Re: [gentoo-user][ot] mail links as footnotes
On Wednesday 03 December 2008 14:04:41 Dale wrote: > Since I am on dial-up, I hate the ones that have HUGE video clips > attached. I have had to sign in via webmail and just delete the email > without ever even seeing it. Don't you love it? Maybe I shouldn't > mention that since it may give someone ideas. LOL Revenge is sweet isn't it? I'm sitting here logged in as root to one of the biggest mail relays in my country, and I'm thinking "mail bomb who do I know that deserves one of these?" Maybe I should shut up before I give myself ideas. :-) -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
Re: [gentoo-user][ot] mail links as footnotes
Alan McKinnon wrote: > On Wednesday 03 December 2008 13:10:26 Dale wrote: > >> Mine should be text. I have Seamonkey set to send text only to anything >> gentoo.org or kde.org. >> >> I can't check myself since gmail doesn't send me a copy back. Is gmail >> overriding my local setting? Tell me it ain't so? >> > > No, your mail is just fine - good old plain text. When I said "your mail" I > meant in the larger context, like "if only the idiots at work would use HTML > mail sanely, like how Dale says he uses it when away from the list" > > I routinely get HTML mail from the idiots who man our support desk, which > contain: > > a. one word of information - "Thanks" > b. 100k of the entire conversation up to that point, every single disclaimer > from every single mail in the thread intact, 3 jpgs with the company logo and > slogan, plus assorted stupid motivational platitudes from whatever church the > sender happens to attend. > > One day I'm going to make good on my usual threat, and actually really make > their mailbox go away :-) > > Whew, I thought I was going to have to switch email addys again. I was not looking forward to having to pay Yahoo for theirs. I'm certainly not wanting to since I got a hospital bill to pay on now. Oh well, I'm living if that counts for anything. ;-) Since I am on dial-up, I hate the ones that have HUGE video clips attached. I have had to sign in via webmail and just delete the email without ever even seeing it. Don't you love it? Maybe I shouldn't mention that since it may give someone ideas. LOL Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user][ot] mail links as footnotes
On Wednesday 03 December 2008 13:10:26 Dale wrote: > Alan McKinnon wrote: > > On Wednesday 03 December 2008 12:51:19 Dale wrote: > >>> As for the guy who suggested a form of "sanitized HTML for email", > >>> maybe you would like > >>> "enriched text" > >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriched_text > >> > >> Someone who put it better than I could. I use HTML elsewhere but out of > >> respect for the list and those who use it, I use text only, try not to > >> send anything huge and put links in a way that should work for > >> everybody. Maybe I am just a pushover? It's not like I own the list or > >> anything either. :/ > > > > Now if everyone would use HTML mail like you do, there wouldn't be any > > problems with it :-) > > > > My personal bug-bear with HTML mail is the use of MS Comic Sans... > > Mine should be text. I have Seamonkey set to send text only to anything > gentoo.org or kde.org. > > I can't check myself since gmail doesn't send me a copy back. Is gmail > overriding my local setting? Tell me it ain't so? No, your mail is just fine - good old plain text. When I said "your mail" I meant in the larger context, like "if only the idiots at work would use HTML mail sanely, like how Dale says he uses it when away from the list" I routinely get HTML mail from the idiots who man our support desk, which contain: a. one word of information - "Thanks" b. 100k of the entire conversation up to that point, every single disclaimer from every single mail in the thread intact, 3 jpgs with the company logo and slogan, plus assorted stupid motivational platitudes from whatever church the sender happens to attend. One day I'm going to make good on my usual threat, and actually really make their mailbox go away :-) -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
Re: [gentoo-user][ot] mail links as footnotes
Alan McKinnon wrote: > On Wednesday 03 December 2008 12:51:19 Dale wrote: > >>> As for the guy who suggested a form of "sanitized HTML for email", >>> maybe you would like >>> "enriched text" >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriched_text >>> >>> >>> >> Someone who put it better than I could. I use HTML elsewhere but out of >> respect for the list and those who use it, I use text only, try not to >> send anything huge and put links in a way that should work for >> everybody. Maybe I am just a pushover? It's not like I own the list or >> anything either. :/ >> > > Now if everyone would use HTML mail like you do, there wouldn't be any > problems with it :-) > > My personal bug-bear with HTML mail is the use of MS Comic Sans... > > Mine should be text. I have Seamonkey set to send text only to anything gentoo.org or kde.org. I can't check myself since gmail doesn't send me a copy back. Is gmail overriding my local setting? Tell me it ain't so? Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user][ot] mail links as footnotes
On Wednesday 03 December 2008 12:51:19 Dale wrote: > > As for the guy who suggested a form of "sanitized HTML for email", > > maybe you would like > > "enriched text" > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriched_text > > > > > > Someone who put it better than I could. I use HTML elsewhere but out of > respect for the list and those who use it, I use text only, try not to > send anything huge and put links in a way that should work for > everybody. Maybe I am just a pushover? It's not like I own the list or > anything either. :/ Now if everyone would use HTML mail like you do, there wouldn't be any problems with it :-) My personal bug-bear with HTML mail is the use of MS Comic Sans... -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
Re: [gentoo-user][ot] mail links as footnotes
Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto wrote: > In general, html email is mostly a "solution" in search of a problem, > and it ends up causing trouble and being overall worse than the > simple, efficient, easy, working, universally adopted technology that > preceded it. Besides all the problems already listed in this > discussion, html email facilitates malware, web bugs, phishing, spam, > and incompatibility (besides the people who use HTML-incapable email > clients, there are email clients that don't render HTML email well (it > is more common then you think), not to mention that the HTML email > itself is often broken). > > And of the HTML emails, a tiny minority actually make something useful > of HTML, while the rest is either deliberately harmful or has a lot of > "fancy" formating that looks it was created by a teenager. Besides > looking horrible, they are often harder to read. > > As for the guy who suggested a form of "sanitized HTML for email", > maybe you would like > "enriched text" > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriched_text > > Someone who put it better than I could. I use HTML elsewhere but out of respect for the list and those who use it, I use text only, try not to send anything huge and put links in a way that should work for everybody. Maybe I am just a pushover? It's not like I own the list or anything either. :/ Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user][ot] mail links as footnotes
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 8:02 AM, Dale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Stroller wrote: >> >> I've been wondering for a while why no alternative has been proposed. >> HTML was originally considered poor because it wasted bandwidth, HTML >> messages being *at least* twice the size of the plain text, but often >> several times as large. I wonder if console-based mail-readers were >> late in adopting it for that reason, and it gained additional >> unpopularity amongst programmers & the technorati as a consequence. >> >> Nowadays HTML is bad principally because it imposes fonts upon the >> reader. I know what size my monitor is & at what size my mail program >> should render text. [...] >> I have also found that clients appear inconsistent about how they >> apply quoting to HTML messages. At least often if I reply to an HTML >> message and change it to plain text then the quoted message magically >> looses a level of quoting. Typically I change to plain-text like this >> because I've copied & pasted a single sentence out of the quoted >> section and it comes out into my own paragraph as blue, the wrong size >> and an inconsistent font - this is another grip about HTML. > I guess my main point was this. Some mailing list people have some set > ups that may not work right in certain situations. As I have said, some > here are using older mail readers that don't do well, if display at all, > html messages. That's what I was told when I first joined here. I also > know from being here a long time that if a person does something silly, > like sending a 2Mb email or sending HTML that they can't read, they get > sent to the dust bin. Also, some people have replied from cell phones > or live in countries that charge by the amount of data. The difference > between html and text on a list this busy can be a lot. In general, html email is mostly a "solution" in search of a problem, and it ends up causing trouble and being overall worse than the simple, efficient, easy, working, universally adopted technology that preceded it. Besides all the problems already listed in this discussion, html email facilitates malware, web bugs, phishing, spam, and incompatibility (besides the people who use HTML-incapable email clients, there are email clients that don't render HTML email well (it is more common then you think), not to mention that the HTML email itself is often broken). And of the HTML emails, a tiny minority actually make something useful of HTML, while the rest is either deliberately harmful or has a lot of "fancy" formating that looks it was created by a teenager. Besides looking horrible, they are often harder to read. As for the guy who suggested a form of "sanitized HTML for email", maybe you would like "enriched text" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriched_text -- Software is like sex: it is better when it is free - Linus Torvalds
Re: [gentoo-user][ot] mail links as footnotes
Stroller wrote: > > I've been wondering for a while why no alternative has been proposed. > HTML was originally considered poor because it wasted bandwidth, HTML > messages being *at least* twice the size of the plain text, but often > several times as large. I wonder if console-based mail-readers were > late in adopting it for that reason, and it gained additional > unpopularity amongst programmers & the technorati as a consequence. > > Nowadays HTML is bad principally because it imposes fonts upon the > reader. I know what size my monitor is & at what size my mail program > should render text. I have an HTML-capable mail reader & have no > objection to the HTML messages sent by Amazon & Deep Discount, because > they are clear & readable - they have expensive design teams who > clearly take a deal of time ensuring that. But a poster to the > Openmoko mailing list a while back formatted his messages not only in > a tasteful green which I'm sure he enjoyed a lot, but also in a tiny > font which was unreadable on my screen. Undoubtedly it looked fine to > him, but I don't know what resolution he was using - 800 x 600??? - > because the characters were about 2mm high on my 20" @ 1600 x 1200. > > What I think would be ideal for email would be a very simple text > markup which allows italics, underline, bold and strikethrough > characters in addition to links. I'd love to be able to convey those > kinds of emphasis to readers, and I'd also love to be able to use > proper clickable links in the body of a text message, but at present I > can't, because I don't think it's appropriate for me to impose > 13-point Verdana on those who prefer Times or Courier in some other size. > > EDIT: I guess a text size +1 for headers would also be appropriate > (+2, -1, -2), bullet points plus superscript and subscript. Clearly > some hashing out would be appropriate, but ideally formatting should > be minimal, so that even displayed as pain-text the formatting is not > intrusive; EG: --strikethough--, /italics/, _underline_ &c. > > I have also found that clients appear inconsistent about how they > apply quoting to HTML messages. At least often if I reply to an HTML > message and change it to plain text then the quoted message magically > looses a level of quoting. Typically I change to plain-text like this > because I've copied & pasted a single sentence out of the quoted > section and it comes out into my own paragraph as blue, the wrong size > and an inconsistent font - this is another grip about HTML. > > I'm surprised by this, and always assumed TinyURL kept their links > forever. Are you sure it's not simply that the post is so old it > points to a target page that no longer exists? It looks like TinyURL > have the capacity for about 2,176,782,336 unique links before they > need to add another digit after the slash. > I guess my main point was this. Some mailing list people have some set ups that may not work right in certain situations. As I have said, some here are using older mail readers that don't do well, if display at all, html messages. That's what I was told when I first joined here. I also know from being here a long time that if a person does something silly, like sending a 2Mb email or sending HTML that they can't read, they get sent to the dust bin. Also, some people have replied from cell phones or live in countries that charge by the amount of data. The difference between html and text on a list this busy can be a lot. As far tinyurl. I'm not sure how old they were or if they expired or what. It seemed it went to a page that said it was a old link or something but it was a while back. I just know I got it a few times and decided tinyurl is not for me. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user][ot] mail links as footnotes
Stroller ha scritto: > It's not merely aesthetic, because a URL as long as the one above may > not be clickable in the mail client. TinyURL should alleviate this > problem, as long as the sender's client doesn't break lines in some > stupid place. Right. > I'll use direct links inline when I'm talking about something directly > technical and want to give an example: > http://photography.stroller.uk.eu.org/Rum/large-20.html > > Usually I'll place it at the end of a sentence & following a new line as > above. I'm typically breaking my text into short paragraphs to make it > more readable if the reader might be following my procedure step-by-step. > > I used to use TinyURL a lot, but I think - In the kind of email which is > a little less technical, and which contains references in the context of > longer paragraphs - I prefer footnotes. When the link is in the middle > of a paragraph like this http://tinyurl.com/63en7z it tends to interrupt > the reader & disturb the flow of the text. That's very closely my own policy. Nice to know I'm not alone. :) m.
Re: [gentoo-user][ot] mail links as footnotes
On 2 Dec 2008, at 12:25, Dale wrote: ... This reminds me of the text/html debate. If you put links in the body and some guru that has the answer doesn't like links in the body, they may not read your post and you could be left without a answer for a while longer. Or worse yet, if it is some software that is rarely used, they may be the only one here that uses the software and has the answer. I prefer html messages myself but a lot of people here don't like them so I send text. Some users even have filters that sends html to /dev/null which means they don't ever even get seen or read. This is something you may want to consider when you send something. I've been wondering for a while why no alternative has been proposed. HTML was originally considered poor because it wasted bandwidth, HTML messages being *at least* twice the size of the plain text, but often several times as large. I wonder if console-based mail-readers were late in adopting it for that reason, and it gained additional unpopularity amongst programmers & the technorati as a consequence. Nowadays HTML is bad principally because it imposes fonts upon the reader. I know what size my monitor is & at what size my mail program should render text. I have an HTML-capable mail reader & have no objection to the HTML messages sent by Amazon & Deep Discount, because they are clear & readable - they have expensive design teams who clearly take a deal of time ensuring that. But a poster to the Openmoko mailing list a while back formatted his messages not only in a tasteful green which I'm sure he enjoyed a lot, but also in a tiny font which was unreadable on my screen. Undoubtedly it looked fine to him, but I don't know what resolution he was using - 800 x 600??? - because the characters were about 2mm high on my 20" @ 1600 x 1200. What I think would be ideal for email would be a very simple text markup which allows italics, underline, bold and strikethrough characters in addition to links. I'd love to be able to convey those kinds of emphasis to readers, and I'd also love to be able to use proper clickable links in the body of a text message, but at present I can't, because I don't think it's appropriate for me to impose 13- point Verdana on those who prefer Times or Courier in some other size. EDIT: I guess a text size +1 for headers would also be appropriate (+2, -1, -2), bullet points plus superscript and subscript. Clearly some hashing out would be appropriate, but ideally formatting should be minimal, so that even displayed as pain-text the formatting is not intrusive; EG: --strikethough--, /italics/, _underline_ &c. I have also found that clients appear inconsistent about how they apply quoting to HTML messages. At least often if I reply to an HTML message and change it to plain text then the quoted message magically looses a level of quoting. Typically I change to plain-text like this because I've copied & pasted a single sentence out of the quoted section and it comes out into my own paragraph as blue, the wrong size and an inconsistent font - this is another grip about HTML. Also, I have ran into tinyurl not working or if I look up a old post, it may have expired or something and the link goes nowhere. I'm surprised by this, and always assumed TinyURL kept their links forever. Are you sure it's not simply that the post is so old it points to a target page that no longer exists? It looks like TinyURL have the capacity for about 2,176,782,336 unique links before they need to add another digit after the slash.
Re: [gentoo-user][ot] mail links as footnotes
brullo nulla wrote: > I send text myself too usually (don't know when I'm using gmail from > the web like now). > However if I receive html mail, my mail client is set up to make it > look like it's only text, so I don't really see the difference. > Well apparently some people here use a client that can't do that or is not set up like yours. Some people here don't have a GUI at all from what I have read. It doesn't matter much to me. I just know what I was told here a long time ago. It helps to make it where everybody sort of does things the same way so that everybody helps everybody. If not, you could miss out on a few things. > > Surely, thanks. > > m. > > > Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user][ot] mail links as footnotes
On 2 Dec 2008, at 11:33, brullo nulla wrote: On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 10:29 AM, Daniel Pielmeier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 2008/12/2 b.n. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: May I ask why many people on MLs use to write links as footnotes instead that inside the mail text? I suspect it is some netiquette issue, but I can't find info on that and I find it mildly confusing. Because http://some- vvverrryy -long-link/some-page.html looks terrible too? Not to me. I am accustomed to see links inside of text in webpages, so there is nothing strange in what you posted. Since it seems only an aestethic preference, I'll continue to post links in-text when appropriate (tinyurl'ing long links possibly). It's not merely aesthetic, because a URL as long as the one above may not be clickable in the mail client. TinyURL should alleviate this problem, as long as the sender's client doesn't break lines in some stupid place. I'll use direct links inline when I'm talking about something directly technical and want to give an example: http://photography.stroller.uk.eu.org/Rum/large-20.html Usually I'll place it at the end of a sentence & following a new line as above. I'm typically breaking my text into short paragraphs to make it more readable if the reader might be following my procedure step-by- step. I used to use TinyURL a lot, but I think - In the kind of email which is a little less technical, and which contains references in the context of longer paragraphs - I prefer footnotes. When the link is in the middle of a paragraph like this http://tinyurl.com/63en7z it tends to interrupt the reader & disturb the flow of the text. Stroller.
Re: [gentoo-user][ot] mail links as footnotes
> This reminds me of the text/html debate. If you put links in the body > and some guru that has the answer doesn't like links in the body, they > may not read your post and you could be left without a answer for a > while longer. Or worse yet, if it is some software that is rarely used, > they may be the only one here that uses the software and has the answer. Well, I could do the same and erase any message with urls as footnotes, since I dislike them. So it's the same thing, reversed. Trashing emails just because they're not formatted as you like them is a highly idiotic thing to do. I don't like top-posting for example, but I do not trash top-posted mails -at worst, I explain the user why top-posting looks bad. > I prefer html messages myself but a lot of people here don't like them > so I send text. Some users even have filters that sends html to > /dev/null which means they don't ever even get seen or read. This is > something you may want to consider when you send something. I send text myself too usually (don't know when I'm using gmail from the web like now). However if I receive html mail, my mail client is set up to make it look like it's only text, so I don't really see the difference. > Also, I have ran into tinyurl not working or if I look up a old post, it > may have expired or something and the link goes nowhere. So guess what, > I don't click on tinyurl stuff much. Good point. But again, while sending HTML mail to a non-HTML enabled mail client results in annoying garbage(*), or while top posting can make a long thread impossible to follow, there is no reason not to read even a loong URL in the text flow. So using footnotes is purely aestethical -and even if I agree it's more good-looking, it's much less practical for my personal usage. So I want an ecosystem with URLs in the text body, therefore I will use them :) This does not mean I drop mails formatted in the other way in the trashbin. This just means we live happily with the differences, and let natural selection select what fits more. (*)There is also to ponder the fact that I find quite amusing that someone is using a non-HTML-enabled mail client in 2008, and I would like to know about that. I don't like html mail myself, but *actively refusing* to deal with it , it's something escaping my comprehension. > Thoughts to ponder. Surely, thanks. m.
Re: [gentoo-user][ot] mail links as footnotes
brullo nulla wrote: > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 10:29 AM, Daniel Pielmeier > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> 2008/12/2 b.n. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> >>> May I ask why many people on MLs use to write links as footnotes instead >>> that inside the mail text? I suspect it is some netiquette issue, but I >>> can't find info on that and I find it mildly confusing. >>> >>> >> Because >> http://some-vvverrryy-long-link/some-page.html >> looks terrible too? >> > > Not to me. I am accustomed to see links inside of text in webpages, so > there is nothing strange in what you posted. > > Since it seems only an aestethic preference, I'll continue to post > links in-text when appropriate (tinyurl'ing long links possibly). > > Thanks, > m. > > > This reminds me of the text/html debate. If you put links in the body and some guru that has the answer doesn't like links in the body, they may not read your post and you could be left without a answer for a while longer. Or worse yet, if it is some software that is rarely used, they may be the only one here that uses the software and has the answer. I prefer html messages myself but a lot of people here don't like them so I send text. Some users even have filters that sends html to /dev/null which means they don't ever even get seen or read. This is something you may want to consider when you send something. Also, I have ran into tinyurl not working or if I look up a old post, it may have expired or something and the link goes nowhere. So guess what, I don't click on tinyurl stuff much. Exceptions may be something that is really huge. If you are attaching a 2Mb file, may want to post a link to it instead. I have also been known to send it to someone off list on request. Thoughts to ponder. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user][ot] mail links as footnotes
On Tue, 2 Dec 2008 12:33:32 +0100, brullo nulla wrote: > Not to me. I am accustomed to see links inside of text in webpages, so > there is nothing strange in what you posted. I rarely see URLs inside the text of web pages, they are generally hyperlinked to a piece of the text. Email is more like printed text in this respect, where links to references are usually given in footnotes. -- Neil Bothwick I'm in shape ... Round's a shape isn't it? signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user][ot] mail links as footnotes
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 10:29 AM, Daniel Pielmeier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2008/12/2 b.n. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> >> May I ask why many people on MLs use to write links as footnotes instead >> that inside the mail text? I suspect it is some netiquette issue, but I >> can't find info on that and I find it mildly confusing. >> > > Because > http://some-vvverrryy-long-link/some-page.html > looks terrible too? Not to me. I am accustomed to see links inside of text in webpages, so there is nothing strange in what you posted. Since it seems only an aestethic preference, I'll continue to post links in-text when appropriate (tinyurl'ing long links possibly). Thanks, m.
Re: [gentoo-user][ot] mail links as footnotes
Daniel Pielmeier wrote: > 2008/12/2 Daniel Pielmeier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> Because >> http://some-vvverrryy-long-link/some-page.html >> looks terrible too? >> > > Yeah and I know that there is tinyurl and such stuff, but even if the > link is not that long, I think it does not look good. > > I agree. Takes a little getting used to but it is less confusing to me. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user][ot] mail links as footnotes
2008/12/2 Daniel Pielmeier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Because > http://some-vvverrryy-long-link/some-page.html > looks terrible too? Yeah and I know that there is tinyurl and such stuff, but even if the link is not that long, I think it does not look good. -- Regards, Daniel
Re: [gentoo-user][ot] mail links as footnotes
2008/12/2 b.n. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > May I ask why many people on MLs use to write links as footnotes instead > that inside the mail text? I suspect it is some netiquette issue, but I > can't find info on that and I find it mildly confusing. > Because http://some-vvverrryy-long-link/some-page.html looks terrible too? -- Regards, Daniel
Re: [gentoo-user][ot] mail links as footnotes
Daniel Pielmeier ha scritto: > Unfortunately there is no ebuild for fatsort [1] only a maintainer > wanted bug [2]. > There is even a python gui [3], but I don't know if there is really a > need for a gui though. > > I think I will update the ebuild (which does not look that complicated > and needs some improvements anyway) in the bug to version 0.9.9 and > probably write one for the gui (although the source is not versioned). > Then I will try to get this into the tree soonish. > > [1] http://fatsort.berlios.de/ > [2] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=170425 > [3] http://blog.laxu.de/2008/02/03/fatsort-gui/ May I ask why many people on MLs use to write links as footnotes instead that inside the mail text? I suspect it is some netiquette issue, but I can't find info on that and I find it mildly confusing. m.
