Hello Marck & others on this TB! list & following this thread,
(I'll take the opportunity to ask: How does one generate the "on
TBUDL or on TBTech add on automatically - i.e. via the reply
template? I tried including "on %Reply-to" with less than the
desired results).
In the interest of clarity, this reply contains responses to two
separate messages from the same author & on the same subject.
Friday, April 13, 2001, you stated regarding :
MDP> ... As for TB keeping the self generated text approximation of
MDP> such a message - why should TB betray one of its base
MDP> fundamentals of not interfering with incoming email?
In the interest of user control; just a a user can kill dupes or
deal with spam, either automatically, via a folder or "all" based
command option, or individually. This is why I have consistently
asked since 1999 for the option of editing incoming messages via a
command, rather than having to drag (redirect or copy) them to the
outbox and back.
While there are clearly other issues involved (i.e. the interest of
philosophical purism regarding header info), while I wouldn't deny
relevance or importance to those issues, I focus more on user
control and take responsibility for my own acts. (The same logical
can be applied to gun control laws, where more than one point of
view has it's merits).
MDP>>> As for TB keeping the self generated text approximation of such
MDP>>> a message - why should TB betray one of its base fundamentals of
MDP>>> not interfering with incoming email?
> It isn't stored anywhere. It is just
> displayed as a courtesy to allow you to see the text with the tags.
>
T>> So, part of the message is filtered,
MDP> That is a leap of faith. Nothing is saved from this filtering
MDP> operation - that would constitute an interference.
T>> and I want to delete only the part that is not shown.
MDP> You may want to, but it doesn't exist in isolation. That's my point.
>
T>> Same idea as when I have a message that was sent as
T>> multipart/alternative, the HTML part (text plus tags) is not shown,
T>> and I want to delete that part. In the former case it would be
T>> betrayal, in the latter it would be fine?
T>> Kindly clarify for me.
MDP> ... Without the multipart/alternative formatting there is *no*
MDP> "other" part to leave behind, just a single body full of HTML
MDP> tags. If you take away the body of the message all that is left
MDP> is the headers - - not sustainable as a message. The plain text
MDP> *view* of the message is just that in such a case - a view; it
MDP> doesn't really exist as an entity.
MDP> While I understand that you're saying that it possibly *could*
MDP> exist, /I'm/ saying that making it do so would constitute the
MDP> kind of interference that TB shuns. I'm only against it
MDP> because of that principle.
MDP> Having said that, Douglas Hinds has presented what strikes me
MDP> as a very effective work-around for the problem. ...
Thank you. (Note has been taken :=).
Having said that, I still vote for not having to do it. I'd rather
see the option to generate the plain text and eliminate the original
html version built into TB!.
It seems to me that "No HTML" is the more basic principle here (just
as it is on all TB! lists). But that's just one TB! user TB! List
subscribers opinion (that's perhaps as valid as any).
Douglas
--
______________________________________________________
Archives : <http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com>
Moderators : <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
TBTech List: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
You are subscribed as : [email protected]
