Stroller wrote:
I've been wondering for a while why no alternative has been proposed.
HTML was originally considered poor because it wasted bandwidth, HTML
messages being *at least* twice the size of the plain text, but often
several times as large. I wonder if console-based mail-readers were
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 8:02 AM, Dale [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stroller wrote:
I've been wondering for a while why no alternative has been proposed.
HTML was originally considered poor because it wasted bandwidth, HTML
messages being *at least* twice the size of the plain text, but often
Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto wrote:
In general, html email is mostly a solution in search of a problem,
and it ends up causing trouble and being overall worse than the
simple, efficient, easy, working, universally adopted technology that
preceded it. Besides all the problems already listed in
On Wednesday 03 December 2008 12:51:19 Dale wrote:
As for the guy who suggested a form of sanitized HTML for email,
maybe you would like
enriched text
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriched_text
Someone who put it better than I could. I use HTML elsewhere but out of
respect for
Alan McKinnon wrote:
On Wednesday 03 December 2008 12:51:19 Dale wrote:
As for the guy who suggested a form of sanitized HTML for email,
maybe you would like
enriched text
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriched_text
Someone who put it better than I could. I use HTML elsewhere
On Wednesday 03 December 2008 13:10:26 Dale wrote:
Alan McKinnon wrote:
On Wednesday 03 December 2008 12:51:19 Dale wrote:
As for the guy who suggested a form of sanitized HTML for email,
maybe you would like
enriched text
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriched_text
Someone who put
Alan McKinnon wrote:
On Wednesday 03 December 2008 13:10:26 Dale wrote:
Mine should be text. I have Seamonkey set to send text only to anything
gentoo.org or kde.org.
I can't check myself since gmail doesn't send me a copy back. Is gmail
overriding my local setting? Tell me it ain't
On Wednesday 03 December 2008 14:04:41 Dale wrote:
Since I am on dial-up, I hate the ones that have HUGE video clips
attached. I have had to sign in via webmail and just delete the email
without ever even seeing it. Don't you love it? Maybe I shouldn't
mention that since it may give someone
2008/12/2 b.n. [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
May I ask why many people on MLs use to write links as footnotes instead
that inside the mail text? I suspect it is some netiquette issue, but I
can't find info on that and I find it mildly confusing.
Because
2008/12/2 Daniel Pielmeier [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Because
http://some-vvverrryy-long-link/some-page.html
On Tue, 2 Dec 2008 12:33:32 +0100, brullo nulla wrote:
Not to me. I am accustomed to see links inside of text in webpages, so
there is nothing strange in what you posted.
I rarely see URLs inside the text of web pages, they are generally
hyperlinked to a piece of the text. Email is more like
brullo nulla wrote:
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 10:29 AM, Daniel Pielmeier
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/12/2 b.n. [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
May I ask why many people on MLs use to write links as footnotes instead
that inside the mail text? I suspect it is some netiquette issue, but I
can't
Daniel Pielmeier wrote:
2008/12/2 Daniel Pielmeier [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Because
Daniel Pielmeier ha scritto:
Unfortunately there is no ebuild for fatsort [1] only a maintainer
wanted bug [2].
There is even a python gui [3], but I don't know if there is really a
need for a gui though.
I think I will update the ebuild (which does not look that complicated
and needs some
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 10:29 AM, Daniel Pielmeier
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/12/2 b.n. [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
May I ask why many people on MLs use to write links as footnotes instead
that inside the mail text? I suspect it is some netiquette issue, but I
can't find info on that and I find it
This reminds me of the text/html debate. If you put links in the body
and some guru that has the answer doesn't like links in the body, they
may not read your post and you could be left without a answer for a
while longer. Or worse yet, if it is some software that is rarely used,
they may
On 2 Dec 2008, at 11:33, brullo nulla wrote:
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 10:29 AM, Daniel Pielmeier
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/12/2 b.n. [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
May I ask why many people on MLs use to write links as footnotes
instead
that inside the mail text? I suspect it is some netiquette
brullo nulla wrote:
I send text myself too usually (don't know when I'm using gmail from
the web like now).
However if I receive html mail, my mail client is set up to make it
look like it's only text, so I don't really see the difference.
Well apparently some people here use a client
On 2 Dec 2008, at 12:25, Dale wrote:
...
This reminds me of the text/html debate. If you put links in the body
and some guru that has the answer doesn't like links in the body, they
may not read your post and you could be left without a answer for a
while longer. Or worse yet, if it is some
Stroller ha scritto:
It's not merely aesthetic, because a URL as long as the one above may
not be clickable in the mail client. TinyURL should alleviate this
problem, as long as the sender's client doesn't break lines in some
stupid place.
Right.
I'll use direct links inline when I'm
20 matches
Mail list logo
