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), but
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
-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 My new 20
MAU
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
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 up.
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
-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 And exactly how much extra is it costing
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
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.
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 indeed
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 are
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
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 think
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]) -
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
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. And,
Hi Leif
Tuesday, September 9, 2003, 2:17:47 PM, you wrote:
LGNow take the HTML mail to a global scale. $365 x millions and
LGeventually billions of people per year. Yeah, that's a serious
LGwaste of money.
Assuming, of course, that your estimations were correct. You said yourself
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 messages.
D I
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
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 their
-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
21 matches
Mail list logo
