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.
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.
support-seamonkey mailing list