Re: Neat Columns In My Outgoing E-Mails Are Mixed Up In Transmission.

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
34 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Neat Columns In My Outgoing E-Mails Are Mixed Up In Transmission.

Gus Richter
»Q« wrote:

> In <news:[hidden email]>,
> Gus Richter <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> »Q« wrote:
>
>>> His Seamonkey-produced html was pretty much unreadable in my client,
>>> which does have html support.  At this point, one of the main reasons
>>> not to use html for mail or news is that it's so horribly
>>> non-interoperable.  Just today, Daniel Glazman wrote[1],
>>>
>>>   ... HTML-based email fails so miserably that we had to have a W3C
>>>   Workshop about it and that one of the conclusions of the workshop
>>> is the total lack of interoperability not only between mail user
>>> agents of different brands, but even between versions of a MUA of
>>> the same brand.
>> You don't understand what he's talking about.
>
> No, I understand it.
>
>> The "interoperability" that Daniel refers to is this incompatibility
>> between Mail Clients as demonstrated by the poor Mail Client which you
>> use.
>
> Your misjudgement of the worth my client[1] aside, that incompatibility
> is one reason it's a Bad Idea to use html for mail and news, except in
> test groups or in workgroups where everyone is using the same client.
> In particular, interoperability is highly desirable in these support
> groups, so text/plain should be used.

Not a misjudgement at all. There are different levels of client HTML
capability. I have mentioned that Gecko based mail clients are at the
top of the capability list, as far as HTML standards is concerned. Your
client, Claws, cannot handle HTML mail as produced by Gecko Mail, then
it is clearly inferior in that regard, although it may be an excellent
plain text mail client and obviously well suited for your needs.

>> Additionally, the workshop he refers to is a working group set up
>> to work on creating a W3C Specification for Mail Clients. It's about
>> time this was done.
>
> IMO, it's a waste of their time, but perhaps it will lead to a useful
> spec clients will adopt eventually.  As long as the spec says composing
> agents MUST include a text/plain part, I won't mind too much.

It's never a waste of time to get everyone on the same page and having
the hope of everyone conforming to the same specs.

Plain text should and must always be provided. It is very useful for
"quick and dirty" communication.

>> The result is that it is best to use old HTML coding for HTML Mail if
>> all Mail Clients are to be able to render as intended by the author
>> and obtain a semblance of "interoperability".
>
> Now, and for many years to come, it's best not to use html at all
> for e-mail.

You must live in a vacuum. Have you not seen newsletters, ads, etc. in
mail all with HTML content? It is a common thing and people in personal
mail are using HTML as well. Once they have figured out how to do it,
they don't revert back to plain text (except for the "quick and dirty"
variety).

To each his own. You stay with text/plain and I with HTML.
There are certainly uses for text/plain. Then there's also cinema noir.
It's all a question of tastes.

> I doubt we're going to convince each other of anything

Agreed

--
Gus
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Neat Columns In My Outgoing E-Mails Are Mixed Up In Transmission.

Michael Gordon
»Q« created this reply On 7/28/2007 11:10 PM

> In <news:[hidden email]>,
> Gus Richter <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> »Q« wrote:
>
>>> His Seamonkey-produced html was pretty much unreadable in my client,
>>> which does have html support.  At this point, one of the main reasons
>>> not to use html for mail or news is that it's so horribly
>>> non-interoperable.  Just today, Daniel Glazman wrote[1],
>>>
>>>   ... HTML-based email fails so miserably that we had to have a W3C
>>>   Workshop about it and that one of the conclusions of the workshop
>>> is the total lack of interoperability not only between mail user
>>> agents of different brands, but even between versions of a MUA of
>>> the same brand.
>> You don't understand what he's talking about.
>
> No, I understand it.
>
>> The "interoperability" that Daniel refers to is this incompatibility
>> between Mail Clients as demonstrated by the poor Mail Client which you
>> use.
>
> Your misjudgement of the worth my client[1] aside, that incompatibility
> is one reason it's a Bad Idea to use html for mail and news, except in
> test groups or in workgroups where everyone is using the same client.
> In particular, interoperability is highly desirable in these support
> groups, so text/plain should be used.
>
>> Additionally, the workshop he refers to is a working group set up
>> to work on creating a W3C Specification for Mail Clients. It's about
>> time this was done.
>
> IMO, it's a waste of their time, but perhaps it will lead to a useful
> spec clients will adopt eventually.  As long as the spec says composing
> agents MUST include a text/plain part, I won't mind too much.
>
>> The result is that it is best to use old HTML coding for HTML Mail if
>> all Mail Clients are to be able to render as intended by the author
>> and obtain a semblance of "interoperability".
>
> Now, and for many years to come, it's best not to use html at all
> for e-mail.
>
> I doubt we're going to convince each other of anything, and I don't see
> this furthering Seamonkey support, so I've set fu to m.general.
>
> [1] Having pasted the (invalid) HTML 4.01 from Phillip's post into a
> test.htm file and opened it, I find that both Opera and Konqueror
> display it the same way the plugin for Claws did.  I suppose for mail
> clients not to be considered "poor" for displaying Seamonkey's html
> articles, they'd need to adopt something very close to Seamonkey's
> default styles for masses of nested <blockquote> and <big> tags.
>

Q,

With what seem to be valid arguments on this issue at some level of user
participation I wonder what all the fuss is really all about.
Microsoft Outlook and Mozilla based e-mail clients have the e-mail and
newsgroup market cornered by the majority of world wide users.
Following in the NTMM and MMTM newsgroups where HTML is used extensively
to test different applications of this mail format we find that both
Mozilla and Outlook based clients render our postings very well.  When
we discover a problem we work to find a usable solution, or abandon the
idea because the technology will not permit the rendering of our test
models.

On the other side of my argument is the value of using HTML messages in
the business world.  Here we see millions of e-mail messages being sent
and read on a daily basis.  If the majority of internet users were
unable to render HTML messages the business world would not expend the
money required to create these attractive and informative messages.
They would still be sending out their message in plain ascii text and it
would still be ignored.  The reason business still tries to send HTML
messages is the same reason newspapers and magazines sell advertisements
with pictures and graphics, it sells products.

Michael

--
Posting Guidelines for MTMM

Posting To Mozilla.Test.Multimedia <http://ilias.ca/mozilla.test.multimedia>


SeaMonkey <http://www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/>
The "All In One Internet Application Suite"
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Neat Columns In My Outgoing E-Mails Are Mixed Up In Transmission.

JT SoCal
Michael wrote:

> »Q« created this reply On 7/28/2007 11:10 PM
>
>> In <news:[hidden email]>,
>> Gus Richter <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> »Q« wrote:
>>
>>>> His Seamonkey-produced html was pretty much unreadable in my client,
>>>> which does have html support.  At this point, one of the main reasons
>>>> not to use html for mail or news is that it's so horribly
>>>> non-interoperable.  Just today, Daniel Glazman wrote[1],
>>>>
>>>>   ... HTML-based email fails so miserably that we had to have a W3C
>>>>   Workshop about it and that one of the conclusions of the workshop
>>>> is the total lack of interoperability not only between mail user
>>>> agents of different brands, but even between versions of a MUA of
>>>> the same brand.
>>> You don't understand what he's talking about.
>>
>> No, I understand it.
>>
>>> The "interoperability" that Daniel refers to is this incompatibility
>>> between Mail Clients as demonstrated by the poor Mail Client which you
>>> use.
>>
>> Your misjudgement of the worth my client[1] aside, that incompatibility
>> is one reason it's a Bad Idea to use html for mail and news, except in
>> test groups or in workgroups where everyone is using the same client.
>> In particular, interoperability is highly desirable in these support
>> groups, so text/plain should be used.
>>
>>> Additionally, the workshop he refers to is a working group set up
>>> to work on creating a W3C Specification for Mail Clients. It's about
>>> time this was done.
>>
>> IMO, it's a waste of their time, but perhaps it will lead to a useful
>> spec clients will adopt eventually.  As long as the spec says composing
>> agents MUST include a text/plain part, I won't mind too much.
>>
>>> The result is that it is best to use old HTML coding for HTML Mail if
>>> all Mail Clients are to be able to render as intended by the author
>>> and obtain a semblance of "interoperability".
>>
>> Now, and for many years to come, it's best not to use html at all
>> for e-mail.
>>
>> I doubt we're going to convince each other of anything, and I don't see
>> this furthering Seamonkey support, so I've set fu to m.general.
>>
>> [1] Having pasted the (invalid) HTML 4.01 from Phillip's post into a
>> test.htm file and opened it, I find that both Opera and Konqueror
>> display it the same way the plugin for Claws did.  I suppose for mail
>> clients not to be considered "poor" for displaying Seamonkey's html
>> articles, they'd need to adopt something very close to Seamonkey's
>> default styles for masses of nested <blockquote> and <big> tags.
>>
>
> Q,
>
> With what seem to be valid arguments on this issue at some level of user
> participation I wonder what all the fuss is really all about.
> Microsoft Outlook and Mozilla based e-mail clients have the e-mail and
> newsgroup market cornered by the majority of world wide users.
> Following in the NTMM and MMTM newsgroups where HTML is used extensively
> to test different applications of this mail format we find that both
> Mozilla and Outlook based clients render our postings very well.  When
> we discover a problem we work to find a usable solution, or abandon the
> idea because the technology will not permit the rendering of our test
> models.
>
> On the other side of my argument is the value of using HTML messages in
> the business world.  Here we see millions of e-mail messages being sent
> and read on a daily basis.  If the majority of internet users were
> unable to render HTML messages the business world would not expend the
> money required to create these attractive and informative messages. They
> would still be sending out their message in plain ascii text and it
> would still be ignored.  The reason business still tries to send HTML
> messages is the same reason newspapers and magazines sell advertisements
> with pictures and graphics, it sells products.
>
> Michael
>
An interesting thread but on the side of plain text it would better be
referred to as "quick and clean" since, as far as I know, program code
cannot be included in a working manner in a plain text body.  The same
is not true for HTML as a picture, punctuation, etc. can hid volumes of
virus, trojan, or other code.  Plain text also does not have any
"rendering" problems making if the most compatible of all.  For my part
safety trumps pretty but then I am from the old school of information
first, advertisement last.

James
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Neat Columns In My Outgoing E-Mails Are Mixed Up In Transmission.

PhillipJones
In reply to this post by Michael Gordon
Michael wrote:

> »Q« created this reply On 7/28/2007 11:10 PM
>
>> In <news:[hidden email]>,
>> Gus Richter <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> »Q« wrote:
>>
>>>> His Seamonkey-produced html was pretty much unreadable in my client,
>>>> which does have html support.  At this point, one of the main reasons
>>>> not to use html for mail or news is that it's so horribly
>>>> non-interoperable.  Just today, Daniel Glazman wrote[1],
>>>>
>>>>   ... HTML-based email fails so miserably that we had to have a W3C
>>>>   Workshop about it and that one of the conclusions of the workshop
>>>> is the total lack of interoperability not only between mail user
>>>> agents of different brands, but even between versions of a MUA of
>>>> the same brand.
>>> You don't understand what he's talking about.
>>
>> No, I understand it.
>>
>>> The "interoperability" that Daniel refers to is this incompatibility
>>> between Mail Clients as demonstrated by the poor Mail Client which you
>>> use.
>>
>> Your misjudgement of the worth my client[1] aside, that incompatibility
>> is one reason it's a Bad Idea to use html for mail and news, except in
>> test groups or in workgroups where everyone is using the same client.
>> In particular, interoperability is highly desirable in these support
>> groups, so text/plain should be used.
>>
>>> Additionally, the workshop he refers to is a working group set up
>>> to work on creating a W3C Specification for Mail Clients. It's about
>>> time this was done.
>>
>> IMO, it's a waste of their time, but perhaps it will lead to a useful
>> spec clients will adopt eventually.  As long as the spec says composing
>> agents MUST include a text/plain part, I won't mind too much.
>>
>>> The result is that it is best to use old HTML coding for HTML Mail if
>>> all Mail Clients are to be able to render as intended by the author
>>> and obtain a semblance of "interoperability".
>>
>> Now, and for many years to come, it's best not to use html at all
>> for e-mail.
>>
>> I doubt we're going to convince each other of anything, and I don't see
>> this furthering Seamonkey support, so I've set fu to m.general.
>>
>> [1] Having pasted the (invalid) HTML 4.01 from Phillip's post into a
>> test.htm file and opened it, I find that both Opera and Konqueror
>> display it the same way the plugin for Claws did.  I suppose for mail
>> clients not to be considered "poor" for displaying Seamonkey's html
>> articles, they'd need to adopt something very close to Seamonkey's
>> default styles for masses of nested <blockquote> and <big> tags.
>>
>
> Q,
>
> With what seem to be valid arguments on this issue at some level of user
> participation I wonder what all the fuss is really all about.
> Microsoft Outlook and Mozilla based e-mail clients have the e-mail and
> newsgroup market cornered by the majority of world wide users.
> Following in the NTMM and MMTM newsgroups where HTML is used extensively
> to test different applications of this mail format we find that both
> Mozilla and Outlook based clients render our postings very well.  When
> we discover a problem we work to find a usable solution, or abandon the
> idea because the technology will not permit the rendering of our test
> models.
>
> On the other side of my argument is the value of using HTML messages in
> the business world.  Here we see millions of e-mail messages being sent
> and read on a daily basis.  If the majority of internet users were
> unable to render HTML messages the business world would not expend the
> money required to create these attractive and informative messages. They
> would still be sending out their message in plain ascii text and it
> would still be ignored.  The reason business still tries to send HTML
> messages is the same reason newspapers and magazines sell advertisements
> with pictures and graphics, it sells products.
>
> Michael
>

I am suddenly amazed at the direction this Thread is going with "some"
defense of HTML email/newsgroup post.

I for one use Plain Text in certain newsgroups because I've been beaten
into submission. But I find, html email (if it written using a proper
sized font) vastly more readable than plain text. even though I use
QuoteColors which makes Plain text more readable. The Black on white and
same spaced letters, for me tend to run together in on big Blur. To me
the folks that are fixated on using Plain Text only are stuck in the
1920's and would rather use buggy whips on their horse drawn wagons Than
a 2007/8 Lincoln Town car or a Cadillac. But until the old fogies
running things now croak their last time on earth. will we have any true
innovation email.  I long for the day when just the thoughts of using
plain text is thought of as silly and old fashion.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET                                http://www.vpea.org
If it's "fixed", don't "break it"!            mailto:[hidden email]
                              http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm
Mac G4-500, OSX.3.9               Mac 17" PowerBook G4-1.67 Gb, OSX.4.10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Neat Columns In My Outgoing E-Mails Are Mixed Up In Transmission.

Jay Garcia
On 29.07.2007 10:33, Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T wrote:

 --- Original Message ---

> Michael wrote:
>> »Q« created this reply On 7/28/2007 11:10 PM
>>
>>> In <news:[hidden email]>,
>>> Gus Richter <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> »Q« wrote:
>>>
>>>>> His Seamonkey-produced html was pretty much unreadable in my client,
>>>>> which does have html support.  At this point, one of the main reasons
>>>>> not to use html for mail or news is that it's so horribly
>>>>> non-interoperable.  Just today, Daniel Glazman wrote[1],
>>>>>
>>>>>   ... HTML-based email fails so miserably that we had to have a W3C
>>>>>   Workshop about it and that one of the conclusions of the workshop
>>>>> is the total lack of interoperability not only between mail user
>>>>> agents of different brands, but even between versions of a MUA of
>>>>> the same brand.
>>>> You don't understand what he's talking about.
>>>
>>> No, I understand it.
>>>
>>>> The "interoperability" that Daniel refers to is this incompatibility
>>>> between Mail Clients as demonstrated by the poor Mail Client which you
>>>> use.
>>>
>>> Your misjudgement of the worth my client[1] aside, that incompatibility
>>> is one reason it's a Bad Idea to use html for mail and news, except in
>>> test groups or in workgroups where everyone is using the same client.
>>> In particular, interoperability is highly desirable in these support
>>> groups, so text/plain should be used.
>>>
>>>> Additionally, the workshop he refers to is a working group set up
>>>> to work on creating a W3C Specification for Mail Clients. It's about
>>>> time this was done.
>>>
>>> IMO, it's a waste of their time, but perhaps it will lead to a useful
>>> spec clients will adopt eventually.  As long as the spec says composing
>>> agents MUST include a text/plain part, I won't mind too much.
>>>
>>>> The result is that it is best to use old HTML coding for HTML Mail if
>>>> all Mail Clients are to be able to render as intended by the author
>>>> and obtain a semblance of "interoperability".
>>>
>>> Now, and for many years to come, it's best not to use html at all
>>> for e-mail.
>>>
>>> I doubt we're going to convince each other of anything, and I don't see
>>> this furthering Seamonkey support, so I've set fu to m.general.
>>>
>>> [1] Having pasted the (invalid) HTML 4.01 from Phillip's post into a
>>> test.htm file and opened it, I find that both Opera and Konqueror
>>> display it the same way the plugin for Claws did.  I suppose for mail
>>> clients not to be considered "poor" for displaying Seamonkey's html
>>> articles, they'd need to adopt something very close to Seamonkey's
>>> default styles for masses of nested <blockquote> and <big> tags.
>>>
>>
>> Q,
>>
>> With what seem to be valid arguments on this issue at some level of user
>> participation I wonder what all the fuss is really all about.
>> Microsoft Outlook and Mozilla based e-mail clients have the e-mail and
>> newsgroup market cornered by the majority of world wide users.
>> Following in the NTMM and MMTM newsgroups where HTML is used extensively
>> to test different applications of this mail format we find that both
>> Mozilla and Outlook based clients render our postings very well.  When
>> we discover a problem we work to find a usable solution, or abandon the
>> idea because the technology will not permit the rendering of our test
>> models.
>>
>> On the other side of my argument is the value of using HTML messages in
>> the business world.  Here we see millions of e-mail messages being sent
>> and read on a daily basis.  If the majority of internet users were
>> unable to render HTML messages the business world would not expend the
>> money required to create these attractive and informative messages. They
>> would still be sending out their message in plain ascii text and it
>> would still be ignored.  The reason business still tries to send HTML
>> messages is the same reason newspapers and magazines sell advertisements
>> with pictures and graphics, it sells products.
>>
>> Michael
>>
>
> I am suddenly amazed at the direction this Thread is going with "some"
> defense of HTML email/newsgroup post.
>
> I for one use Plain Text in certain newsgroups because I've been beaten
> into submission. But I find, html email (if it written using a proper
> sized font) vastly more readable than plain text. even though I use
> QuoteColors which makes Plain text more readable. The Black on white and
> same spaced letters, for me tend to run together in on big Blur. To me
> the folks that are fixated on using Plain Text only are stuck in the
> 1920's and would rather use buggy whips on their horse drawn wagons Than
> a 2007/8 Lincoln Town car or a Cadillac. But until the old fogies
> running things now croak their last time on earth. will we have any true
> innovation email.  I long for the day when just the thoughts of using
> plain text is thought of as silly and old fashion.
>

Your argument is easily refuted. Plain text is for those that don't want
or need embellished backgrounds, stationary, red and green fonts in
large bold type, etc etc. Email, in general, is principally used for
communication purposes and the best way to communicate is at the base
level and THAT is in plain text.

Now, I agree with you on not being able to read plain text messages
because of a myriad of disabilities, eg., text running together, black
on white,etc. However, your mail application preferences allow you to
change the display of message bodies to suit your needs. You can change
the font-size, background color, font-color, etc. to YOUR liking and
sight preferences, I do here because I am somewhat in the same boat.


--
Jay Garcia Netscape/Mozilla Champion
UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Neat Columns In My Outgoing E-Mails Are Mixed Up In Transmission.

Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
Jay Garcia wrote:

> On 29.07.2007 10:33, Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T wrote:
>
>  --- Original Message ---
>
>> Michael wrote:
>>> »Q« created this reply On 7/28/2007 11:10 PM
>>>
>>>> In <news:[hidden email]>,
>>>> Gus Richter <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> »Q« wrote:
>>>>>> His Seamonkey-produced html was pretty much unreadable in my client,
>>>>>> which does have html support.  At this point, one of the main reasons
>>>>>> not to use html for mail or news is that it's so horribly
>>>>>> non-interoperable.  Just today, Daniel Glazman wrote[1],
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   ... HTML-based email fails so miserably that we had to have a W3C
>>>>>>   Workshop about it and that one of the conclusions of the workshop
>>>>>> is the total lack of interoperability not only between mail user
>>>>>> agents of different brands, but even between versions of a MUA of
>>>>>> the same brand.
>>>>> You don't understand what he's talking about.
>>>> No, I understand it.
>>>>
>>>>> The "interoperability" that Daniel refers to is this incompatibility
>>>>> between Mail Clients as demonstrated by the poor Mail Client which you
>>>>> use.
>>>> Your misjudgement of the worth my client[1] aside, that incompatibility
>>>> is one reason it's a Bad Idea to use html for mail and news, except in
>>>> test groups or in workgroups where everyone is using the same client.
>>>> In particular, interoperability is highly desirable in these support
>>>> groups, so text/plain should be used.
>>>>
>>>>> Additionally, the workshop he refers to is a working group set up
>>>>> to work on creating a W3C Specification for Mail Clients. It's about
>>>>> time this was done.
>>>> IMO, it's a waste of their time, but perhaps it will lead to a useful
>>>> spec clients will adopt eventually.  As long as the spec says composing
>>>> agents MUST include a text/plain part, I won't mind too much.
>>>>
>>>>> The result is that it is best to use old HTML coding for HTML Mail if
>>>>> all Mail Clients are to be able to render as intended by the author
>>>>> and obtain a semblance of "interoperability".
>>>> Now, and for many years to come, it's best not to use html at all
>>>> for e-mail.
>>>>
>>>> I doubt we're going to convince each other of anything, and I don't see
>>>> this furthering Seamonkey support, so I've set fu to m.general.
>>>>
>>>> [1] Having pasted the (invalid) HTML 4.01 from Phillip's post into a
>>>> test.htm file and opened it, I find that both Opera and Konqueror
>>>> display it the same way the plugin for Claws did.  I suppose for mail
>>>> clients not to be considered "poor" for displaying Seamonkey's html
>>>> articles, they'd need to adopt something very close to Seamonkey's
>>>> default styles for masses of nested <blockquote> and <big> tags.
>>>>
>>> Q,
>>>
>>> With what seem to be valid arguments on this issue at some level of user
>>> participation I wonder what all the fuss is really all about.
>>> Microsoft Outlook and Mozilla based e-mail clients have the e-mail and
>>> newsgroup market cornered by the majority of world wide users.
>>> Following in the NTMM and MMTM newsgroups where HTML is used extensively
>>> to test different applications of this mail format we find that both
>>> Mozilla and Outlook based clients render our postings very well.  When
>>> we discover a problem we work to find a usable solution, or abandon the
>>> idea because the technology will not permit the rendering of our test
>>> models.
>>>
>>> On the other side of my argument is the value of using HTML messages in
>>> the business world.  Here we see millions of e-mail messages being sent
>>> and read on a daily basis.  If the majority of internet users were
>>> unable to render HTML messages the business world would not expend the
>>> money required to create these attractive and informative messages. They
>>> would still be sending out their message in plain ascii text and it
>>> would still be ignored.  The reason business still tries to send HTML
>>> messages is the same reason newspapers and magazines sell advertisements
>>> with pictures and graphics, it sells products.
>>>
>>> Michael
>>>
>> I am suddenly amazed at the direction this Thread is going with "some"
>> defense of HTML email/newsgroup post.
>>
>> I for one use Plain Text in certain newsgroups because I've been beaten
>> into submission. But I find, html email (if it written using a proper
>> sized font) vastly more readable than plain text. even though I use
>> QuoteColors which makes Plain text more readable. The Black on white and
>> same spaced letters, for me tend to run together in on big Blur. To me
>> the folks that are fixated on using Plain Text only are stuck in the
>> 1920's and would rather use buggy whips on their horse drawn wagons Than
>> a 2007/8 Lincoln Town car or a Cadillac. But until the old fogies
>> running things now croak their last time on earth. will we have any true
>> innovation email.  I long for the day when just the thoughts of using
>> plain text is thought of as silly and old fashion.
>>
>
> Your argument is easily refuted. Plain text is for those that don't want
> or need embellished backgrounds, stationary, red and green fonts in
> large bold type, etc etc. Email, in general, is principally used for
> communication purposes and the best way to communicate is at the base
> level and THAT is in plain text.
>
> Now, I agree with you on not being able to read plain text messages
> because of a myriad of disabilities, eg., text running together, black
> on white,etc. However, your mail application preferences allow you to
> change the display of message bodies to suit your needs. You can change
> the font-size, background color, font-color, etc. to YOUR liking and
> sight preferences, I do here because I am somewhat in the same boat.
>
>

I would have to disagree on this.  I send out my clubs
minutes, in html.  I've had only one complaint.  Actually it
was many complaints, but they were all about the same thing.
  I was trying different scrollers.  Thanks to those in the
NTMM group, they came up with some really good ones.  The
problem was, the scrollers only worked for those using TB or
SM.  Those [98% of the club members] were using OE, and the
scrollers didn't work for them.  So, I went back to using a
colored table with large font, and so forth. Nobody
complained about that.  All my emails are sent in html, and
so far, nobody has complained.

--
Please do not email me for help.  Reply to the newsgroup
only.  And only click on the Reply button, not the Reply All
one.  Thanks!

Peter Potamus & His Magic Flying Balloon:
http://www.toonopedia.com/potamus.htm
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Neat Columns In My Outgoing E-Mails Are Mixed Up In Transmission.

Jay Garcia
On 29.07.2007 11:05, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:

 --- Original Message ---

> Jay Garcia wrote:
>> On 29.07.2007 10:33, Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T wrote:
>>
>>  --- Original Message ---
>>
>>> Michael wrote:
>>>> »Q« created this reply On 7/28/2007 11:10 PM
>>>>
>>>>> In <news:[hidden email]>,
>>>>> Gus Richter <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> »Q« wrote:
>>>>>>> His Seamonkey-produced html was pretty much unreadable in my client,
>>>>>>> which does have html support.  At this point, one of the main reasons
>>>>>>> not to use html for mail or news is that it's so horribly
>>>>>>> non-interoperable.  Just today, Daniel Glazman wrote[1],
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   ... HTML-based email fails so miserably that we had to have a W3C
>>>>>>>   Workshop about it and that one of the conclusions of the workshop
>>>>>>> is the total lack of interoperability not only between mail user
>>>>>>> agents of different brands, but even between versions of a MUA of
>>>>>>> the same brand.
>>>>>> You don't understand what he's talking about.
>>>>> No, I understand it.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The "interoperability" that Daniel refers to is this incompatibility
>>>>>> between Mail Clients as demonstrated by the poor Mail Client which you
>>>>>> use.
>>>>> Your misjudgement of the worth my client[1] aside, that incompatibility
>>>>> is one reason it's a Bad Idea to use html for mail and news, except in
>>>>> test groups or in workgroups where everyone is using the same client.
>>>>> In particular, interoperability is highly desirable in these support
>>>>> groups, so text/plain should be used.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Additionally, the workshop he refers to is a working group set up
>>>>>> to work on creating a W3C Specification for Mail Clients. It's about
>>>>>> time this was done.
>>>>> IMO, it's a waste of their time, but perhaps it will lead to a useful
>>>>> spec clients will adopt eventually.  As long as the spec says composing
>>>>> agents MUST include a text/plain part, I won't mind too much.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The result is that it is best to use old HTML coding for HTML Mail if
>>>>>> all Mail Clients are to be able to render as intended by the author
>>>>>> and obtain a semblance of "interoperability".
>>>>> Now, and for many years to come, it's best not to use html at all
>>>>> for e-mail.
>>>>>
>>>>> I doubt we're going to convince each other of anything, and I don't see
>>>>> this furthering Seamonkey support, so I've set fu to m.general.
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] Having pasted the (invalid) HTML 4.01 from Phillip's post into a
>>>>> test.htm file and opened it, I find that both Opera and Konqueror
>>>>> display it the same way the plugin for Claws did.  I suppose for mail
>>>>> clients not to be considered "poor" for displaying Seamonkey's html
>>>>> articles, they'd need to adopt something very close to Seamonkey's
>>>>> default styles for masses of nested <blockquote> and <big> tags.
>>>>>
>>>> Q,
>>>>
>>>> With what seem to be valid arguments on this issue at some level of user
>>>> participation I wonder what all the fuss is really all about.
>>>> Microsoft Outlook and Mozilla based e-mail clients have the e-mail and
>>>> newsgroup market cornered by the majority of world wide users.
>>>> Following in the NTMM and MMTM newsgroups where HTML is used extensively
>>>> to test different applications of this mail format we find that both
>>>> Mozilla and Outlook based clients render our postings very well.  When
>>>> we discover a problem we work to find a usable solution, or abandon the
>>>> idea because the technology will not permit the rendering of our test
>>>> models.
>>>>
>>>> On the other side of my argument is the value of using HTML messages in
>>>> the business world.  Here we see millions of e-mail messages being sent
>>>> and read on a daily basis.  If the majority of internet users were
>>>> unable to render HTML messages the business world would not expend the
>>>> money required to create these attractive and informative messages. They
>>>> would still be sending out their message in plain ascii text and it
>>>> would still be ignored.  The reason business still tries to send HTML
>>>> messages is the same reason newspapers and magazines sell advertisements
>>>> with pictures and graphics, it sells products.
>>>>
>>>> Michael
>>>>
>>> I am suddenly amazed at the direction this Thread is going with "some"
>>> defense of HTML email/newsgroup post.
>>>
>>> I for one use Plain Text in certain newsgroups because I've been beaten
>>> into submission. But I find, html email (if it written using a proper
>>> sized font) vastly more readable than plain text. even though I use
>>> QuoteColors which makes Plain text more readable. The Black on white and
>>> same spaced letters, for me tend to run together in on big Blur. To me
>>> the folks that are fixated on using Plain Text only are stuck in the
>>> 1920's and would rather use buggy whips on their horse drawn wagons Than
>>> a 2007/8 Lincoln Town car or a Cadillac. But until the old fogies
>>> running things now croak their last time on earth. will we have any true
>>> innovation email.  I long for the day when just the thoughts of using
>>> plain text is thought of as silly and old fashion.
>>>
>>
>> Your argument is easily refuted. Plain text is for those that don't want
>> or need embellished backgrounds, stationary, red and green fonts in
>> large bold type, etc etc. Email, in general, is principally used for
>> communication purposes and the best way to communicate is at the base
>> level and THAT is in plain text.
>>
>> Now, I agree with you on not being able to read plain text messages
>> because of a myriad of disabilities, eg., text running together, black
>> on white,etc. However, your mail application preferences allow you to
>> change the display of message bodies to suit your needs. You can change
>> the font-size, background color, font-color, etc. to YOUR liking and
>> sight preferences, I do here because I am somewhat in the same boat.
>>
>>
>
> I would have to disagree on this.  I send out my clubs
> minutes, in html.  I've had only one complaint.  Actually it
> was many complaints, but they were all about the same thing.
>   I was trying different scrollers.  Thanks to those in the
> NTMM group, they came up with some really good ones.  The
> problem was, the scrollers only worked for those using TB or
> SM.  Those [98% of the club members] were using OE, and the
> scrollers didn't work for them.  So, I went back to using a
> colored table with large font, and so forth. Nobody
> complained about that.  All my emails are sent in html, and
> so far, nobody has complained.
>

Disagree all you want but your example points to a privatized mailing
list which is just fine so long as all are in agreement. Just for
grins/giggles, I always sent my daughter an email in html when she was
away at college.

If I was on your list and in the minority of complainers, I would simply
just opt to view => message body => plain text, and not gripe about it.

--
Jay Garcia Netscape/Mozilla Champion
UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Neat Columns In My Outgoing E-Mails Are Mixed Up In Transmission.

PhillipJones
In reply to this post by Jay Garcia
Jay Garcia wrote:

> On 29.07.2007 10:33, Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T wrote:
>
>  --- Original Message ---
>
>> Michael wrote:
>>> »Q« created this reply On 7/28/2007 11:10 PM
>>>
>>>> In <news:[hidden email]>,
>>>> Gus Richter <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> »Q« wrote:
>>>>>> His Seamonkey-produced html was pretty much unreadable in my client,
>>>>>> which does have html support.  At this point, one of the main reasons
>>>>>> not to use html for mail or news is that it's so horribly
>>>>>> non-interoperable.  Just today, Daniel Glazman wrote[1],
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   ... HTML-based email fails so miserably that we had to have a W3C
>>>>>>   Workshop about it and that one of the conclusions of the workshop
>>>>>> is the total lack of interoperability not only between mail user
>>>>>> agents of different brands, but even between versions of a MUA of
>>>>>> the same brand.
>>>>> You don't understand what he's talking about.
>>>> No, I understand it.
>>>>
>>>>> The "interoperability" that Daniel refers to is this incompatibility
>>>>> between Mail Clients as demonstrated by the poor Mail Client which you
>>>>> use.
>>>> Your misjudgement of the worth my client[1] aside, that incompatibility
>>>> is one reason it's a Bad Idea to use html for mail and news, except in
>>>> test groups or in workgroups where everyone is using the same client.
>>>> In particular, interoperability is highly desirable in these support
>>>> groups, so text/plain should be used.
>>>>
>>>>> Additionally, the workshop he refers to is a working group set up
>>>>> to work on creating a W3C Specification for Mail Clients. It's about
>>>>> time this was done.
>>>> IMO, it's a waste of their time, but perhaps it will lead to a useful
>>>> spec clients will adopt eventually.  As long as the spec says composing
>>>> agents MUST include a text/plain part, I won't mind too much.
>>>>
>>>>> The result is that it is best to use old HTML coding for HTML Mail if
>>>>> all Mail Clients are to be able to render as intended by the author
>>>>> and obtain a semblance of "interoperability".
>>>> Now, and for many years to come, it's best not to use html at all
>>>> for e-mail.
>>>>
>>>> I doubt we're going to convince each other of anything, and I don't see
>>>> this furthering Seamonkey support, so I've set fu to m.general.
>>>>
>>>> [1] Having pasted the (invalid) HTML 4.01 from Phillip's post into a
>>>> test.htm file and opened it, I find that both Opera and Konqueror
>>>> display it the same way the plugin for Claws did.  I suppose for mail
>>>> clients not to be considered "poor" for displaying Seamonkey's html
>>>> articles, they'd need to adopt something very close to Seamonkey's
>>>> default styles for masses of nested <blockquote> and <big> tags.
>>>>
>>> Q,
>>>
>>> With what seem to be valid arguments on this issue at some level of user
>>> participation I wonder what all the fuss is really all about.
>>> Microsoft Outlook and Mozilla based e-mail clients have the e-mail and
>>> newsgroup market cornered by the majority of world wide users.
>>> Following in the NTMM and MMTM newsgroups where HTML is used extensively
>>> to test different applications of this mail format we find that both
>>> Mozilla and Outlook based clients render our postings very well.  When
>>> we discover a problem we work to find a usable solution, or abandon the
>>> idea because the technology will not permit the rendering of our test
>>> models.
>>>
>>> On the other side of my argument is the value of using HTML messages in
>>> the business world.  Here we see millions of e-mail messages being sent
>>> and read on a daily basis.  If the majority of internet users were
>>> unable to render HTML messages the business world would not expend the
>>> money required to create these attractive and informative messages. They
>>> would still be sending out their message in plain ascii text and it
>>> would still be ignored.  The reason business still tries to send HTML
>>> messages is the same reason newspapers and magazines sell advertisements
>>> with pictures and graphics, it sells products.
>>>
>>> Michael
>>>
>> I am suddenly amazed at the direction this Thread is going with "some"
>> defense of HTML email/newsgroup post.
>>
>> I for one use Plain Text in certain newsgroups because I've been beaten
>> into submission. But I find, html email (if it written using a proper
>> sized font) vastly more readable than plain text. even though I use
>> QuoteColors which makes Plain text more readable. The Black on white and
>> same spaced letters, for me tend to run together in on big Blur. To me
>> the folks that are fixated on using Plain Text only are stuck in the
>> 1920's and would rather use buggy whips on their horse drawn wagons Than
>> a 2007/8 Lincoln Town car or a Cadillac. But until the old fogies
>> running things now croak their last time on earth. will we have any true
>> innovation email.  I long for the day when just the thoughts of using
>> plain text is thought of as silly and old fashion.
>>
>
> Your argument is easily refuted. Plain text is for those that don't want
> or need embellished backgrounds, stationary, red and green fonts in
> large bold type, etc etc. Email, in general, is principally used for
> communication purposes and the best way to communicate is at the base
> level and THAT is in plain text.
>
> Now, I agree with you on not being able to read plain text messages
> because of a myriad of disabilities, eg., text running together, black
> on white,etc. However, your mail application preferences allow you to
> change the display of message bodies to suit your needs. You can change
> the font-size, background color, font-color, etc. to YOUR liking and
> sight preferences, I do here because I am somewhat in the same boat.
>
>
  In my situation I've found QuoteColors my savior if I must deal with
Plain Text.

I can change the Background and use different colors for each person
reply so I can keep them separated. It doesn't end up as one big blur.

I'm not normally into sending pictures. All I'm interested in is being
able to use a decent font, boldface, italic, or underline to emphasize a
given word or phrase when needed. I can use a font that is not plain,
even in plain text, but when using it in a plain text context it still
doesn't come across correctly.

The one I sent the other day
as an example I simply matched the font size of the person posting. and
used bold face.

Why choosing a different font size and boldfacing would cause any
application to stumble is beyond me. Don't they at least have a setting
that says view > message body as > Plain Text (or similar).
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET                                http://www.vpea.org
If it's "fixed", don't "break it"!            mailto:[hidden email]
                              http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm
Mac G4-500, OSX.3.9               Mac 17" PowerBook G4-1.67 Gb, OSX.4.10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Neat Columns In My Outgoing E-Mails Are Mixed Up In Transmission.

Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T wrote:

> Jay Garcia wrote:
>> On 29.07.2007 10:33, Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T wrote:
>>
>>  --- Original Message ---
>>
>>> Michael wrote:
>>>> »Q« created this reply On 7/28/2007 11:10 PM
>>>>
>>>>> In <news:[hidden email]>,
>>>>> Gus Richter <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> »Q« wrote:
>>>>>>> His Seamonkey-produced html was pretty much unreadable in my client,
>>>>>>> which does have html support.  At this point, one of the main reasons
>>>>>>> not to use html for mail or news is that it's so horribly
>>>>>>> non-interoperable.  Just today, Daniel Glazman wrote[1],
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   ... HTML-based email fails so miserably that we had to have a W3C
>>>>>>>   Workshop about it and that one of the conclusions of the workshop
>>>>>>> is the total lack of interoperability not only between mail user
>>>>>>> agents of different brands, but even between versions of a MUA of
>>>>>>> the same brand.
>>>>>> You don't understand what he's talking about.
>>>>> No, I understand it.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The "interoperability" that Daniel refers to is this incompatibility
>>>>>> between Mail Clients as demonstrated by the poor Mail Client which you
>>>>>> use.
>>>>> Your misjudgement of the worth my client[1] aside, that incompatibility
>>>>> is one reason it's a Bad Idea to use html for mail and news, except in
>>>>> test groups or in workgroups where everyone is using the same client.
>>>>> In particular, interoperability is highly desirable in these support
>>>>> groups, so text/plain should be used.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Additionally, the workshop he refers to is a working group set up
>>>>>> to work on creating a W3C Specification for Mail Clients. It's about
>>>>>> time this was done.
>>>>> IMO, it's a waste of their time, but perhaps it will lead to a useful
>>>>> spec clients will adopt eventually.  As long as the spec says composing
>>>>> agents MUST include a text/plain part, I won't mind too much.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The result is that it is best to use old HTML coding for HTML Mail if
>>>>>> all Mail Clients are to be able to render as intended by the author
>>>>>> and obtain a semblance of "interoperability".
>>>>> Now, and for many years to come, it's best not to use html at all
>>>>> for e-mail.
>>>>>
>>>>> I doubt we're going to convince each other of anything, and I don't see
>>>>> this furthering Seamonkey support, so I've set fu to m.general.
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] Having pasted the (invalid) HTML 4.01 from Phillip's post into a
>>>>> test.htm file and opened it, I find that both Opera and Konqueror
>>>>> display it the same way the plugin for Claws did.  I suppose for mail
>>>>> clients not to be considered "poor" for displaying Seamonkey's html
>>>>> articles, they'd need to adopt something very close to Seamonkey's
>>>>> default styles for masses of nested <blockquote> and <big> tags.
>>>>>
>>>> Q,
>>>>
>>>> With what seem to be valid arguments on this issue at some level of user
>>>> participation I wonder what all the fuss is really all about.
>>>> Microsoft Outlook and Mozilla based e-mail clients have the e-mail and
>>>> newsgroup market cornered by the majority of world wide users.
>>>> Following in the NTMM and MMTM newsgroups where HTML is used extensively
>>>> to test different applications of this mail format we find that both
>>>> Mozilla and Outlook based clients render our postings very well.  When
>>>> we discover a problem we work to find a usable solution, or abandon the
>>>> idea because the technology will not permit the rendering of our test
>>>> models.
>>>>
>>>> On the other side of my argument is the value of using HTML messages in
>>>> the business world.  Here we see millions of e-mail messages being sent
>>>> and read on a daily basis.  If the majority of internet users were
>>>> unable to render HTML messages the business world would not expend the
>>>> money required to create these attractive and informative messages. They
>>>> would still be sending out their message in plain ascii text and it
>>>> would still be ignored.  The reason business still tries to send HTML
>>>> messages is the same reason newspapers and magazines sell advertisements
>>>> with pictures and graphics, it sells products.
>>>>
>>>> Michael
>>>>
>>> I am suddenly amazed at the direction this Thread is going with "some"
>>> defense of HTML email/newsgroup post.
>>>
>>> I for one use Plain Text in certain newsgroups because I've been beaten
>>> into submission. But I find, html email (if it written using a proper
>>> sized font) vastly more readable than plain text. even though I use
>>> QuoteColors which makes Plain text more readable. The Black on white and
>>> same spaced letters, for me tend to run together in on big Blur. To me
>>> the folks that are fixated on using Plain Text only are stuck in the
>>> 1920's and would rather use buggy whips on their horse drawn wagons Than
>>> a 2007/8 Lincoln Town car or a Cadillac. But until the old fogies
>>> running things now croak their last time on earth. will we have any true
>>> innovation email.  I long for the day when just the thoughts of using
>>> plain text is thought of as silly and old fashion.
>>>
>> Your argument is easily refuted. Plain text is for those that don't want
>> or need embellished backgrounds, stationary, red and green fonts in
>> large bold type, etc etc. Email, in general, is principally used for
>> communication purposes and the best way to communicate is at the base
>> level and THAT is in plain text.
>>
>> Now, I agree with you on not being able to read plain text messages
>> because of a myriad of disabilities, eg., text running together, black
>> on white,etc. However, your mail application preferences allow you to
>> change the display of message bodies to suit your needs. You can change
>> the font-size, background color, font-color, etc. to YOUR liking and
>> sight preferences, I do here because I am somewhat in the same boat.
>>
>>
>   In my situation I've found QuoteColors my savior if I must deal with
> Plain Text.
>
> I can change the Background and use different colors for each person
> reply so I can keep them separated. It doesn't end up as one big blur.
>
> I'm not normally into sending pictures. All I'm interested in is being
> able to use a decent font, boldface, italic, or underline to emphasize a
> given word or phrase when needed. I can use a font that is not plain,
> even in plain text, but when using it in a plain text context it still
> doesn't come across correctly.
>
> The one I sent the other day
> as an example I simply matched the font size of the person posting. and
> used bold face.
>
> Why choosing a different font size and boldfacing would cause any
> application to stumble is beyond me. Don't they at least have a setting
> that says view > message body as > Plain Text (or similar).

I had a look in OE, and it has options for Send in HTML or
Text, but nothing about receiving, atleast not that I could
find.

--
Please do not email me for help.  Reply to the newsgroup
only.  And only click on the Reply button, not the Reply All
one.  Thanks!

Peter Potamus & His Magic Flying Balloon:
http://www.toonopedia.com/potamus.htm
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Neat Columns In My Outgoing E-Mails Are Mixed Up In Transmission.

Jay Garcia
In reply to this post by PhillipJones
On 29.07.2007 12:44, Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T wrote:

 --- Original Message ---

> Why choosing a different font size and boldfacing would cause any
> application to stumble is beyond me. Don't they at least have a setting
> that says view > message body as > Plain Text (or similar).

Doesn't cause stumbling but I thought we were talking about personal
choice, not caring for receiving html formatted email.

If you want to always be in plain text mode:

VIEW => Message Body as => Original HTML, Simple HTML, Plain Text

I choose Plain Text as my default and I set my font-size preference to a
bit larger. Black text on white doesn't bother me. Set yours accordingly
and you won't have to be concerned what format the original message is in.

--
Jay Garcia Netscape/Mozilla Champion
UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Neat Columns In My Outgoing E-Mails Are Mixed Up In Transmission.

Jay Garcia
In reply to this post by Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
On 29.07.2007 12:54, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:

 --- Original Message ---

> I had a look in OE, and it has options for Send in HTML or
> Text, but nothing about receiving, atleast not that I could
> find.

OE doesn't give you a choice as far as I know, never did before.

--
Jay Garcia Netscape/Mozilla Champion
UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Neat Columns In My Outgoing E-Mails Are Mixed Up In Transmission.

Carl Drud
On 2007-07-29, Jay Garcia wrote:

>> I had a look in OE, and it has options for Send in HTML or
>> Text, but nothing about receiving, atleast not that I could
>> find.
>
> OE doesn't give you a choice as far as I know, never did before.

If I recall correctly, in OE SP2 there is an option "Read all messages
in plain text" or something like that.

--
Carl
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Neat Columns In My Outgoing E-Mails Are Mixed Up In Transmission.

Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
Carl Drud wrote:

> On 2007-07-29, Jay Garcia wrote:
>
>>> I had a look in OE, and it has options for Send in HTML or
>>> Text, but nothing about receiving, atleast not that I could
>>> find.
>> OE doesn't give you a choice as far as I know, never did before.
>
> If I recall correctly, in OE SP2 there is an option "Read all messages
> in plain text" or something like that.
>

it might be there in newer versions, but in mine 6.0, its not.

--
Please do not email me for help.  Reply to the newsgroup
only.  And only click on the Reply button, not the Reply All
one.  Thanks!

Peter Potamus & His Magic Flying Balloon:
http://www.toonopedia.com/potamus.htm
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Neat Columns In My Outgoing E-Mails Are Mixed Up In Transmission.

Michael Gordon
In reply to this post by JT SoCal
James created this reply On 7/29/2007 10:18 AM

> Michael wrote:
>> »Q« created this reply On 7/28/2007 11:10 PM
>>
>>> In <news:[hidden email]>,
>>> Gus Richter <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> »Q« wrote:
>>>>> His Seamonkey-produced html was pretty much unreadable in my client,
>>>>> which does have html support.  At this point, one of the main reasons
>>>>> not to use html for mail or news is that it's so horribly
>>>>> non-interoperable.  Just today, Daniel Glazman wrote[1],
>>>>>
>>>>>   ... HTML-based email fails so miserably that we had to have a W3C
>>>>>   Workshop about it and that one of the conclusions of the workshop
>>>>> is the total lack of interoperability not only between mail user
>>>>> agents of different brands, but even between versions of a MUA of
>>>>> the same brand.
>>>> You don't understand what he's talking about.
>>> No, I understand it.
>>>
>>>> The "interoperability" that Daniel refers to is this incompatibility
>>>> between Mail Clients as demonstrated by the poor Mail Client which you
>>>> use.
>>> Your misjudgement of the worth my client[1] aside, that incompatibility
>>> is one reason it's a Bad Idea to use html for mail and news, except in
>>> test groups or in workgroups where everyone is using the same client.
>>> In particular, interoperability is highly desirable in these support
>>> groups, so text/plain should be used.
>>>
>>>> Additionally, the workshop he refers to is a working group set up
>>>> to work on creating a W3C Specification for Mail Clients. It's about
>>>> time this was done.
>>> IMO, it's a waste of their time, but perhaps it will lead to a useful
>>> spec clients will adopt eventually.  As long as the spec says composing
>>> agents MUST include a text/plain part, I won't mind too much.
>>>
>>>> The result is that it is best to use old HTML coding for HTML Mail if
>>>> all Mail Clients are to be able to render as intended by the author
>>>> and obtain a semblance of "interoperability".
>>> Now, and for many years to come, it's best not to use html at all
>>> for e-mail.
>>>
>>> I doubt we're going to convince each other of anything, and I don't see
>>> this furthering Seamonkey support, so I've set fu to m.general.
>>>
>>> [1] Having pasted the (invalid) HTML 4.01 from Phillip's post into a
>>> test.htm file and opened it, I find that both Opera and Konqueror
>>> display it the same way the plugin for Claws did.  I suppose for mail
>>> clients not to be considered "poor" for displaying Seamonkey's html
>>> articles, they'd need to adopt something very close to Seamonkey's
>>> default styles for masses of nested <blockquote> and <big> tags.
>>>
>> Q,
>>
>> With what seem to be valid arguments on this issue at some level of user
>> participation I wonder what all the fuss is really all about.
>> Microsoft Outlook and Mozilla based e-mail clients have the e-mail and
>> newsgroup market cornered by the majority of world wide users.
>> Following in the NTMM and MMTM newsgroups where HTML is used extensively
>> to test different applications of this mail format we find that both
>> Mozilla and Outlook based clients render our postings very well.  When
>> we discover a problem we work to find a usable solution, or abandon the
>> idea because the technology will not permit the rendering of our test
>> models.
>>
>> On the other side of my argument is the value of using HTML messages in
>> the business world.  Here we see millions of e-mail messages being sent
>> and read on a daily basis.  If the majority of internet users were
>> unable to render HTML messages the business world would not expend the
>> money required to create these attractive and informative messages. They
>> would still be sending out their message in plain ascii text and it
>> would still be ignored.  The reason business still tries to send HTML
>> messages is the same reason newspapers and magazines sell advertisements
>> with pictures and graphics, it sells products.
>>
>> Michael
>>
> An interesting thread but on the side of plain text it would better be
> referred to as "quick and clean" since, as far as I know, program code
> cannot be included in a working manner in a plain text body.  The same
> is not true for HTML as a picture, punctuation, etc. can hid volumes of
> virus, trojan, or other code.  Plain text also does not have any
> "rendering" problems making if the most compatible of all.  For my part
> safety trumps pretty but then I am from the old school of information
> first, advertisement last.
>
> James

Hello James and welcome to the discussion,


For my education can you describe how a .jpg image, ; , or etc. can
execute program code simply by displaying the HTML content on a monitor?

 From what I have experienced it requires interaction by the viewer of
the message before any action can occur.  Action like clicking on a link
to connect to a web site with the other half of the execution code
embedded into the web page.  That can also be done with text/plain
messages as well, millions of e-mail messages in text/plain pass around
the world every day with hyper links embedded into the message body to
make connecting to a referenced web site, or resource much easier for
both sender and receiver.

Should we revert back to the early 1980s where the only messaging was by
direct connection to the server at the other end and sending single line
by line messages?

What the whole issue of HTML vs text/plain boils down to is personal
security on the internet.  We have to tools to prevent disaster;
firewalls, antivirus, NAT routers, ad blockers, and our own e-mail
clients and browser tools.  The single most important tool we have is
ourselves, knowing how to use these tools, and using them.

Michael

--
Posting Guidelines for MTMM

Posting To Mozilla.Test.Multimedia <http://ilias.ca/mozilla.test.multimedia>


SeaMonkey <http://www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/>
The "All In One Internet Application Suite"
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Neat Columns In My Outgoing E-Mails Are Mixed Up In Transmission.

Blinky the Shark
In reply to this post by Gus Richter
Gus Richter wrote:

> You must live in a vacuum. Have you not seen newsletters, ads, etc. in
> mail all with HTML content?

As for me, I certainly do.  In my spam folder.  That's where I've
instructed one of my filters to put it.


--
Blinky                                                   RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Neat Columns In My Outgoing E-Mails Are Mixed Up In Transmission.

Gus Richter
Blinky the Shark wrote:
> Gus Richter wrote:
>
>> You must live in a vacuum. Have you not seen newsletters, ads, etc. in
>> mail all with HTML content?
>
> As for me, I certainly do.  In my spam folder.  That's where I've
> instructed one of my filters to put it.

You must also live in a vacuum. At our house, as well as with friends
and neighbors, we all look at newsletters from various organizations
announcing developments, special happenings, etc.

Of course unwanted spam is filtered out. In my case by Postini used at
my ISP. Thunderbird is my second line of defense which usually is not
needed.

Of course in your case your Mail Client being Pan, whatever that is and
probably being of the same quality as Claws, likely has trouble with
decent HTML mail and will make a terrible job at rendering it and hence
you are against such crafted mail, no doubt.

That makes it two (2) people with mail clients other than Thunderbird/SM
and it begs the question as to why those two get involved with a subject
concerning Thunderbird/SM mail. A desire to reduce their capability(1)
to that of Claws and Pan?

--
Gus
(1) no idea of their capability, suspecting next-to-none or none as
regarding HTML.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Neat Columns In My Outgoing E-Mails Are Mixed Up In Transmission.

Gus Richter
In reply to this post by Gus Richter
»Q« wrote:

> In <news:[hidden email]>,
> Gus Richter <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>> As long as the spec says composing agents MUST include a text/plain
>>> part, I won't mind too much.
>
>> Plain text should and must always be provided.
>
> Do you happen to know if there's already a Seamonkey bug filed about
> this?  It was Phillip's news post with no plain text part that got me
> into the thread in the first place.

I take that back since there is a misunderstanding here. My meaning was
that the client should always have text/plain *capability* and not to
have a text/plain version always acompanying HTML Mail.

A decent Mail Client, such as a Gecko based one will allow the recipient
to decide to view or not to view HTML Mail. That being said, it is not
necessary for the author to provide two versions, unless he wishes to
have recipients such as you to also have something to view and which
makes good sense for the author to do. With today's computers the extra
size is negligible. You on the other hand are apparently advocating that
all clients have to send both contrary to anyone's wishes. Sounds to me
that you are a good candidate to go over to the MS camp where it is
customary to have choices made for you. If there is such a bug filed, I
hope that it experiences a lingering death.

>> It is very useful for "quick and dirty" communication.
>
> ITYM "quick and clean".  ;)

I stand by my version, which is the accepted normal version for anything
of the like.

--
Gus
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Neat Columns In My Outgoing E-Mails Are Mixed Up In Transmission.

JM-43
In reply to this post by Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
"Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo" <[hidden email]> wrote in message
news:[hidden email]...

> Carl Drud wrote:
> > On 2007-07-29, Jay Garcia wrote:
> >
> >>> I had a look in OE, and it has options for Send in HTML or
> >>> Text, but nothing about receiving, atleast not that I could
> >>> find.
> >> OE doesn't give you a choice as far as I know, never did before.
> >
> > If I recall correctly, in OE SP2 there is an option "Read all messages
> > in plain text" or something like that.
> >
>
> it might be there in newer versions, but in mine 6.0, its not.

>From the main OE screen:   Tools, Options, Read,    ...



_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Neat Columns In My Outgoing E-Mails Are Mixed Up In Transmission.

Gus Richter
In reply to this post by Gus Richter
»Q« wrote:
> In <news:[hidden email]>,
> Gus Richter <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> That makes it two (2) people with mail clients other than
>> Thunderbird/SM and it begs the question as to why those two get
>> involved with a subject concerning Thunderbird/SM mail.
>
> Because we view messages produced by Gecko mailers.  As with
> the web pages, we'd prefer to see output that's interoperable.

What you are really saying is that to achieve interoperability you want
the better Gecko Mail Client to take steps back instead of having your
challenged client advance to that of Gecko.

That 'raises the question' of why you two guys don't frequent your
respective mail client newsgroups, if any, to discuss their drawbacks
and stay out of Gecko Mail Client discussions in their own newsgroups
along with the balls to suggest that they reduce their capability to
that of lesser mailers in order for you to be able to properly render them.

> And please see <http://begthequestion.info/>.

Perhaps I was using the vernacular and like it. The thing I don't like
is the sidestepping put-down regarding linguistics. Here are two right
back atcha. Proper sentence structure never starts with an "and" and
another thing is that it's a Mail Client and not a Mailer.

--
Gus
Note the atcha as fodder for a come-back in case you find no other.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Neat Columns In My Outgoing E-Mails Are Mixed Up In Transmission.

Gus Richter
In reply to this post by Gus Richter
»Q« wrote:

> In <news:[hidden email]>,
> Gus Richter <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> »Q« wrote:
>>> In <news:[hidden email]>,
>>> Gus Richter <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> As long as the spec says composing agents MUST include a text/plain
>>>>> part, I won't mind too much.
>>>> Plain text should and must always be provided.
>>> Do you happen to know if there's already a Seamonkey bug filed about
>>> this?  It was Phillip's news post with no plain text part that got me
>>> into the thread in the first place.
>> I take that back since there is a misunderstanding here. My meaning
>> was that the client should always have text/plain *capability* and not
>> to have a text/plain version always acompanying HTML Mail.
>
> Yeah, I meant MUST include a plain text part with every message, at
> least for netnews if not e-mail.  I don't see any reason not to make it
> a MUST for mail as well, though.
>
>> A decent Mail Client, such as a Gecko based one will allow the
>> recipient to decide to view or not to view HTML Mail. That being said,
>> it is not necessary for the author to provide two versions, unless he
>> wishes to have recipients such as you to also have something to view
>> and which makes good sense for the author to do. With today's
>> computers the extra size is negligible. You on the other hand are
>> apparently advocating that all clients have to send both contrary to
>> anyone's wishes.
>
> I don't think sending messages with no plain text part to these
> newsgroups serves anyone's wishes, unless there are people here who
> wish to limit participation to users of "decent" clients such as
> Seamonkey or Outlook Express.

These are Gecko based newsgroups after all and I for one expect
attendees to these newsgroups to be users, at least once they begin
commenting. I wouldn't dream of going to your Mail Client's newsgroup
and start telling them, without using their client, that their client is
lacking in being either "under" or as you are suggesting Gecko Mail
Clients are "over" capable. I would not be surprised if I were flamed.

>> Sounds to me that you are a good candidate to go over
>> to the MS camp where it is customary to have choices made for you.
>
> Cheap shot.  

The way you're coming across. I calls 'em the way I sees 'em.

> If you want any sort of interoperability at all, you want people to
> adhere to standards.  We disagree over what the as-yet-nonexistent
> standard here should be, but it's bound to include plenty of MUSTs,
> which will "make choices for you".

Apples and oranges.

>> If there is such a bug filed, I hope that it experiences a lingering
>> death.
>
> Other than being able to choose to make your messages very hard to
> read, what objections do you have to requiring a text/plain part?  It
> can't be the space or bandwidth.

Aside from the fact that your preference is served by having text/plain
only and not mine by not having Rich Mail only? This is self-evident, I
think. I have the choice to send both or alone right now, so why would I
be content with not having this choice any longer?

If someone is interested in viewing the content of say a .pps .mpg .mp3
.swf or any other special file type, they must get the proper program
(plugin, or whatever) in order to view it. This goes for browser or mail
client. If they don't then they are not interested enough. If you stay
with a challenged browser or mail client, then don't expect to see the
good stuff. You're just not interested enough - so be it - don't view
it. You _may_ be able to view some alternate thing on the web, but not
necessarily. If I choose not to, then you see diddly with your
challenged browser - my choice - there are plenty of sites like that.
Same goes for HTML Mail. If you want to see it, use a decent Mail Client.

It's not the bandwidth for me. I want everyone to see something, but if
I don't, then I want that capability, which I have right now. For
certain things I want recipients, interested enough, to view the Rich
content as intended. The text/plain version could be useless.

--
Gus
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
12