Rob wrote:
David E. Ross wrote:
On 12/20/12 6:40 AM, Rob wrote:
Philip TAYLOR wrote:
Ed Mullen wrote:
Amen. The last job I had was in 1996 and ALL email was HTML. Where are you
text-only people coming from?
A world that recognises that it takes only 10 bytes to say "Thank you.",
not
On 12/20/12 6:30 PM, NoOp wrote:
> On 12/19/2012 11:59 AM, David E. Ross wrote:
>> On 12/19/12 10:53 AM, Rob wrote:
> ...
>>> (I know I should join the development team instead of criticize,
>>> however while I have done a lot of C programming in the past this
>>> project is simply too large for me
On 12/19/2012 11:59 AM, David E. Ross wrote:
> On 12/19/12 10:53 AM, Rob wrote:
...
>> (I know I should join the development team instead of criticize,
>> however while I have done a lot of C programming in the past this
>> project is simply too large for me. I tried finding the location
>> of a b
Ed Mullen wrote:
HTML email has become a de-facto standard for corporate email. Look
around.
and we all know the the "corporate world" can do no wrong!! . *NOT*
--
Daniel
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozill
Ed Mullen wrote:
Philip TAYLOR wrote:
Ed Mullen wrote:
Amen. The last job I had was in 1996 and ALL email was HTML. Where
are you text-only people coming from?
A world that recognises that it takes only 10 bytes to say "Thank you.",
not 2500.
Philip Taylor
And with my 15Mbps download
David E. Ross wrote:
On 12/19/12 5:09 PM, Ed Mullen wrote:
Rob wrote:
David E. Ross wrote:
However, the problem is easily resolved by composing only
ASCII-formatted messages.
This is not realistic in today's world when using the program
in a company. Most mail being processed is in HTML.
W
David E. Ross wrote:
On 12/20/12 9:29 AM, Rob wrote:
Philip TAYLOR wrote:
Rob wrote:
The world today is no longer about bytes or kilobytes.
Today we calculate in megabytes, gigabytes or terabytes.
People no longer treat mail as a novelty that can transfer messages
like a telex did in the
Philip TAYLOR wrote:
Rob wrote:
The world today is no longer about bytes or kilobytes.
Today we calculate in megabytes, gigabytes or terabytes.
People no longer treat mail as a novelty that can transfer messages
like a telex did in the past. They use it like a fax or letter.
That means mai
Rob wrote:
David E. Ross wrote:
On 12/20/12 6:40 AM, Rob wrote:
Philip TAYLOR wrote:
Ed Mullen wrote:
Amen. The last job I had was in 1996 and ALL email was HTML. Where are you
text-only people coming from?
A world that recognises that it takes only 10 bytes to say "Thank you.",
not
Rob wrote:
Philip TAYLOR wrote:
Ed Mullen wrote:
Amen. The last job I had was in 1996 and ALL email was HTML. Where are you
text-only people coming from?
A world that recognises that it takes only 10 bytes to say "Thank you.",
not 2500.
The world today is no longer about bytes or kil
Philip TAYLOR wrote:
Ed Mullen wrote:
Amen. The last job I had was in 1996 and ALL email was HTML. Where are you
text-only people coming from?
A world that recognises that it takes only 10 bytes to say "Thank you.",
not 2500.
Philip Taylor
And with my 15Mbps download connection??? W
David E. Ross wrote:
On 12/20/12 6:40 AM, Rob wrote:
Philip TAYLOR wrote:
Ed Mullen wrote:
Amen. The last job I had was in 1996 and ALL email was HTML. Where are you
text-only people coming from?
A world that recognises that it takes only 10 bytes to say "Thank you.",
not 2500.
The
Rob wrote, On 20/12/2012 19:31:
Philip TAYLOR wrote:
Rob wrote:
What does this message demonstrate?
That information can be transmitted very successfully using e-mail
without requiring HTML, markup, letter-heads, signatures, etc.
But I never denied that!
What I claim is that it requires HT
Philip TAYLOR wrote, On 20/12/2012 11:57:
Ed Mullen wrote:
Amen. The last job I had was in 1996 and ALL email was HTML. Where are you
text-only people coming from?
A world that recognises that it takes only 10 bytes to say "Thank you.",
not 2500.
Philip Taylor
I suppose that you never use
David E. Ross wrote:
> On 12/20/12 9:29 AM, Rob wrote:
>> Philip TAYLOR wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Rob wrote:
>>>
The world today is no longer about bytes or kilobytes.
Today we calculate in megabytes, gigabytes or terabytes.
People no longer treat mail as a novelty that can transfer
Philip TAYLOR wrote:
>
>
> Rob wrote:
>
>> What does this message demonstrate?
>
> That information can be transmitted very successfully using e-mail
> without requiring HTML, markup, letter-heads, signatures, etc.
But I never denied that!
What I claim is that it requires HTML mail to transmit e-
On 12/20/12 9:29 AM, Rob wrote:
> Philip TAYLOR wrote:
>>
>>
>> Rob wrote:
>>
>>> The world today is no longer about bytes or kilobytes.
>>> Today we calculate in megabytes, gigabytes or terabytes.
>>>
>>> People no longer treat mail as a novelty that can transfer messages
>>> like a telex did in
Rob wrote:
> What does this message demonstrate?
That information can be transmitted very successfully using e-mail
without requiring HTML, markup, letter-heads, signatures, etc.
> It appears the accessability software industry focusses heavily on
> mainstream software and less on opensource p
Philip TAYLOR wrote:
>
>
> Rob wrote:
>
>> The world today is no longer about bytes or kilobytes.
>> Today we calculate in megabytes, gigabytes or terabytes.
>>
>> People no longer treat mail as a novelty that can transfer messages
>> like a telex did in the past. They use it like a fax or lette
David E. Ross wrote:
> On 12/20/12 6:40 AM, Rob wrote:
>> Philip TAYLOR wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Ed Mullen wrote:
>>>
Amen. The last job I had was in 1996 and ALL email was HTML. Where are
you text-only people coming from?
>>>
>>> A world that recognises that it takes only 10 bytes to say
Rob wrote:
> The world today is no longer about bytes or kilobytes.
> Today we calculate in megabytes, gigabytes or terabytes.
>
> People no longer treat mail as a novelty that can transfer messages
> like a telex did in the past. They use it like a fax or letter.
> That means mail includes ma
On 12/20/12 6:40 AM, Rob wrote:
> Philip TAYLOR wrote:
>>
>>
>> Ed Mullen wrote:
>>
>>> Amen. The last job I had was in 1996 and ALL email was HTML. Where are
>>> you text-only people coming from?
>>
>> A world that recognises that it takes only 10 bytes to say "Thank you.",
>> not 2500.
>
> T
On 12/19/12 5:09 PM, Ed Mullen wrote:
> Rob wrote:
>> David E. Ross wrote:
>>> However, the problem is easily resolved by composing only
>>> ASCII-formatted messages.
>>
>> This is not realistic in today's world when using the program
>> in a company. Most mail being processed is in HTML.
>> We e
Philip TAYLOR wrote:
>
>
> Ed Mullen wrote:
>
>> Amen. The last job I had was in 1996 and ALL email was HTML. Where are you
>> text-only people coming from?
>
> A world that recognises that it takes only 10 bytes to say "Thank you.",
> not 2500.
The world today is no longer about bytes or kilo
Rob wrote:
Philip Chee wrote:
I think some priority has to be given to fix both bugs.
The pretty-printing should at least be made optional, defaulting
to off, and the change that introduced the problem should
be reverted or looked at.
I had to disable font size preselection (by lockPref) temp
Philip TAYLOR wrote:
Ed Mullen wrote:
Amen. The last job I had was in 1996 and ALL email was HTML. Where are you
text-only people coming from?
A world that recognises that it takes only 10 bytes to say "Thank you.",
not 2500.
Philip Taylor
Amen, Philip!
--
Daniel
__
Ed Mullen wrote:
> Amen. The last job I had was in 1996 and ALL email was HTML. Where are you
> text-only people coming from?
A world that recognises that it takes only 10 bytes to say "Thank you.",
not 2500.
Philip Taylor
___
support-seamonkey ma
Philip Chee wrote:
>> I think some priority has to be given to fix both bugs.
>> The pretty-printing should at least be made optional, defaulting
>> to off, and the change that introduced the problem should
>> be reverted or looked at.
>>
>> I had to disable font size preselection (by lockPref)
On 19/12/2012 23:30, Rob wrote:
> I found by accident that the 2.14.1 version we are using now has
> a nasty bug in the message composition mode.
>
> When composing in HTML, and after setting a custom font size in
> the options for message composition (default is medium, set to
> small or large fo
Rob wrote:
David E. Ross wrote:
However, the problem is easily resolved by composing only
ASCII-formatted messages.
This is not realistic in today's world when using the program
in a company. Most mail being processed is in HTML.
We even have HTML signatures.
Amen. The last job I had was
David E. Ross wrote:
> However, the problem is easily resolved by composing only
> ASCII-formatted messages.
This is not realistic in today's world when using the program
in a company. Most mail being processed is in HTML.
We even have HTML signatures.
___
On 12/19/12 10:53 AM, Rob wrote:
> WaltS wrote:
>> On 12/19/2012 01:11 PM, Rob wrote:
>>> WaltS wrote:
On 12/19/2012 10:30 AM, Rob wrote:
> I found by accident that the 2.14.1 version we are using now has
> a nasty bug in the message composition mode.
>
> When composing in HT
WaltS wrote:
> On 12/19/2012 01:11 PM, Rob wrote:
>> WaltS wrote:
>>> On 12/19/2012 10:30 AM, Rob wrote:
I found by accident that the 2.14.1 version we are using now has
a nasty bug in the message composition mode.
When composing in HTML, and after setting a custom font size i
Ed Mullen wrote:
> Rob wrote:
>> I found by accident that the 2.14.1 version we are using now has
>> a nasty bug in the message composition mode.
>>
>> When composing in HTML, and after setting a custom font size in
>> the options for message composition (default is medium, set to
>> small or larg
On 12/19/2012 01:11 PM, Rob wrote:
WaltS wrote:
On 12/19/2012 10:30 AM, Rob wrote:
I found by accident that the 2.14.1 version we are using now has
a nasty bug in the message composition mode.
When composing in HTML, and after setting a custom font size in
the options for message composition
WaltS wrote:
> On 12/19/2012 10:30 AM, Rob wrote:
>> I found by accident that the 2.14.1 version we are using now has
>> a nasty bug in the message composition mode.
>>
>> When composing in HTML, and after setting a custom font size in
>> the options for message composition (default is medium, set
David E. Ross wrote:
> On 12/19/12 7:30 AM, Rob wrote:
>> I found by accident that the 2.14.1 version we are using now has
>> a nasty bug in the message composition mode.
>>
>> When composing in HTML, and after setting a custom font size in
>> the options for message composition (default is mediu
On 12/19/2012 10:30 AM, Rob wrote:
I found by accident that the 2.14.1 version we are using now has
a nasty bug in the message composition mode.
When composing in HTML, and after setting a custom font size in
the options for message composition (default is medium, set to
small or large for examp
On 12/19/12 7:30 AM, Rob wrote:
> I found by accident that the 2.14.1 version we are using now has
> a nasty bug in the message composition mode.
>
> When composing in HTML, and after setting a custom font size in
> the options for message composition (default is medium, set to
> small or large fo
Rob wrote:
I found by accident that the 2.14.1 version we are using now has
a nasty bug in the message composition mode.
When composing in HTML, and after setting a custom font size in
the options for message composition (default is medium, set to
small or large for example) the composer peppers
I found by accident that the 2.14.1 version we are using now has
a nasty bug in the message composition mode.
When composing in HTML, and after setting a custom font size in
the options for message composition (default is medium, set to
small or large for example) the composer peppers a lot of nes
41 matches
Mail list logo
