On 03/22/09 14:52, Michael Gordon wrote:
> Mark Hansen replied On 3/22/2009 3:20 PM
>> On 03/22/09 08:49, Michael Gordon wrote:
>>> Mark Hansen replied On 3/22/2009 10:05 AM
>>>> On 03/22/09 06:50, Moz Champion (Dan) wrote:
>>>>> Rick Merrill wrote:
>>>>>> Html AND text = when this option for email is used,
>>>>>> does the text get doubled up? I often receive email
>>>>>> that suggests this is the case.
>>>>> In short, yes.
>>>>> When you send in plain text, the message is sent in plain text of
>>>>> course. When you send in html, the message is sent in html.
>>>>> If you send in 'both' (plain text and html) there is a plain text
>>>>> 'portion' and a html 'portion' sent. Depending on your email/news
>>>>> program (and it's settings) you will only usually 'see' one version on
>>>>> your screen, but both will be there in the message.
>>>>> Dependent on how much html is used, a plain text message of say 25KB
>>>>> would perhaps be 30KB to 40KB if sent html. If sent both, then the
>>>>> message size would be 55KB to 65KB
>>>>> Never send both. It more than doubles the size of a plain text message
>>>>> for no good reason. If a person is reading in plain text only, they will
>>>>> only see the plain text version, the html is useless to them. If they
>>>>> are reading in html, the plain text version is likewise useless.
>>>> No good reason to ever send both? What if you're sending a message to
>>>> a group of people, some of whom read only plain text, and some of whom
>>>> appreciate HTML e-mail?
>>> There really is no good reason to send a message in both formats, it
>>> simply clutters up the message and makes it much larger for no good reason.
>> Still? Really?
>>> In your example you can send the messages in the format that is
>>> preferred by the persons receiving the message, even if they are in a
>>> single group with different preferences.
>> This assumes you know the preferences of all the recipients in advance.
>> The person composing the e-mail may not.
> If the person composing the message is considerate of the other persons
> preferences in receiving mail then the person sending the message will
> conform to those preferences. It has not been very long ago that major
> cooperations that send out e-mail messages to their customers sent one
> very special message, asking if they prefer plain text or HTML formatted
> messages. The lesson here is if you want to keep good relations with
> your customers you will comply with what they want, not what you want.
I'm trying to point out that you're making a big assumption here.
Perhaps you can't think about it any other way. The recipients and their
preferences are an issue for the person creating the e-mail, not you.
The e-mail author may know that some want HTML, while others want
plain text, and it may be too hard for him to keep track of them
individually. We just don't know.
To arbitrarily dismiss any such possibilities is short sighted, IMHO.
>>> In your address book for each card you have a button and selection for
>>> ASCII (plain text), HTML (formatted), and unknown. This will select the
>>> correct formatting for you when you click the Send Button.
>>> Keep in mind that if you format in HTML and create formated text,
>>> tables, and inline images the persons receiving your message in ASCII
>>> will never see your fancy formatting. The only way this really oworks
>>> well is if the formatting you compose is to the text characters of the
>>> message (bold, underscore, color, etc.).
>> It doesn't matter what the sender wants to do with the e-mail message, only
>> that he wants to send in both formats.
> Some folks have e-mail accounts where they are limited to the total size
> in bytes of their collective messages, when that limit is reached all
> incoming messages are blocked and maybe a server reply is returned to
> the sender stating the receivers mail box is full.
Well, that's a less than stellar argument. However, I'm not going to
try to convince you otherwise.
support-seamonkey mailing list