UK tel/fax: 01524845559
Mobile: (+44) (0) 370 963410
-Original Message-
From: Greg Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Tony Wells [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Friday, June 26, 1998 5:21 AM
Subject: Re: HTML-formatted mail
--
PLEASE read the Red Hat FAQ, Tips, Errata and the MAILING LIST ARCH
-Original Message-
From: Derek Balling [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wednesday, June 17, 1998 1:38 PM
Subject: Re: HTML-formatted mail
case-by-case basis. There _is_ a place for HTML mail.
That may be. But not in my mailbox. :)
The funny thing
-Original Message-
From: dreamwvr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Chris Fishwick
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thursday, June 18, 1998 1:53 PM
Subject: Re: HTML-formatted mail
right tool for the job i often think to myself
-Original Message-
From: Greg Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wednesday, June 24, 1998 12:44 PM
Subject: Re: HTML-formatted mail
The rest of the tags make extremely annoying messages. Also, it's funny
that HTML proponents never address
-Original Message-
From: GateKeepeR News [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Shawn McMahon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wednesday, June 24, 1998 8:41 PM
Subject: Re: HTML-formatted mail
Came here to read intelligent information and comments, not stupid shit
from an ignorant prick like you.
Well excuse
Shawn McMahon writes:
From: Greg Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The rest of the tags make extremely annoying messages. Also, it's funny
that HTML proponents never address the addtional size of HTML mail.
But I'll address it again the way we always do:
Mail is tiny. It's a miniscule
who have just started to discover the 'net,
and due to where they live in the world or where they work, can't
cope with HTML-formatted mail.
2. HTML formatting adds little, if any, useful content to mail. 95% of
the people whose work I've ever read during the couple of decades
I've been
Once upon a time Shawn McMahon wrote:
A tremendous number of people agree that there should be some kind of
markup
language established as a standard for email. Every commercial email
package supports one or more markup methods.
Sorry, but your second sentence does not either
Just before making his bedtime cocoa Thomas wrote:
Doubling or tripling of mail size will double or triple the price
of
Internet access for those who actually have to pay for their
access - e.g.
in those countries, where you pay for local phone calls by the
minute (or any
other time unit). That
If Shawn is unwilling to continue to argue the case for html, I
am.
Fine, but please, keep it off of the list... very few people are
interested in this thread anymore...
Regards
Chris
--
PLEASE read the Red Hat FAQ, Tips, Errata and the MAILING LIST ARCHIVES!
-+- If Shawn is unwilling to continue to argue the case for html, I
-+- am.
-+-
-+-Fine, but please, keep it off of the list... very few people are
-+-interested in this thread anymore...
Thanks Chris.
-Paul
--
PLEASE read the Red Hat FAQ, Tips, Errata and the MAILING LIST ARCHIVES!
-Original Message-
From: Fred Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sunday, June 14, 1998 8:54 AM
Subject: Re: HTML-formatted mail
don't NEED any of that stuff. MIME already defines a way to send and
interpret similar encodings using what is called
-Original Message-
From: Steve Frampton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sunday, June 14, 1998 9:35 AM
Subject: Re: HTML-formatted mail
Lowest common denominator. X-Windows doesn't work very well on a 386 SX
with 2 Mb of RAM now, does it. Yet Linux
-Original Message-
From: M. Neidorff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sunday, June 14, 1998 8:54 AM
Subject: Re: HTML-formatted mail
What keeps people interested in and using the Internet is e-mail. E-mail
mimics letter writing. It is plain text
What keeps people interested in and using the Internet is e-mail. E-mail
mimics letter writing. It is plain text. There is no need for inline
images, different sized fonts and font attributes like bold, etc. Sure, in
a letter you can press harder on the pen/pencil, you can even switch to
-Original Message-
From: Deryk Barker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Monday, June 15, 1998 4:56 PM
Subject: Re: HTML-formatted mail
A tremendous number of people agree that there should be some kind of
markup
language established as a standard
-Original Message-
From: Greg Fall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wednesday, June 17, 1998 12:26 PM
Subject: Re: HTML-formatted mail
To me the troubling aspect of these HTML-formatted messages is this:
implicit in them is an indication that the sender
Shawn McMahon wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Greg Fall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wednesday, June 17, 1998 12:26 PM
Subject: Re: HTML-formatted mail
To me the troubling aspect of these HTML-formatted messages is this:
implicit in them
Here's my 2 cents:
Maybe you all should create an "linux-HTML-formatted-mail" list
Time to kill this thread, don't you all think so?
:)
Dave C.
--
PLEASE read the Red Hat FAQ, Tips, Errata and the MAILING LIST ARCHIVES!
http://www.redhat.com/RedHat-FAQ /RedHat-Errata /R
At 08:15 6/17/98 -0600, James Boorn wrote:
Maybe I am just dense, so please enlighten me. What problem does HTML
email solve? I see no reason for it, and am one of those that just
deletes it. But maybe if I knew the problem it solved I'ld be willing to
consider it a solution.
HTML
Hi,
Just felt i suppose like agreeing. Nothing more frustrating than
recieving a email from someone who thinks they are being so informed
that is formatted wrong so that it is all HTML tags. That is rm
without hesitation. What i found amazing is that the people sending
this info get so
Chris Humphres writes:
If I remember correctly, the email in question only contained the html. I
deleted it and yes I use pine. When you've got hundreds of emails to go
through, you don't have the time to save to a tmpfile and browse with
netscape or scan with a text editor. I agree with
I see formatted email (via HTML or any other scheme) as useful only within
organizatons or specified groups. Within those limits it can be *very*
useful. I have a newsletter that I'd like to publish in a fashion that's
readable with all it's formatting from within the recipient's mail client.
In a message dated 98-06-16 21:37:24 EDT, you write:
Personally, I can say that HTML-formatted mail also has many advantages. I
do not wish to elaborate them here for various reasons. However, I was
very surprised at the lack of appreciation by a technical group. Most
importantly, I think
to this thread, I have heard many "why nots". What seems
so funny to me is that those who are against HTML formatted mail seem hell
bent on how some one can use it to mess up communication. Or better yet,
how some use it to overcome their lack of ability to craft their ideas i
Waste of bandwidth. Put up a web page and email the url to subscribers
when it gets updated.
On Wed, 17 Jun 1998, Anthony E. Greene wrote:
I see formatted email (via HTML or any other scheme) as useful only within
organizatons or specified groups. Within those limits it can be *very*
At 08:15 6/17/98 -0600, James Boorn wrote:
Maybe I am just dense, so please enlighten me. What problem does HTML
email solve? I see no reason for it, and am one of those that just
deletes it. But maybe if I knew the problem it solved I'ld be willing to
consider it a solution.
HTML can serve
At 08:19 6/17/98 -0600, James Boorn wrote:
[about emailing HTML formatted documents]
Waste of bandwidth. Put up a web page and email the url to subscribers
when it gets updated.
Some people prefer push.
Some do not have toll-free local calling (not everyone lives in the
U.S.).
Anthony E. Greene wrote:
I see formatted email (via HTML or any other scheme) as useful only within
organizatons or specified groups. Within those limits it can be *very*
useful. I have a newsletter that I'd like to publish in a fashion that's
readable with all it's formatting from within
One size does not fit all. Besides, the only bandwidth saved will be for
those users that do not retrieve the document. That will vary on a
case-by-case basis. There _is_ a place for HTML mail.
That may be. But not in my mailbox. :)
--
PLEASE read the Red Hat FAQ, Tips, Errata and the
At 08:19 6/17/98 -0600, James Boorn wrote:
[about emailing HTML formatted documents]
Waste of bandwidth. Put up a web page and email the url to subscribers
when it gets updated.
Some people prefer push.
Some do not have toll-free local calling (not everyone lives in the
U.S.).
Greg Fall writes:
snipand maybe he doesn't even realize that he is using HTML.
end of snip
Since I accidentally started this thread, I've kept silent,
waiting for a response of this type. Now it has popped up, here is
my reply.
The snip above digs deep into the golden thread of why this list
To me the troubling aspect of these HTML-formatted messages is this:
implicit in them is an indication that the sender does not realize that
the rest of the world doesn't use HTML for e-mail, mostly, and maybe he
doesn't even realize that he is using HTML. Which sort of takes away the
person's
On Mon, 15 Jun 1998, Kenyon Ralph wrote:
- As far as I'mn concerned, adding bloody HTML tags makes the mail
- *harder* to read and certainly doesn't increase its
- comprehensibililty.
-
-That's because you're not supposed to read the raw HTML source, you're
-supposed to read the formatted output
I have to agree with the opinion that HTML does NOT belong in
email, but I think this is a waste of space. I for one don't bother to
read email written in HTML. If someone sends me an email thus encoded,
they better know by now not to expect a response. Email is indeed for
transfer of
This is a long thread that is out of place on this list, but I just
had to respond to this particular message.
Joe Klemmer wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jun 1998, Deryk Barker wrote:
I know that it is to late to stop HTML encoded email. The genie
is out of the bottle. But it is my contention that
At 02:29 PM 6/16/98 -0600, David Hauck wrote:
As far as I'm concerned, adding bloody HTML tags makes the mail
*harder* to read and certainly doesn't increase its
comprehensibility.
Without a doubt.
If you see html tags in the text ... get another mail reader ;)
Nah, I prefer to
If you see html tags in the text ... get another mail reader ;)
Please. Lighten up. The ability to communicate has NOTHING to do with HTML.
However, having a link in a mail message that is available with a
double-click can be really clean.
That's funny, I don't need a message to be in
At 02:59 PM 6/16/98 -0400, you wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jun 1998, Deryk Barker wrote:
It really comes down to this:
You're either in favor of HTML markup in email, or you're not in favor of
email being a very rich method of communication compared to speech.
Oh really? And I say that I *am*
As far as I'm concerned, adding bloody HTML tags makes the mail
*harder* to read and certainly doesn't increase its
comprehensibility.
Without a doubt.
If you see html tags in the text ... get another mail reader ;)
Nah, I prefer to excerise the same thing I would do with a
On Mon, 15 Jun 1998, Deryk Barker wrote:
It really comes down to this:
You're either in favor of HTML markup in email, or you're not in favor of
email being a very rich method of communication compared to speech.
Oh really? And I say that I *am* against HTML in email and I am in
If you see html tags in the text ... get another mail reader ;)
Please. Lighten up. The ability to communicate has NOTHING to do with
HTML.
However, having a link in a mail message that is available with a
double-click can be really clean.
That's funny, I don't need a message to be in
Once upon a time Kenyon Ralph wrote:
Deryk Barker wrote:
[...]
As far as I'mn concerned, adding bloody HTML tags makes the mail
*harder* to read and certainly doesn't increase its
comprehensibililty.
That's because you're not supposed to read the raw HTML source, you're
supposed to
t seems
so funny to me is that those who are against HTML formatted mail seem hell
bent on how some one can use it to mess up communication. Or better yet,
how some use it to overcome their lack of ability to craft their ideas into
words.
Personally, I can say that HTML-formatted mail als
On Tue, 16 Jun 1998, Deryk Barker wrote:
Once upon a time Kenyon Ralph wrote:
Deryk Barker wrote:
[...]
Could you guys *please* keep this off the redhat-list?! If you want to
have a pissing contest then do it through personal e-mail. The rest of us
don't care about this thread anymore!
"smm" == Shawn McMahon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
smm Microsoft Outlook Express, and most other email programs that
smm allow HTML formatting, put the plain-ASCII text in the main
smm body, and attach the HTML-formatted version as a MIME
smm attachment.
Indeed. However, this more than
If I remember correctly, the email in question only contained the html. I
deleted it and yes I use pine. When you've got hundreds of emails to go
through, you don't have the time to save to a tmpfile and browse with
netscape or scan with a text editor. I agree with the others, if you want
Once upon a time Shawn McMahon wrote:
Hmm.. I'd have to disagree here... In my opinion, HTML should *never*
have been integrated with email. Email should always have been a text
only medium rather than all this colour and font crap that people are
putting in with it...
And yet, you
On Mon, 15 Jun 1998, Bruce Tong wrote:
If I remember correctly, the email in question only contained the html. I
deleted it and yes I use pine. When you've got hundreds of emails to go
through, you don't have the time to save to a tmpfile and browse with
netscape or scan with a text
If my email program was refusing to show me the main body of a message, and
instead insisting on showing me one of the attachments, I'd be grousing at
the author of the program, not the author of the email.
Hmm.. I'd have to disagree here... In my opinion, HTML should *never*
have been
-Original Message-
From: Chris Fishwick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Saturday, June 13, 1998 10:59 PM
Subject: Re: HTML-formatted mail
Hmm.. I'd have to disagree here... In my opinion, HTML should *never*
have been integrated with email. Email should
On Sat, 13 Jun 1998, Shawn McMahon wrote:
Microsoft Outlook Express, and most other email programs that allow HTML
formatting, put the plain-ASCII text in the main body, and attach the
HTML-formatted version as a MIME attachment.
That's not true. They put the plain-ASCII text in another
On Sat, Jun 13, 1998 at 11:32:49PM -0500, Shawn McMahon wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Chris Fishwick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Saturday, June 13, 1998 10:59 PM
Subject: Re: HTML-formatted mail
Hmm.. I'd have to disagree here... In my
At 10:54 PM 6/13/98 -0500, you wrote:
[snip]
Name calling??? luddites??? That doesn't help.
Web documents created in html do a lot. They are important and they have
their place. IMO, they are the "eye-candy" of the Internet. They are what
catches people's attention and gets them
This is totally off the subject of the original thread, but maybe that's not
such a bad idea
Has anyone tried XFMail? Just started using it yesterday and I've finally found
an X email client for Linux that is as good as Pegasus for windows. (Well
almost)
--
On Sat, 13 Jun 1998, Shawn McMahon wrote:
Being opposed to HTML in email is a lot like being opposed to X-Windows.
Lowest common denominator. X-Windows doesn't work very well on a 386 SX
with 2 Mb of RAM now, does it. Yet Linux in console mode works fairly
adequately. It may be the only
I agree completely.. And (as I have told my customers) email is ONLY for
text and not for transferring 10 meg files! And they wonder why it takes
3 hours to get their email..Take us back to the beginning of the
internet when everyone was using lynx and pine through a dial-up shell
account..
On
...
Bryan
On Sat, 13 Jun 1998, Shawn McMahon wrote:
|-Original Message-
|From: GateKeepeR News [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|To: Chris Fishwick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|Date: Saturday, June 13, 1998 11:20 PM
|Subject: Re: HTML-formatted mail
|
|
|3 hours to get
Microsoft Outlook Express, and most other email programs that allow HTML
formatting, put the plain-ASCII text in the main body, and attach the
HTML-formatted version as a MIME attachment.
If your text-based email program isn't dealing with this properly, it's a
bug in your program or in your
59 matches
Mail list logo
