On Mar 30, 9:28 pm, Leonidas Jones <leonidasjo...@netscape.net> wrote: > googl...@kwcpa.com wrote: > > On Mar 30, 6:44 pm, "Terry R."<terry.f1...@nospamgmail.com> wrote: > >> The date and time was Monday, March 30, 2009 2:25:55 PM, and on a whim, > >> googl...@kwcpa.com pounded out on the keyboard: > > >>> On Mar 30, 5:12 pm, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo > >>> <peter.potamus.the.purple.hi...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> googl...@kwcpa.com wrote: > >>>>> Sorry - i'm viewing on the web where all prior messages show up, I was > >>>>> trying to be space efficient. > >>>> not everyone is viewing this group on google groups. > >>>> Some of us are using the mozilla newsgroup and others > >>>> are using the mailing lists > >>> Yeah - I got that now > >>>>> "If you choose to send in HTML then it wont be converted, it will be > >>>>> sent as html." > >>>>> This is a false statement. > >>>> again, others have asked that you email them an html > >>>> message and then we'll go from there, and so far you > >>>> have failed to do that. > >>> I'm happy to send a message to anyone. just supply the email > >>>>> True statement: "If you choose to send in > >>>>> HTML, and there is nothing in your message that warrants HTML, SM will > >>>>> convertto plaintextand send plaintext". > >>>> maybe it is and maybe its not > >>> Actually, it is. There doesn't seem to be any dispute about this > >>> statement in this thread (until now). The debate is whether this is > >>> the single, correct behavior. > >>>>> This is a well-established fact. I am asking that the auto-conversion > >>>>> be optional, so that your original statement becomes the truth. > >>>> we've heard you many times. Stop harping about it and > >>>> file a bug:https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/andrequest > >>>> for such an item > >>> Did so long ago > >>>> -- > >> We did some testing on this some time back and found that Moz clients > >> require at least one HTML element to send as HTML (10-07-08 in MTMM). > >> It can be done by creating a Template to use for your email and then > >> insert a simple HTML code in body using the HTML Editor (Insert, HTML > >> for TB). > > >> Or configure your sig file as HTML. > > >> Terry R. > >> -- > >> Anti-spam measures are included in my email address. > >> Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply. > > > THANK YOU THANK YOU TERRY R. WOULD EVERYONE ELSE PLEASE READ HIS > > RESPONSE. > > "Moz clients require at least one HTML element to send as HTML". > > > My request is to have an option that changes the Options -> Format > > default from "Auto-Detect" to "HTML". So that it will require no HTML > > to send as HTML. > > > I suppose that someone can say "I disagree, I believe the default > > option should be Auto-Detect". and you have your opinion, and I have > > mine (athough if things were reversed, I would yield so that everyone > > can have things as they want). But please, can we stop the > > discussions that say > > > "SM doesn'tconvertHTML to plaintext" (see Terry R's response above, > > it does) > > "You shouldn't want you HTML to go out as HTML unless it needs to be, > > and here are some examples where it doesn't matter" (I do want it, > > and I have examples where it does matter). > > > 1) I've established what Options -> Format -> Auto-detect does. > > 2) I've established that there is no way to change the behavior > > without workarounds of various painfulness (hand-select Options -> > > Format -> HTML every time, add a signature with sufficient HTML in it, > > etc). > > 3) I've politely requested a way to change the default from Auto- > > Detect to "Rich (HTML)Text". > > > No offense to all, and I understand that some may not agree that my > > request should be granted, but I think I've proved that it's a valid > > request. > > > So if you want to continue discussion on how to implement, or (I > > suppose, sigh) whether to implement, that's great, but can I please > > stop proving that the issue exists? > > > Thanks all! > > /j > > I wish I could just let this go, but I have to ask. If your supposed > html emails have not actually contained any html elements, why have we > been going around this? You might as well have been sending in > plaintextright along. > > Lee
No - HTML with nothing special is still HTML. It can look different to the recipient, also, the conversion to plain text isn't perfect. It's intermittent, but I've had it remove paragraph-breaks and vaery occasionally add line breaks randomly. I'm getting tired of using options->format->HTML every time i want to be sure a message arrives looking like i sent it. They get garbled only occasionally, but it's always the ones where I needed it to look right. /j _______________________________________________ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
