Whats the latest on the oft requested ability to format outgoing mail
messages?
It would be great to even just embolden, underline or italicize.
--
Best regards,
Lawrence Johnson mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Current version is
Hello Lawrence,
It would be great to even just embolden, underline or italicize.
That wheel is already invented. A friend of mine uses it all the time
and I do every now and then. Use MS Word instead of TB's editor and
compose your message with the font sizes, colours and highlights of your
Hello Mark,
Tuesday, July 8, 2003, 9:25:46 AM, you wrote:
MP Hello Lawrence,
MP Tuesday, July 8, 2003, 3:33:28 PM, you wrote:
LJ Whats the latest on the oft requested ability to format outgoing mail
LJ messages?
LJ It would be great to even just embolden, underline or italicize.
MP Do you
Hello Lawrence,
On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 08:33:28 -0500 GMT (08/07/03, 20:33 +0700 GMT),
Lawrence Johnson wrote:
Whats the latest on the oft requested ability to format outgoing mail
messages?
It would be great to even just embolden, underline or italicize.
The latest beta series has an HTML
Hi Anne,
On Wednesday, October 30, 2002 15:10 your local time, (20:55 my local
time), you [A] wrote:
A g Sudip, your friends must be 'better-trained' than mine - they
A *will* insist on using stuff like Incredimail! joking
Except for my wife, no one in my circle uses Incredimail - and I don't
Hello Vishal,
Tuesday, October 29, 2002, 3:36:02 AM, you wrote:
VN Just in so that TB developers realize more people want this, I
VN happen to think the suggestion of limited support for text
VN enhancements is a good one, provided it is done in a way that
VN allows it to show up alike
Wednesday, October 30, 2002, 3:32:26 AM, Sudip wrote in message
mid:1063625593.20021030091726;ntc.net.np
SP Anything that comes to me like that is not read at all !
g Sudip, your friends must be 'better-trained' than mine - they
*will* insist on using stuff like Incredimail! joking
--
Cheers,
Hello sjx,
Tuesday, October 29, 2002, 11:10:16 PM, you wrote:
And that's one of the ways Ameol - which I use too - /does/ score
over The Bat! It's a small feature, but one I find very valuable.
s Oh, /that/. I remember that from Fidonet in ages of yore.
s Don't forget that it does have its
Bonjour Barry2,
B HTML has been proven over and over to be inherently insecure so who's to say that an
B exploit couldn't be found to attack TB! through HTML ??
There is a big misunderstanding about HTML and security.
HTML can *NOT* be insecure. HTML is a set of hierarchicaly ordered tags.
These
Hello François,
Wednesday, October 30, 2002, 3:31:29 PM, you wrote:
FP Bonjour Barry2,
FP TB would be as secure as today if it was able to read HTML + CSS.
I understand your point, but it's the HTML code that activates the
javascript / ActiveX etc etc ... and that's where the insecurity lies.
Bonjour Barry2,
Le mercredi 30 octobre 2002 à 20:17:47, vous écriviez :
B Hello François,
B I understand your point, but it's the HTML code that activates the
B javascript / ActiveX etc etc ... and that's where the insecurity lies.
No, it is not the HTML code that activates the javascrip /
On Wednesday, October 30, 2002, François PASCAL wrote in
mid:12242257813.20021030203231;transvie.com:
FP should be ne necessary to recreate accounts before importing
FP a back-uped database, they should be importable right as is).
Energetically agreed!
FP Now about security, my point was to
Hello François,
Wednesday, October 30, 2002, 7:32:31 PM, you wrote:
FP Bonjour Barry2,
FP Le mercredi 30 octobre 2002 à 20:17:47, vous écriviez :
B Hello François,
B I understand your point, but it's the HTML code that activates the
B javascript / ActiveX etc etc ... and that's where the
Hi,
Paul Wilson wrote in msgid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] :
My company uses Lotus Notes, (No Choice), I made a simple suggestion
3 months ago to set the default to text only.
Three weeks ago I received a bonus check for the suggestion, because
the company is saving so much on bandwidth and storage
Tuesday, 10/29/2002, 8:20 AM
Hi Markus,
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, at 13:59:51 [GMT +0100] (which was 4:59 AM where I live)
you wrote about: 'RTF'
Three weeks ago I received a bonus check for the suggestion, because
the company is saving so much on bandwidth and storage space now.
MG This sounds
Monday, October 28, 2002, 7:43:54 PM, Jonathan wrote in message
mid:19517308906.20021028134354;certiflexdimension.com
JA There has been rumours that HTML will be supported in version 2
JA though, so RTF might just be pointless as HTML is probably supported
JA in a lot more clients than RTF
Monday, October 28, 2002, 8:13:04 PM, Mark wrote in message
mid:6813457140.20021028121304;ahsoftware.net
MW Most of the styled text messages I receive from people are simply
MW the a text message using a different font, i.e., the sender preferred
MW that the recipient see the message in 10-point
Monday, October 28, 2002, 9:40:54 PM, pmf wrote in message
mid:11621038062.20021028164054;sprintmail.com
p my guess is that TB v.2 will support sending emails in HTML,
p so you'll have the features you want. I only hope it also has the
p ability not only to render a text only version, but also to
Monday, October 28, 2002, 11:16:38 PM, Miguel wrote in message
mid:1834822594.20021029001638;ermspain.com
MAU Specially when TB already
MAU includes a Rich Text Viewer? I wonder how many of the ones who have
MAU participated in this thread do use the RTV. And if they do, why? :-)
It does? I've
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday, October 29, 2002, Anne wrote...
JA There has been rumours that HTML will be supported in version 2
JA though, so RTF might just be pointless as HTML is probably
JA supported in a lot more clients than RTF.
If this is the case then I
the messages
in plain text, with a tab at the bottom of the message which you can
click on if you *want* to see the html/rtf :-)
--
Deborah
Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Hello Anne,
Tuesday, October 29, 2002, 1:55:56 PM, you wrote:
A Monday, October 28, 2002, 11:16:38 PM, Miguel wrote in message
A mid:1834822594.20021029001638;ermspain.com
MAU Specially when TB already
MAU includes a Rich Text Viewer?
A It does? I've not found this and I can't find mention of
Bonjour Jonathan,
May I enter this thread just to mention that :
* HTML is not primarily a cosmetic format, but a semantic format : it is
a subset of XML and thus carry inherent qualities that goes far above
rtf.
* rtf itself is a thing of the past, since M$ itself is switching to
XML
Hallo François,
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002 22:14:19 +0100GMT (29-10-02, 22:14 +0100GMT, where
I live), you wrote:
FP * rtf itself is a thing of the past, since M$ itself is switching
FP to XML
Why are you both bashing Microsoft and stating that they're the
standard everyone should adhere too?
Do you
Bonjour Roelof,
Le mardi 29 octobre 2002 à 22:58:47, vous écriviez :
RO Hallo François,
RO On Tue, 29 Oct 2002 22:14:19 +0100GMT (29-10-02, 22:14 +0100GMT, where
RO I live), you wrote:
FP * rtf itself is a thing of the past, since M$ itself is switching
FP to XML
RO Why are you both bashing
Bonjour Roelof,
Le mardi 29 octobre 2002 à 22:58:47, vous écriviez :
RO Hallo François,
RO On Tue, 29 Oct 2002 22:14:19 +0100GMT (29-10-02, 22:14 +0100GMT, where
RO I live), you wrote:
FP * rtf itself is a thing of the past, since M$ itself is switching
FP to XML
RO Why are you both bashing
Roelof-
Tuesday, October 29, 2002, 1:58:47 PM, you wrote:
RO Why are you both bashing Microsoft and stating that they're the
RO standard everyone should adhere too?
Now, now, Roelof...just because M$ is switching over to xml doesn't
mean that it's a M$ standard. RTF *is* becoming a thing
Joseph-
Monday, October 28, 2002, 7:51:06 PM, you wrote:
JN This does all raise an interesting issue, though: Given the focus on
JN doing so much electronically, is it desirable and possible to develop
JN a set of standards that would allow different MUA's to utilize text
JN attributes and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
And that's one of the ways Ameol - which I use too - /does/ score
over The Bat! It's a small feature, but one I find very valuable.
Oh, /that/. I remember that from Fidonet in ages of yore.
Don't forget that it does have its disadvantages - it's
at the bottom of the message which you can
DW click on if you *want* to see the html/rtf :-)
Ah I'm with you - yes I'd found that box but I'd not realised it
was that! Doh! Thanks Deborah :-)
--
Cheers,
Anne
Using The Bat! v1.61 on Windows 98 4.10 Build
Tuesday, October 29, 2002, 8:26:30 PM, Mary wrote in message
mid:196277568.20021029142630;premiernet.net
MB Preferences, Viewer tab, the black on blue lettering Use viewer,
MB Click on the choice menu that is saying Fixed width font and change
MB to html/Rich Text viewer.
Thanks Mary - I'd not
Hello Anne,
Tuesday, October 29, 2002, 8:01:35 PM, you wrote:
A Tuesday, October 29, 2002, 8:26:30 PM, Mary wrote in message
A mid:196277568.20021029142630;premiernet.net
MB Preferences, Viewer tab, the black on blue lettering Use viewer,
MB Click on the choice menu that is saying Fixed width
Hi Anne,
On Tuesday, October 29, 2002 19:44 your local time, (Wednesday, 01:29
my local time), you [A] wrote:
A ... Anything that comes to me like that is stripped of all that
A stuff before I read it
Anything that comes to me like that is not read at all !
--
be well,
Sudip Pokhrel
This is not intended to start a discussion of HTML. It is not about
HTML, nor big bandwidth mailings, nor UCE. It is about simple
formatting conventions which go beyond plain text but stop well short
of what many of us dislike about HTML email.
What, either in terms of technical issues or design
Replying to your message of Monday, October 28, 2002, 12:38:35 PM:
JN from allowing bullets, italics, underlines, and bold?
Isn't that better served by Word or such? Send it as an attached file.
That is what I do if I need to send something along them lines.
Just my thoughts.
--
Pete
staying well away from the
problems of HTML?
Would you mean like the enchanced-text/rich text mode? I guess there
is nothing stopping RitLabs from creating such a feature, it'd
probably require a little work into RTF, but they aren't that
difficult. Plus there are a number of mail readers
On Monday, October 28, 2002, Pete Milne wrote in
mid:92276533584.20021028124303;milneweb.com:
JN from allowing bullets, italics, underlines, and bold?
PM Isn't that better served by Word or such? Send it as an attached file.
Pete,
Sometimes an attached file is fine, and the current design
On Monday, October 28, 2002, Jonathan Angliss wrote in
mid:19517308906.20021028134354;certiflexdimension.com:
JA Would you mean like the enchanced-text/rich text mode?
Yes.
--
JN
Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information:
communications, while still staying well away from the
JN problems of HTML?
There are several centuries worth of literature that prove the point
that not only does text mode not need RTF or HTML formatting, but that
often simple text can get the point across much better than visual
crutches.
* Actually
Hello Jonathan,
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 13:43:54 -0600 GMT (29/10/02, 02:43 +0700 GMT),
Jonathan Angliss wrote:
Would you mean like the enchanced-text/rich text mode? I guess there
is nothing stopping RitLabs from creating such a feature,
There are many wishes for this.
There has been
...
Me too. I personally find it more professional than using something
that you cannot guarantee on the end users system, and yes that does
apply for HTML, as well as RTF. I've seen some people specifying fonts
that look 'cool' on their computer, but just didn't have the same
desired affect on mine
Mark,
On Monday, October 28, 2002, Mark Wieder wrote in
mid:6813457140.20021028121304;ahsoftware.net:
MW There are several centuries worth of literature that prove the point
MW that not only does text mode not need RTF or HTML formatting, but that
MW often simple text can get the point across
On Monday, October 28, 2002, Jonathan Angliss wrote in
mid:6020249812.20021028143255;certiflexdimension.com:
JA I've seen some people specifying fonts that look 'cool' on their
JA computer, but just didn't have the same desired affect on mine.
I agree. That's one reason to restrict any
bit toward more functionality and
JN more complex communications, while still staying well away from the
JN problems of HTML?
MW There are several centuries worth of literature that prove the point
MW that not only does text mode not need RTF or HTML formatting, but that
MW often simple text can
are displayed on a person's computer,
you're assuming that RTF would guarantee that your message looks the
same to the receiver and the sender. That's simply not the case. RTF is
a kludgy Microsoft file format into which they never invested the
resources that would have been necessary to deliver
Hello Mark,
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 at 12:13:04[GMT -0800](which was 20:13 where I
live) you wrote:
MW * I can also even *emphasize* certain words, or quote them. If
MW necessary, I can even SHOUT.
Yes but, if Joseph's wishes were acceded to, your *emphasize* would
actually show as bold font. No
nothing else would be transmitted, but the email client would
simply interpret the received text if the proper hints were present...
that's something quite different from RTF. Maybe I misunderstood the
original intent here. I'm not opposed to this idea, but I'd demand the
ability to turn it off on my
On Monday, October 28, 2002, Mark Wieder wrote in
mid:18721360364.20021028142447;ahsoftware.net:
MW Ah... so nothing else would be transmitted, but the email client
MW would simply interpret the received text if the proper hints were
MW present... that's something quite different from RTF
Hello Richard,
Monday, October 28, 2002, 10:03:29 PM, you wrote:
MW * I can also even *emphasize* certain words, or quote them.
MW If necessary, I can even SHOUT.
RW Yes but, if Joseph's wishes were acceded to, your *emphasize*
RW would actually show as bold font. No colours or anything fancy
Joseph-
Monday, October 28, 2002, 12:55:14 PM, you wrote:
JN There might be some decisions that need to be made, but that doesn't
JN turn it into a slipper slope, nor does it have anything to do with
JN HTML. Appearance is not the biggest problem with HTML, and I agree
JN that HTML is not the
On Monday, October 28, 2002, Mark Wieder wrote in
mid:17023324829.20021028145731;ahsoftware.net:
MW Actually, I think it's exactly this thinking that led M$
MW eventually to the executable attachments in Lookout. Folks
MW brainstormed about more and more features they'd like to see in
MW email
Hello Joseph,
What I did mean is what, I believe, is generally referred to as
enriched text, and you paraphrased it well in the excerpt above.
Wether it is called RTF or enriched text I would not use it. But I'm
with you. Why not include the option? Specially when TB already
includes a Rich
Monday, October 28, 2002, 12:55:14 PM, you wrote:
JN There might be some decisions that need to be made, but that doesn't
JN turn it into a slipper slope, nor does it have anything to do with
JN HTML. Appearance is not the biggest problem with HTML, and I agree
JN that HTML is not the way to
On Mon, 28-Oct-2002 17:54 [GMT-0500]
myob [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Richard,
Monday, October 28, 2002, 10:03:29 PM, you wrote:
* I can also even *emphasize* certain words, or quote them.
If necessary, I can even SHOUT.
Yes but, if Joseph's wishes were acceded to, your *emphasize*
Monday, 10/28/2002, 5:37 PM
Hi Mark,
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, at 12:13:04 [GMT -0800] (which was 12:13 PM where I live)
you wrote about: 'RTF'
MW There are several centuries worth of literature that prove the point
MW that not only does text mode not need RTF or HTML formatting, but that
MW often
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
In mid:11530922880.20021028164613;qwest.net,
Joseph N. [JN] wrote:'
JN I don't know if you misunderstood my intent or if I misstated
JN the subject. I really should not have mentioned RTF, which is a
JN MS format. What I did mean is what, I believe
On Monday, October 28, 2002, Allie C Martin wrote in
mid:122307102960.20021028211108;landscreek.net:
JN I don't know if you misunderstood my intent or if I misstated
JN the subject. I really should not have mentioned RTF, which is a
JN MS format. What I did mean is what, I believe
On Monday, October 28, 2002, Alec Burgess wrote in
mid:019f01c27eea$cc1b1850$3a5232d1;bur2Kdns:
As does *Outlook Express* with /OE-QuoteFix/ ;-)
I thought _theBat_ did this too (I'm not using it yet). From this
conversation I gather it does *NOT* ?
Alec,
Correct, TB! cannot compose with
Joseph-
Monday, October 28, 2002, 3:14:37 PM, you wrote:
JN (I know I really oughta let this slide) Do you really think, I
JN mean, inside your head do you really really think, that providing for
JN a limited set of universally used typographical conventions is the
JN same thing as providing
Mark,
On Monday, October 28, 2002, Mark Wieder wrote in
mid:16338069661.20021028190316;ahsoftware.net:
MW You may want just bold and underlining. Someone else may want
MW tables. Yet another may want to embed a spreadsheet (I have a
MW client who steadfastly refuses to move from Outlook
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
In mid:1659073.20021028203148;qwest.net,
Joseph N. [JN] wrote:'
JN I wonder if the reason is commercial or technical. That is, has
JN HTML become so popular because it offers the sellers of the
JN world more billboard space, or is it that there
Hello Ben!
On Wednesday, August 7, 2002 at 10:13:25 PM you wrote:
1) the organization responsible for the standards needs to rapidly update
them to fit with the requests of those that use them.
2) the developers of browser software or whatever need to be committed
to obeying the standards
Hello Colin,
Tuesday, January 15, 2002, 4:35:24 PM, you wrote:
CG Hello TBUDL,
CG Not wanting to start an HTML war, I agree that web pages do not make
CG for good emails. An RTF capability on the other hand is a useful tool as it allows
CG for the formatting of emails with bullets, underlining
purpose?
BA Go to www.jarte.com and try out their freeware RTF processor. I've
BA been looking around at a few lately and this is definitely the best.
And how can i Use this nice editor with the Bat ?
Cheers
Ray
--
Archives : http
Hi Douglas,
On Tuesday, September 11, 2001 at 4:01:30 PM, you wrote:
DH (Question B): ¿Can anyone recommend a good, compact resource
DH frugal share or freeware rich text editor that I could use for that
DH purpose?
Go to www.jarte.com and try out their freeware RTF processor. I've
Hi Douglas,
On Wednesday, September 12, 2001 at 1:02:13 PM, you wrote:
DH (Question B): ¿Can anyone recommend a good, compact resource
DH frugal share or freeware rich text editor that I could use for that
DH purpose?
JA What about WordPad that comes with Win9x? It should be in your
Douglas,
On Tue, 11 Sep 2001, at 00:01:30 [GMT -0600] (which was 11:31 AM where I live) you
wrote:
DH (Question B): ¿Can anyone recommend a good, compact resource
DH frugal share or freeware rich text editor that I could use for that
DH purpose?
Check out Atalantis from
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello Douglas,
Tuesday, September 11, 2001, 7:01:30 AM, you wrote:
DH ¿Can anyone recommend a good, compact resource frugal share or
DH freeware rich text editor that I could use for opening files saved
DH by TB! as text files and doing any
Hello Januk (TBTech), Raj, Andrew (TBUDL) others on both TB! lists
following this thread,
Monday, September 10, 2001, you all responded w/ helpful suggestions
in relation to my query regarding TB! External Programs / RTF
Editor, for which I thank you (and am following up).
DH If I want full
just tried saving a message as a Word
Processor file. Unsurprisingly, the Word Processor didn't recognize
it as such (puro chili, as we say here).
I then tried the same with the rtf extension. More chili - it wasn't
one. What it was, was an ascii file (surprise)!
That brings me back to Question B
Hi,
On Thursday, March 29, 2001, 5:25:36 PM, Ming-Li wrote:
What got me curious is what emailer would encode its mail as rtf.
Let me state for the record that Mail.app under NEXTSTEP used RTF for
formatting mail.
Regards,
Markus
--
Using The Bat! 1.52 Beta/1 under Windows NT 4.0 Build
1381
71 matches
Mail list logo
