Re[4]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

>>In 2.01 version will be possible to selecect HTML as default in >>Preferences and AFAIK macros for selecting message type are planned. CaC> Thank you for this info. When I first installed TB as an eval (v2.00) I was completely unable to send (or queue) any email if composed with HTML option.

Re: Re[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 16:23:11 +0200, Marek Mikus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >In 2.01 version will be possible to selecect HTML as default in >Preferences and AFAIK macros for selecting message type are planned. Thank you for this info. The macros would do well too (I didn't think of that option), b

Re[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

Hello all, Friday, October 3, 2003, Corne' (aka Cory) wrote: >>But a per address book entry setting would be great! >> >>_If someone from Ritlabs is reading my 2 cents: Can't we have that???_ > Add to that a per-account (or even per-folder, inheritance selectable) > setting which enables a HTML-o

Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 18:30:16 +0200, Jurgen Haug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >But a per address book entry setting would be great! > >_If someone from Ritlabs is reading my 2 cents: Can't we have that???_ Add to that a per-account (or even per-folder, inheritance selectable) setting which enables a

Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

Hello DG, > Ahh well. I don't feel the need to format my messages based on your > criteria. 'Course DG! :) > I quote what I feel is necessary to clearly represent the thread and > the basis of my reply. 'Course again DG! But it is not just the quoted lines that add up :)) -- Best regards, Mi

Re[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Friday, September 12, 2003 12:50:16 PM (GMT -05:00) RE: "HTML as default on v2.00 ...?" Greetings MAU, On Wednesday, September 10, 2003, 7:13:30 AM, you wrote: MAU> As you may have read a few days ago in a thread with subject &

Re[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

Hi Thomas Wednesday, September 10, 2003, 2:38:04 PM, you wrote: TF> The internet was designed for plain-text emails only. MIME attachments TF> (allowing HTML) was added much later and under much protest. Check it TF> out on the internet. The internet was not designed *for* email at all. The ARPA

Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

Hello MAU, Wednesday, September 10, 2003, 5:13:30 AM, you wrote: M> As you may have read a few days ago in a thread with subject "My M> new 20 lines filter", you better start your text before line 20 or M> I will not read any of your messages (provided you care at all if I M> read them or not) ;-)

Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

Hello Dave, Wednesday, September 10, 2003, 7:49:12 AM, you wrote: DK> The Internet is becoming to be treated in the same manner as DK> automobiles. I.e. "I just want it to work and don't care how it DK> works." *Exactly*!! and Exactly why this is a Bad Thing (tm). When I drive my car, and if

Re: WARNING(virus check bypassed): Re[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........? <-- anyone else seeing this 'WARNING' prefix?

On Thursday, September 11, 2003, Pixie wrote... JA>> I don't use my comcast account for emails, I run my own server, JA>> so it's easier to monkey with what I want. There is a possibility JA>> that it > Do you happen to run that on a 'home' service? I've been thinking of > throwing a server back

Re[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

Wednesday, September 10, 2003, 8:23:15 PM, Allie wrote: A> We are in the know and they're not. :) You put a smiley there, but you're right! When Mosaic came out, I was one of the first to stop using Gopher and Archie; the new way was so much easier and quickly became more appealing. A> We know t

Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

Dave Kennedy, [DK] wrote: DK> That is such a great point! (I wish I had made it. :) ) DK> We techies so often forget that our view of the world is different DK> than the typical end user. And you know why? We are in the know and they're not. :) We know the problems with HTML and they don't. Th

Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

David Boggon, [DB] wrote: DB> With respect, the way a thing is presented is never usually the DB> responsibility of the person to whom it is presented. We are always DB> presenting ourselves and what we do in a particular way, whether we DB> (or anyone else) likes it or not. Hmmm. I usually try t

Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

David Boggon, [DB] wrote: DB> My point was that one should look at the facts, Many seem to resist the facts of the matter. :/ We speak about bandwidth, problems with accurate reproducability at the recipients end, the fact that the recipient is forced to read using fonts and font sizing that the

Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

Hello Sheldon, On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 16:39:53 -0700 GMT (10/09/2003, 06:39 +0700 GMT), Sheldon Schuster wrote: > In my opinion, I believe there is nothing intrinsically wrong with > HTML *if*, and *only if* it is used correctly according to the intent > of its designers. The internet was designed f

Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

Hello Dave, On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 10:04:02 -0400 GMT (10/09/2003, 21:04 +0700 GMT), Dave Kennedy wrote: > 1. Acrobat Reader is not as universal as HTML even if it is a >free download. It's only the reader than is free. > 2. Posting something to a web page changes the paradigm from a >"pus

Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

Hello Bill, On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 19:28:01 -0400 GMT (10/09/2003, 06:28 +0700 GMT), Bill Blinn Technology Editor wrote: > I'm one of the let's-avoid-HTML-mail folks, but I know that in those > instances when I want to send mail that is formatted for presentation, > HTML is the *only* way I can do it

Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

Hello FJ, On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 10:29:36 +0200 GMT (10/09/2003, 15:29 +0700 GMT), FJ de Bruin wrote: MDP>> HTML was *never* developed or intended for use as a formatting MDP>> system for email. > You're turning things around here. No, he isn't. What he says is historical truth. Check google for T

Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

Hello Dave, On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 09:49:12 -0400 GMT (10/09/2003, 20:49 +0700 GMT), Dave Kennedy wrote: > The Internet is becoming to be treated in the same manner as > automobiles. I.e. "I just want it to work and don't care how it > works." That is unfortunately true. See your own message about

Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

Hello David, On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 19:54:05 +0100 GMT (10/09/2003, 01:54 +0700 GMT), David Boggon wrote: TF Your choice is costing me money. D>>> And exactly how much extra is it costing you? BBTE>> Does it matter? Doing something that you know costs someone else money is BBTE>> rude, even if i

Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

On Wednesday, September 10, 2003, 2:49:12 PM, Dave Kennedy wrote: > The Internet is becoming to be treated in the same manner as > automobiles. I.e. "I just want it to work and don't care how it > works." This fits in quite well with the following bit of research: ---

Re[3]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

Wednesday, September 10, 2003, 4:29:36 AM, FJ wrote: F> You're turning things around here. With all communications, F> the presentation and formatting lies with the originator. This F> is true for newspapers, slide show presentations, snail mail F> letters, email, etc.. Ding, ding, ding!!! We hav

Re[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

Tuesday, September 9, 2003, 5:43:27 PM, Allister wrote: A> And if you can think of a case where this is so, could it be A> better handled by posting a web page, or PDF file, or A> attaching a PDF file to the email? 1. Acrobat Reader is not as universal as HTML even if it is a free download. 2.

Re[3]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

Tuesday, September 9, 2003, 9:50:52 PM, Vishal wrote: V> Right. People like us on this list don't appreciate that. But V> we aren't really representative of the majority. That is such a great point! (I wish I had made it. :) ) We techies so often forget that our view of the world is different tha

Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

Hello Roelof, > On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 13:13:30 +0200GMT (10-9-03, 13:13 +0200, where I > live), you wrote: Hey! Don't the minutes have seconds where you live? ;-) -- Best regards, Miguel A. Urech (El Escorial - Spain) Using The Bat! v1.62i Curre

Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

Hallo MAU, On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 13:13:30 +0200GMT (10-9-03, 13:13 +0200, where I live), you wrote: M> Note to moderators: Top-posting done on purpose I suppose that's even worse than doing out of ignorance. -- Groetjes, Roelof Current version

Re: WARNING(virus check bypassed): Re[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........? <-- anyone else seeing this 'WARNING' prefix?

Hallo Pixie, On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 06:56:57 -0400GMT (10-9-03, 12:56 +0200, where I live), you wrote: MW>> Anyway, in digest mode the header on my message looks fine to me. P> Does there happen to exist a command I can grab digests for the P> last day or two? Not automatically. But you could ask

Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

> Hash: SHA1 > > Tuesday, September 09, 2003 > 4:23:19 PM (GMT -05:00) > RE: "HTML as default on v2.00 ...?" > > Greetings David, > > On Tuesday, September 9, 2003, 2:54:05 PM, you wrote: > TF>>>>> Your choice is costing me money. >

Re[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Tuesday, September 09, 2003 4:23:19 PM (GMT -05:00) RE: "HTML as default on v2.00 ...?" Greetings David, On Tuesday, September 9, 2003, 2:54:05 PM, you wrote: TF>>>> Your choice is costing me money. D>>> A

Re[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

Hello Marck, Tuesday, September 9, 2003, 3:11:20 PM, you wrote: MDP> HTML was *never* developed or intended for use as a formatting MDP> system for email. It is a presentation system for served pages, MDP> intended for transmission with the HyperText Transfer Protocol MDP> (HTTP, yes?). Mail is si

Re: WARNING(virus check bypassed): Re[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........? <-- anyone else seeing this 'WARNING' prefix?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tuesday, September 09, 2003, Pixie wrote... > ..just trying to see if my ISP has been monkeying with something on > their servers or if others on the list are also seeing the same. I don't use my comcast account for emails, I run my own server, so

Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

On Wednesday, 10 September 2003, at 11:39:53 a.m., Sheldon Schuster wrote: > When did you become a member of the Gestapo HMTL police? HTML is > not a static entity--it is a dynamic changing standard that changes > as new user interests and technology develope. Are you still using > the text based

Re: WARNING(virus check bypassed): Re[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........? <-- anyone else seeing this 'WARNING' prefix?

Wednesday, September 10, 2003, 1:27:47 AM, Pixie wrote: P> about an hour or so ago a couple messages came in with this modified P> subject. Not just the thread I ripped the subject from but also 1 P> or 2 others has it. P> ..just trying to see if my ISP has been monkeying with something on P> th

Re: WARNING(virus check bypassed): Re[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........? <-- anyone else seeing this 'WARNING' prefix?

Pixie- Cool. I sneaked in under your virus check software? Got my mojo working today... Anyway, in digest mode the header on my message looks fine to me. -- -Mark Wieder Using The Bat! v1.63 Beta/7 on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 2

Re[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

Hi Marck Tuesday, September 9, 2003, 12:13:35 PM, you wrote: D Hmmm. While some people who use HTML mail may abuse it, it is D the spammers etc themselves who are at fault, not HTML, I D think. MDP>>> That is not correct. The fault lies in the ability to write MDP>>> over-formatted m

Re[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

Hi Leif Tuesday, September 9, 2003, 2:17:47 PM, you wrote: LG>Now take the HTML mail to a global scale. $365 x millions and LG>eventually billions of people per year. Yeah, that's a serious LG>waste of money. Assuming, of course, that your estimations were correct. You said yoursel

Re: Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

In my opinion, I believe there is nothing intrinsically wrong with HTML *if*, and *only if* it is used correctly according to the intent of its designers. Elsewhere in this thread are mentions of abusing HTML in email. Let's face it, HTML is abused far more on the web than in email. I think every

Re[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

At 5:43 PM on 9/9/2003, Allister Jenks typed ... A> I think everyone in this thread who is supporting the use of HTML in A> emails should read the HTML 4.01 specification - all of it. Then you A> will understand that HTML is a /semantic/ markup language. It is A> _*NOT*_ a presentation tool. An

Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

Hello Gerard, Tuesday, September 9, 2003, 3:08:30 PM, you wrote: G> Anything can be used in a right and a wrong way. If you receive one G> line e-mail from a friend saying they'll be over in an hour with G> some animated background image of trees swaying, it has more to do G> with your friend and

Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

On Tuesday, 9 September 2003, at 10:59:41 p.m., David Boggon wrote: > I don't want to open a can of worms here (or maybe I do) but what > is wrong with using HTML in email? what is behind TB's relegation of > HTML to the backburner? Well, the can is well and truly opened! In my opinion, I believ

Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

ON Tuesday, September 9, 2003, 8:17:47 PM, you wrote: LG> There's a time and place for HTML e-mail. There are some discounter LG> outdoors companies that send me HTML e-mail showing their latest and LG> greatest deals with pics of the items for me to see. I like that, I LG> asked to receive them.

Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

09-Sep-2003 15:01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > - HTML cannot be forwarded intact. That depends on the mailer. At work I'm forwarding HTML messages intact all the time (with Outlook - not that I like Outlook as a mailer!). -- Best regards, Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.de) Dilbert's Words of

Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

TF>>> Your choice is costing me money. D>> And exactly how much extra is it costing you? BBTE> Does it matter? Doing something that you know costs someone else money is BBTE> rude, even if it's no more than one cent. I regret the tone of my reply (D) above. Certainly in some parts of the world t

Re[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

Tuesday, September 9, 2003, 1:14:57 PM, Thomas wrote: T> Your choice is costing me money. Outlandish HTML e-mail (with the dangerous stuff filtered by TB!) is mildly annoying. However, SPAM causes me much more heartache. In the past 6 months, I've received ~15,000 e-mails. Of those ~7,000 are SP

Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

Hello Leif, > The point isn't so much how much you individually are costing someone, > but the collective of all e-mail, and what it costs everyone. > However, I don't need a one line e-mail from a friend saying they'll > be over in an hour with some animated background image of trees > swaying.

Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

Hello David, Tuesday, September 9, 2003, 11:40:14 AM, you wrote: DB> And exactly how much extra is it costing you? The point isn't so much how much you individually are costing someone, but the collective of all e-mail, and what it costs everyone. 1. Let's say it costs 2 cents for someone to rec

Re[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

It seems that David Boggon said ... TF>> Your choice is costing me money. D> And exactly how much extra is it costing you? Does it matter? Doing something that you know costs someone else money is rude, even if it's no more than one cent. -- Bill Blinn Technology Editor ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) -

Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

Hi Thomas, on 9/9/03 you wrote: >> My point is freedom of choice TF> Your choice is costing me money. And exactly how much extra is it costing you? TF> so why do you advocate HTML mails? I never said I did. -- David Boggon [EMAIL PROTECTED] The UN estimates that the world's poorest co

Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

Hello David, On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 15:17:11 +0100 GMT (09/09/2003, 21:17 +0700 GMT), David Boggon wrote: MDP>> It's not. It's the opposite of your point! > My point is freedom of choice Your choice is costing me money. But I'm still lucky; the days of paying extremely high prices per minute of int

Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

Hi Dhrakol, @9-Sep-2003, 11:03 -0400 (16:03 UK time) Vishal [D] in mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said to Marck: D>>> Hmmm. While some people who use HTML mail may abuse it, it is D>>> the spammers etc themselves who are at fault, not HTML, I D>>> think. MDP>> That is not correct. The fault lies in the a

Re[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

Hi Marck Tuesday, September 9, 2003, 9:11:20 AM, you wrote: D>> Hmmm. While some people who use HTML mail may abuse it, it is the D>> spammers etc themselves who are at fault, not HTML, I think. MDP> That is not correct. The fault lies in the ability to write MDP> over-formatted messages. I th

Re[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

Hi Deborah Tuesday, September 9, 2003, 9:01:10 AM, you wrote: DW> - HTML slows the recipient's computer - not always noticeably, but it DW> always does. Would you elaborate on this? Rendering might be slower, but the computer as a whole? The rendering does not take up so much extra CPU power

Re[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

Tuesday, September 9, 2003, 10:08:21 AM, Jamie wrote: > I'm also terribly prejudiced against fonts, if you want me to think > you're a 5 year old feel free to use Comic Sans, otherwise use a > businesslike font. It's a pain for me to have to set things up so that > stupid unreadable fonts

Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

Hi Marck, on 9/9/03 we wrote: AM>>> I hate when HTML mail forces me to read it with a particular AM>>> font and font size. MDP> Precisely. D>> Well yes, that's precisely my point. MDP> It's not. It's the opposite of your point! My point is freedom of choice D>> TB too makes it difficult for

Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

Hello David, Tuesday, September 9, 2003, 11:59:41 AM, you wrote: DB> I don't want to open a can of worms here (or maybe I do) but what DB> is wrong with using HTML in email? I'm a broadband user so I don't care about bandwidth so it's a most point for me. Most people are never going to

Re[4]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

It seems that Dave Kennedy said ... D> That's kind of a simple-minded view. Presentation counts. There D> have been a few snipes recently about how FoxMail does a lousy D> job at wrapping lines, etc. That's presentation and it clearly D> matters to even us plain-text techy types. That's because I

Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

David Boggon, [DB] wrote: DB> Having said all this, if it really is an issue of principle, I DB> applaude TB! for not selling out. The purist attitude to me does DB> seem a little groupy, though ... and I wonder how sustainable it is DB> in reality. The direction of conventions/standards as these

Re[3]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

Tuesday, September 9, 2003, 8:59:49 AM, Bill wrote: B> If the goal is COMMUNICATION, plain text wins. If the goal is You are trying to emphasize "COMMUNICATION," right? That's why it's capitalized? I wonder if HTML would have been able to present that across better by using italics or bold font?

Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

Hi Dajabo, @9-Sep-2003, 13:39 David Boggon [D] in mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said to Allie: D> Many end users don't know enough/have enough time/have the D> inclination to delve into the plain text display settings of D> their client, and so plain text messages with fixed width fonts D> and no bold &

Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

On Tuesday, September 9, 2003, 6:59:41 AM, David Boggon wrote: DB> I don't want to open a can of worms here (or maybe I do) but what is DB> wrong with using HTML in email? what is behind TB's relegation of DB> HTML to the backburner? DB> I've heard the purists talk of 'bloatmail'/bandwidth issues

Re[2]: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

It seems that David Boggon said ... D> Many end users don't know enough/have enough time/have the inclination D> to delve into the plain text display settings of their client, and so D> plain text messages with fixed width fonts and no bold & italics and D> font sizes/colours look very plain indee

Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

Hi Allie, DB>> I can make plain text messages look OK in TB! but I'm aware whenever I DB>> send mail that the P.T. usually looks pretty dreadful on recipient's DB>> machines. AM> Would you explain this further? I was thinking back to my Outlook Express days ... plain text messages looked, well

Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

Hello David, On 09/09/2003, 12:59:41 (My Time), you wrote: DB> Surely the enormous formatting flexibility available with HTML DB> email outweighs the bandwidth issue. After all, we're not on the DB> brink of bandwidth rationing, are we? Some users connect their laptops using GPRS Phones,

Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

David, On 09-09-2003 12:59, you [D] wrote in : D> I've heard the purists talk of 'bloatmail'/bandwidth issues, but why D> is this such an issue? Because an HTML mail is at least 3 times the size of a plain text mail. -- Best regards Peter Fjelsten 2.00.6 Window

Re: HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

David Boggon, [DB] wrote: DB> Am I missing something, or is it not possible for the HTML editor in DB> v2.00 to be set as the default? It's not possible. DB> I was expecting much fuller HTML editing support in v2.00 ... i.e. DB> HTML default editor & HTML templates. HTML mail really aught to be

HTML as default on v2.00 ...........?

Am I missing something, or is it not possible for the HTML editor in v2.00 to be set as the default? I was expecting much fuller HTML editing support in v2.00 ... i.e. HTML default editor & HTML templates. I don't want to open a can of worms here (or maybe I do) but what is wrong with using HTML