Ok. I just want to say that I am a long time PM user, and I do care about
outgoing multipart emails. ( I have had a licence for PM for years.) It
is not the very top of my list, but it is up there. I am someone who
appreciates all the other great things in PM, too. It feels like the
folks who
Evie at [EMAIL PROTECTED] said on 10/3/05 11:55 pm
It would be helpful when dealing with commercial clients who expect me to
be able to send multipart emails and also for me to know more about
sending them. For those who don't want it, well, they could turn it off. :)
Try MaxBulk Mailer, It's
On or about Fri, 11 Mar 2005 15:22:30 +1100 Raul said -
Evie Leder wrote:
I don't understand what the fuss is. IF PM allowed rich text or multipart
outgoing emails, those who didn't want it would not have to use it. It
would widen it's base, which would be good for the company. (but, with
the
Evie Leder wrote:
I don't understand what the fuss is. IF PM allowed rich text or multipart
outgoing emails, those who didn't want it would not have to use it. It
would widen it's base, which would be good for the company. (but, with
the text-only zealots, it might be a difficult move) Perhaps
I don't understand what the fuss is. IF PM allowed rich text or multipart
outgoing emails, those who didn't want it would not have to use it. It
would widen it's base, which would be good for the company. (but, with
the text-only zealots, it might be a difficult move) Perhaps it could be
set up
Jan,
I was a clever demonstration but the message you sent has HMTL in it but
is not an HTML message. HTML messages have some sort of
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0-1829906618-1110170206=:28658
header. Which your's does not. ;-)
--
Andy Fragen
On Wed, Mar 9, 2005, Jan M.J.
Wayne Brissette sez:
If we really want to fix the bandwidth
problems, we have to fix the spammers.
Agreed. I know a veterinarian who has no qualms doing without anesthetic
on such people.
--
Michael Lewis
Off Balance Productions
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.offbalance.com
[Wayne Brissette [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb am 9.3.2005 um 7:12 Uhr:]
If we really want to fix the bandwidth
problems, we have to fix the spammers.
That is correct.
--
http://www.subhash.at
Sorry, couldn't resist.
savin' bandwith now.. ;-)
Karel
Op woensdag, 9 maart 2005 schreef Wayne Brissette:
First, it is like a religious war, there are no clear winners, only
facts from both sides. In either case we've wasted a ton of bandwidth
on this topic and the bottom line is, it is now
Hmm, it doesn't get in the way but needs more than twice the number of
characters for exactly the same information (140 vs. 66) so with this
message you need double bandwith for the same communication...
First off, many of you long time PM users know that I am no fan of HTML
mail. However
What I imply is that adding HTML-editing capabilities to PowerMail will
not take away the ability to work with plain text.
So let people who want HTML-editing have it. If you don't have use for
it, don't use it. That is my point.
Jan
[Jan M.J. Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb am 9.3.2005 um 13:31 Uhr:]
It is not like it gets in the way of writing plain text or takes up
hellish bandwith.
It is completely unnecessary to send this text HTML formatted because
there is not the slightest formatting. (Therefore the HTML text is
Title: Amazing
Hi all,
Here is my plain text message to you: nice isn't it?
Jan
-
Hi all,
Here is my "html-formatted" message to you: nice isn't it?
It is not like it gets in the way of writing plain text or takes up
hellish bandwith.
Jan
Dr. D
If something works, is efficient and cheap it does not need to evolve.
Such biological metaphors in computing are tempting but possibly
misleading. There are lots of people out there with a financial interest
in such evolution but we know who they are and can try to resist them
by not
At Tue, 8 Mar 2005 02:02:06 +0100 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Must norms always be static and prevent natural evolution?
If something works, is efficient and cheap it does not need to evolve.
Such biological metaphors in computing are tempting but possibly
misleading. There are lots of people out
On 3/7/05, at 11:19 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Take a look at CTM's product page for the current version of PM:
http://www.ctmdev.com/powermail5.html
Take a look at CTM's posting to MacUpdate:
http://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id/4105
So far as I can tell, the statements on
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I did not realize when I purchased PW that it had such an anti-HTML
following/agenda.
You actually assumed sending of HTML was fully supported today? Didn't
you notice? If you expected that, obviously you got the wrong client.
PM 5.1 | OS X 10.3.6 | Powerbook G4/400 |
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb am 7.3.2005 um 23:19 Uhr:]
folks who
think HTML in email is actually, gasp! -inappropriate- !
Just for information: I'm also one of them. I very seldom use HTML-Mail.
--
http://www.subhash.at
Raúl Vera wrote:
You must be joking! CTM bills PM (not PW) quite clearly as a text-
centric emailer for power email users, which they define as people who
need to handle hundreds if not thousands of messages a day in a mission-
critical capacity.
Take a look at CTM's product page for the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I did not realize when I purchased PW that it had such an anti-HTML
following/agenda.
Must ask them! Perhaps I have erred in my purchase...
You must be joking! CTM bills PM (not PW) quite clearly as a text-
centric emailer for power email users, which they define as
Well, 'true' PM users at least remain somewhat polite, even in heated
discussion.
---marlyse
former message(s) quotes: -
HTML is for ads and web browsers, plain text is for content and e-mail.
Some rigid, typophobic, fear-based PW fundamentalist out there I see...
I
Yet, for those who understand how use such
graphic variation for clearer communication
LOL, now I feel invalidated.
I am a Graphic Designer since 25 years and I DEFINITELY know and
understand how to use such graphic variation for clearer communication -
in the right place at the right
Ben Kennedy said:
the established norms upon which the Internet (and the
protocol in question) has been based for several decades
meaning?
Must norms always be static and prevent natural evolution? While I'm fine
not sending HTML messages, it seems unavoidable in the long run.
Also, now we
Mel wrote:
At the foundation of contemporary
computer technology is the digital
graphic communication machine.
OK. But that is not an argument for HTML email. That's what a web page is for.
Snail mail composed on a typewriter is virtually non-existent because
such communication is merely
On Monday, March 07, 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent forth:
Snail mail composed on a typewriter is virtually non-existent because
such communication is merely verbal and the graphic encoding potential of
the page is a missed opportunity to communicate more effectively.
Your argument is too
25 matches
Mail list logo
