signatures - name+address is *minimum* (was: fast conversion of html mail to text)
* Laurabelle [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-09-26 18:03]: Just my 2p - I use procmail recipes (and a couple of scripts) to strip HTML formatting from all legitimate email. The same scripts add a note to the effect that HTML has been removed; if I want to exchange email with that person again, I generally ask for text-only email. People tend to cooperate, since after all they probably just don't realize it. i have met quite some people who do undrestand the problem - but keep ignoring that the keep offending people by sending them all text as html, too. the list is in my killfile... Sven [usually attaching sigs which fit the content of the message] I find that my current .sig is often quite relevant when answering questions but even more so when asking them. It reminds me that the answer is only as good as the question. Besides, it's short. Laurabelle -- ASCII silly question, get a silly ANSI. this is a quote after sigdashes - but not a signature. signatures contain at least a name and an address, too. signatures contains a name *and* an address. at least. quotes are just quotes and may be added to signatures. but i have to admit that the quote is nice, indeed! :-) Sven
Re: fast conversion of html mail to text
* Sven Guckes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote this on 09 30, 02 at 20:56: * Sven Guckes said: well, if you subscribe to a HTML-only newsletter then you were asking for it - so it's your problem. * Michael Leone [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-09-26 17:27]: It's *not* a problem, for me, anyway. so you are ignoring the extra but superfluous data - fine. Not ignoring it. And it's not (always) superflous - some people *want* their email to be read in the way they present it - links, colors, etc. So I have mutt call out w3m to see HTML-only email. Or I ignore it, if I feel like. Like anything else, it's my choice. As ignoring it is your choice. To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailer: SquirrelMail (version 1.2.7) but you are obviously are also ignoring the fact that i am subscribed to the list and therefore do *not* need any CCs. Usually, I edit that out, and have the list as the only email address in the TO:, but I didn't bother that time. webmailers *suck*. and if it is not the mailer then it must be the people using them. *hrmpf* Go have a beer or something, Sven - people will like you better if you're less grumpy over things that are really not all that world-shattering. G msg31382/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: fast conversion of html mail to text
* Mike Leone [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-09-26 03:35]: Actually, I've gotten many non-HTML spams, too. And I get many valid HTML mail, both newsletters and private correspondence. has the thought ever struck you that it might be *you*? Since I know many different people that both send and receive HTML mail, none of whome are spammers; and since I get a number of HTML-only newletters that are defintely not spam ... no, that thought has never struck me. :-) well, if you subscribe to a HTML-only newsletter then you were asking for it - so it's your problem. Has the thought ever struck you that perhaps you are too restrictive in what you accept? i have yet to see sn email which was enhanced by html. and i suppose i do have a problem with DOCuments from companies which forbid free software to use it, too. Random Thought: duh. Hey, not my fault - my SquirrelMail web interface sometimes forgets to read the output of the fortune program. it's your problem then. you are responsible for what you send! please refrain from sending arbitrary noise to lists - thankyou. Sven [usually attaching sigs which fit the content of the message]
Re: fast conversion of html mail to text
Sven Guckes said: * Mike Leone [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-09-26 03:35]: Actually, I've gotten many non-HTML spams, too. And I get many valid HTML mail, both newsletters and private correspondence. has the thought ever struck you that it might be *you*? Since I know many different people that both send and receive HTML mail, none of whome are spammers; and since I get a number of HTML-only newletters that are defintely not spam ... no, that thought has never struck me. :-) well, if you subscribe to a HTML-only newsletter then you were asking for it - so it's your problem. It's *not* a problem, for me, anyway. I know about the possible security implications of HTML email, and know how to get around them. (most of them, anyway). Has the thought ever struck you that perhaps you are too restrictive in what you accept? i have yet to see sn email which was enhanced by html. and i suppose i do have a problem with DOCuments from companies which forbid free software to use it, too. Separate issue, tho. -- PGP Fingerprint: 0AA8 DC47 CB63 AE3F C739 6BF9 9AB4 1EF6 5AA5 BCDF Member, LEAF Project http://leaf.sourceforge.netAIM: MikeLeone Public Key - http://www.mike-leone.com/~turgon/turgon-public-key.asc Registered Linux user# 201348 Random Thought: -- Cigarro: Objeto cilíndrico de papel, recheado com palha. Contém uma faísca numa ponta e um idiota na outra.
Re: fast conversion of html mail to text
On Sep 26 2002, Sven Guckes shared a puddle of experience: snip about html email Just my 2p - I use procmail recipes (and a couple of scripts) to strip HTML formatting from all legitimate email. The same scripts add a note to the effect that HTML has been removed; if I want to exchange email with that person again, I generally ask for text-only email. People tend to cooperate, since after all they probably just don't realize it. Sven [usually attaching sigs which fit the content of the message] I find that my current .sig is often quite relevant when answering questions but even more so when asking them. It reminds me that the answer is only as good as the question. Besides, it's short. Laurabelle -- ASCII silly question, get a silly ANSI.
Re: fast conversion of html mail to text
On Sep 25 2002, Erik Christiansen shared a puddle of experience: snip (Of the 2247 advertising spams I've received since February, 1899 were html.) Am I the only one who read that as February 1899 and thought what, they had the internet back *then*? Laurabelle -- ASCII silly question, get a silly ANSI.
Re: fast conversion of html mail to text
Laurabelle said: On Sep 25 2002, Erik Christiansen shared a puddle of experience: snip (Of the 2247 advertising spams I've received since February, 1899 were html.) Am I the only one who read that as February 1899 and thought what, they had the internet back *then*? Yes, but only teletype machines. :-) Actually, I've gotten many non-HTML spams, too. And I get many valid HTML mail, both newsletters and private correspondence. -- PGP Fingerprint: 0AA8 DC47 CB63 AE3F C739 6BF9 9AB4 1EF6 5AA5 BCDF Member, LEAF Project http://leaf.sourceforge.netAIM: MikeLeone Public Key - http://www.mike-leone.com/~turgon/turgon-public-key.asc Registered Linux user# 201348 Random Thought: --
Re: fast conversion of html mail to text
* On Sep 25 2002, Erik Christiansen..: Of the 2247 advertising spams I've received since February, 1899 were html. * Laurabelle said: Am I the only one who read that as February 1899 and thought what, they had the internet back *then*? * Michael Leone [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-09-25 18:37]: Yes, but only teletype machines. :-) he he Actually, I've gotten many non-HTML spams, too. And I get many valid HTML mail, both newsletters and private correspondence. has the thought ever struck you that it might be *you*? Random Thought: -- duh. Sven [bouncing back all html mail]
Re: fast conversion of html mail to text
* Sven Guckes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote this on 09 25, 02 at 21:26: * On Sep 25 2002, Erik Christiansen..: Of the 2247 advertising spams I've received since February, 1899 were html. * Laurabelle said: Am I the only one who read that as February 1899 and thought what, they had the internet back *then*? * Michael Leone [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-09-25 18:37]: Yes, but only teletype machines. :-) he he Actually, I've gotten many non-HTML spams, too. And I get many valid HTML mail, both newsletters and private correspondence. has the thought ever struck you that it might be *you*? Since I know many different people that both send and receive HTML mail, none of whome are spammers; and since I get a number of HTML-only newletters that are defintely not spam ... no, that thought has never struck me. :-) Has the thought ever struck you that perhaps you are too restrictive in what you accept? Random Thought: -- duh. Hey, not my fault - my SquirrelMail web interface sometimes forgets to read the output of the fortune program. msg31255/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
fast conversion of html mail to text
I am getting a bit irritated by the second or two I need to wait for `lynx -dump' or similiar to work when viewing the _many_ html mails that happen upon my inbox - what are mutters doing to strip the tags faster? -- Eric Smith
Re: fast conversion of html mail to text
On Tue, Sep 24, 2002, Eric Smith wrote: I am getting a bit irritated by the second or two I need to wait for `lynx -dump' or similiar to work when viewing the _many_ html mails that happen upon my inbox - what are mutters doing to strip the tags faster? Telling people not to send email as HTML. Most don't know they're doing it. -Ken
Re: fast conversion of html mail to text
Eric Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am getting a bit irritated by the second or two I need to wait for `lynx -dump' or similiar to work when viewing the _many_ html mails that happen upon my inbox - what are mutters doing to strip the tags faster? Deleting HTML mail unread. It's /much/ faster that way. Seriously; I've yet to receive a piece of HTML mail that was worth reading. Charles -- --- Charles Cazabon [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.ca/~charlesc/software/ ---
Re: fast conversion of html mail to text
On Tue, 24 Sep 2002, Eric Smith wrote: I am getting a bit irritated by the second or two I need to wait for `lynx -dump' or similiar to work when viewing the _many_ html mails that happen upon my inbox - what are mutters doing to strip the tags faster? someone commented on lynx -dump recently, to the effect that there are some messages which can be optimized in lynx by setting ALERTSECS, INFOSECS and MESSAGESECS to zero. (Actually he wanted to hard-code it into the behavior of the -dump option, but it's easily scripted). -- T.E.Dickey [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://invisible-island.net ftp://invisible-island.net
Re: fast conversion of html mail to text
* Eric old fruit Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-09-24 13:44]:
I am getting a bit irritated by the second or two I need to wait for
`lynx -dump' or similiar to work when viewing the _many_ html mails that
happen upon my inbox - what are mutters doing to strip the tags faster?
well - do not let mutt process the text/html stuff then. simply ignore it!
Sven
--
HTMLHEADSTYLE type=text/css P#mypar {font-style: Bold; font-size:100pt;
color: red; background-color: yellow} /STYLE /HEAD BODY P id=mypar
Turn off the HTML in your emails - or else! /BODY /HTML
Re: fast conversion of html mail to text
* Eric Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] [020924 15:36]:
I am getting a bit irritated by the second or two I need to wait
for `lynx -dump' or similiar to work when viewing the _many_ html
mails that happen upon my inbox - what are mutters doing to strip
the tags faster?
Procmail
:0
*Content-type: text/html
{
:0 c
/home/johan/Maildir/.junk/
:0 fb
|lynx -force_html -dump /dev/stdin
:0 afwh
|formail -i Content-type: text/plain -I X-Johan: htmlkiller
}
(I don't really lie procmail, but I haven't come around to change this
script. I also save an extra copy in my junk Maildir, in case something
should get broken...)
-Johan
--
Johan Almqvist
http://www.almqvist.net/johan/qmail/
Re: fast conversion of html mail to text
* Eric Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] [09-24-02 08:54]: I am getting a bit irritated by the second or two I need to wait for `lynx -dump' or similiar to work when viewing the _many_ html mails that happen upon my inbox - what are mutters doing to strip the tags faster? I use: text/html; w3m -F -dump -T text/html %s; nametemplate=%s.html; copiousoutput And it seems to be almost instantaneous. -- Patrick Shanahan Registered Linux User #207535 @ http://counter.li.org
Re: fast conversion of html mail to text
On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 03:36:49PM +0200, Eric Smith wrote: I have the following line in my .mailcap text/html; unhtml ; copiousoutput I think the unhtml website is at http://www.econym.demon.co.uk/unhtml/ Then I view the mail as an attachment, and unhtml strips out the tags. Seems instantaneous on my machine. I have no idea what it might do for really complicated e-mails that had tables, etc. However, unhtml seems excellent for getting rid of the formatting tags. bill I am getting a bit irritated by the second or two I need to wait for `lynx -dump' or similiar to work when viewing the _many_ html mails that happen upon my inbox - what are mutters doing to strip the tags faster? -- Eric Smith -- William Luecke
Re: fast conversion of html mail to text - unhtml
bill luecke said: On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 03:36:49PM +0200, Eric Smith wrote: I have the following line in my .mailcap text/html; unhtml ; copiousoutput good answer - apt-get install unhtml on debian But it is still almost a second delay. I think i will try and kill this problem with procmail. -- Eric Smith
Re: fast conversion of html mail to text - unhtml
On Tue, 24 Sep 2002, Eric Smith wrote: bill luecke said: On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 03:36:49PM +0200, Eric Smith wrote: I have the following line in my .mailcap text/html; unhtml ; copiousoutput good answer - apt-get install unhtml on debian But it is still almost a second delay. I think i will try and kill this problem with procmail. What *SECS values does your lynx.cfg have? -- T.E.Dickey [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://invisible-island.net ftp://invisible-island.net
Re: fast conversion of html mail to text
Hello. On Tue 2002-09-24 at 15:36:49 +0200, Eric Smith wrote: I am getting a bit irritated by the second or two I need to wait for `lynx -dump' or similiar to work when viewing the _many_ html mails that happen upon my inbox - what are mutters doing to strip the tags faster? Be sure to use the -nopause flag. Else, if lynx display a status message for some reason, it will wait for some second(s). And yes, it also does this with -dump and -source, where one does not get to see the status message at all. At least, last time I tried. Bye, Benjamin. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] msg31165/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: fast conversion of html mail to text
On Tue, 24 Sep 2002, Benjamin Pflugmann wrote: Hello. On Tue 2002-09-24 at 15:36:49 +0200, Eric Smith wrote: I am getting a bit irritated by the second or two I need to wait for `lynx -dump' or similiar to work when viewing the _many_ html mails that happen upon my inbox - what are mutters doing to strip the tags faster? Be sure to use the -nopause flag. Else, if lynx display a status message for some reason, it will wait for some second(s). And yes, it also does this with -dump and -source, where one does not get to see the status message at all. At least, last time I tried. That's correct. -- T.E.Dickey [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://invisible-island.net ftp://invisible-island.net
Re: fast conversion of html mail to text
On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 03:36:49PM +0200, Eric Smith wrote: I am getting a bit irritated by the second or two I need to wait for `lynx -dump' or similiar to work when viewing the _many_ html mails that happen upon my inbox - what are mutters doing to strip the tags faster? let procmail kill it before it gets to my mutt .-) -- Christian Ordig Germany
Re: fast conversion of html mail to text
On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 07:51:13AM -0600, Charles Cazabon wrote: Eric Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am getting a bit irritated by the second or two I need to wait for `lynx -dump' or similiar to work when viewing the _many_ html mails that happen upon my inbox - what are mutters doing to strip the tags faster? Deleting HTML mail unread. It's /much/ faster that way. Seriously; I've yet to receive a piece of HTML mail that was worth reading. It's true! With procmail diverting html-only email to a junk folder, it is not each end-of-the-week survey that shows anything of interest. I'm no procmail guru, so others may be able to improve on: # First Content-Type: indicates lack of :0 HB: # a plaintext alternative. i.e. HTML only: * 1^0 ^Content-Type:\/.* * MATCH ?? html junk And if you forget to look in there some weeks, what the heck? :-) (Of the 2247 advertising spams I've received since February, 1899 were html.) Erik
