At 10:09 PM -0400 7/6/10, Paul M Foster wrote:
On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 06:32:40PM +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
In principle, I agree - in practice, CPU cycles are getting cheaper by
the minute, and being wasted all the time. Not using HTML is highly
unlikely to have a measurable impact on anybod
On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 06:32:40PM +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
> Paul M Foster wrote:
>
> > Here is the real problem with HTML email. Any straight text message
> > will swell to many times its size when you HTML-ize it. Okay, so now
> > you're sending the message around the internet to perhaps hundr
On Tuesday, July 06, 2010 07:03:58 am Andre Majorel wrote:
> On 2010-07-04 11:43 -0400, Al wrote:
> > Seems like, from my preliminary Google searching, I should not
> > waste time with the standard's way and just go straight to sending
> > simple html pages since all modern browsers handle it well.
Paul M Foster wrote:
> Here is the real problem with HTML email. Any straight text message
> will swell to many times its size when you HTML-ize it. Okay, so now
> you're sending the message around the internet to perhaps hundreds or
> thousands of users, using up many times the bandwidth that the
On 2010-07-04 11:43 -0400, Al wrote:
> Seems like, from my preliminary Google searching, I should not waste
> time with the standard's way and just go straight to sending simple
> html pages since all modern browsers handle it well. And, it appears
> to be the way web is going.
"Browsers" ? "The
At 11:44 PM +0100 7/4/10, Ashley Sheridan wrote:
On Sun, 2010-07-04 at 17:06 -0400, Paul M Foster wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 04, 2010 at 11:43:59AM -0400, Al wrote:
-snip-
> > Seems like, from my preliminary Google searching, I should not waste
> time with
> the standard's way and just go straight
On 4 July 2010 16:43, Al wrote:
> What are you folks doing?
>
> Al..
One of the tasks I had to develop was the sending of authorised work
in a "by job" report.
We receive the work as a fax/email. We log the job in our system.
The client comes to our site and confirms the on-cost billing
On Sun, 2010-07-04 at 23:12 -0400, Paul M Foster wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 04, 2010 at 11:44:29PM +0100, Ashley Sheridan wrote:
>
>
>
>
> >
> >It is nice to be able to format emails nicely, but you have to realise
> >when to restrain yourself. I've been getting loads of emails from Adobe
>
On Sun, Jul 04, 2010 at 11:44:29PM +0100, Ashley Sheridan wrote:
>
>It is nice to be able to format emails nicely, but you have to realise
>when to restrain yourself. I've been getting loads of emails from Adobe
>lately that haven't been formatted well at all, and appear awfully in
On Sun, 2010-07-04 at 17:06 -0400, Paul M Foster wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 04, 2010 at 11:43:59AM -0400, Al wrote:
>
> > I know this is a bit off-topic; but close enough.
> >
> > I'm starting to update the email feature of one of my DB applications and
> > noticed that it appears most of the fancy ema
On Sun, Jul 04, 2010 at 11:43:59AM -0400, Al wrote:
> I know this is a bit off-topic; but close enough.
>
> I'm starting to update the email feature of one of my DB applications and
> noticed that it appears most of the fancy emails I receive are using
> just plain
> old, simple html pages, with a
Rick Pasotto wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 04, 2010 at 06:31:38PM +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
>>
>> We follow the standard and send both text and html.
>
> The text portion is the *only* portion I read.
>
Cool, that is the whole point.
--
Per Jessen, Zürich (24.3°C)
--
PHP General Mailing List (http
On Sun, Jul 04, 2010 at 06:31:38PM +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
> Al wrote:
>
> > I know this is a bit off-topic; but close enough.
> >
> > I'm starting to update the email feature of one of my DB applications
> > and noticed that it appears most of the fancy emails I receive are
> > using just plain
Al wrote:
> I know this is a bit off-topic; but close enough.
>
> I'm starting to update the email feature of one of my DB applications
> and noticed that it appears most of the fancy emails I receive are
> using just plain old, simple html pages, with a note about not being
> able to see, go her
I know this is a bit off-topic; but close enough.
I'm starting to update the email feature of one of my DB applications and
noticed that it appears most of the fancy emails I receive are using just plain
old, simple html pages, with a note about not being able to see, go here with a
link.
It
15 matches
Mail list logo
