Emile van Bergen wrote:
However, I fail to understand why you want people to refrain from
bringing the netiquette under the attention of the people they are
receiving email from.
Never said they should refrain. I do think that it's a waste of time though.
IOW, if everybody just tries to
On Mon 19 May 2003, Colin Watson wrote:
On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 10:17:40PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
(I'd quote a proverb about how small things lead to big things, but I
can't currently think of any of those in English. :)
Look after the pennies and the pounds will take care of
On Tue, 20 May 2003 07:14:33 +0100, Matt Ryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I don't like school boy rules and I thought I'd tell everyone.
Good manners are school boy rules? I suppose I would have
liked you better when you were younger, then.
manoj
--
There ain't nothin' in this
Hi,
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 07:14:33AM +0100, Matt Ryan wrote:
Emile van Bergen wrote:
However, I fail to understand why you want people to refrain from
bringing the netiquette under the attention of the people they are
receiving email from.
Never said they should refrain. I do think
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 07:14:33AM +0100, Matt Ryan wrote:
Emile van Bergen wrote:
However, I fail to understand why you want people to refrain from
bringing the netiquette under the attention of the people they are
receiving email from.
Never said they should refrain. I do think that
As opposed to plowing through your idiotic screed about how people
shouldn't have high standards, which is clearly not a waste of time
since it has important implications for how all developers maintain
their packages, right?
Seems you couldn't resist helping me by extending the thread? But
Josip Rodin wrote:
Well, yeah, sure, but the highway analogy doesn't apply. There isn't a
single technical reason why I as a random person need to ever be in any
sort of contact with a spammer to keep the system running.
There was no mention of spammers in the thread! While they are prone to
Emile van Bergen wrote
I also don't understand the phrase today's Internet world. You mean
with the hordes running Outlook and shopping on the clickable amazing
discoveries / quantum shopping / tell sell channel that's the WWW?
Yes. If you have to interact with them to any great extent then its
Hi,
On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 07:14:07PM +0100, Matt Ryan wrote:
Josip Rodin wrote:
Well, yeah, sure, but the highway analogy doesn't apply. There isn't a
single technical reason why I as a random person need to ever be in any
sort of contact with a spammer to keep the system running.
On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 07:14:07PM +0100, Matt Ryan wrote:
Well, yeah, sure, but the highway analogy doesn't apply. There isn't a
single technical reason why I as a random person need to ever be in any
sort of contact with a spammer to keep the system running.
There was no mention of
On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 10:17:40PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
(I'd quote a proverb about how small things lead to big things, but I
can't currently think of any of those in English. :)
Look after the pennies and the pounds will take care of themselves.
Cheers,
--
Colin Watson
Matt Ryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
sending HTML emails its a general comment on people usage of the Internet.
If you can limit yourself to contacts who are technical enough to understand
the arguments why you don't like it then you can maintain the pretence that
it doesn't exist. Those who
Emile van Bergen wrote:
So what do you propose then, to drop everything just because you
cynically point out that a lot of rules are being violated today?
What I'm saying is that (a lot of) these rules are archaic and irrelevant in
today's Internet world. Firstly I doubt any of the people who
Matt Ryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Emile van Bergen wrote:
So what do you propose then, to drop everything just because you
cynically point out that a lot of rules are being violated today?
What I'm saying is that (a lot of) these rules are archaic and irrelevant in
today's Internet world.
On Sun, May 18, 2003 at 10:26:38AM +0100, Matt Ryan wrote:
Emile van Bergen wrote:
So what do you propose then, to drop everything just because you
cynically point out that a lot of rules are being violated today?
Society evolves and with it rules change, we need
to accept this and see what
On Sun, May 18, 2003 at 10:26:38AM +0100, Matt Ryan wrote:
Society evolves and with it rules change, we need to accept this and see
what evolves - if it turns out to be bad then limits will have to be
applied, but I'm not seeing a complete state of anarchy break out yet...
Right now we're
Josip Rodin wrote:
Right now we're getting really damn close to anarchy, when everyone and
their dog has the means to entirely obliterate everyone else's mailbox
with
unwanted whatever-they-have-to-say, and sometimes even obliterate their
computer (with viruses).
We have the ability to
Neil McGovern wrote:
These are all valid points, however, I still don't want to read HTML
e-mail in mutt.
You are figting a losing battle. If the MUA that someone uses is set-up to
send HTML (rich test, whatever) email then you are highly unlikely to get
them to change it. Some devices (cable
Andreas Metzler wrote:
Hello,
Which does not matter at all. This memo does not specify an Internet
standard of any kind. having it distributed as RFC is just a
convenience, because searching for rcf1855 on google will find
perfect hits en masse.
Hello,
Finding it is not the problem. As I
On Sun, May 18, 2003 at 11:38:14AM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
| These are all valid points, however, I still don't want to read HTML
| e-mail in mutt.
Why not? Mutt deals perfectly well with HTML e-mail if you have lynx or
w3m installed on your system and have
auto_view text/html
in
On Mon, 19 May 2003 00:25, Matt Ryan wrote:
Neil McGovern wrote:
These are all valid points, however, I still don't want to read HTML
e-mail in mutt.
You are figting a losing battle. If the MUA that someone uses is set-up to
send HTML (rich test, whatever) email then you are highly
On Sun, May 18, 2003 at 03:25:42PM +0100, Matt Ryan wrote:
Yes, but then if the majority of clients can send/recive HTML email, who has
the compatibility problem?
It doesn't matter what the clients are able to do.
The majority of readers on this list don't want HTML-postings. Just like
they
On Sun, May 18, 2003 at 10:54:08PM +0800, Cameron Patrick wrote:
On Sun, May 18, 2003 at 11:38:14AM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
| These are all valid points, however, I still don't want to read HTML
| e-mail in mutt.
Why not? Mutt deals perfectly well with HTML e-mail if you have lynx or
Matt Ryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andreas Metzler wrote:
Hello,
Which does not matter at all. This memo does not specify an Internet
standard of any kind. having it distributed as RFC is just a
convenience, because searching for rcf1855 on google will find
perfect hits en masse.
Hello,
Matt Ryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What I'm saying is that (a lot of) these rules are archaic and
irrelevant in today's Internet world. Firstly I doubt any of the
people who violate the rules are even aware what an RFC is or what
it's for - and if they did they probably wouldn't care.
On Sun, 18 May 2003 15:30:52 +0100, Matt Ryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Andreas Metzler wrote:
Hello, Which does not matter at all. This memo does not specify an
Internet standard of any kind. having it distributed as RFC is
just a convenience, because searching for rcf1855 on google will
On Sun, 18 May 2003 15:25:42 +0100, Matt Ryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Neil McGovern wrote:
These are all valid points, however, I still don't want to read
HTML e-mail in mutt.
You are figting a losing battle. If the MUA that someone uses is
set-up to send HTML (rich test, whatever) email
On Sun, 18 May 2003 10:26:38 +0100, Matt Ryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Emile van Bergen wrote:
So what do you propose then, to drop everything just because you
cynically point out that a lot of rules are being violated today?
What I'm saying is that (a lot of) these rules are archaic and
On Sun, 18 May 2003 22:54:08 +0800, Cameron Patrick [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Sun, May 18, 2003 at 11:38:14AM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
These are all valid points, however, I still don't want to read
HTML e-mail in mutt.
Why not? Mutt deals perfectly well with HTML e-mail
It
On Sun, May 18, 2003 at 03:25:42PM +0100, Matt Ryan wrote:
Neil McGovern wrote:
These are all valid points, however, I still don't want to read HTML
e-mail in mutt.
You are figting a losing battle.
Unfortunatly, this may be so, but the latest trend I personally have
seen is away from HTML
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's very rare for me to have a HTML email that I actually want to read, I
probably should configure my mail server to reject them all.
I have sendmail rules to do that. I may go back to rejecting
multipart/alternative mail as well.
On Sun, May 18, 2003 at 07:26:34PM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
I disagree. Once I've explained why I don't like HTML e-mail, people
normally see 'my side' and switch.
And if they still don't see it, the following 'html' might convince
them, at least if they use outlook (be careful. It is not
On Sun, May 18, 2003 at 03:28:27PM +0100, Matt Ryan wrote:
Right now we're getting really damn close to anarchy, when everyone and
their dog has the means to entirely obliterate everyone else's mailbox
with unwanted whatever-they-have-to-say, and sometimes even obliterate
their computer
Hi,
On Sun, May 18, 2003 at 10:26:38AM +0100, Matt Ryan wrote:
Emile van Bergen wrote:
So what do you propose then, to drop everything just because you
cynically point out that a lot of rules are being violated today?
What I'm saying is that (a lot of) these rules are archaic and
[He who should not be named wrote]
That .sig is problematic beyond just its content; it is 12 lines long and
adds almost 1kb to each of your messages (probably longer than the
contents
of many messages). Refer to RFC 1855 or any other netiquette document for
further information.
With
Hi,
On Sat, May 17, 2003 at 05:57:31PM +0100, Matt Ryan wrote:
[He who should not be named wrote]
That .sig is problematic beyond just its content; it is 12 lines long and
adds almost 1kb to each of your messages (probably longer than the
contents
of many messages). Refer to RFC 1855 or
36 matches
Mail list logo
