gave Ted Kennedy another driving lesson.


Irritating tagline brought to you by The Bat! 1.53d
at 12:42:42 AM on Saturday, December 01, 2001


-- 

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]: HTML-mail

[Rick Reumann]

Peter,

On Friday, November 30, 2001, 3:51:41 PM, you wrote:

PM> I don't think so, Nick. There are too many Outlook (Express) users around.
PM> I do like to be able to see their style, though I despise HTML in mails
PM> generally.

One of the reasons I switched to The Bat! from Pegasus was
because of the way it handled HTML messages. Most of the mail I get
still comes from Outlook and Outlook Express and The Bat! handles it
very well.

Although for the most part I also despise HTML emails, I'm not so
certain that at least having the option to use it occasionally would
be such a bad idea. The only HTML I used was some occasional bolding
or italics which I didn't think was such a horrible offense.

-- 

Rick
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

"I bet the main reason the police keep people away from a plane crash
is they don't want anybody walking in and lying down in the crash
stuff, then, when somebody comes up, act like they just woke up and
go, 'What was THAT?!"


-- 

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]: HTML messages

[Sam]

I may have to recant my previous statement.  I think, since changing
the "display HTML Part of Message", that the HTML messages are opening
in the "1" tab and therefore doing away with the medium gray
background with the black type.  I hope this is the way all will come
in.  A thank you much to whoever suggested that; a very simple
solution.

>I'm not a big fan of HTML e-mail and I guess that is why I use
>the-bat.  Someone suggested deselecting the "show HTML automatically",
>which I tried, but I have since received another message and I don't
>see any difference.  It did not have the black print on a medium gray
>background.  Perhaps that person did not use a colored background, as
>someone else indicated.

-- 
Have a great day,
Sammailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]



-- 

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]: HTML messages

[Sam]

Hi Nick,

I'm not a big fan of HTML e-mail and I guess that is why I use
the-bat.  Someone suggested deselecting the "show HTML automatically",
which I tried, but I have since received another message and I don't
see any difference.  It did not have the black print on a medium gray
background.  Perhaps that person did not use a colored background, as
someone else indicated.

-- 
Have a great day,
Sammailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

> That is one of the main reasons why most of us don't want to see HTML in
> E-Mail and are puzzled as to RITLabs insistence on including it. :o(



-- 

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]: HTML files trouble

[Paul F. Siebern]

Hi Thomas F,

On 6/19/01 at 11:08:05GMT +0800 (which was 8:08 PM where I live) Thomas F
wrote regarding the subject of: "HTML files trouble"

PFS>> The files download, but nothing shows up except the From, To, Subject,
PFS>> Time etc. That's it nothing else no message at all. Then if I close The
PFS>> Bat and reopen it the whole message is there.

T> If nothing is shown, hit F9 (Message Source) and check whether there
T> is some clue.

Nope nothing there.

PFS>> I'm running Norton Anti Virus 2001, but that has never caused a problem in
PFS>> the past, so I am really at a loss.

T> If this reliably happens with all HTML messages, turn off NAV for a
T> test and send yourself an HTML message. See whether the problem
T> persists.

It seems to only happen with files that are HTML only, the ones that are
also sent as text open fine, both text and HTML

-- 
Paul F. Siebern | [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Please, quote all relevant replies in correspondence.

The Bat! Version 1.53d
under Windows 98 4.10 Build   A 

-- 
__
Archives   : 
Moderators : 
TBTech List: 
Unsubscribe: 

You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org

Re[2]: HTML files trouble

[Paul F. Siebern]

Hi Dennis J. Alcover,

On 6/19/01 at 21:58:49GMT -0500 (which was 7:58 PM where I live) Dennis J.
Alcover wrote regarding the subject of: "HTML files trouble"

D> As a matter of fact, I've been chasing this for a while. If you open
D> the message, is everything blank (including To/From/Subject)?

That's it exactly! Very strange behavior. I've even gone so far as to do a
complete uninstall , including the registry and reinstalling from scratch,
problem still shows up.

PFS>> I've been having a problem with receiving HTML messages since Bat version
PFS>> 152f.

PFS>> The files download, but nothing shows up except the From, To, Subject,
PFS>> Time etc. That's it nothing else no message at all. Then if I close The
PFS>> Bat and reopen it the whole message is there.

PFS>> It also will not filter these mails just dumps them in the 'IN' box.


-- 
Paul F. Siebern | [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Please, quote all relevant replies in correspondence.

-- 
__
Archives   : 
Moderators : 
TBTech List: 
Unsubscribe: 

You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org

Re[2]: HTML attachments (was; Uninstall Problem-Help.)

[David Elliott]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Dear Lars

On 13 April 2001 at 10:23:57 +0200 (which was 09:23 where I live) Lars
Geiger wrote or so historians believe

> First of all, there is no name for the attachment anywhere.

True.

> That reminds me of a thread some time ago about the differences in the
> appearance of a html attachment in TB!, some people reporting .stm, some
> .shtml and some other extensions.

Interesting idea. It looks like it based on the set up of each receiving
computer

> The second problem is that there is no plain text part


> So I guess TB! can only delete a html part if the content type is
> multipart/alternative.

That makes sense.


DE>>> What I do like is the last lines added by the list it
DE>>> looked like
DE>>> Archives   :Moderators :TBTech List:Unsubscribe:

>> Ack.

> Same here, and that's really strange, as these lines are correct
> in the exported message.

Correct but these lines fall outside of any  tags. The message
and the [You are subscribed as] line both fall inside some of these tags.

- --
 Thanks,   ___
  David   |  MUA :- The Bat! 1.52 Beta/1  | E-mailaholics |
 _| Win 2000 Server 5.0.2195 SP1  | International |
| TABTRB: #12 Taglines never make you sleep on the wet spot.  |

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: PGP 6.5.8ckt (Build 04/01)
Comment: PGP Signed, sealed, delivered.

iQA/AwUBOta/pPmK8eZlD0U0EQIcigCgglUnw4vjPP1H+bi1FwNe/S4YEZgAoK0l
wh7USPus65ErHolQaRcUtCgL
=7sKn
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

-- 
__
Archives   : 
Moderators : 
TBTech List: 
Unsubscribe: 

You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org

Re[2]: HTML Mail viewing (images)

[Abigail Marshall]

--
On Tuesday, January 09, 2001, 11:12:08 PM, Andrey G. Sergeev (AKA Andris) wrote:

AGSAA> Personally I don't think you're going against the rules of this ML when
AGSAA> you're trying to discuss some topics like one you were raised. However
AGSAA> this particular topic have been discussed more than 10 times in my mind
AGSAA> with the same and the sad result: it ended up with the holy war and the
AGSAA> flame war :-(. Sad but true (C) RIT Labs.

AGSAA> There are several ways to stop this useless HTML-with-images talks
AGSAA> forever.

Andrey - (and everyone else):
Those of us who have joined the list relatively recently have no way
of knowing which issues and topics have been discussed here before. In
fact, because the volume of mail from this list is so high, I cannot
possibly read all of the mail that comes in currently - so it would be
easy to miss a topic. (I just filter the list into a folder in
threaded form, read the posts under subject topics that look like they
might interest me, and delete the rest).

The ONLY answer is a good online FAQ, combined with automated
distribution to the list of the links to the FAQ, as a reminder to new
users to check the FAQs before posting.  The fact that a subject seems
to be one that has been exhaustively debated in the past would
indicate that it is something that should be included in the FAQs.

-Abigail



-- 
--
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team double click here:
   
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message:
   
--

You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org

Re: Re[2]: HTML Mail viewing (images)

[Austin Dennis]

Hi Kent

> I would just like a HTML message to display all of the images :>

Me too. :)

Austin

-- 
--
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team double click here:
   
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message:
   
--

You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org

Re[2]: HTML Mail viewing (images)

[Kent Villard (iChef)]

Hello Austin,

Monday, January 08, 2001, 6:28:05 PM, you wrote:

AD> Hi

>> What do you mean by saying that? Do you _really_ want that all that
>> .html .ra .qt .scr .swf attachments will
>> render/play/saving-your-screen/etc. upon the message view?

I would just like a HTML message to display all of the images :>


-- 
Best regards,
 Kent 
   
-
Kent Villardmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
WebMaster   The Internet Chef
-http://www.ichef.com/---
Visit Our New Sites:

http://www.links4recipes.com/ - The Best Recipe Portal On The Net.
http://www.recipes4thanksgiving.com/ - All Thanksgiving Cooking All The Time

-- 
--
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team double click here:
   
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message:
   
--

You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org

Re[2]: HTML Mails

[John Phillips]

Hello

Saturday, December 09, 2000, 10:58:10 PM, someone claiming to be [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

> [..]
JP>> Question:-  Any way to make as default when an HTML message is
JP>> received, that Bat! only opens the plain text version, instead of two
JP>> versions?

> Go to the Options menu and be sure that HTML-Autoview isn't ticked. This
> will make the plain text version be displayed by default.



Thanks, missed that easy one.

-- 
Regards
John Phillips

People who think they know everything greatly annoy those of us who do.

-- 
--
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team double click here:
   
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message:
   
--

You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org

Re[2]: HTML Mails

[John Phillips]

Hello

Thursday, December 07, 2000, 8:58:37 AM, someone claiming to be [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:


> Hello Thomas,

> On Wed, 6 Dec 2000, at 22:36:54 h [GMT +0100]
> you wrote this about "HTML Mails":

TS>> Hello TBUDL,

TS>> I myself don't like HTML mails but one of my customers wants me to
TS>> send HTML mails with Pics inside them.

TS>> Now my Question is if I create a HTML message in the Bat (I read some
TS>> day that just attaching a HTML File to the Message without text would
TS>> do this.) It works for receiving that mail with the Bat

> Wrong. TB! just displays the HTML part of an HTML message as an
> attachment, but it is not one.

..snipped...

I personally can not stand HTML, and in fact a couple of mailing lists
I am on have banned them, but some still slip through.

Question:-  Any way to make as default when an HTML message is
received, that Bat! only opens the plain text version, instead of two
versions?


-- 
Regards
John Phillips

Crispy outside, tender inside.

-- 
--
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team double click here:
   
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message:
   
--

You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org

Re[2]: HTML mail

[John Hinson]

Hello Marck and all,

Thursday, September 14, 2000, 5:54:55 PM, you wrote:
> While  you can (with a great deal of effort), it is not part of the TB
> remit  to  cover  HTML  mail  creation.  There  are  a number of other
> products  which  do this. There are also a large majority of dedicated
> TB  users  who don't want TB to be able to do this. Theory states that
> V2 (currently in development but not yet even in beta) will be able to
> do  this. I would prefer that it didn't, but then again I get told I'm
> an old dinosaur in that respect.

Hmmm, that gives me a problem. I can understand that if the software
currently doesn't let you send HTML email easily, then its likely to gain a
strong following of hard-liners in favour of text-only posting.

I shall watch for version 2 with interest - I certainly don't /always/
want to send in HTML, but I like to have the choice.

> I'm afraid you are. Please refrain from posting HTML here.

My apologies on that to all, it wasn't intended. The competitive product I was
trying seems to have turned out equally unhelpful in reverse - it only
posts HTML, even when there is no reason to.

> The  Bat  is  the best e-mail client there is. Period. HTML is not for
> e-mail - it is for presentation. You wouldn't expect TB to include all
> of  WordPerfect's  capabilities  -  you would sent a WP document as an
> attachment.  Thus  you  can attach a prepared HTML file to an email an
> and  in  that  way  send  an  "HTML mail". I don't want to get into an
> argument  about  OE and Poco and all of the others that "let you do it
> properly". That doesn't make it right IMHO.

Understand your views, but to be fair I think most users on this group
are likely to be biased. I'm not saying that to be unkind, but I'm
talking to the converted. Those who preferred something else to The
Bat! will be on that software's mailing list or NNTP group. :o)

> Now,  show  me  another  client  that  handles multiple accounts, with
> template  facilities  like TB offers, as powerful a sorting office and
> the  very  useful  ticker  and its' virtual folder for reading all new
> mail. I don't believe there is one.

Well, on multiple accounts I think Poco has the edge. I find the size
of the multiple list of inboxes in The Bat! to be one of its disadvantages,
Poco manages to combine the Inbox, Outbox, Sent etc. into one. I think
that's a lot neater if you use multiple accounts. On the other hand,
The Bat! is A1 perfect with the templates and signatures, allowing a
lot of flexibility. There are some other excellent features, too - I love the little 
"P" for
parked messages etc.

My other irritation with TB's handling of multiple accounts is that
there is no easy button/key combination to collect email from all
accounts. I keep collecting from just one in error. perhaps I have
missed something here.

> If you hang around, you may also discover that this list is itself yet
> another asset in the TB armoury .

I'm sure you are right, Marck. I do intend to hang around for a while
- I've got a month of the trial in which to make my mind up, but I'd
like to make my decision sooner rather than later.

> Of course, the choice is yours.

Indeed. For your interest, I have been using Eudora which is quite
good but slow and clunky against The Bat! and Poco. I am also getting
seriously annoyed with it for pestering me for registration and other
personal information when I have paid for the wretched product. I feel
it has turned from a good product into an over-bloated information
harvester with upgrades.

I've also tried to test Calypso but I can't stop it crashing -
probably a clash with other software I have rather than a direct fault
with the programme.

Best wishes and thanks for the help and guidance,

John Hinson (in plain text, I hope!)

-- 
--
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team double click here:
   
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message:
   
--

You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org