Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite

[Robin Laing]

Andrew Brown wrote:

Ian Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: 




On Mon, 2005-11-07 at 00:53 -0500, Chad Smith wrote:



I understand that OpenOffice.org is holy, and perfect, and is not to
be questioned. If something is missing, it *SHOULD* be missing. If
something hogs memory, it *SHOULD* hog memory.


Go away Chad, and come back when you get rid of the sarcasm, ranting
and raving.



I know the internet is an infantilising medium, but do we really have to 
behave like fourteen-year-old schoolgirls? If you find Chad unbearably 
uncool, killfile him already. 
He had a very good point, perhaps best made by raving. It really doesn't 
matter to me whether I send a document by email or by post -- I'd like to 
be able to edit them in the same program, to look up the information about 
the recipient in the same place, and so on and so forth. This is a 
perfectly reasonable thing for people to want and MS does it better than 
anyone else. 

It's probably very wise of Sun not to spend resources on doing that right 
now -- and no one else, as we know, does any of the heavy lifting. But if 
ever anyone did come up with a solution that integrated OOo with a first 
class open source contacts manager and scheduler properly, this would be 
praised as the most innovative step forward in the entire history of the 
software industry by almost everyone on these lists, especially those who 
most vocally despise Outlook. 



Good points.

I never understood this whole process of why people would want Outlook 
like features within OOo.  My self, I would despise more applications 
within OOo.


There are many great applications for email available.  The whole idea 
of is choice and integrating an application within OOo would limit 
choices.  Any application would have to work cross platform and this 
creates it's own set of headaches as it still would not satisfy all 
those that are asking for more.


Didn't the earlier versions of Star Office include a email client and 
WWW browser and work like a desktop?  You opened the application that 
you wanted?  Oh so many years ago


As for Chad.  Yea he is a pain but sometimes a pain is required to 
find what is wrong.  He does provide some valid opposition to the 
many.  This is needed to keep OOo a great product and to help it get 
even better.


I for one would rather see a front end that ties into 
Thunderbird/Mozilla instead of a separate application.  Of course I 
like using the command line as well.


Robin

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite

[Robbie Darrell Graham]

John Thompson wrote:
> On 2005-11-07, Robbie Darrell Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Yes, I also use Thunderbird. But I would like to use something that was
>>integrated into open office like Outlook is in Microsoft Office.
> 
> 
> I've never used Outlook to any great extent. What sort of integration are 
> you missing in OOo? Doesn't File...Send Document as email" work? Or are 
> you looking for something else, like using OOo-Writer as your email 
> editor? 
> 
Yes I would like to use OOo Writer as my email editor, Maybe there is a
way to use parts of OOo in other project or bring other projects into
the OOo family of projects.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite

[Chad Smith]

On 11/8/05, Andrew Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> One possible soluton would be to try to integrate OOo with gmail -- which
> gives cross-platform email. Complete integration would require an immense
> effort to beef up and improve OOo's displays of web pages, which is at
> present abysmal. But partial integration -- just using Gmail as the
> address
> book, and the posting mechanism -- would probably be a whole lot easier.
> Somone sould have put that up for Google's summer of code.



Andrew,

Thanks for sticking up for me, I appreciate it. I also appreciate the points
you make. I am trying to cut back on my emails, since people have been so
offended by my observations. I know you feel uneasy about the role of the
counterbalance to all the gung-ho half-blind FLOSS Roolz/MS Drulz
cheerleading and back-patting on these lists. But I am grateful for your
additions to that cause. You, Rod, Robin, and others are very level-headed
about this, and see the areas that need work, as well as the areas that
surpass MS and anything else out there. One must see both sides in order to
improve.

Anyway, more directly to this thread.

I like what you have to say, but I doubt people would like tying OOo into
Gmail. Some people are as paranoid about Google as they are about Microsoft.
I think both forms of paranoia are beyond the pale and pointless, but I at
least understand, to a certain degree, where the FUD against Microsoft comes
from. Google has, from the beginning, stated their goal is to "Don't be
evil." And to this point, they aren't.

Regardless of that, even if Google was (and I think possibly is) the
greatest company to ever touch a keyboard, limiting OpenOffice.org to one
email provider is a step in the wrong direction. Providing links into
Thunderbird would be different than, say, providing links into AOL's email.

Now, I am by no means against providing links into Gmail (as I use Gmail,
and would like to use OOo to email with), but I don't think that would solve
the problem. It would for people, like me and you, who use Gmail - but not
for people on AOL, MSN, Yahoo,
Takethisjobandshoveit.com,
etc.. [I'm not sure that's a real place, but you get my point.]

And for those who want to say that creating an integrated OOo email client
would take away as much choice as a Gmail-only hook would, you're wrong.
First, you can have more than one program that does the same thing on your
computer. I have NeoOffice/J, AbiWord, TextEdit, Pages, AppleWorks, and MS
Office 2004 all on this computer now. Second, even if all you have is an
OOo-like Thunderbird or an OOo Email - you can still use AOL, MSN, or
whatever email provider you wish. You have lost no choice by having the
email client.

The "It takes away choice" argument is pretty old with me. It was the same
song and dance last year about the database feature. Now, those same people
who were crying "I wanna use my MySQL!" are now boasting about the "New
OpenOffice.org Base" and how great it is.

You can still use MySQL, or PostSQL or whatever database you want with OOo,
only now, you don't have to have anything extra to have a database (other
than Java, I know - Java is evil too).

Adding "hooks" into Thunderbird (which, to me, seems to be the easiest
route) or creating an ODF based OOo email client with calendaring and
address book, would only enhance OpenOffice.org, and not detract from it.

-Chad Smith
http://www.gimpshop.net - Because everyone loves free software

Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite

[Jonathon Blake]

Chad wrote:

>Google has, from the beginning, stated their goal is to "Don't be
evil." And to this point, they aren't.

When you have a chance, start apply Forensic Lingusitic Analysis to
Google's statements.
Doing so will make it patently obvious that they re doing some
nefarious things.

>Providing links into Thunderbird would be different than, say,
providing links into AOL's email.

You are right here.

> [I'm not sure that's a real place, but you get my point.]

It used to be.

> The "It takes away choice" argument is pretty old with me.

Depending upon how an email is incorproted into OOo, it may, or may
not limit choice.
With the way Base is integrated, one can still use MySQL SQLite, etc.

> Adding "hooks" into Thunderbird (which, to me, seems to be the easiest route) 
> or creating an ODF based OOo email client with calendaring and address book, 
> would only enhance OpenOffice.org, and not detract from it.

It probably is better to configure Thunderbird/SunBird to read/write
ODF than create a new OOo mail client.   [Especially if the email
hooks are allredy prt of the OOo base code.]


xan

jonathon
--
Does your Office Suite conform to ISO Standards?

Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite

[Daniel Kasak]

Andrew Brown wrote:


Daniel Kasak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in news:436FCC9F.9050703
@nusconsulting.com.au:

 

OpenOffice.org developers have better things to do than write an email 
client from scratch just because people are too lazy or incompetent to 
open an external email program and attach a file.
   



That's the spirit! The customer isn't just wrong. He's lazy and incompetent 
as well. 

 

I stand by that statement. What people are asking for is an email 
program that allows them to email from inside OpenOffice ... so they 
don't have to open an external client. That's lazy. If they claim they 
don't know how to attach a file to an email, then that's incompetent.


As for the 'customer' being right or wrong, no-one here is selling 
anything, so the rules are slightly different to the old 'custom is 
always right'. The simple fact is that the customer is *not* always right.


What's the best approach:

a)
  - educating them on how to use an existing email client, or

b)
  - writing a new email client
  - creating documentation
  - providing support for people who prefer not to use documentation
  - maintaining the project

I choose option a)

The open source way of doing things is to make small, discrete apps / 
libraries that perform a specific task, and do it well. The alternative 
"throw everything possible in, otherwise the customer will use a 
competitor's product" logic does not belong in open source. We should 
encourage people to use their choice of existing open source apps to 
build their own productivity suite.


The original poster already admitted that he's using Thunderbird. I use 
Thunderbird. I can assure you that it's easy to create an document in 
OpenOffice.org, save it, switch to the desktop with Thunderbird, create 
a new email, choose a contact from my address book, type my email, 
attach my document I just created, and send the email. If there is a 
problem, it's not with OpenOffice.org or Thunderbird.


Still don't agree? Why not hassle the Thunderbird developers to include 
a word processor, spreadsheet, database app and presentation program in 
the next version of Thunderbird ... so I don't ever have to switch out 
of Thunderbird.


--
Daniel Kasak
IT Developer
NUS Consulting Group
Level 5, 77 Pacific Highway
North Sydney, NSW, Australia 2060
T: (+61) 2 9922-7676 / F: (+61) 2 9922 7989
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
website: http://www.nusconsulting.com.au

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite

[Tim Fairchild]

On Wednesday 09 Nov 2005 07:50, Daniel Kasak wrote:
> Andrew Brown wrote:
> >Daniel Kasak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in news:436FCC9F.9050703
> >
> >@nusconsulting.com.au:
> >>OpenOffice.org developers have better things to do than write an email
> >>client from scratch just because people are too lazy or incompetent to
> >>open an external email program and attach a file.
> >
> >That's the spirit! The customer isn't just wrong. He's lazy and
> > incompetent as well.
>
> I stand by that statement. What people are asking for is an email
> program that allows them to email from inside OpenOffice ... so they
> don't have to open an external client. That's lazy. If they claim they
> don't know how to attach a file to an email, then that's incompetent.

Oh come on, OOo should really have all these things integrated, with a 
gimp-like tool as well, and it's own integrated OS, and a dog agility course 
designer, and an integrated network packet sniffer would be nice, and... :)

-- 
-
  Tim Fairchild
  Atchafalaya Border Collies.
  Kuttabul, Queensland, Australia.
-
 Email   mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Homepagehttp://www.bcs4me.com
 Photos  http://www.pbase.com/amosf
 Bloghttp://bcs4me.com/blog
-

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite

[Justin Fitzgibbon]

>Oh come on, OOo should really have all these things integrated, with a
gimp-like tool as 
>well, and it's own integrated OS, and a dog agility course designer,
and an integrated 
>network packet sniffer would be nice, and... :)

Well this is where extensions come in, got the Gimp installed ? download
a set of gimp menus. Want to email using thunderbird ? download that
extension.

Part of the reason MS software has problems is that it requires
integration with lots of their other products. So outlook requires
exchange to work well which requires the crappy IIS and active directory
and a well configured MS DNS and ISA server and if any of that is
imperfectly configured then the whole lot falls in a heap. 

Its better to keep OOo integration modular and optional so extensions
that link to the market leaders like thunderbird or evolution are the
way to go. 

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite

[jrc]

Please discontinue the refrain that 00o attachments to Thunderbird will 
do the trick.  Try that on most mail lists!  The attachment is promptly 
rejected as spam, or is otherwise butchered.


Jim Carter


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite

[Bill Johnson]

Cut & Paste anyone?

jrc wrote:

Please discontinue the refrain that 00o attachments to Thunderbird 
will do the trick.  Try that on most mail lists!  The attachment is 
promptly rejected as spam, or is otherwise butchered.


Jim Carter


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]




--
"Any man who may be asked in this century what he did to make his life 
worthwhile...Can respond with a good deal of pride and satisfaction, 
'I served in the United States Navy'"

John F.Kennedy
01 August 1963



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite

[Henrik Sundberg]

Why not sending the document as the message text, instead of using attachments?
This is like Copy & Paste, but more convenient. And I prefer not to
receive to many attachments anyway. OTOH I like plain text better
anyway.
/$

2005/11/10, Bill Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Cut & Paste anyone?
>
> jrc wrote:
>
> > Please discontinue the refrain that 00o attachments to Thunderbird
> > will do the trick.  Try that on most mail lists!  The attachment is
> > promptly rejected as spam, or is otherwise butchered.
> >
> > Jim Carter
> >
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
>
> --
> "Any man who may be asked in this century what he did to make his life
> worthwhile...Can respond with a good deal of pride and satisfaction,
> 'I served in the United States Navy'"
> John F.Kennedy
> 01 August 1963
>
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite

[Chad Smith]

On 11/10/05, Bill Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Cut & Paste anyone?


You will likely lose formating, or things will shift.

It's also an extra step. Not just the two steps of "Copy and Paste" but you
also have to select the stuff you want to copy, copy it, open your email
program, open a new email file, address the email, subject the email, paste
the body, and then send.

With a built-in email, or with hooks into an existing email client like
Thunderbird, one would be able to open Writer, compose their email, click a
"Send as email" button, address the email, subject it, and press send. Thus
saving you 5 steps, and, if the ODF format were understood by the email
client (as it surely would be if it were an OOo email client) then formating
would be exactly the same in the email as it was in the Writer document.

--
- Chad Smith
http://www.gimpshop.net/
Because everyone loves free software!

Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite

[mark]

Chad Smith wrote:

On 11/10/05, Bill Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Cut & Paste anyone?


You will likely lose formating, or things will shift.

It's also an extra step. Not just the two steps of "Copy and Paste" but you
also have to select the stuff you want to copy, copy it, open your email
program, open a new email file, address the email, subject the email, paste
the body, and then send.


Lessee, what about all the fools using Lookout Express? Or anyone else 
who prefers their own email tool?


Then, of course, there's the LARGE number of us who DESPISE HTML mail 
(aka virus-spreader email), and who REALLY DO NOT WANT to HAVE to open a 
goddamned dog-slow word processor to read our email. (We won't even 
*begin* to talk about idiots who send out .pdf email)


Or, for another example, about all the companies who *REQUIRE* use of 
the corporate-approved email? Ready to tie OO.o to Lotus Notes? Or Outlook?


You're being absurd.

Personally, I don't like suites, anyway. They tried to shove 'em down 
our throats in the early nineties, and everyone said "NO". Now M$ says 
This Is The One And Only True Way. Bugfuck.


Finally, when I see a statement saying that the next release of OO.o 
will be smaller and faster, *then* I'll even consider an email program 
inside of OO.o.


mark

--
A clear view of the libertarian view of the world: our lives are merely 
capital's way of reproducing itself.

- whitroth, 2003

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite

[Chad Smith]

On 11/10/05, mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Personally, I don't like suites, anyway. They tried to shove 'em down
> our throats in the early nineties, and everyone said "NO". Now M$ says
> This Is The One And Only True Way. Bugfuck.



Hey, moron, this is a mailing list about
OPENOFFICE.ORG- it's an office suite.

Grow a clue.

-Chad

Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite

[Nicolas Mailhot]

Le jeudi 10 novembre 2005 à 13:24 -0800, jrc a écrit :
> Please discontinue the refrain that 00o attachments to Thunderbird will 
> do the trick.  Try that on most mail lists!  The attachment is promptly 
> rejected as spam, or is otherwise butchered.

Do you really think inline complex HTML will fare any better ?
With the current spam levels mailing list admins zap just anything
suspicious (as they should)

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot

Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite

[Nicolas Mailhot]

Le vendredi 11 novembre 2005 à 01:19 -0600, Randomthots a écrit :
> mark wrote:

> The most prevalent means of spreading viruses is through binary 
> attachments to plain-text e-mail messages. Precisely the manner of 
> transmitting complex documents most loudly advocated for by those 
> opposing html-mail.

Any half-decent spam filter will treat attachements and core messages
the same ways. ie if it's blocked as attachement, it will be blocked as
message and the reverse is also true.

The problem is not "core" vs "attachements" but what you choose to
allow. And since ODF & HTML allow macros and waste bandwidth, they're
legitimate filter targets.

Better block some mime types altogether than have your filters perform
expensive analysis to check they've not been abused in all the ways they
can be. Especially on high-traffic mailing list servers where you have
to process a huge number of messages every minute.

Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot

Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite

[mark]

Chad Smith wrote:

On 11/10/05, mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Personally, I don't like suites, anyway. They tried to shove 'em down
our throats in the early nineties, and everyone said "NO". Now M$ says
This Is The One And Only True Way. Bugfuck.


Hey, moron, this is a mailing list about
OPENOFFICE.ORG- it's an office suite.

Grow a clue.


Dear dork,

   did you neglect to note I said that I, personally, didn't like them, 
not that I wouldn't use them, since that's what available these days? 
You also seemed to miss that I was arguing against expanding the office 
suite by adding, unreasonably IMO, a mail client.


mark
--
Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice. 
- Avedon Carol


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite

[mark]

Nicolas Mailhot wrote:

Le vendredi 11 novembre 2005 à 01:19 -0600, Randomthots a écrit :

mark wrote:

Someone else wrote:
The most prevalent means of spreading viruses is through binary 
attachments to plain-text e-mail messages. Precisely the manner of 
transmitting complex documents most loudly advocated for by those 
opposing html-mail.


This, in fact, ain't so. I get, oh, a hundred or hundred and fifty (or 
more) spams a day, and they don't usually have attachments. What *is* 
common is HTML mail with a link that says one thing... but if you look 
at in as plaintext, it actually points to somewhere else. Most folks 
receiving that don't look at it as plaintext - a lot probably have 
"original HTML" on, and don't see the falsity of the link.


Any half-decent spam filter will treat attachements and core messages
the same ways. ie if it's blocked as attachement, it will be blocked as
message and the reverse is also true.


Yup.

mark

--
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, 
then you win."
"Strength does not come from physical capacity.  It comes from an 
indomitable will." -Gandhi-


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite

[mark]

Randomthots wrote:

mark wrote:

someone else wrote:
The most prevalent means of spreading viruses is through binary 
attachments to plain-text e-mail messages. Precisely the manner of 
transmitting complex documents most loudly advocated for by those 
opposing html-mail.


This, in fact, ain't so. I get, oh, a hundred or hundred and fifty (or 
more) spams a day, and they don't usually have attachments.


I should have added that at least half or more are HTML (when I bother 
to view 'em that way, if they catch my sensahumor).


First, you really need to get a better ISP. I get very few little spam, 


RoadRunner, cablemodem. Also tv Oh, and let's not forget the spam 
being forwarded to me from my email addy that I left half a continent 
away, nearly three years ago (actually, several old friends have gotten 
hold of my that way in the last year, so I put up with it).


And, of course, *that* ISP account got to be Verio, when they swallowed 
the older ISP, which had just swallowed the ISP I signed up with


from the same domain and addy. Other than that, the spam I do receive is 
as likely to be in plaintext as html. So htmlmail != spam. And for the 


Sorry, that's not an inequality. You say "as likely to be", which 
implies, as I mention, above, that half of it *is* HTML email. 
Certainly, a *LOT* of the drug peddlers show one thing in plaintext, and 
their sales pitch in HTML. So, spam #inludes html_and_plaintext.


What *is* common is HTML mail with a link that says one thing... but 
if you look at in as plaintext, it actually points to somewhere else. 


Different problem. This is usually connected to a phishing scam and 


Or trying to lure you to their site, either for clickthoughs or pr0n

What's much more effective is an otherwise innocuous-appearing e-mail 
from someone you know that has a binary attachment -- perhaps a Word doc 
with a malicious macro. That's precisely how most of these really bad 


Oh, yup. That's one thing that can get everyone. The only protection, 
turning off macros, can also result in a document you need, and it 
turning into a mess.


My biggest hazard with html-mail is that I'll open a spam that will then 
bang a server to get an image which confirms that my addy is live. But 


Yup. Which is yet another reason that all my correspondents know that I 
*only* want plaintext.
even so, if that was a huge problem I would certainly be getting more 
spam than I am. And I've had this addy for the last 3 or 4 years with 
little problem.


And you've missed all those wonderful slice of life stories from 
Africa 


mark


--
"Morality is alright, but what about dividends?"
--  Kaiser Willhem II

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite

[Nicolas Mailhot]

Le vendredi 11 novembre 2005 à 12:21 -0600, Randomthots a écrit :
> mark wrote:

> Think about it: If html-mail is associated with spam -- and I will 
> gladly stipulate that there is a statistical correlation -- and if 1) 
> ISPs filter much of that spam as mine does, and if 2) much of the rest 
> is caught by individual e-mail clients, as mine is, and if 3) most 
> people simply delete what does get through all that, as I do, then
> html-mail is a spectacularly ineffective vector for malware.

Spam never was about effectiveness. Spam always was about
blanket-bombing and massive waste of ressource.

Accepted (by mail admin people) HTML mail will happen when people get
together and write and RFC about the XHTML subset one can sanely use in
mail clients (ie remove all the dangerous elements built-in XHTML). And
then refuse anything except this subset. And it won't ever happen
because :
1. the only interested people are Outlook/Notes/WordMail users
2. Outlook/Notes/WordMail output and process non-standard XHTML and
writing a spec they'd have to respect is the last thing in the minds of
their authors. So even if someone else wrote it they would ignore it.

However since you obviously care about HTML mail I invite you to specify
an XHTML subset that can not be abused, get it supported by outlook, and
come back asking for thunderbird/OO.o support.

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot

Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite

[Adam Moore]

On 11/12/05, Sam Stainsby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I also work for an organisation that is unwilling to move away from
> Microsoft Office because they feel that they need the calendaring and
> meeting arrangement facilities of Outlook, on Windows. Many of them
> frequently work offline, so web-based solutions are not applicable. I'm
> pinning my hopes on Evolution for Windows, but the project seems to be
> moving very slowly (understandably, as it is a complex project with many
> libraries to port).

You can inform them that every exchange cal they purchase comes with a
license for Outlook.  They wouldn't have to get rid of Outlook at all
if they already have those licenses.  Really they can migrate to
openoffice and keep their old outlook licenses.  What would be the
harm in that?

At least this was true up to the Office XP version.

--
Adam Moore
Founding Member
http://www.opendocumentfellowship.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite

[Alexandro Colorado]

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 00:07:49 -, Sam Stainsby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
wrote:



On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 19:24:27 -0500, William Baric wrote:


I had one of them who was willing to switch to OpenOffice. They didn't
have too much money and they were willing to put up with OpenOffice's
Word, Excel and PowerPoint import/export filter (thanks to MS Viewers).
They were also willing to buy Antidote licence (a french grammar checker
that integrate with OpenOffice). But in the end, I had to forget about
this project because of outlook. The director had a Palm and he wanted
calendar sharing. This meant that They had to buy Outlook.


You can buy outlook for 100 instead of MSO for 300+ dls, this means you  
save 200 per desktop.



I also work for an organisation that is unwilling to move away from
Microsoft Office because they feel that they need the calendaring and
meeting arrangement facilities of Outlook, on Windows. Many of them
frequently work offline, so web-based solutions are not applicable. I'm
pinning my hopes on Evolution for Windows, but the project seems to be
moving very slowly (understandably, as it is a complex project with many
libraries to port).

I think that people that argue that there is no reason to develop a mail
client as part of OpenOffice because there are other mail client
applications available are misguided for two reasons:


Make sure you are asking for an email client Outlook is not just an email  
client and if OOo end up having an email client you might be criying that  
you mean a whole PIM-app.




1. The other mail clients don't have the needed functionality on the
commonest desktop platform in the world (please note I'm a Linux user
myself - I don't endorse Microsoft Windows - far from it - but we have to
face the reality that it is out there and this is unlikely to change for
some time).



2. This idea that OpenOffice only concentrates on applications that are
not available from other packages is completely bogus. Look at OpenOffice
Draw for example and compare it to packages like Inkscape.


That's  because OOo is not a clone to MSO

--
Alexandro Colorado
CoLeader of OpenOffice.org ES
http://es.openoffice.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite

[Alexandro Colorado]

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 00:07:49 -, Sam Stainsby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
wrote:



I think that people that argue that there is no reason to develop a mail

client as part of OpenOffice because there are other mail client

applications available are misguided for two reasons:


Make sure you are asking for an email client and NOT an outlook clone  
which from what I read before in your email is what your company is  
looking for (calendaring features).


Also you mention that your company don't want to move away from Microsoft  
office. You can buy Outlook as a separate package and use OpenOffice.org   
this will save you $200 dls per desktop.


You also mention that your company is not on-line, to have a web-based  
application you only need a network. If your company is not on-line but  
the computers are linked between each other then you will have a deskop.


If your company also is not using it as a groupware (exchange) then you  
might as well install the PIM application like Kde-PIM or even the Palm  
desktop is an outlook clone really.




--
Alexandro Colorado
CoLeader of OpenOffice.org ES
http://es.openoffice.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite

[Chad Smith]

On 11/12/05, Sam Stainsby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
> 2. This idea that OpenOffice only concentrates on applications that are
> not available from other packages is completely bogus. Look at OpenOffice
> Draw for example and compare it to packages like Inkscape.
>

And OOoWriter v AbiWord and OOoBase v MySQL

OOoImpress is fairly unique in the cross-platform open source presentation
world (I, personally, cannot name another such project). The same is true
for Calc.

The arguements against a mail client and PIM are the same as the ones
against Base from a year ago. (1) It takes away choice (2) It duplicates
other projects (3) It's not what it means to be "an office suite" or "a
productivity suite" or "OpenOffice.org" (4) The people who want/need it are
whiny n00bs who don't know anything about anything and (5) OOo can already
do it if you write this macro, hack this code, download this patch, compile
this completely unrelated program, build this bridge in Perl, and it only
works on Linux -- plus it's not gonna work exactly like you think it
should.. (NOTE: #5 is an exagration to prove a point, the "Copy and Paste"
suggestion is not nearly this complex, but it does require a completely
different piece of software, IE an email client, which is what people are
asking for in the first place - but I'm thinking more of the people who say
"OOo *did* have an email client back in the day, so the API is there, if you
want to build one again" - and I'm still bitter about the "Use this Macro to
get Word Count, even though it doesn't count exactly right - we don't need a
f'ing word count anyway!" - although I'm truly grateful for Andrew's work on
the Macro, which I did use until I found the buried "Properties" thing, and
now I have my Word Count button where it should have been in 0.1alpha.)

this is what I think. We're all gonna argue and have opinions, and get our
little feelings hurt, and call for each other to be banned from the land of
Open Source because we disagree, and in a few months or a year or two, Sun
and Google are going to decide that to compete with Office, Star Office
needs an email client and PIM software, and they are going to write one, or
use Thunderbird, or whatever, and the people who wanted the software will be
happy, the ones who complained and moaned about how stupid and useless and
wasteful and "prone to viruses and SPAM" it would be will sudden forget it
was a bad idea and say it's what they wanted all along, they just thought it
was too much work, and then never bring it up again. Kinda like what
happened with Base. :-)

--
- Chad Smith
http://www.gimpshop.net/
Because everyone loves free software!

Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite

[Chad Smith]

On 11/12/05, Alexandro Colorado <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> You can buy outlook for 100 instead of MSO for 300+ dls, this means you
> save 200 per desktop.


Individuals can buy a Retail copy of MSO for $150. Busineses can get it for
cheaper if they buy in volume and/or buy it OEM. As both prices decrease
(MSO and just OL) the differences also decrease, to the point it would be
wasteful to buy Outlook and *not* by the complete suite.

Make sure you are asking for an email client Outlook is not just an email
> client and if OOo end up having an email client you might be criying that
> you mean a whole PIM-app.


Yes, I think most people mean an Outlook replacement, not just an email
client. To them, Outlook is email, just like Excel is spreadsheet. Having
never used Outlook, I can't say, personally, what they want. But I want an
email client and a PIM. I'd like to reitterate that I think a partnering
with Mozilla would be the best answer, but if that isn't possible, building
an OOo version would be good.

> 2. This idea that OpenOffice only concentrates on applications that are
> > not available from other packages is completely bogus. Look at
> OpenOffice
> > Draw for example and compare it to packages like Inkscape.
>
> That's because OOo is not a clone to MSO
>

What you said has nothing to do with what he said. So because MSO has
something, OOo can't? Does that mean we're getting rid of Writer, and Calc,
and Impress, and, well, heck, everything but Draw and Flash export?

I understand (truly I do, I've been preached at enough about this) I
*REALLY* understand that OOo is not an MSO clone. I get it. I know. I dig
it. I comprehend.

BUT

Using that line as an excuse for why OOo doesn't have this useful feature
that MSO does, (like, oh, say, WORD COUNT - yes people actually told me OOo
wasn't a MSO clone when defending it's lack of, or burial of, a decent word
count feature), does not explain it. It doesn't even come close. It doesn't
even excuse it.

If Competitor A is doing something right, or providing a service that people
need, and Competitor B isn't, and Competitor B sees Competitor A doing it.
It does not make Competitor B a clone of A to do it. It makes them a smart
business person. Learning from others is a sign of intelligence. Being able
to say, "Hey, that guy did this, and people liked it. Maybe I should do
that." doesn't make you a clone. I learned how to talk by listening to
others, and if you can talk, that's how you learned too. People like
Outlook. People buy Outlook. People use Outlook. People want to do things
that Outlook lets them do. It might be nice if we were able to help them do
that. Because, we don't want them to use Outlook.

Outlook has a lot of problems. OOoEmail (which I use to mean the email
client and PIM/calendar thing that doesn't exist yet) would solve a lot of
those problems. Outlook uses ActiveX, which is bad. OOoEmail would use Java,
which is good. Or it wouldn't use either, which is better. Outlook is MS,
which is bad (most on this list would say).. OOoEmail would be open source,
which is good. Outlook is Windows only, (the Mac thing is called Entourage
now, and it's different), which is not good if you don't use Windows.
OOoEmail would be cross-plarform, which rocks. Outlook costs $100, which is
horrid. OOoEmail would be free, (and Free), which is excellent!

OOoEmail could, potentially, provide the features and services Outlook users
want, and solve the problems that Outlook has. I don't see why people who
claim to support Open Source more devoutly and purely than they claim I do
aren't all over this one. Those anti-HTML-email people should be all about
getting people off of OutBreak, or Lookout!, or that
evil-virus/spam=spouting mouth of hell that is Outlook.

--
- Chad Smith
http://www.gimpshop.net/
Because everyone loves free software!

Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite

[Jonathon Blake]

Chad wrote:

>(5) OOo can already do it if you write this macro, hack this code,
download this patch, compile  this completely unrelated program, build
this bridge in Perl, and it only works on Linux -- plus it's not gonna
work exactly like you think it should.. (NOTE: #5 is an exaggeration
to prove a point,

That is _not_ an exaggeration, if you want to edit PDFs in OOo.

>Kinda like what happened with Base.

The argument against Base was slightly different.  For starters, OOo
1.x included a dBase clone, and had (some) hooks for SQL
interactivity.  The big issue was which SQL database implementation
was going to be Incorporated into OOo.

**

_If_ the hooks for an email client are included in OOo, then the questions are:
i) Can a bridge to an existing email client be written?
or
ii) is it "better" to compile an existing email client into OOo?

However, if what people mean by "outlook" is _not_ an email client,
but a calendar function, or a PIM, then solution is much different: 
To wit:
i)  Find/replace/update the dBase templates, and document how to use them.
ii) Document how to read/write/edit data in _thisPIM_ using OOo. 
[Where "thisPIM" is a PIM.  Write one document for every known PIM.]
iii) Document how to read/write/edit data in _thisCalenderFunction_
using OOo.  [Where "ThisCalenderFunction" is a Calendar.  Write one
document for every known Calendar.]

xan

jonathon
--
Does your Office Suite conform to ISO Standards?

Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite

[Cor Nouws]

Hi Chad,

Chad Smith wrote:


On 11/12/05, Sam Stainsby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

[...]

this is what I think. We're all gonna argue and have opinions, and get our
little feelings hurt, and call for each other to be banned from the land of
Open Source because we disagree, and in a few months or a year or two, Sun
and Google are going to decide that to compete with Office, Star Office
needs an email client and PIM software, and they are going to write one, or
use Thunderbird, or whatever, and the people who wanted the software will be
happy, the ones who complained and moaned about how stupid and useless and
wasteful and "prone to viruses and SPAM" it would be will sudden forget it
was a bad idea and say it's what they wanted all along, they just thought it
was too much work, and then never bring it up again. Kinda like what
happened with Base. :-)


Well spoken.
So the question that remains (for this issue): are we at discuss@ or is 
it more social@ ;-)


Greetings,
Cor



--
--
|  you need it - je hebt het nodig  |
|   |
|  OpenOffice.org   |
|   |
| Cor Nouws, http://www.nouenoff.nl |
--

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite

[Daniel Kasak]

Sam Stainsby wrote:


On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 19:24:27 -0500, William Baric wrote:

 


I had one of them who was willing to switch to OpenOffice. They didn't
have too much money and they were willing to put up with OpenOffice's
Word, Excel and PowerPoint import/export filter (thanks to MS Viewers).
They were also willing to buy Antidote licence (a french grammar checker
that integrate with OpenOffice). But in the end, I had to forget about
this project because of outlook. The director had a Palm and he wanted
calendar sharing. This meant that They had to buy Outlook.
   



I also work for an organisation that is unwilling to move away from
Microsoft Office because they feel that they need the calendaring and
meeting arrangement facilities of Outlook, on Windows. Many of them
frequently work offline, so web-based solutions are not applicable. I'm
pinning my hopes on Evolution for Windows, but the project seems to be
moving very slowly (understandably, as it is a complex project with many
libraries to port).

I think that people that argue that there is no reason to develop a mail
client as part of OpenOffice because there are other mail client
applications available are misguided


Stop right there.

You admit that the Windows port of Evolution is progressing slowly. Why 
would that be?


Perhaps it's a big task?
Perhaps there aren't many developers on it?
Perhaps it needs more testing?

So. What are we going to do about it?

a) Every many and his dog say "F*** this. I'm going to write my own 
email client". I'll see you in 5 years.
b) Make the most use of already scarce resources, and help out the 
strongest looking package(s) out there.


People keep demanding that OOo developers drop everything and write an 
email client, otherwise they won't switch, and not only that, they don't 
know anyone else who will switch either. Jumping up and down and 
demanding that a large project such as an email / contact / calendaring 
project be done *right* *now* *or* *else* will get you no-where fast. 
The simple fact is that a lot of people are already using OpenOffice. 
They found a way.


Why can't people get over themselves and use an existing application. 
Don't like Evolution? Fine. Test it. Submit bug reports. Hassle the 
developers to hurry up with their Windows port. Do you really think that 
you're going to get a better product in less time by insisting that OOo 
include every function under the sun? You're not. You're just making 
noise and demonstrating that you don't have a grasp on how to use open 
source software. Use the tools that are already available. If there is a 
problem / lack of features / whatever, then submit bugs / features 
requests against that existing product. Duplication is a waste of 
resources, and as we've already agreed, the functionality that you're 
after is non-trivial and will take a long time to complete. Better help 
out on that Windows port of Evolution.


--
Daniel Kasak
IT Developer
NUS Consulting Group
Level 5, 77 Pacific Highway
North Sydney, NSW, Australia 2060
T: (+61) 2 9922-7676 / F: (+61) 2 9922 7989
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
website: http://www.nusconsulting.com.au

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite

[Jonathon Blake]

Rod wrote:

> Without an email/pim component many will do just that. It's called MSO.
> Is that what you really want?

Just what functionality does MSO + Outlook offer, that can not be
replicated by using OOo + FireFox + ThunderBird + SunBird + the
appropriate templates?

>I have yet to hear a call for a Tetris component, music composition,
or audio editing, for instance.

I've seen requests for all three of those on various OOo lists.
Somebody did write a macro to play Tetris within OOo.  [Now wondering
what would happen if somebody were to toss the python audio editing
modules into OOo source code.]

> A good case could be made that open-source development is the most unfocused,

Since there is no centralized location of closed source projects, you
don't see all the junk that they don't produce.

>so *suggesting* that OOo should somehow integrate an
email/calendar/pim, preferably by cooperating with the Mozilla
project, is actually quite conservative.

Probably the simplest in the short/medium term.

xan

jonathon
--
Does your Office Suite conform to ISO Standards?

Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite

[Lars D . Noodén]

On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, Jonathon Blake wrote:
Just what functionality does MSO + Outlook offer, that can not be 
replicated by using OOo + FireFox + ThunderBird + SunBird + the 
appropriate templates?

[...]

+1

Lars Nooden ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Software patents kill innovation and harm all Net-based business.
Keep them out of the EU by writing your MEP, keep the market open.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite

[Wesley Parish]

On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 20:46, Lars D. Noodén wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, Jonathon Blake wrote:
> > Just what functionality does MSO + Outlook offer, that can not be
> > replicated by using OOo + FireFox + ThunderBird + SunBird + the
> > appropriate templates?

Having downloaded the 260+ MB source code OO.org 2.0 package at a cost to self 
in time, and having come across Tom Adelstein's email client,
http://sourceforge.net/projects/tradeclient/
I'm going to try to find the time to put the two together, somehow.

http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/47511/index.html
"Microsoft embedded itself in the enterprise with something other than 
Internet Explorer and Office. The loss leader in their product line comes 
with Microsoft Office and requires a back office component to work. Until 
someone replaces Outlook, the opportunity to expunge Microsoft from the 
enterprise will remain illusive."
'Once you have control of the lines of communication in an organization, you 
own it. If you empower an executive vice president to come between the CEO 
and the rank and file worker and mid-management, the CEO becomes ineffective. 
The same with Information Technology. Whoever owns the communication lines 
controls the organization."
"So, with all the projections in the media, I wanted to know which strategy 
Microsoft would use to beat UNIX and Novell. I decided to take DEC's offer to 
put me in direct contact with some of their marketing executives. I met with 
two key members of sales management who convinced me that Exchange Server 
would make the difference in the NOS war. They asserted that by capturing the 
lines of communication in the enterprise, they could control the enterprise."
>
> [...]
>
> +1
>
> Lars Nooden ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
>   Software patents kill innovation and harm all Net-based business.
>   Keep them out of the EU by writing your MEP, keep the market open.
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-- 
Clinersterton beademung, with all of love - RIP James Blish
-
Mau e ki, he aha te mea nui?
You ask, what is the most important thing?
Maku e ki, he tangata, he tangata, he tangata.
I reply, it is people, it is people, it is people.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite

[Nicu Buculei]

Wesley Parish wrote:

On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 20:46, Lars D. Noodén wrote:


On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, Jonathon Blake wrote:


Just what functionality does MSO + Outlook offer, that can not be
replicated by using OOo + FireFox + ThunderBird + SunBird + the
appropriate templates?



Having downloaded the 260+ MB source code OO.org 2.0 package at a cost to self 
in time, and having come across Tom Adelstein's email client,

http://sourceforge.net/projects/tradeclient/
I'm going to try to find the time to put the two together, somehow.


I hope you noticed that client in *ancient*, last updated in March 2001 
and the interface toolkit is the old GTK1, which will not have desktop 
integration nor internationalization support.


It look like Binary lost interest in this software, discontinued and 
then opensourced it.


--
nicu
my OpenOffice.org pages: http://ooo.nicubunu.ro
Open Clip Art Library: http://www.openclipart.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite

[Lars D . Noodén]

I, too, tried to look at tradeclient again, but don't run any of the 
supported platforms anymore.  It may be time to dust it off and bring it 
up to date, many people have realized the mistake in getting caught in MS 
Outlook / Exchange / AD and are looking for a way back out.


-Lars
Lars Nooden ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Software patents kill innovation and harm all Net-based business.
Keep them out of the EU by writing your MEP, keep the market open.

On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, Nicu Buculei wrote:
[...]
I hope you noticed that client in *ancient*, last updated in March 2001 and 
the interface toolkit is the old GTK1, which will not have desktop 
integration nor internationalization support.


It look like Binary lost interest in this software, discontinued and then 
opensourced it.





-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite

[Robin Laing]

Randomthots wrote:

mark wrote:


 *


There's an aspect to all this that I believe a lot of people who hate 
html-mail, such as yourself, are missing. I believe that the "attachment 
to e-mail" paradigm actually serves to fortify the MS file format lock-in.


Consider that html is actually a fairly poor file format for complex 
layout; it's essentially all based on the abuse of tables. So when 
someone wants to transmit a complex document via e-mail the only viable 
choice is to attach a file -- generally a binary file.  Even an ODF file 
is binary as it sits on your hard drive (try opening a zip file in a 
text editor sometime).


So if you're forced to attach a binary file to an e-mail, which type of 
file are you going to use? Probably the type that is most likely to be 
usable on the other end. Now this generally means either an MSO doc, 
xls, or ppt, or a pdf. We would like to make that ODF but it's going to 
be an uphill battle.


Now consider that ODF is a much richer format than HTML. And being 
similar to HTML, there is no technical reason (that I see, anyway) that 
the format couldn't be adapted to eventually replace HTML. This would 
include usage in e-mail. The main adaptations would be that the XML 
would have to remain uncompressed and then the individual files which 
make up the document (content.xml, manifest.xml, etc.) would comprise a 
sort of multi-part MIME message. The result would be that the complex 
document that previously had to be transmitted as an attachment could 
now actually BE the e-mail, the BODY of the e-mail.


When browsers and e-mail clients are developed that can render such a 
beast then the scales will tip toward ODF being the MOST CONVENIENT 
means of storing, handling, and transmitting documents. Binary formats 
will be considered a PITA to deal with, even by the technically 
illiterate. And since ODF is an ASCII format, it will be that much 
harder to distribute viruses that way.


Yeah, it's a long chain of if's, and it won't happen overnight if at 
all, but it's something to consider.




This is the best answer to the inclusion of email features within OOo. 
 The usage of ODF as a standard base.  How do we push this forward.


FWIW, I have my mail program configure to view as text and not load 
images, to many 1x1 address confirmation images for my liking.  It is 
a pain with some messages but it is handy.


For formatted text, I prefer pdf attachments.

Robin

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite

[Nicolas Mailhot]

> Randomthots wrote:

> > Now consider that ODF is a much richer format than HTML. And being 
> > similar to HTML, there is no technical reason (that I see, anyway) that 
> > the format couldn't be adapted to eventually replace HTML. 

HTML is already TOO complex for mail. That's why it's rejected by so
many people. Didn't you read what I wrote last day ? Rich mail
acceptance requires a simplified SUBSET of HTML/XHTML, not a SUPERSET
like ODF.

I shudder a the number of cycles needed to filter a mailing list if its
default format changes to ODF.

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot

Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite

[Chad Smith]

On 11/14/05, Nicolas Mailhot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> HTML is already TOO complex for mail. That's why it's rejected by so
> many people. Didn't you read what I wrote last day ? Rich mail
> acceptance requires a simplified SUBSET of HTML/XHTML, not a SUPERSET
> like ODF.
>
> I shudder a the number of cycles needed to filter a mailing list if its
> default format changes to ODF.



Nobody cares if you want to filter your email to exclude HTML. That's your
right, and no one is considering, suggesting, implying, or saying that we
should take that right away from you. No one is suggesting that we force you
to send email in any form other than the one you choose. And no one is
implying that we should switch the mailing lists over to HTML, ODF, XML, or
PDFs.

If you would read the subject line of this thread, you would see we are
talking about, not the mailing lists, or the website, of OpenOffice.org -
but the software itself. We are not talking about taking anything away. We
are not talking about forcing you to remove Mutt, Thunderbird, Evolution, or
anything from your computer. We are saying that an OpenOffice.org compatible
email client and PIM would be a good idea. If that takes the form of a
separate download, either from OOo, or from Mozilla, or some other third
party - or it that functionality is added to the core OOo suite, is entirely
up to debate. So is the idea of adding anything at all. But what is not
being discussed is violating your right to filter, receive, create, and/or
send your email anyway you see fit.

We are not asking whether or not you, personally, (or anyone on the list)
*LIKES* HTML email - *TRUSTS* HTML email - *USES* HTML email - or *HATES*
HTML email. That's pointless.

It is simply a suggestion to add something to OOo that users have been
begging for since it was taken out of StarOffice, many years ago. And that
is an Outlook like-program that intergrates with OOo, sends, receives, and
edits emails, handles contacts, schedules, and the like. Something that
looks and feels like its a part of OOo, and something that can share
features with OOo.

--
- Chad Smith
http://www.gimpshop.net/
Because everyone loves free software!

Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite

[Nicolas Mailhot]

Le lundi 14 novembre 2005 à 16:58 -0500, Chad Smith a écrit :
> On 11/14/05, Nicolas Mailhot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > HTML is already TOO complex for mail. That's why it's rejected by so
> > many people. Didn't you read what I wrote last day ? Rich mail
> > acceptance requires a simplified SUBSET of HTML/XHTML, not a SUPERSET
> > like ODF.
> >
> > I shudder a the number of cycles needed to filter a mailing list if its
> > default format changes to ODF.

> Nobody cares if you want to filter your email to exclude HTML. That's your
> right, and no one is considering, suggesting, implying, or saying that we
> should take that right away from you. No one is suggesting that we force you
> to send email in any form other than the one you choose. And no one is
> implying that we should switch the mailing lists over to HTML, ODF, XML, or
> PDFs.

That's not what I wrote. Blacklisting a file type is easy and fast.

What I wrote is if people want a rich mail format that is accepted by
mailing lists, mailing list filters (the stuff that runs on SERVERS)
need to be able to check message sanity in as little cycles as possible.

Which is about impossible with current HTML abuses, and would be even
worse with ODF. Though it would certainly be possible to specify a
message format better than plain text with good filtering properties
which could accomplish 99% of what normal people really use in HTML mail
today. 

There is a reason why "entreprise" mail clients only run on highly
protected networks you know - they don't have the feature/sanity balance
it would take to connect unprotected to the internet. And getting there
do mean dropping the features which cost too much to secure for too
little gain. Unless you advocate big-corps-only-OO.o

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot

Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite

[Wesley Parish]

Quoting Robin Laing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> Randomthots wrote:
> > mark wrote:
> > 
>  *
> > 
> > There's an aspect to all this that I believe a lot of people who hate
> 
> > html-mail, such as yourself, are missing. I believe that the
> "attachment 
> > to e-mail" paradigm actually serves to fortify the MS file format
> lock-in.
> > 
> > Consider that html is actually a fairly poor file format for complex 
> > layout; it's essentially all based on the abuse of tables. So when 
> > someone wants to transmit a complex document via e-mail the only
> viable 
> > choice is to attach a file -- generally a binary file. Even an ODF
> file 
> > is binary as it sits on your hard drive (try opening a zip file in a 
> > text editor sometime).
> > 
> > So if you're forced to attach a binary file to an e-mail, which type
> of 
> > file are you going to use? Probably the type that is most likely to be
> 
> > usable on the other end. Now this generally means either an MSO doc, 
> > xls, or ppt, or a pdf. We would like to make that ODF but it's going
> to 
> > be an uphill battle.
> > 
> > Now consider that ODF is a much richer format than HTML. And being 
> > similar to HTML, there is no technical reason (that I see, anyway)
> that 
> > the format couldn't be adapted to eventually replace HTML. This would
> 
> > include usage in e-mail. The main adaptations would be that the XML 
> > would have to remain uncompressed and then the individual files which
> 
> > make up the document (content.xml, manifest.xml, etc.) would comprise
> a 
> > sort of multi-part MIME message. The result would be that the complex
> 
> > document that previously had to be transmitted as an attachment could
> 
> > now actually BE the e-mail, the BODY of the e-mail.
> > 
> > When browsers and e-mail clients are developed that can render such a
> 
> > beast then the scales will tip toward ODF being the MOST CONVENIENT 
> > means of storing, handling, and transmitting documents. Binary formats
> 
> > will be considered a PITA to deal with, even by the technically 
> > illiterate. And since ODF is an ASCII format, it will be that much 
> > harder to distribute viruses that way.
> > 
> > Yeah, it's a long chain of if's, and it won't happen overnight if at 
> > all, but it's something to consider.

It's something I've started thinking about as well.

ODF is a markup format as well as a file format; it should be relatively easy to
write a format that mimics the traditional email format and is readable by any
clued-up mail clients.  One could even write a letter template that keyed
directly into such an email format.

Unfortunately we are dealing with a "competitor" that is likely to read this
email list and notice that some people have already worked out how to get a
"rich text" email client; and then patent the stolen stuff as if they were the
ones who came up with it.

Anyway, that's what I've been thinking.  Take it with a pinch of salt, the
bigger the better.

Wesley Parish
> > 
> 
> This is the best answer to the inclusion of email features within OOo. 
>  The usage of ODF as a standard base. How do we push this forward.
> 
> FWIW, I have my mail program configure to view as text and not load 
> images, to many 1x1 address confirmation images for my liking. It is 
> a pain with some messages but it is handy.
> 
> For formatted text, I prefer pdf attachments.
> 
> Robin
> 
> --- --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
>  



"Sharpened hands are happy hands.
"Brim the tinfall with mirthful bands" 
- A Deepness in the Sky, Vernor Vinge

"I me.  Shape middled me.  I would come out into hot!" 
I from the spicy that day was overcasked mockingly - it's a symbol of the 
other horizon. - emacs : meta x dissociated-press

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite

[Caleb Marcus]

Nicolas Mailhot wrote:

Randomthots wrote:



  
Now consider that ODF is a much richer format than HTML. And being 
similar to HTML, there is no technical reason (that I see, anyway) that 
the format couldn't be adapted to eventually replace HTML. 
  


HTML is already TOO complex for mail. That's why it's rejected by so
many people. Didn't you read what I wrote last day ? Rich mail
acceptance requires a simplified SUBSET of HTML/XHTML, not a SUPERSET
like ODF.

I shudder a the number of cycles needed to filter a mailing list if its
default format changes to ODF.

  
Why are we arguing about HTML mail in an OOo Discuss list? But while we 
are, I will just share what I think. An email is not meant to be a web 
page. The only formatting that should remain in HTML mail are font, 
size, text color (not background color) and images, which should by 
default be blocked in your client until something is clicked.

Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite

[Caleb Marcus]

Chad Smith wrote:

On 11/14/05, Nicolas Mailhot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

  

HTML is already TOO complex for mail. That's why it's rejected by so
many people. Didn't you read what I wrote last day ? Rich mail
acceptance requires a simplified SUBSET of HTML/XHTML, not a SUPERSET
like ODF.

I shudder a the number of cycles needed to filter a mailing list if its
default format changes to ODF.





Nobody cares if you want to filter your email to exclude HTML. That's your
right, and no one is considering, suggesting, implying, or saying that we
should take that right away from you. No one is suggesting that we force you
to send email in any form other than the one you choose. And no one is
implying that we should switch the mailing lists over to HTML, ODF, XML, or
PDFs.

If you would read the subject line of this thread, you would see we are
talking about, not the mailing lists, or the website, of OpenOffice.org -
but the software itself. We are not talking about taking anything away. We
are not talking about forcing you to remove Mutt, Thunderbird, Evolution, or
anything from your computer. We are saying that an OpenOffice.org compatible
email client and PIM would be a good idea. If that takes the form of a
separate download, either from OOo, or from Mozilla, or some other third
party - or it that functionality is added to the core OOo suite, is entirely
up to debate. So is the idea of adding anything at all. But what is not
being discussed is violating your right to filter, receive, create, and/or
send your email anyway you see fit.

We are not asking whether or not you, personally, (or anyone on the list)
*LIKES* HTML email - *TRUSTS* HTML email - *USES* HTML email - or *HATES*
HTML email. That's pointless.

It is simply a suggestion to add something to OOo that users have been
begging for since it was taken out of StarOffice, many years ago. And that
is an Outlook like-program that intergrates with OOo, sends, receives, and
edits emails, handles contacts, schedules, and the like. Something that
looks and feels like its a part of OOo, and something that can share
features with OOo.

--
- Chad Smith
http://www.gimpshop.net/
Because everyone loves free software!

  
Yes, why this discussion of HTML mail? I very much agree with Chad, this 
thread is about adding a mail client to OOo (which, for the record, I 
think is a bad idea), NOT integrating ODF into email or using HTML. 
Please go to social@ if you want to talk about HTML mail.

Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite

[Daniel Kasak]

Randomthots wrote:




People keep demanding that OOo developers drop everything and write 
an email client,



I haven't heard anyone *demanding* anything... except you that is. 
Demanding that we not even talk about the possibility.


We are talking about the possibility. The problem is that you don't like 
the answer that you're getting.


otherwise they won't switch, and not only that, they don't know 
anyone else who will switch either.



You're just making that part up.


No. Look at the post I responded to.


Jumping up and down and demanding



You again. The jumping up and down and demanding.


Whatever. I'm just pointing out why it's not going to happen.


*or* *else* will get you no-where fast.



Point to any post on this forum like that.


Selective blindness. Read over the thread again.


Why can't people get over themselves and use an existing application.



Without an email/pim component many will do just that. It's called 
MSO. Is that what you really want?


Um. I think you're just re-using the arguement that you were claiming 
hasn't been used.

Maybe forget about reading the thread. Read your own post.

Don't like Evolution? Fine. Test it. Submit bug reports. Hassle the 
developers to hurry up with their Windows port. Do you really think 
that you're going to get a better product in less time by insisting 
that OOo include every function under the sun?



Reductio ad absurdum. I have yet to hear a call for a Tetris 
component, music composition, or audio editing, for instance. Last I 
checked those *are" functions and they *are* under the sun.


Oh wow. The garbage some people post when they've had their buttons 
pushed :)



You're not. You're just making noise



What's that buzzing from down under?

See above comment. Maybe you should take a deep breath and walk around 
your bedroom a couple of times before posting again?


and demonstrating that you don't have a grasp on how to use open 
source software. Use the tools that are already available. If there 
is a problem / lack of features / whatever, then submit bugs / 
features requests against that existing product. Duplication is a 
waste of resources, 



Sourceforge.net lists 105,746 active projects. A good case could be 
made that open-source development is the most unfocused, 
undisciplined, and wasteful phenomenon in the history of software. 
Starting "yet another" project is practically a revered tradition, so 
*suggesting* that OOo should somehow integrate an email/calendar/pim, 
preferably by cooperating with the Mozilla project, is actually quite 
conservative.


You're changing your arguement in mid-flight. You start out by saying 
that OOo developers should write their own mail client because it's a 
'revered tradition', and immediately switch to saying that an existing 
email client be integrated. That's my arguement ... that we should focus 
on existing tools. Has logic finally sunk in?


and as we've already agreed, the functionality that you're after is 
non-trivial and will take a long time to complete. Better help out on 
that Windows port of Evolution.



How about we get a bunch of developers from other similar projects 
together for that? Sourceforge lists 80 projects just under the rubric 
of "To-Do Lists", 306 under "Office Suites", 149 under "Project 
Management", 901 under "Scheduling", and 89 under "Time Tracking". 
Granted that some projects are cross-listed and many others inhabit 
peripheral niches, that is still a h*** of a lot of duplication. 
What's that you were saying about understanding how open-source 
software works?


Now the arguement's completely come off the rails :) I'll let you have 
another attempt at whatever this point was supposed to be before 
commenting ...


--
Daniel Kasak
IT Developer
NUS Consulting Group
Level 5, 77 Pacific Highway
North Sydney, NSW, Australia 2060
T: (+61) 2 9922-7676 / F: (+61) 2 9922 7989
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
website: http://www.nusconsulting.com.au

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite

[Nicolas Mailhot]

Le lundi 14 novembre 2005 à 18:04 -0600, Randomthots a écrit :

> Finally, how may cycles does it take to scan a binary attachment for 
> viruses? And what are the consequences if the scan fails to reveal a 
> viral hitchhiker?

Scanning for viruses (virus signature check) is way easier than parsing
an ODF file to infer what's really displayed at the top of the mail (cf
all the spammer HTML tricks to make spam display at the top of the file
while stuffing it with nonsense that's hidden from he human reader)

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot

Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite

[Wesley Parish]

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 01:15, Lars D. Noodén wrote:
> I, too, tried to look at tradeclient again, but don't run any of the
> supported platforms anymore.  It may be time to dust it off and bring it
> up to date, many people have realized the mistake in getting caught in MS
> Outlook / Exchange / AD and are looking for a way back out.

Looks like it'll be a hard job sorting out some of the ancient dependencies.  
That's okay; I wasn't expecting things to be easy.
>
> -Lars
> Lars Nooden ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
>   Software patents kill innovation and harm all Net-based business.
>   Keep them out of the EU by writing your MEP, keep the market open.
>
> On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, Nicu Buculei wrote:
> [...]
>
> > I hope you noticed that client in *ancient*, last updated in March 2001
> > and the interface toolkit is the old GTK1, which will not have desktop
> > integration nor internationalization support.
> >
> > It look like Binary lost interest in this software, discontinued and then
> > opensourced it.

Judging from Tom Adelstein's comments, it was intended to be open source in 
the first place; nusuth - no matter.  It's under the GPL now, and that's the 
only thing that concerns me.

What procedures exist for incorporating the GPL source tree with an LGPL 
source tree?  Anyone got any ideas?

Thanks

Wesley Parish
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-- 
Clinersterton beademung, with all of love - RIP James Blish
-
Mau e ki, he aha te mea nui?
You ask, what is the most important thing?
Maku e ki, he tangata, he tangata, he tangata.
I reply, it is people, it is people, it is people.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite

[Wesley Parish]

In one of GK Chesterton's books - I think it was his biography - he recounts a 
politician addressing a crowd that had got noisy and boisterous and jeered 
him:
"Gentlemen, gentlemen, gentlemen!  I have not yet finished casting my pearls!"
[before swine, of course.  The crowd burst out laughing.]

Could you cool off, please!  Take it off-list, please, if you must argue.

Thanks

Wesley Parish

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 20:23, Randomthots wrote:
> Daniel Kasak wrote:
> > We are talking about the possibility. The problem is that you don't like
> > the answer that you're getting.
>
> I haven't liked your answer, not so much because of the substance, but
> because of your condescending attitude.
>
> > No. Look at the post I responded to.
>
> The main part of that post:
> "I also work for an organization that is unwilling to move away from
> Microsoft Office because they feel that they need the calendaring and
> meeting arrangement facilities of Outlook, on Windows. Many of them
> frequently work offline, so web-based solutions are not applicable. I'm
> pinning my hopes on Evolution for Windows, but the project seems to be
> moving very slowly (understandably, as it is a complex project with many
> libraries to port).
>
> I think that people that argue that there is no reason to develop a mail
> client as part of OpenOffice because there are other mail client
> applications available are misguided for two reasons:"
>
> So where do you get: "... otherwise they won't switch, and not only
> that, they don't know anyone else who will switch either."
>
> from that?
>
> My take on it is that a lot of organizations could and would be
> persuaded to switch but they have certain organizational needs that
> can't be simply wished away.
>
> > Whatever. I'm just pointing out why it's not going to happen.
>
> I wasn't aware that you were a Sun executive in charge of this whole
> project.
>
> >>> *or* *else* will get you no-where fast.
> >>
> >> Point to any post on this forum like that.
> >
> > Selective blindness. Read over the thread again.
>
> I have. You're implying a tone to the posts in this thread that just
> doesn't exist. If I'm wrong, please provide quotes.
>
> >>> Why can't people get over themselves and use an existing application.
> >>
> >> Without an email/pim component many will do just that. It's called
> >> MSO. Is that what you really want?
> >
> > Um. I think you're just re-using the arguement that you were claiming
> > hasn't been used.
> > Maybe forget about reading the thread. Read your own post.
>
> A. I get it now. You have a problem with people pointing out the
> reality of things as opposed to the way you only wished they were. You
> want "people [to] get over themselves and use an existing application."
> I thought the idea was to convince/persuade/entice people to use a
> different application -- OOo vs. MSO.
>
> Well, the *reality* is that the lack of a suitable drop-in replacement
> for Outlook *is* a significant stumbling block. As much as I love the
> folks at the Mozilla foundation, T-bird+Sunbird isn't there yet. And I
> compared a completely up-to-date version of Evolution on the other side
> of this dual-boot box with a five-year old copy of Outlook. Closer, but
> there's a lot of functionality missing there as well.
>
> This isn't just theorizing; I am friends with a woman who runs a
> business designing and maintaining small e-commerce websites from her
> home. Most of her client interaction is via the Internet. She uses
> Outlook practically like an operating system. In one place she can
> organize everything about a client -- e-mails, documents, outstanding
> tasks, etc. She doesn't even have to open a browser to view their sites
> because she can do that in the same message pane she uses to look at
> their emails. The only other programs she uses regularly are Photoshop
> and a WYSIWYG web page editor.
>
> >>> Don't like Evolution? Fine. Test it. Submit bug reports. Hassle the
> >>> developers to hurry up with their Windows port. Do you really think
> >>> that you're going to get a better product in less time by insisting
> >>> that OOo include every function under the sun?
> >>
> >> Reductio ad absurdum. I have yet to hear a call for a Tetris
> >> component, music composition, or audio editing, for instance. Last I
> >> checked those *are" functions and they *are* under the sun.
> >
> > Oh wow. The garbage some people post when they've had their buttons
> > pushed :)
>
> And I note your response was the height of elocution. The fact is that
> nobody is "insisting that OOo include every function under the sun".
> We're talking about one specific thing here -- an answer to Outlook. By
> characterizing that as "every function under the sun", you're avoiding
> the real debate by arguing against something that hasn't ever been
> proposed, at least not in this thread, and not by me.
>
> >> Sourceforge.net lists 105,746 active projects. A good case could be
> >> made that open-source develop

Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite

[Mathias Bauer]

Jonathon Blake wrote:
> Rod wrote:
> 
>> Without an email/pim component many will do just that. It's called MSO.
>> Is that what you really want?
> 
> Just what functionality does MSO + Outlook offer, that can not be
> replicated by using OOo + FireFox + ThunderBird + SunBird + the
> appropriate templates?

Of course *theoretically* you can do everything with this combination
*plus* a server component that comes close to MS Exchange. But in fact
most of the things can't be done *now*, so somebody needs to make it
work. Especially SunBird is far from coming even close to the Outlook
calendar, especially in the support for a professional calendar server.
So it's even too early to discuss what exactly is missing, it's quite a lot.

And moreover, even if every single piece of the package had all the
necessary capabilities, you would need to create a solution based on
them, not just to provide the components as a toolset.

Please don't misunderstand me: IMHO the OOo/TBird/SunBird etc. combo
makes sense and would be a good choice (if not the best) to start the
development of a possible alternative to Outlook, but it's far away from
being it *now*.

Best regards,
Mathias

-- 
Mathias Bauer - OpenOffice.org Application Framework Project Lead
Please reply to the list only, [EMAIL PROTECTED] is a spam sink.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite

[Steve Kopischke]

I think it is high time to close this thread. There is significantly 
more childish taunting than real content at this point.


SJK

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite

[Shawn K. Quinn]

On Thu, 2005-11-10 at 22:31 -0500, mark wrote:
> Then, of course, there's the LARGE number of us who DESPISE HTML mail 
> (aka virus-spreader email), and who REALLY DO NOT WANT to HAVE to open
> a goddamned dog-slow word processor to read our email. (We won't even 
> *begin* to talk about idiots who send out .pdf email)

Viruses in e-mail are a problem specific to Windows. In fact, I don't
know why they aren't simply called Windows viruses, as that is the only
operating system left for which viruses are seen in the wild on a
regular basis.

But you're right, usually HTML mail is just plain unnecessary.

-- 
Shawn K. Quinn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite

[Robin Laing]

Shawn K. Quinn wrote:

On Thu, 2005-11-10 at 22:31 -0500, mark wrote:

Then, of course, there's the LARGE number of us who DESPISE HTML mail 
(aka virus-spreader email), and who REALLY DO NOT WANT to HAVE to open
a goddamned dog-slow word processor to read our email. (We won't even 
*begin* to talk about idiots who send out .pdf email)



Viruses in e-mail are a problem specific to Windows. In fact, I don't
know why they aren't simply called Windows viruses, as that is the only
operating system left for which viruses are seen in the wild on a
regular basis.

But you're right, usually HTML mail is just plain unnecessary.

Actually, if you have a mail browser that isn't capable or configure 
to view html, you will see the message repeated.  Once in plain text 
and once in html.



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite

[mark]

Robin Laing wrote:

Shawn K. Quinn wrote:

On Thu, 2005-11-10 at 22:31 -0500, mark wrote:

Then, of course, there's the LARGE number of us who DESPISE HTML mail 
(aka virus-spreader email), and who REALLY DO NOT WANT to HAVE to open
a goddamned dog-slow word processor to read our email. (We won't even 
*begin* to talk about idiots who send out .pdf email)


Viruses in e-mail are a problem specific to Windows. In fact, I don't


No, they're not. It's only that 90% or higher of all viruses are 
targeted towards Windows, for 2 reasons: first, that Windows is what 86% 
or so of all computers are running, and second, because M$ products have 
*SO* many bugs (aka virus hooks) and are installed by default insecurely.



But you're right, usually HTML mail is just plain unnecessary.

Actually, if you have a mail browser that isn't capable or configure to 
view html, you will see the message repeated.  Once in plain text and 
once in html.


*sigh*

That's as bad as the insulting email "get an HTML-capable email viewer" 
on a spam. Unless you're running pine or mutt, etc, from a command line, 
I don't know of a single email tool that *doesn't* support HTML email. 
Rather, we set the option to DENY HTML email.


Further, most of the damn spam does *not* show the same. In plain text, 
for example, you see a bunch of garbage - random words or paragraphs, 
etc, while in HTML you see the actual ad.


mark
--
The sixties grant amnesty to no one." - Tullio Proni

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite

[Chad Smith]

On 11/17/05, Randomthots <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> I thought this thread was played out (and OT) so I was going to just
> ignore it, but there is one thing to consider:
>
> Q: Why is spam usually in html format?
>
> A: Because spam is advertising, a sales pitch. It has a hideously low
> response rate, even for the small fraction that isn't filtered. The
> people who design these advertisements know that they have maybe a
> second or less to grab your attention, so they need to use the *most*
> *effective* means of communication available.


Absolutely! +1

That's why websites aren't just plain text. Because pictures, links,
formated text, alignment... All these things aid communication. Otherwise,
we should strip Writer and just add a text editor to OpenOffice.org.

The fact is that html-mail isn't going to disappear because you don't
> like it, and even if it *was* somehow banished, that wouldn't make spam
> go away. If anything, they would just have to crank out more of it to
> make up for the lower hit ratio. If you want to rid the world of spam,
> then I would suggest you get behind proposals that would change the
> economics of the situation.



I get plain-text spam all the time, and my email client is set up to accept
HTML email, so it's not some sort of "regression". not all spam is HTML, and
not all HTML email is spam. I get stuff like newsletters and op-in ads from
people all the time that are in HTML format. But, again, this whole "I hate
HTML email" thing is OT.


In any case, this is all totally irrelevant to the question (which *is*
> on topic at least) of using Writer to edit emails or the question of
> including an email/calendar/pim client in a future incarnation of OOo.
> The spammers are doing just fine without it AFAICT, and I strongly
> suspect they have their own specialized tools for what they do.


Having an HTML enabled email client as a part of, or that works seemlessly
with, OpenOffice.org will not add to the SPAM population, nor will it take
away from it. I will, however, aid users who have been asking for such a
tool for years.

This isn't about what's "necessary". Apart from food, clothing, and
> shelter, there is very little in our modern world that is absolutely
> necessary. This is about satisfying desires, and a whole lot of people
> (not you, of course) see richly formatted email as a Good Thing(tm).
>

+1 and Amen.


--
- Chad Smith
http://www.gimpshop.net/
Because everyone loves free software!

Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite

[Nicolas Mailhot]

Le jeudi 17 novembre 2005 à 11:51 -0600, Randomthots a écrit :

> Q: Why is spam usually in html format?

A1. Because advertisers like flashy colours. With flashy effects you
don't have to bother about meaningful messages and correct grammar. 

A2. Because if spammers understood tech or ethics they wouldn't be
spamming in the first place.

A3. Because one can use 1×1 pixel images embedded in the html to detect
which message is actually read, and thus validate address lists

A4. Because in HTML you can cloak links and display adresses different
from the ones you're actually linking to

A5. Because the HTML format is so convoluted you have many ways to hide
your spam content from spam filters, which can not integrate a full HTML
engine to detect what the user will actually see displayed. So it's a
filtering pass-through

A6. because spammers don't care about standards or conventions, and
abuse them routinely

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot

Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite

[Nicolas Mailhot]

Le jeudi 17 novembre 2005 à 14:11 -0500, Chad Smith a écrit :

> That's why websites aren't just plain text. Because pictures, links,
> formated text, alignment... All these things aid communication.

Remind me to make you discover Google someday. It's a little-known site
crippled by lack of communication aids. Should take a lesson from
altavista. 

Or you could spend some of your time reading professional typography
guides (even going inside a real library !). 99,99% of HTML capabilities
are filed under "amateurish schoolboy effects which hinder
communication" there.

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot

Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite

[Chad Smith]

On 11/17/05, Nicolas Mailhot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Remind me to make you discover Google someday. It's a little-known site
> crippled by lack of communication aids. Should take a lesson from
> altavista.


Um.. when I went to Google.com  - there was a huge
*GRAPHIC* across the top of the page. And then a place that I could interact
with, and a couple of buttons. Some of the stuff on the top was
right-aligned, but most of it was centered. There were some spaced out
links, (I couldn't see the url where they sent me, so I guess that would be
called "masking a link" right?) All writen, I assume, in HTML.

Then I wanted to check, so I viewed the source, and, lo and behold, there
was a bunch of HTML.

Google




[EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.google.com/ig%3Fhl%3Den";
onmousedown="return
rwt(this,'pro','hppphou:def','&sig2=QVuU5BLXYuJ1s6iqX-V6vA')">Personalized
Home | http://www.google.com/searchhistory/?hl=en";>Search
History | https://www.google.com/accounts/ManageAccount";>My
Account | http://www.google.com/accounts/Logout?continue=http://www.google.com/";>Sign
out

WebImageshttp://groups.google.com/grphp?hl=en&tab=wg"; onClick="return
qs(this);">Groupshttp://news.google.com/nwshp?hl=en&tab=wn"; onClick="return
qs(this);">Newshttp://froogle.google.com/frghp?hl=en&tab=wf"; onClick="return
qs(this);">FroogleLocalNew!more »   Advanced
Search  Preferences  Language
ToolsAdvertising Programs - Business Solutions - About Google©2005 Google



Or you could spend some of your time reading professional typography
> guides (even going inside a real library !). 99,99% of HTML capabilities
> are filed under "amateurish schoolboy effects which hinder
> communication" there.
>

Not when done properly.

"A picture is worth a thousand words" (that was penned before the Internet,
back when people used libraries).

When books were hand written over 500 years ago, someone still thought
graphics were important to communication, and thus woodcarvings were used to
create illuminated manuscripts.

Cavemen would draw, not write, on the walls. Communication has always
involved both words and images. That's why more time is spent with TVs than
radios. It's as anceint as humanity itself, and as up-to-the-second as
AFLAX.

When Shakespeare wrote his plays, we hired people to dress up, in costumes,
to act out his plays, on sets, with props, in order to communicate with
people. He didn't just make copies of his script and hand them out. he could
have. But maybe he was an amateurish schoolboy who had to use special
effects to communicate, but that hinders communication, right?

Oh, and Google - isn't that the company that owns -
hello.com,
blogger.com , blogspot.com ,
picasa, Google Maps, and a bunch of other non-text based stuff? Hello and
Picasa are all about pictures. Google map uses actual satelitte images
overlaid on the map to help people know where they are going. Blogger and
blogspot host tons of webpages complete with images, colors, font effects,
etc. - all to help people communicate.

Sure, some people MIS-use these tools, and cause more confusion than good -
but used well, it can be a huge help. People can misuse plain text too, and
look or sound stupid and amateurish. I've been accused of that a lot. And I
didn't need HTML to do it.

HTML is a tool. Just like anything else.

--
- Chad Smith
http://www.gimpshop.net/
Because everyone loves free software!

Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite

[Lars D . Noodén]

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:

Viruses in e-mail are a problem specific to Windows. In fact, I don't
know why they aren't simply called Windows viruses, as that is the only
operating system left for which viruses are seen in the wild on a
regular basis.


Perhaps because people have figured out that it goes without saying that 
it is a MS problem.  Or, MS having killed off most of the computing 
industry and thus most of the advertising, has become such an essential 
advertising account that editors fear to annoy them.


A virus is only harmless data, unless your system and mail client is 
designed to run it on sight.  Same goes for other applications.


If OOo could run MS macros, then it would be a problem for OOo too.
Depending on how the macros are implemented in OOo it may become a problem 
anyway.


-Lars
Lars Nooden ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Software patents endanger the legal certainty of software.
Keep them out of the EU by writing your MEP, keep the market open.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite

[Robbie Graham]

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 10:51:25 -0600
"Shawn K. Quinn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Thu, 2005-11-10 at 22:31 -0500, mark wrote:
> > Then, of course, there's the LARGE number of us who DESPISE HTML
> > mail (aka virus-spreader email), and who REALLY DO NOT WANT to HAVE
> > to open a goddamned dog-slow word processor to read our email. (We
> > won't even *begin* to talk about idiots who send out .pdf email)
> 
> Viruses in e-mail are a problem specific to Windows. In fact, I don't
> know why they aren't simply called Windows viruses, as that is the
> only operating system left for which viruses are seen in the wild on a
> regular basis.
> 

Viruses and span could be slowed down or done away with if everyone
learn what Digital Signing is all about such as gnu-pg or pgp is and
sign all there email. If banks and other Company's started Digital
Signing there email's we could tell who emails are coming from and could
filter and delete them. Email and Digital Signing into as part of an
Office Suite would make a more complete office suite which is good for
all.


> But you're right, usually HTML mail is just plain unnecessary.
> 

Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite

[Nicolas Mailhot]

Le jeudi 17 novembre 2005 à 23:55 -0600, Randomthots a écrit :
> Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> 
> > Le jeudi 17 novembre 2005 à 11:51 -0600, Randomthots a écrit :
> > 
> > 
> >>Q: Why is spam usually in html format?
> > 
> > 
> > A1. Because advertisers like flashy colours. 
> 
> Because it's effective.

If you call carpet-bombing effective, it is. Retail paper flyers are the
true spam ancestors.

> > With flashy effects you
> > don't have to bother about meaningful messages and correct grammar. 
> 
> Obviously you've never worked in retail sales.

Retail salesmen are also very good at inventing stuff which never was in
any grammar book. But spammers are worse.

> > A3. Because one can use 1×1 pixel images embedded in the html to detect
> > which message is actually read, and thus validate address lists
> 
> See? They understand tech.

They understand tech as much as script-kiddies, ie they're very good at
parroting general recipes without having any real understanding.

This particular exploit (web bugs) has escaped most of them so far.
 
> > A4. Because in HTML you can cloak links and display adresses different
> > from the ones you're actually linking to
> > 
> > A5. Because the HTML format is so convoluted you have many ways to hide
> > your spam content from spam filters, which can not integrate a full HTML
> > engine to detect what the user will actually see displayed. So it's a
> > filtering pass-through
> 
> Which squarely implicates the W3C as co-conspirators. After all, they 
> wrote the standard.

The part that seem to escape you is the W3C didn't wrote a message
format standard. They're no more responsible for the mess than car
makers when someone blames them for making very poor boats.

> > A6. because spammers don't care about standards or conventions, and
> > abuse them routinely

> Precisely which standard or convention are they abusing by the use of 
> html-mail?

The mail conventions that mandate using formats people can decode easily
(ie without a full-blown HTML engine knowing all ie/outlook quirks)

>  Politeness?
> 
> Look. Spam is *not* a technological problem and treating it as such only 
> creates an escalating cold war. Spam is an *economic* problem, and the 
> cause can be summed up in two words: free email. It's the tragedy of the 
> commons updated to the 21st century.

Sure, and windows has no security problems and the answer to virii is
Bill Gates offering bounties for virus writers.

> The solution is a "fee-bate" system. Each email message should require a 
> micro-payment of, say, $0.25 -- basically postage. 

This fails in the same trap as SPF : as long as you got zombie networks
the spammers won't care. They're not the ones charged. (but this could
be solved by getting rid of windows). Plus the cost of printing paper
flyers has not stopped businesses from stuffing my mailbox with them so
far.

The solution is generalised digital signatures with mandatory passwords
so one can not sent a message from a computer without typing a password
at the start of its session.

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot

Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite

[Henrik Sundberg]

How about the anti spam Haiku?
http://www.oblomovka.com/writing/habeas:_the_antispam_haiku.php3
/$

2005/11/20, Randomthots <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>
>
> >
> > If you call carpet-bombing effective, it is. Retail paper flyers are the
> > true spam ancestors.
> >
>
> It's cost effective is what I mean. But, you don't have to believe me.
>  From the April 2005 issue of Scientific American --
> http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000F3A4B-BF70-1238-BF7083414B7FFE9F&sc=I100322
>
> "The proliferation of fraudulent e-mail results directly from favorable
> market forces: spam is exceedingly cheap to distribute. It is not
> altogether free, though. We estimate that a message costs about one
> hundredth of a cent to send. At these cut-rate prices a spammer can earn
> only $11 per sale and still make a profit, even if the response rate is
> as low as one in 100,000. Hence, although very few e-mail users ever buy
> anything advertised in spam, all of us suffer because of those who do."
>
> >
> >>
> >>Look. Spam is *not* a technological problem and treating it as such only
> >>creates an escalating cold war. Spam is an *economic* problem, and the
> >>cause can be summed up in two words: free email. It's the tragedy of the
> >>commons updated to the 21st century.
> >
> >
> > Sure, and windows has no security problems and the answer to virii is
> > Bill Gates offering bounties for virus writers.
>
> What I mean is that spam is not *particularly* a technological problem.
> See above. Also, from the same article:
>
> "One of the most infuriating aspects of spam is that it changes
> continually to adapt to new attempts to stop it. Each time software
> engineers attack spam in some way, spammers find a way around their
> methods. This spam arms race has led to a continuous coevolution of the
> two, which has resulted in ever increasing sophistication on both sides."
>
> This is analogous to the War on Drugs -- a medical and public health
> crisis that has been co-opted by politicians and turned into a
> law-enforcement issue. The result has been the same in both cases. Failure.
>
> >
> >
> >>The solution is a "fee-bate" system. Each email message should require a
> >>micro-payment of, say, $0.25 -- basically postage.
> >
> >
> > This fails in the same trap as SPF : as long as you got zombie networks
> > the spammers won't care. They're not the ones charged. (but this could
> > be solved by getting rid of windows).
>
> In the first place, that isn't going to happen anytime soon (getting rid
> of windows). Zombie networks are created by viruses. Viruses are *not*
> transmitted via html. They walk right in the front door via mail
> attachments (among other vectors, but that's the primary one). It's like
> carrying in botulism with the groceries.
>
> If *more* people used clear-text formats to transmit complexly formatted
> documents and sent *fewer* attachments, there would be fewer viruses out
> there. My original thesis was that flat xml (odf) could be more safely
> used for that purpose.
>
> Also, if people *were* charged as a result of letting their boxes become
> spam zombies (it *can* be avoided, even on Windows boxes) then maybe
> more folks would take security more seriously.
>
>
> > Plus the cost of printing paper
> > flyers has not stopped businesses from stuffing my mailbox with them so
> > far.
> >
>
> But it's more tightly targeted -- either by geography or demography. You
> don't get flyers for grocery stores in far-flung cities, do you? When we
> recently moved, we got ads and flyers for products and services relevant
> to those who have recently moved. Same thing happened when we had a baby
> eighteen months ago.
>
>
> > The solution is generalised digital signatures with mandatory passwords
> > so one can not sent a message from a computer without typing a password
> > at the start of its session.
>
> How *precisely* would you enforce how software is going to operate on
> *my* computer? Especially if it's open-source?
>
> Charging a postage fee of some sort, whether my fee-bate system or
> something else, has the side effect of mandating exactly the
> authentication mechanisms you desire while simultaneously making spam
> much less profitable.
>
> --
>
> Rod
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite

[Chad Smith]

On 11/20/05, Randomthots <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> Charging a postage fee of some sort, whether my fee-bate system or
> something else, has the side effect of mandating exactly the
> authentication mechanisms you desire while simultaneously making spam
> much less profitable.



Rod,

I agree with you more often than I do with most people on this list, but I'd
have to say I don't on this one.

I don't like this idea, if for no other reason, I don't want to pay for
email. I'm already paying $50 a month for high-speed Internet, there's no
way I'm spending 25 cents an email.

Spammers are, by definition, not prone to play nice with the system. Case in
point, I don't like spam, I put up a filter for key words like viagra,
enhancement, porn, etc. So what do the spammers do, they space out the
words, or misspell them - pron, \/iagr@ EN HAN CE MENT. Spammers would get
around the system, and the only people actually paying the "Spam-tax" would
be the law abiding citizens of the net. This is an altogether bad idea.

I don't know of a way to stop SPAM, but charging everyone for email is
definately not it.

--
- Chad Smith
http://www.gimpshop.net/
Because everyone loves free software!

Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite

[Nicolas Mailhot]

Le lundi 21 novembre 2005 à 00:04 +0100, Henrik Sundberg a écrit :
> How about the anti spam Haiku?
> http://www.oblomovka.com/writing/habeas:_the_antispam_haiku.php3

Like SPF it is very popular with spammers.

Micropayements rely on spammers accepting to pay and not subverting
someone else's account.

The Haikus rely on spammers being willing to respect someone else's
copyright

Their only failure is to postulate spammers are law-abiding (slightly
confused) businessmen, while they are uber-capitalist scum which care
about little expect making some quick money (another recent example of
the "right" to make a profit at all costs is being demonstrated by Sony
these days)

And yes I'm a crypto communist and I keep my mouth-knife on hand. 

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot

Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite

[mark]

Chad Smith wrote:

On 11/20/05, Randomthots <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Charging a postage fee of some sort, whether my fee-bate system or
something else, has the side effect of mandating exactly the
authentication mechanisms you desire while simultaneously making spam
much less profitable.

>

I don't like this idea, if for no other reason, I don't want to pay for
email. I'm already paying $50 a month for high-speed Internet, there's no
way I'm spending 25 cents an email.


Heh, heh. And the answer to this threat is simple: my ISP wants to 
charge me $.25/email? Fine, but then they have to take *off* charges for 
spam. Now, given my, um, 75? 150? spams/day, I'd be sending them the 
spams to prove that they were spam, and unsolicited nor wanted I 
can*not* see them dealing with that. 


mark
--
"This GOP has the moral certitude of Errol Flynn at a convention of 
underage bargirls in Bangkok." - seen on truthout.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite

[Daniel Carrera]

Randomthots wrote:

Would you be willing to spend 
$0.01 per email? My idea behind the fee-bate was two-fold: make spam a 
lot more expensive to send out and reimburse recipients and ISPs for the 


A simpler way to achieve the same result without actually spending money 
(in any way you'd recognize as such) is Hashcash:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashcash

The idea is beautifully simple. Require the sender to solve a simple 
math problem, that takes about 1 second of CPU time. For a regular 
emailer this is a very minor inconvenience, but for a spammer it is 
magnitudes more expensive.


Cheers,
Daniel.
--
 /\/`) http://oooauthors.org
/\/_/  http://opendocumentfellowship.org
   /\/_/  No trees were harmed in the creation of this email.
   \/_/   However, a significant number of electrons were
   /  were severely inconvenienced.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite

[Robert Derman]

This discussion thread has digressed to the point where it no longer has 
anything to do with the original subject!  Let's either end it or rename it.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite

[Mel Haun Sr]

Let me point out again this would be a BAD idea for clubs, contact grpoups 
( such as this ), and many people who do mass emails to willing folks eager 
to hear about the news, or tech, or meeting.


Mel.
- Original Message - 
From: "Randomthots" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2005 8:41 PM
Subject: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite



Daniel Carrera wrote:


Randomthots wrote:

Would you be willing to spend $0.01 per email? My idea behind the 
fee-bate was two-fold: make spam a lot more expensive to send out and 
reimburse recipients and ISPs for the



A simpler way to achieve the same result without actually spending money 
(in any way you'd recognize as such) is Hashcash:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashcash

The idea is beautifully simple. Require the sender to solve a simple math 
problem, that takes about 1 second of CPU time. For a regular emailer 
this is a very minor inconvenience, but for a spammer it is magnitudes 
more expensive.


Cheers,
Daniel.



That idea was in the article! I like that, too, but it would need to be a 
standardized IETF thing so that email clients could automatically do it.


--

Rod


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]






-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite/ Robbie Graham

[mark]

PLEASE turn *off* your "request confirmation" in your email tool!

mark "unless you *really* *want* 500 confirmations/day"
--
Q: What is the ultimate fate of the Univese?
A: We are *so* screwed.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[discuss] Re: RE:[discuss] Re: a more complete office suite

[Mel Haun Sr]

The only problem I see that makes this a bad move are the Thousands of 
legitimate clubs and e-mail groups. This would hurt tham as much or more 
than the spammaers.  With little or no real gain. We would lose a wondeful 
aspect of the Net by the thousands ( like this present list ), to get rid of 
a nuisance.


Bad move all around

Mel
- Original Message - 
From: "Daniel Carrera" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2005 6:17 PM
Subject: Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite



Randomthots wrote:

Would you be willing to spend $0.01 per email? My idea behind the 
fee-bate was two-fold: make spam a lot more expensive to send out and 
reimburse recipients and ISPs for the


A simpler way to achieve the same result without actually spending money 
(in any way you'd recognize as such) is Hashcash:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashcash

The idea is beautifully simple. Require the sender to solve a simple math 
problem, that takes about 1 second of CPU time. For a regular emailer this 
is a very minor inconvenience, but for a spammer it is magnitudes more 
expensive.


Cheers,
Daniel.
--
 /\/`) http://oooauthors.org
/\/_/  http://opendocumentfellowship.org
   /\/_/  No trees were harmed in the creation of this email.
   \/_/   However, a significant number of electrons were
   /  were severely inconvenienced.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]






-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [discuss] Re: RE:[discuss] Re: a more complete office suite

[Daniel Carrera]

Mel Haun Sr wrote:
The only problem I see that makes this a bad move are the Thousands of 
legitimate clubs and e-mail groups. This would hurt tham as much or more 
than the spammaers.  With little or no real gain. We would lose a 
wondeful aspect of the Net by the thousands ( like this present list ), 
to get rid of a nuisance.


Bad move all around


I disagree. Legitimate mailing lists could find other ways to not get 
filtered out. For example, users could just set their filters to not 
require hashes from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Using Hashcash doesn't mean 
that you'd stop using other anti-spam tools like whitelists, blacklists, 
SpamAssassin, etc.


Hashcash would be a great move. It'd be a powerful new tool for stopping 
spam. And when properly combined with the other tools we have today, it 
would have minimal drawbacks.


Cheers,
Daniel.
--
 /\/`) http://oooauthors.org
/\/_/  http://opendocumentfellowship.org
   /\/_/  No trees were harmed in the creation of this email.
   \/_/   However, a significant number of electrons were
   /  were severely inconvenienced.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]