Tim Lapin sez:
>Ah, my mistake. Apologies. I have a summer head cold and clearly, I am
>not reading things carefully enough.
:) I sent out my last message before reading through the thread. Tried
not to seem snarky, but may have come across that way anyway, especially
after this had already wou
Tim Lapin sez:
>What are you talking about? RE-READ the part you quoted. I have
>received some HTML-only e-mails that did NOT open in PowerMail. Not
>often, mind you but more than once.
What are you talking about? I responded to another message. Not yours.
The original message said some HTML-o
Michael J. Hußmann said:
>PM's just fine. I would hate it to turn
>into a replica of one of the competing clients. Diversity is a good
>thing, and certainly preferrable to following standards that aren't even
>standards.
Improving PowerMails HTML-capabilities is hardly a call for anything of
wha
Matthias Schmidt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Regarding the database, weather people prefer monolithic databases or
> not, it doesn't matter. The current backup technology doesn't prefer
> this structure.
>
> Same thing with priority and some other features. All mail clients do
> support that stuf
Richard Hart said:
>Are you sure you meant to write that? I believe you might be
>experiencing problems, but I have never received a message in PowerMail
>that "cannot be displayed". What does that mean: "cannot be displayed"?
Well, if the HTML-message ends up in an attached file and there's no
p
> Do anyone here have clue on what possible reasons there could be to
> choosing to send HTML-only messages, instead of mixed messages without a
> pure text part as well?
...
>As to the original question, I don't know, given that such messages are
>more likely to be considered spam.
Actually, I
Am/On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 12:05:52 -0500 schrieb/wrote Michael Lewis:
>Matthias Schmidt sez:
>
>>So yes, it gets more and more difficult t stick with PM.
>
>Can you not use the button at the bottom to switch to HTML view or view
>the message in a web browser. If neither of those work, than the email
On Saturday, August 23, 2008, Michael J. Hußmann sent forth:
>Tim Lapin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
>> Exactly what I and others have written.
>
>This thread started with the question:
>
>> Do anyone here have clue on what possible reasons there could be to
>> choosing to send HTML-only mes
Tim Lapin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Exactly what I and others have written.
This thread started with the question:
> Do anyone here have clue on what possible reasons there could be to
> choosing to send HTML-only messages, instead of mixed messages without a
> pure text part as well?
Then t
On Saturday, August 23, 2008, Richard Hart sent forth:
>Tim Lapin wrote:
>
>>These messages cannot be displayed by PM
>>in any mode. I have received a few myself.
>
>Are you sure you meant to write that? I believe you might be
>experiencing problems, but I have never received a message in P
Tim Lapin wrote:
>These messages cannot be displayed by PM
>in any mode. I have received a few myself.
Are you sure you meant to write that? I believe you might be
experiencing problems, but I have never received a message in PowerMail
that "cannot be displayed". What does that mean: "cannot be
On Saturday, August 23, 2008, Michael J. Hußmann sent forth:
>Tim Lapin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
>> You miss the point, I think. These messages cannot be displayed by PM
>> in any mode. I have received a few myself.
>
>So far, this thread was about HTML-only mails, and PM has no proble
Tim Lapin sez:
>You miss the point, I think. These messages cannot be displayed by PM
>in any mode. I have received a few myself.
I don't think that point was made. The original message only asked about
HTML-only messages not being sent with text parts. If they aren't
formatting the multipart e
Tim Lapin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> You miss the point, I think. These messages cannot be displayed by PM
> in any mode. I have received a few myself.
So far, this thread was about HTML-only mails, and PM has no problems
displaying HTML-only mails that I am aware of. There is an issue with
m
On Saturday, August 23, 2008, Michael Lewis sent forth:
>Matthias Schmidt sez:
>
>>So yes, it gets more and more difficult t stick with PM.
>
>Can you not use the button at the bottom to switch to HTML view or view
>the message in a web browser. If neither of those work, than the email
>has
powermail-discuss Digest #2872 - Saturday, August 23, 2008
reason for HTML-only?
by "MB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: reason for HTML-only?
by "Dave N" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: reason for HTML-only?
by "Rene Merz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: reason for HTML-only?
Matthias Schmidt sez:
>So yes, it gets more and more difficult t stick with PM.
Can you not use the button at the bottom to switch to HTML view or view
the message in a web browser. If neither of those work, than the email
has crappy HTML code and it isn't PM's fault.
--
Michael Lewis
Off Bala
Am/On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 13:30:40 +0200 schrieb/wrote Rene Merz:
>MB hat am Donnerstag, 21. August 2008 geschrieben:
>
>>Do anyone here have clue on what possible reasons there could be to
>>choosing to send HTML-only messages, instead of mixed messages without a
>>pure text part as well?
>>
>Is stu
MB hat am Donnerstag, 21. August 2008 geschrieben:
>Do anyone here have clue on what possible reasons there could be to
>choosing to send HTML-only messages, instead of mixed messages without a
>pure text part as well?
>
Is stupidity a good reason for it?
A 2004 study by AWeber.com shows that pla
19 matches
Mail list logo
