At 12:24 AM 5/16/00 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Well, when we were designing the MIME spec, we went to great lengths
>to cover all the bases - in fact, I've seen one very good use of
>multipart/alternative by somebody with crippling RSI.
>
>He got into the habit of sending commentary to a mai
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 23:54:01 -0500 (CDT)
From: Tim Salo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Loop: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 13:51:35 +1000 (EST)
> From: Bruce Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: HTML email
Sorry to prolong (and further degrade) this already overlong thread, but
somehow the one-upsmanship (or -downsmanship I suppose) about who has the
most primitive email environment reminded of the venerable item below. My
only excuse is that it's a Friday in May ...
- RL "Bob" (proud Pine user,
On Fri, May 19, 2000 at 10:12:14AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, 19 May 2000 13:51:35 +1000, Bruce Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Just a quick survey on the last 513 messages seen in the IETF list, based
> > on X-Mailer header:
> > 29 exmh
> OK, let's make it 30 for exmh
] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2000 10:12 AM
To: Bruce Campbell
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: HTML email
On Fri, 19 May 2000 13:51:35 +1000, Bruce Campbell
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Just a quick survey on the last 513 messages seen in the IETF list, based
> on X-M
On Fri, 19 May 2000 13:51:35 +1000, Bruce Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Just a quick survey on the last 513 messages seen in the IETF list, based
> on X-Mailer header:
> 29 exmh
OK, let's make it 30 for exmh ;)
But seriously, there's a big disparity between counting the messages *
> Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 13:51:35 +1000 (EST)
> From: Bruce Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: HTML email
> [...]
> tytso> I wonder how many people are still using plain-text,
> tytso> non-HTML enabled mail readers? ...
>
(based on Message-ID strings)
34 QUALCOMM (later versions of Eudora)
37 Internet (Internet Mail Service, another Microsoftism)
52 Microsoft (Outlook)
54 Mozilla
Most of these do natively understand HTML email to a certain extent, or
can be configured to pass HTML ema
"Theodore Y. Ts'o" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I wonder how many people are still using plain-text, non-HTML enabled
> mail readers? It still happens on some mailing list, where someone will
> send a base-64 encoded html'ified message (usually using MS Outlook),
> and someone will send back "tr
On 5/15/00 at 9:12 PM -0400, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
>It seems to be usually the case, for most messages that I've seen, that
>there's *no* added value to the HTML version. I.e., other than adding
> at the end of lines, and using microsoft-specific font settings at
>the beginning of each paragra
At 02:12 16-05-00 , Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
>It seems to be usually the case, for most messages that I've seen, that
>there's *no* added value to the HTML version. I.e., other than adding
> at the end of lines, and using microsoft-specific font settings at
>the beginning of each paragraph (usual
At 17:32 15.05.2000 -0600, Vernon Schryver wrote:
>When was the last time you received a multipart/alternative message that
>did not make the sender look stupid, malicious, or both? I can't remember
>ever receiving any other kind of multipart/alternative.
FWIW, as a lone Eudora user in a pond of
On Mon, 15 May 2000 18:22:00 EDT, John Stracke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> So why does multipart/alternative exist?
Well, when we were designing the MIME spec, we went to great lengths
to cover all the bases - in fact, I've seen one very good use of
multipart/alternative by somebody with crippli
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 20:11:45 -0400
From: John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> The practice of sending both HTML and cleartext of supposedly
>> the same message reflects very poorly on those who do it
>> intentionally and on those who cause MUA's to trick others
>> into doing
--On Monday, 15 May, 2000 18:22 -0400 John Stracke
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Vernon Schryver wrote:
>
>> The practice of sending both HTML and cleartext of supposedly
>> the same message reflects very poorly on those who do it
>> intentionally and on those who cause MUA's to trick others
>> i
> From: John Stracke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > The practice of sending both HTML and cleartext of supposedly the same
> > message reflects very poorly on those who do it intentionally and on those
> > who cause MUA's to trick others into doing it unintentionally. Never mind
> > the security issues
Vernon Schryver wrote:
> The practice of sending both HTML and cleartext of supposedly the same
> message reflects very poorly on those who do it intentionally and on those
> who cause MUA's to trick others into doing it unintentionally. Never mind
> the security issues, but consider only the wa
17 matches
Mail list logo
