Re: Re[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 16:23:11 +0200, Marek Mikus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In 2.01 version will be possible to selecect HTML as default in Preferences and AFAIK macros for selecting message type are planned. Thank you for this info. The macros would do well too (I didn't think of that option), but the default on is not my style - and IMHO that shouldn't be supported by TB!'s either. Although, speaking business-wise that might open a larger share of the e-mail client market. Grtz, Cory Current version is 2.00.6 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
Hi Thomas Wednesday, September 10, 2003, 2:38:04 PM, you wrote: TF The internet was designed for plain-text emails only. MIME attachments TF (allowing HTML) was added much later and under much protest. Check it TF out on the internet. The internet was not designed *for* email at all. The ARPANET, its predecessor, was meant to be a US DoD network that could survive a nuclear attack. If you mean that the initial conception did not involve MIME etc., then that's correct. But claiming that it was designed specifically for plaintext email isn't correct. It was SMTP that was designed with support for only 7-bit ASCII in mind. Was that what you meant? TF It always amazes me that many people think the internet was invented TF by Outlook or AOL 6 or Al Gore... Internet invented by outlook? I must meet this person :) Gore, on the other hand, seems to have actively perpetuated that myth himself during the time he stood for election. Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Friday, September 12, 2003 12:50:16 PM (GMT -05:00) RE: HTML as default on v2.00 ...? Greetings MAU, On Wednesday, September 10, 2003, 7:13:30 AM, you wrote: MAU As you may have read a few days ago in a thread with subject My new 20 MAU lines filter, you better start your text before line 20 or I will not MAU read any of your messages (provided you care at all if I read them or MAU not) ;-) Ahh well. I don't feel the need to format my messages based on your criteria. I quote what I feel is necessary to clearly represent the thread and the basis of my reply. Sorry. Anyway ... - -- Regards, DG Raftery Sr. You're only young once; you can be immature f'ever. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 9.0b1 Comment: KeyID: 0xECFE3F95 Comment: Fingerprint: 8ABE 6728 1CB9 E231 B2C8 C29D BC22 D3D1 ECFE 3F95 iQA/AwUBP2IIebwi09Hs/j+VEQKEYgCg+S9OkWEpsuNC+zUlgZ3q/Lkro3EAn0WE q5Chd2Zg1Uigi+wR9Y72r7aQ =x4Gf -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
Wednesday, September 10, 2003, 8:23:15 PM, Allie wrote: A We are in the know and they're not. :) You put a smiley there, but you're right! When Mosaic came out, I was one of the first to stop using Gopher and Archie; the new way was so much easier and quickly became more appealing. A We know the problems with HTML and they don't. None of those typical end-users created the clients; a techy did - because there was a market for it. People wanted to send something other than boring-looking plain text e-mail. A It's an entirely different matter to have the problems A presented to someone and they still advocate HTML!! ducking A and running Man, where's a smelly old fish when you need one? :) My position is not one of advocating HTML, but a more practical rather than an ivory tower view of the world. Pandora opened her HTML e-mail and it's here to stay. We techies have to figure out a way to deal with it. TB! is one - filter the meat and ignore the fluff. Works for me, but I don't have a shortage of b/w. Side note - In the vast majority of cases, the issue of bandwidth is a red herring in this argument. Not that bandwidth doesn't matter, but SPAM has become so overwhelming that its percentage use of bandwidth far exceeds the cost of HTML. If b/w is the main concern, SPAM needs to get the attention. The battle of HTML vs. plain text is comparable to the religious wars of Windows vs. Mac, Motif vs. OpenLook, etc. People have an opinion, and they have facts to support their side. The other side has just has many facts, too. It comes down to what a person believes and values. If you have a lot of b/w, paying 3K for a 1K message is not a big deal and the waving palms aren't that bothersome other than aesthetically. If you don't, then _paying_ 3K for 1K hurts! PS - I've not posted this much of my opinions in 10 years - in this post and others recently. It must be pent up and overflowing! Maybe more fiber would help. :) -- Dave Kennedy Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: WARNING(virus check bypassed): Re[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........? -- anyone else seeing this 'WARNING' prefix?
On Thursday, September 11, 2003, Pixie wrote... JA I don't use my comcast account for emails, I run my own server, JA so it's easier to monkey with what I want. There is a possibility JA that it Do you happen to run that on a 'home' service? I've been thinking of throwing a server back up. Their AUP is very wishy washy with regard to servers. I used to when I was using Coserv DSL. Unfortunately when I moved, I checked with comcast they said that hosting was forbidden. So it's hosted where I work. -- Jonathan Angliss ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) All true wisdom is found on T-shirts. --And in taglines. pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
Hello Marck, Tuesday, September 9, 2003, 3:11:20 PM, you wrote: MDP HTML was *never* developed or intended for use as a formatting MDP system for email. It is a presentation system for served pages, MDP intended for transmission with the HyperText Transfer Protocol MDP (HTTP, yes?). Mail is simple text intended for transmission with the MDP Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP, yes?). The fusion of the two MDP has led to over-use of bandwidth, bad taste and imposition on the MDP recipient, whose choice it *should* be! You're turning things around here. With all communications, the presentation and formatting lies with the originator. This is true for newspapers, slide show presentations, snail mail letters, email, etc.. With the introduction of HTML, the contents and its presentation were separated and it became possible for the recipient to have control over the presentation. The use of tags like body, h1, h2 leave it completely open on how to display the text. So, I would agree with the bandwidth issue but if you want recipient choice, then HTML is the better way. Concerning bad taste, people can write horribly in plain ASCII too. Frank -- Best regards, FJ de Bruin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Tuesday, September 09, 2003 4:23:19 PM (GMT -05:00) RE: HTML as default on v2.00 ...? Greetings David, On Tuesday, September 9, 2003, 2:54:05 PM, you wrote: TF Your choice is costing me money. D And exactly how much extra is it costing you? David I regret the tone of my reply (D) above. Certainly in some parts of David the world this may be a very real issue. I wanted to defend myself David against TF who seemed to be accusing me of costing him money, which I David am not. David My point was that one should look at the facts, and discern the best David course of action to take based on those facts, rather than evoking David arguments to rationalise one's prejudicial viewpoint. Sorry for the excessive quoting moderators but Thomas is right. It depends solely on how you pay for your connection. Some broadband (cable and DSL) providers, here in the U.S., have gone to a tiered system where so much over MB or GB per month incur a cost above and beyond the monthly charge. Also a business or individual running a T1, T2 or T3 line pay a monthly charge on line cost and further pay a bandwidth charge. With hundreds of HTML formatted e-mail messages arriving monthly this builds up in in cost. Thomas is absolutely correct as you have no clue what the receiver is running for a connection and what they pay for such a connection. Sorry. Anyway ... - -- Regards, DG Raftery Sr. I.R.S.: We've got what it takes to take what you've got! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 9.0b1 Comment: KeyID: 0xECFE3F95 Comment: Fingerprint: 8ABE 6728 1CB9 E231 B2C8 C29D BC22 D3D1 ECFE 3F95 iQA/AwUBP145V7wi09Hs/j+VEQImOwCeJlyKKpYjbK4K2V5hWX4ekkKWeUYAn1PJ jEoPN8dwz+t06xeDSxJ5K54R =lzTI -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: WARNING(virus check bypassed): Re[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........? -- anyone else seeing this 'WARNING' prefix?
Hallo Pixie, On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 06:56:57 -0400GMT (10-9-03, 12:56 +0200, where I live), you wrote: MW Anyway, in digest mode the header on my message looks fine to me. P Does there happen to exist a command I can grab digests for the P last day or two? Not automatically. But you could ask someone to forward those digests. I you'd like to receive them, I could forward the digests to you. Only if you ask me to, of course. It wouldn't be nice for you if several of us send you all digests since Monday. Depends a bit on your connectivity whether that would be a mere nuisance or severe problems. ;-) -- Groetjes, Roelof Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
Tuesday, September 9, 2003, 5:43:27 PM, Allister wrote: A And if you can think of a case where this is so, could it be A better handled by posting a web page, or PDF file, or A attaching a PDF file to the email? 1. Acrobat Reader is not as universal as HTML even if it is a free download. 2. Posting something to a web page changes the paradigm from a push to a pull. If I have something I need people to see, I have to send an e-mail to people (push) and then get them to click a link (pull). If someone d/l's their e-mail to handle off-line, it's really painful for them. -- Dave Kennedy Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
It seems that David Boggon said ... D Many end users don't know enough/have enough time/have the inclination D to delve into the plain text display settings of their client, and so D plain text messages with fixed width fonts and no bold italics and D font sizes/colours look very plain indeed beside their HTML D counterparts. If the goal is COMMUNICATION, plain text wins. If the goal is making it pretty, HTML wins. I receive a lot of HTML messages that look like ransom notes. If I have 557 fonts, then I'm going to use every one of them in every message, the user seems to think, and at least 7,000,000 of the 16.7 million available to me. Yecch. -- Bill Blinn Technology Editor ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - 9/9/2003 at 8:56 AM Technology Editor, Newsradio 610 WTVN, Columbus, Ohio Using The Bat! v2.00.6 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 Random thought: Trust I seek and I find in you, everyday to eat something new. Featured speaker at PowerPoint Live - Tucson, Arizona October 12-15, 2003 - http://www.pptlive.com/ Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
Tuesday, September 9, 2003, 10:08:21 AM, Jamie wrote: I'm also terribly prejudiced against fonts, if you want me to think you're a 5 year old feel free to use Comic Sans, otherwise use a businesslike font. It's a pain for me to have to set things up so that stupid unreadable fonts are displayed correctly. Interesting, I happen to really dislike left/right justification of fixed-width fonts. It's very distracting to read. Actually, it's only mildly annoying, kind of like that Comic Sans, which I also dislike. The point is that different people have different preferences. I would _never_ send out a left right justified e-mail, you must think it's kind of cool. (Wrong! :) ) I like TB!'s handling of HTML e-mails where it strips out the meat of the message and ignores the rest. If I want to see the message in all its glory I click on a tab and there it is (minus the dangerous stuff). I'd still like for TB! to allow me as the end-user to select the HTML editor as my default editor. I mean. really, there is an option to turn on/off the little menu navigator thingy that I ignored for at least a year until learning to how turn it off yesterday. Can't we have one little-itty-bitty check-box that says Use HTML Editor as Default? 'Nuff said. -- Dave Kennedy Where is nroff when you need it? Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
Hi Deborah Tuesday, September 9, 2003, 9:01:10 AM, you wrote: DW - HTML slows the recipient's computer - not always noticeably, but it DW always does. Would you elaborate on this? Rendering might be slower, but the computer as a whole? The rendering does not take up so much extra CPU power that the computer as a whole would be observed to slow down. Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
Hi Marck Tuesday, September 9, 2003, 9:11:20 AM, you wrote: D Hmmm. While some people who use HTML mail may abuse it, it is the D spammers etc themselves who are at fault, not HTML, I think. MDP That is not correct. The fault lies in the ability to write MDP over-formatted messages. I think it *is* correct. The ability is not at fault. If someone chooses to take it over the edge, that's his prerogative, and his fault, not the system's. HTML provides a capability - either use it or abuse it. That said, I'm a fan of plain text email myself. Most tasks can be accomplished easily with it and it definitely seems cleaner. Very rarely do I see the need for HTMl mail. The only reason I'd want to do something like that would be to change the font to, say, Verdana which has great on-screen legibility. Nothing outlandish. Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
It seems that David Boggon said ... TF Your choice is costing me money. D And exactly how much extra is it costing you? Does it matter? Doing something that you know costs someone else money is rude, even if it's no more than one cent. -- Bill Blinn Technology Editor ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - 9/9/2003 at 1:50 PM Technology Editor, Newsradio 610 WTVN, Columbus, Ohio Using The Bat! v2.00.6 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 Random thought: Bureaucrat, n.: A person who cuts red tape sideways. Featured speaker at PowerPoint Live - Tucson, Arizona October 12-15, 2003 - http://www.pptlive.com/ Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
Tuesday, September 9, 2003, 1:14:57 PM, Thomas wrote: T Your choice is costing me money. Outlandish HTML e-mail (with the dangerous stuff filtered by TB!) is mildly annoying. However, SPAM causes me much more heartache. In the past 6 months, I've received ~15,000 e-mails. Of those ~7,000 are SPAM. That uses more bandwidth by far than the HTML e-mails. I'd like to see a way to identify these suckers on the server and blow them away! -- Dave Kennedy Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
At 5:43 PM on 9/9/2003, Allister Jenks typed ... A I think everyone in this thread who is supporting the use of HTML in A emails should read the HTML 4.01 specification - all of it. Then you A will understand that HTML is a /semantic/ markup language. It is A _*NOT*_ a presentation tool. And, more importantly, you will A understand *why* this is the case. (Something tells me this has veered into TBOT territory, so this is my final post -- here or there -- on the topic ) HTML is a semantic/markup language in the same way that a rhinoceros is a paperweight. The HTML spec was flawed from the beginning and has been modified over the years so that it's now even worse. I wouldn't design a website without CSS and I'm beginning to follow XHTML standards on sites I'm involved with because enough browsers follow enough of the standards well enough that following the standards works. It's true that HTML wasn't intended for use in e-mail programs, but the world is full of instances of things being used for tasks they're not intended to accomplish. Why? Because they do what people want to do well enough. Besides that, as a list owner, I can tell you that HTML-laden posts cause a lot less trouble than RTF-filled posts. I'm one of the let's-avoid-HTML-mail folks, but I know that in those instances when I want to send mail that is formatted for presentation, HTML is the *only* way I can do it and hope for it to be readable by a nearly everyone who reads it. -- Bill Blinn Technology Editor ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - 9/9/2003 at 7:26 PM Technology Editor, Newsradio 610 WTVN, Columbus, Ohio Using The Bat! v2.00.6 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 Random thought: CAT (n): 1. Furry keyboard cover 2. Alarm clock. 3. A walking ego with fur. Featured speaker at PowerPoint Live - Tucson, Arizona October 12-15, 2003 - http://www.pptlive.com/ Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
Hi Leif Tuesday, September 9, 2003, 2:17:47 PM, you wrote: LGNow take the HTML mail to a global scale. $365 x millions and LGeventually billions of people per year. Yeah, that's a serious LGwaste of money. Assuming, of course, that your estimations were correct. You said yourself that they were arbitrary, so a claim that HTML mail costs hundreds of millions extra a year isn't really valid. Add to that the fact that many people consider a fair amount of those emails useful, and the damage doesn't look so bad. LG 2. Most mobile devices have limited space. Why would I want an HTML LGmessage twice the size of a plaintext one with no value added LGeating up all my available memory. I wouldn't say they have no value added. A lot of people like HTML mail. For them that's value. LGHowever, I don't need a one line e-mail from a LG friend saying they'll be over in an hour with some animated background LG image of trees swaying. Right. People like us on this list don't appreciate that. But we aren't really representative of the majority. People think of email in different ways. The average end user thinks about how to make his messages look good, perhaps tries to relieve some of the monotony of plain email, perhaps have some fun doing something which isn't always fun when you deal with a lot of it. Many reasons, but I know a lot of people who *like* receiving messages with fancy stationery. I don't see that changing. Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?
Hi Marck Tuesday, September 9, 2003, 12:13:35 PM, you wrote: D Hmmm. While some people who use HTML mail may abuse it, it is D the spammers etc themselves who are at fault, not HTML, I D think. MDP That is not correct. The fault lies in the ability to write MDP over-formatted messages. D I think it *is* correct. MDP You believe the statement HTML spam is the reason that HTML mail is MDP despised is correct? Surely not! Nope. I believe the statement While some people who use HTML mail may abuse it, it is the spammers etc themselves who are at fault, not HTML, I think is correct. It is the spammers who are at fault, not HTML, like the original poster said. Your post seemed to say that the spammers are *not* at fault. Looks like a miscommunication to me :) D The ability is not at fault. MDP I didn't say it was. The ability to *write over-formatted messages* MDP - thus to *use* the facility /freely/ - is at fault, not the MDP ability itself - the provision of the facility. The selective MDP quote is leading to a misunderstanding. I should probably have made MDP myself clearer. You're saying that if HTML mail weren't so easy to use, it would be ok? I still disagree. I don't think the ability to use it freely is at fault. The actual fault lies with the *person* who abuses this capability. If HTML weren't so easy to use (and thereby abuse), we'd have web developers up in arms. D If someone chooses to take it over the edge, that's his D prerogative, and his fault, not the system's. MDP That's a paraphrase of what I actually said. It didn't seem like that. miscommunication indeed :) MDP Although I don't MDP consider it his prerogative, since his intent is to impose it on me. MDP There is a responsibility issue there. I agree. D HTML provides a capability - either use it or abuse it. MDP The problem is that more abuse than use, when even just the use is MDP widely unwelcome. Widely? Well, ISTM the truth of the matter is the MDP vast majority are *completely indifferent* on this issue - they use MDP OE - it gives them HTML - they use it and have no idea whether they MDP like to or not. Exactly. MDP Of those expressing a preference you will find the MDP majority of them *against* the indiscriminate use of HTML in email. I wouldn't know. I've never talked to people about this. D The only reason I'd want to do something like that would be to D change the font to, say, Verdana which has great on-screen D legibility. Nothing outlandish. MDP I would never do that. The person receiving my message has a MDP favourite reading font. Not always. Most people stick with what the default is. A lot wouldn't know that Verdana might make their life a little easier. I think of it as a harmless and possibly beneficial suggestion. But I agree that they should be free to use what they want, which is why I don't use HTML mail. Cheers, -Vishal Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: WARNING(virus check bypassed): Re[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........? -- anyone else seeing this 'WARNING' prefix?
Pixie- Cool. I sneaked in under your virus check software? Got my mojo working today... Anyway, in digest mode the header on my message looks fine to me. -- -Mark Wieder Using The Bat! v1.63 Beta/7 on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 2 Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: WARNING(virus check bypassed): Re[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........? -- anyone else seeing this 'WARNING' prefix?
Wednesday, September 10, 2003, 1:27:47 AM, Pixie wrote: P about an hour or so ago a couple messages came in with this modified P subject. Not just the thread I ripped the subject from but also 1 P or 2 others has it. P ..just trying to see if my ISP has been monkeying with something on P their servers or if others on the list are also seeing the same. I've not seen any messages like that at all on the list -- Cheers, Anne Flying high with The Bat! v2.00.6 on Windows 98 4.10 Build Visit The Bat! Users' Unofficial Help Forum http://the-bat-forums.donzeigler.com Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: WARNING(virus check bypassed): Re[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........? -- anyone else seeing this 'WARNING' prefix?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tuesday, September 09, 2003, Pixie wrote... ..just trying to see if my ISP has been monkeying with something on their servers or if others on the list are also seeing the same. I don't use my comcast account for emails, I run my own server, so it's easier to monkey with what I want. There is a possibility that it has been done at their end as nobody else seems affected by the issue (in light of the klez/sobig/etc viruses). However, they can probably be caught with a lot of legal issues by modifying the content of mail, at least in such a visible way. Most people wouldn't notice it in the headers. - -- Jonathan Angliss ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) What happens when you get scared half to death.twice? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQA/AwUBP16l0iuD6BT4/R9zEQIAyACgpSr6h/GcTtu4VhUWErbeJ+3UG/YAoKUb dUPdK/Bg5QE4tc6PdJCkbdcb =Xau6 -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 2.00 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
