Re: reading color quoted replies
* On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 Marc Vaillant ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) muttered: > I'm wondering how people handle messages coming from outlook users that > quote the message they're replying to (or their replies) in color > instead of the usual angle indenting (> )? Outlook uses a indent string. Default '> '. It just _displays_ quotes with color. The underlying message is still readable. HTH, Michael -- Real programs don't eat cache. PGP-Key-ID: 0xDC1A44DD Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: reading color quoted replies
On 2007-01-30, Michael Tatge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 Marc Vaillant ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) muttered: > > I'm wondering how people handle messages coming from outlook users that > > quote the message they're replying to (or their replies) in color > > instead of the usual angle indenting (> )? > > Outlook uses a indent string. Default '> '. It just _displays_ quotes > with color. The underlying message is still readable. I occasionally receive HTML e-mail from Outlook users who have used color to identify their reply text and have not applied any sort of indentation or quoting to the original message. I usually use the attachment menu to open such messages in Firefox so that I can see the color. Fortunately, I don't receive very many of these. Regards, Gary -- Gary Johnson | Agilent Technologies [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Wireless Division http://www.spocom.com/users/gjohnson/mutt/ | Spokane, Washington, USA
Re: reading color quoted replies
* On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 Gary Johnson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) muttered: > On 2007-01-30, Michael Tatge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > * On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 Marc Vaillant ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) muttered: > > > I'm wondering how people handle messages coming from outlook users that > > > quote the message they're replying to in color > > > > Outlook uses a indent string. Default '> '. > > I occasionally receive HTML e-mail from Outlook users who have used > color to identify their reply text and have not applied any sort of > indentation or quoting to the original message. Now that is - just plain awful. html *and* no proper quoting? I guess the only thing to do would be to send them their stuff back text dumped, fully quoted. Let them figure out what is quoted and what not. ;) HTH, Michael -- what's the difference between chattr and chmod? SomeLamer: man chattr > 1; man chmod > 2; diff -u 1 2 | less -- Seen on #linux on irc PGP-Key-ID: 0xDC1A44DD Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: reading color quoted replies
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 02:55:46PM +0100, Michael Tatge wrote: > * On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 Marc Vaillant ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) muttered: > > I'm wondering how people handle messages coming from outlook users that > > quote the message they're replying to (or their replies) in color > > instead of the usual angle indenting (> )? > > Outlook uses a indent string. Default '> '. It just _displays_ quotes > with color. The underlying message is still readable. > I'm not sure I fully understand what you mean. The message is readable, but the clarity that the color provides is lost when I view it in mutt because the only differentiator is color. I could open up the html in a graphical browser but I still can't tell apriori that the message contains the color tags. E.g. the above '> ' quoting would just look like: I'm wondering how people handle messages coming from outlook users that quote the message they're replying to (or their replies) in color instead of the usual angle indenting (> )? Outlook uses a indent string. Default '> '. It just _displays_ quotes with color. The underlying message is still readable. but in a graphical browser, your text would be in a different color than mine. Marc
Re: reading color quoted replies
=- Marc Vaillant wrote on Tue 30.Jan'07 at 12:59:46 -0500 -=
> > * On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 Marc Vaillant ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) muttered:
> > > I'm wondering how people handle messages coming from outlook
> > > users that quote the message they're replying to (or their
> > > replies) in color instead of the usual angle indenting (> )?
>
> The message is readable, but the clarity that the color provides
> is lost when I view it in mutt because the only differentiator
> is color. I could open up the html in a graphical browser but I
> still can't tell apriori that the message contains the color
> tags. E.g. the above '> ' quoting would just look like:
> {...}
> but in a graphical browser, your text would be in a different
> color than mine.
To answer your original Q:
I do _not_ handle such eMail. Period. :)
_You_ have several options:
1) educate your eMail partners to quote mutt-friendly (txt-only).
2) use autoview with a graphical browser => wiki FAQ.
3) use autoview with a script that converts such (*censored*)
eMail to some sane usable format by converting the html/css
coloring instructions to '> ' sequences.
I recommend 1).
--
© Rado S. -- You must provide YOUR effort for your goal!
EVERY effort counts: at least to show your attitude.
You're responsible for ALL of it: you get what you give.
Re: reading color quoted replies
* Michael Tatge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [01-30-07 12:51]: [...] > Now that is - just plain awful. html *and* no proper quoting? > I guess the only thing to do would be to send them their stuff back text > dumped, fully quoted. Let them figure out what is quoted and what not. ;) html -> /dev/null -- Patrick ShanahanRegistered Linux User #207535 http://wahoo.no-ip.org@ http://counter.li.org HOG # US1244711 Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 OpenSUSE Linux http://en.opensuse.org/
Re: reading color quoted replies
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 07:31:38PM +0100, Rado S wrote:
> =- Marc Vaillant wrote on Tue 30.Jan'07 at 12:59:46 -0500 -=
>
> > > * On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 Marc Vaillant ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) muttered:
> > > > I'm wondering how people handle messages coming from outlook
> > > > users that quote the message they're replying to (or their
> > > > replies) in color instead of the usual angle indenting (> )?
> >
> > The message is readable, but the clarity that the color provides
> > is lost when I view it in mutt because the only differentiator
> > is color. I could open up the html in a graphical browser but I
> > still can't tell apriori that the message contains the color
> > tags. E.g. the above '> ' quoting would just look like:
> > {...}
> > but in a graphical browser, your text would be in a different
> > color than mine.
>
> To answer your original Q:
> I do _not_ handle such eMail. Period. :)
>
> _You_ have several options:
> 1) educate your eMail partners to quote mutt-friendly (txt-only).
> 2) use autoview with a graphical browser => wiki FAQ.
> 3) use autoview with a script that converts such (*censored*)
> eMail to some sane usable format by converting the html/css
> coloring instructions to '> ' sequences.
>
> I recommend 1).
>
I guess that I was looking for option 3. Some sort of extension for w3m
(or another text based browser) that lets you do something reasonable
when dumping html with FONT COLOR tags to text (other than just removing
the tags).
Are you serious about option 1?
Marc
Re: reading color quoted replies
Marc Vaillant wrote: > On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 07:31:38PM +0100, Rado S wrote: [...] >> _You_ have several options: >> 1) educate your eMail partners to quote mutt-friendly (txt-only). [...] > Are you serious about option 1? I would be. Even outlook (not sure about outlook express) can be told to send plain text on a per-recipient basis. If those sending you such mail are important then it would be worth the effort to explain to them why they should send you plain text mail. If they aren't important, then Patrick's suggestion to file it to /dev/null is best. -- ToddOpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp == Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference. pgpAI8yNfqBDb.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: reading color quoted replies
=- Marc Vaillant wrote on Wed 31.Jan'07 at 11:13:25 -0500 -= > > _You_ have several options: > > 1) educate your eMail partners to quote mutt-friendly (txt-only). > > 2) use autoview with a graphical browser => wiki FAQ. > > 3) use autoview with a script that converts such (*censored*) > > eMail to some sane usable format by converting the html/css > > coloring instructions to '> ' sequences. > > > > I recommend 1). > > I guess that I was looking for option 3. Some sort of extension > for w3m (or another text based browser) that lets you do > something reasonable when dumping html with FONT COLOR tags to > text (other than just removing the tags). I'm not aware of any existing txt-browser that does this. When you find one, then tell me. Otherwise you have to script yourself. I'd be interested even in this (even if only to learn ;). > Are you serious about option 1? Why not? Generally it's good to have visual aids. However, the implementation varies, and I prefer a simple data format that works even without a dedicated visual aids interpreter (human readable): i.e. the way of aiding is not stored in the data itself but left up to the reader (the original www idea). A tool can perform its beefing-up well enough on this simple/ raw data, too, as mutt and other MUAs show. -- © Rado S. -- You must provide YOUR effort for your goal! EVERY effort counts: at least to show your attitude. You're responsible for ALL of it: you get what you give.
Re: reading color quoted replies
* On 2007.02.01, in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, * "Rado S" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Are you serious about option 1? > > Why not? > > Generally it's good to have visual aids. > However, the implementation varies, and I prefer a simple data > format that works even without a dedicated visual aids interpreter > (human readable): i.e. the way of aiding is not stored in the data > itself but left up to the reader (the original www idea). > A tool can perform its beefing-up well enough on this simple/ > raw data, too, as mutt and other MUAs show. I agree with you, and I prefer that too, and from his post I think Marc is in our camp. But most people don't care that much, as long as they can tell the difference in their way, and most people don't want to deviate too far from whatever happens by default. Trying to persuade them otherwise often just makes one seem... well, too interested in telling others how to work, to put it gently. Although I'd love for everyone to work my way, telling them that they should usually doesn't work out very well. This argument must be taken up with developers, not users. -- -D.[EMAIL PROTECTED]NSITUniversity of Chicago
Re: reading color quoted replies
=- David Champion wrote on Thu 1.Feb'07 at 10:25:13 -0600 -= > > i.e. the way of aiding is not stored in the data > > itself but left up to the reader (the original www idea). > > A tool can perform its beefing-up well enough on this simple/ > > raw data, too, as mutt and other MUAs show. > > I agree with you, and I prefer that too, and from his post I > think Marc is in our camp. However, Marc is uncertain about bringing this up with his limited-/ outlook-only-/ awareness collegues. > But most people don't care that much, as long as they can tell > the difference in their way, and most people don't want to > deviate too far from whatever happens by default. That's true ... but is this (default=outlook/ html exclusive) what we mutters want? (Marc being the one in this case) This reasoning prevents freedom of "weapon"-choice/ personal optimization/ general improvement: that's what mutters want. Not all defaults/ features are good just because they came first. Isn't every company/ undertaking interested in improvement to better succeed? Better "interoperability" suits them, too! (Especially when they learn that there's an eMail-world beyond the company limits. ;) As often as people don't care for "a better" way, as often they don't care for _any_ way, as long as it doesn't bother them much. They just need a clue not to worry about a minor easy change (like selecting text/plain '> ' quoting over html in an options box) and some "conviction" to actually make the step. People are more friendly/ helpful than many of us worry they are not. Why keep "suffering" if things can be _easily_ changed when known? When people learn that a _simple_ change helps both sides without permanent losses to anyone, they are likely to apply it. If _we_ mutters don't do anything about it, it won't change by itself, as you noted _they_ won't do on their own. So... what's there to lose? Temporary friction. What is to gain? Lasting improvement for all. What does it take: just to ask them and patience to work against an inert mass. It won't hurt Marc to ask, except he's afraid of asking. > Trying to persuade them otherwise often just makes one seem... well, > too interested in telling others how to work, to put it gently. > Although I'd love for everyone to work my way, telling them that > they should usually doesn't work out very well. The problem is that mere trying/ learning/ asking is considered as negative force that must be denied, as if thinking hurts them, even more so any actual effort no matter how small and despite no permanent drawbacks for them once applied. So it's better not even to try to make things better? You (Marc) want to support this ignorance? It's up to you, you have to live with either consequence (short term no pain or long term gain), neither David nor I. ;) Improvement doesn't come without change, and this always causes friction to some end: no gain without pain. It's just a matter whether you want a) improvement and b) are willing to do what it takes. Often enough it only takes just a little to gain a lot. The sad thing is people are too scared to make even smallest steps and see the big gain that lies behind it. > This argument must be taken up with developers, not users. Uh, huh?! I don't understand what you refer to now. -- © Rado S. -- You must provide YOUR effort for your goal! EVERY effort counts: at least to show your attitude. You're responsible for ALL of it: you get what you give.
Re: reading color quoted replies
There are many factors in how people behave. Interoperability of personal preference ranks low for most people. Has no one ever asked you how you can stand not reading e-mail in full blazing GUI glory? I said this is a matter for developers, not for users, because developers (and administrators) are responsible for setting up users' capabilities and defaults and ensuring interoperability. I suspect most users would be fine with > quoting, if that were the default. Since it's not, they don't use it. But even if it's a chosen setting, it most often aligns with what they like the look of, not what they understand. It's a lot to ask of many people that they frame their workflow around issues they don't understand or want to understand, just because I pitched them a set of reasons that I said were logically sound. Non-enthusiasts just want it to work with a minimum of fuss and configuration, and if it looks like it works to them, then it works. Have you worked in direct user support? For each professional or enthusiast, there are hundreds who just use computers as a tool, the way you would use a hammer or a gas oven. Few people want to modify their ovens, even if oven engineers have suggestions for how to do it. I don't disagree with your rationale, I just don't think that training everyone else to think "right" isn't very practical as a solution to interop problems. Let me know when you convince them all, though, and I'll pay for drinks. :) -- -D.[EMAIL PROTECTED]NSITUniversity of Chicago
Re: reading color quoted replies
I have a vendor who occasionally sends me replies quoted this way. What's ironic is that he normally top-posts, and I suspect he's doing it this way because *I* normally quote inline in response to him. Even better, he sometimes writes his bits in all caps ON THE SAME LINE as parts of my quoted response. What I usually do is just guess which bits are mine, and then reformat the response the way I want it. If I couldn't guess, I'd probably save the html to a file and view it in a browser. I don't think it's reasonable to expect mutt to guess / work around this type of behavior. That's way outside the scope of what mutt can do reasonably. w
Re: reading color quoted replies
=- David Champion wrote on Thu 1.Feb'07 at 13:05:27 -0600 -= > Has no one ever asked you how you can stand not reading e-mail > in full blazing GUI glory? (I'm not sure they'd call it "blazing glory" in the first place. It's often not that they like it but rather have no choice or just stick with what comes first) No, on the contrary, 1st they are puzzled by the strange look. (http://WIKI.mutt.org/?ConfigList) If that doesn't drive them away already (declaring me crazy), they "admire" me for using such an "advanced" (==non-GUI/-mouse) tool and how "efficient" it works for me, but "it's too hard for me". And if they still haven't given up, they say "great, maybe I should switch, too". Admittedly those are _very_ rare, but that was not the original question anyway. ;) > I said this is a matter for developers, not for users, because > developers (and administrators) are responsible for setting up > users' capabilities and defaults and ensuring interoperability. Yes, but users can feedback their experiences to the people in charge so they can reconsider. Users just have to do it so admins can learn about it at all. Otherwise admins will keep thinking they do a good job. "No comment" doesn't necessarily equate to "well done, admin" but maybe "I'm too lame to bitch and kick your butt to fix things once for all, so I take pains for a poor workaround or just give up". ;) > But even if it's a chosen setting, it most often aligns with > what they like the look of, not what they understand. As well this doesn't require to exclude each other! Often reason and convenience are close to each other (mostly?). We won't know unless we learn by asking/ trying. > It's a lot to ask of many people that they frame their workflow > around issues they don't understand or want to understand, just > because I pitched them a set of reasons that I said were > logically sound. Non-enthusiasts just want it to work with a > minimum of fuss and configuration, and if it looks like it works > to them, then it works. No big discussions or explanations needed: just hit the checkbox, done. I have yet to meet _conscious_ TOFU posters in that they really use/ read the quotes _in every_ mail. Most of them could very well just not quote at all without losing anything. > Have you worked in direct user support? For each professional or > enthusiast, there are hundreds who just use computers as a tool, > the way you would use a hammer or a gas oven. Few people want to > modify their ovens, even if oven engineers have suggestions for > how to do it. I know the numbers, as well I know that dominant "lazy" attitude. But at the same time people are not stupid or unfriendly despite being lazy _on their own_: if asked, they can move in favour of _somebody else_ and not be angry about it if the move is gentle. You just have to be brave enough to _ask_ them rather than _assume_ the worst. > I don't disagree with your rationale, I just don't think that > training everyone else to think "right" isn't very practical as > a solution to interop problems. Heh, they don't have to understand it all to make a small move. Many people are just friendly trustful by itself. ;) > Let me know when you convince them all, though, and I'll pay for > drinks. :) I'll remind you, no worries. :) -- © Rado S. -- You must provide YOUR effort for your goal! EVERY effort counts: at least to show your attitude. You're responsible for ALL of it: you get what you give.
Re: reading color quoted replies
On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 07:21:07PM +0100, Rado S wrote: > =- David Champion wrote on Thu 1.Feb'07 at 10:25:13 -0600 -= > > > > i.e. the way of aiding is not stored in the data > > > itself but left up to the reader (the original www idea). > > > A tool can perform its beefing-up well enough on this simple/ > > > raw data, too, as mutt and other MUAs show. > > > > I agree with you, and I prefer that too, and from his post I > > think Marc is in our camp. > > However, Marc is uncertain about bringing this up with his > limited-/ outlook-only-/ awareness collegues. > I just don't understand how it's practical, or is necessarily a good thing for mutt/mutters to go on that sort of pilgrimage. > > But most people don't care that much, as long as they can tell > > the difference in their way, and most people don't want to > > deviate too far from whatever happens by default. > > That's true ... but is this (default=outlook/ html exclusive) what > we mutters want? (Marc being the one in this case) > This reasoning prevents freedom of "weapon"-choice/ personal > optimization/ general improvement: that's what mutters want. > > Not all defaults/ features are good just because they came first. > Isn't every company/ undertaking interested in improvement to > better succeed? Better "interoperability" suits them, too! > (Especially when they learn that there's an eMail-world beyond > the company limits. ;) This just isn't realistic. What sort of view of mutt do you think an outlook user (potential mutt user) is going to get if I tell them "Hey check out this great text based MUA that I have... only thing is, you know that feature that everyone in the office loves to use with their clients, well you have to tell them not to use it." The reality is that they're going to be thinking "Why would anyone be using a client that crippled them in that way?" And if that's what they're thinking then they're not going to have the view of "interoperability" that you suggest, they're going to view mutt as a program that doesn't (fully) support an "interoperable" standard like html. Shouldn't the mutt developer take your point of view and be interested in improvement to better succeed? In reality, it's mutt's success in retaining and building a user base that's more in jeopardy than my company loosing potential business with mutters. > > As often as people don't care for "a better" way, as often they > don't care for _any_ way, as long as it doesn't bother them much. > They just need a clue not to worry about a minor easy change (like > selecting text/plain '> ' quoting over html in an options box) and > some "conviction" to actually make the step. > People are more friendly/ helpful than many of us worry they are not. Even if they are friendly and comply, ultimately it works against you (see above). > Why keep "suffering" if things can be _easily_ changed when known? > When people learn that a _simple_ change helps both sides without > permanent losses to anyone, they are likely to apply it. > If _we_ mutters don't do anything about it, it won't change by > itself, as you noted _they_ won't do on their own. > > So... what's there to lose? Temporary friction. > What is to gain? Lasting improvement for all. > What does it take: just to ask them and patience to work against > an inert mass. > It won't hurt Marc to ask, except he's afraid of asking. > I'm not afraid to ask, I'm just wise enough to know that its futile, or worse, detrimental. > > Trying to persuade them otherwise often just makes one seem... well, > > too interested in telling others how to work, to put it gently. > > Although I'd love for everyone to work my way, telling them that > > they should usually doesn't work out very well. > > The problem is that mere trying/ learning/ asking is considered as > negative force that must be denied, as if thinking hurts them, > even more so any actual effort no matter how small and despite no > permanent drawbacks for them once applied. > > So it's better not even to try to make things better? > You (Marc) want to support this ignorance? > It's up to you, you have to live with either consequence (short > term no pain or long term gain), neither David nor I. ;) > > Improvement doesn't come without change, and this always causes > friction to some end: no gain without pain. It's just a matter whether > you want a) improvement and b) are willing to do what it takes. > > Often enough it only takes just a little to gain a lot. > The sad thing is people are too scared to make even smallest steps > and see the big gain that lies behind it. Yes, but equally sad are those who waste their lives pipe dreaming. Having enough foresight to know which battles will bring gain sorts the successful from the unsuccessful. Marc
Re: reading color quoted replies
=- Marc Vaillant wrote on Thu 1.Feb'07 at 15:59:51 -0500 -=
> "{...} ... only thing is, you know that feature that everyone in
> the office loves to use with their clients, well you have to
> tell them not to use it."
How do you know they "love it"?
There is active love/ choice and passive (meaning they don't
care enough to find (better) alternatives and stick with the 1st).
Do they really love it or are just stuck with what came 1st?
If they turned it on actively or by order/ restrictions, then of
course you're out of look. But very often average users just use
(possibly stupid) defaults or don't care enough _on their own_.
All I asked for was to find out whether they _really_ "love" it and
_chose_ to use it over something else. And if it doesn't matter to
them anyway, whether they'd click the box.
I argued that we mutters just _assumed_ but didn't _know_ why your
OL'ers send eMail the way they do, and speculated that it was just
some default (either by software or admin):
Don't speculate, get facts.
I.e. no obligation nor conscious preference over something else
but just "that's how things are", unaware of alternatives.
And that you could alleviate this html sickness by merely asking
for a neglectable favour and it be granted without a fuss.
> The reality is that they're going to be thinking "Why would
> anyone be using a client that crippled them in that way?" And if
> that's what they're thinking then they're not going to have the
> view of "interoperability" that you suggest, they're going to
> view mutt as a program that doesn't (fully) support an
> "interoperable" standard like html.
Heh, I told you about 2), so mutt supports html fully,
no reason to think it's crippled. You can choose whatever browser
and editor you want for messing up your mail as html.
> Shouldn't the mutt developer take your point of view and be
> interested in improvement to better succeed?
But html-ability is no quality of plain text eMail interoperability
anyway. Mutt works already with commonly agreed on _open_ standards
based on "best practice" (more or less well thought out guidelines),
what else do you want?
Appease proprietary OL silly defaults? Just because it's default
MUA on most used proprietary OS? Establish a silly propietary
standard just because it's used by the masses of users unaware of
a better way or too lazy to make a "click" to achieve it?
Isn't it better to tell those users so they get a chance to
improve, or at least let them decide for themselves?
No need to be pessimistic here: people can understand and change
when well explained/ prepared and made easy for them.
If you want OL (and its policy), use OL.
OL's way just isn't mutt's way.
(have you noted MUA/MTA, editor, viewer separation in mutt, not in OL?)
If it's the text that matters which they want to send,
then plain text should be enough: let the reader apply visual aids
as desired, not hard-code it in the data.
Is the color-feature even used? Do the OL'ers among each other
look at the quoted stuff themselves?
If not, then why bother sending it in html (or at all)?
> In reality, it's mutt's success in retaining and building a user
> base that's more in jeopardy than my company loosing potential
> business with mutters.
(not just mutters, but anyway)
Mutt doesn't want to make money, but make mail users happy in the
long run. OL just makes people happy in the short run because they
believe they "save something" by not spending the necessary time
to setup their mail- environment for long term usage.
What they save in the beginning they lose later.
Aside from efficiency it's also about control: the more you rely
on ready-to-use defaults and technical requirements, the more you
depend on them. At some point it's too late to resist the power of
the lazy mass and you have to keep following their direction, no
matter how bad it turns. Better jump off early.
Simple info like plain text should be as simple to access.
Making things unnecessarily harder is just waste of resources.
Oh, and we're talking about you, not your company. :)
That your company benefits from you being more efficient and
generally mails sent outside of the company are easier to read is
just a side-effect.
> Even if they are friendly and comply, ultimately it works
> against you (see above).
I'm sorry, explain, I don't see how it works against you when 2 sides
agree on a common course that helps both by making things simpler.
> I'm not afraid to ask, I'm just wise enough to know that its
> futile, or worse, detrimental.
How do you know that before actually getting confirmation from them?!
My experiences are the opposite: especially people who have no own
preference are readily granting favours if it's not too much for
them, being small enough like clicking some box or a temporary
change, not affecting the habits.
> > Often enough it only takes just a little to gain a lot.
> > The sad thing is people are too scared to make even smallest steps
> > and see the
Re: reading color quoted replies
On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 01:05:27PM -0600, David Champion wrote: > Have you worked in direct user support? For each professional or > enthusiast, there are hundreds who just use computers as a tool, the way > you would use a hammer or a gas oven. Few people want to modify their > ovens, even if oven engineers have suggestions for how to do it. And there is probably a mumble-oven-user list where people are discussing things like: "...with this mod, think of the power they would save ... but they just don't listen." -- Chris. == " ... the official version cannot be abandoned because the implication of rejecting it is far too disturbing: that we are subject to a government conspiracy of `X-Files' proportions and insidiousness." Letter to the LA Times Magazine, September 18, 2005.
Re: reading color quoted replies
On Sun, Feb 04, 2007 at 11:52:15PM +1300, Chris Bannister wrote: > On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 01:05:27PM -0600, David Champion wrote: > > Few people want to modify their ovens, even if oven engineers have > > suggestions for how to do it. > And there is probably a mumble-oven-user list where people are > discussing things like: "...with this mod, think of the power they > would save ... but they just don't listen." I was thinking more like this guy: http://jvpizza.sliceny.com/ He removed the safety latch on his oven so he can bake pizza after heating the oven to above 800F. w
Re: reading color quoted replies
On Feb 01, William Yardley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I have a vendor who occasionally sends me replies quoted this way. > What's ironic is that he normally top-posts, and I suspect he's doing it > this way because *I* normally quote inline in response to him. I'm sure this happens here; they are pretty happy to top quote back and forth until I give a detailed properly-quoted response to their thread, after which they will reply with this color-coded style. This is either peer pressure (doubtful) or they see the value in proper quoting and are trying to do it with what they have (possible). I could at that point either smack their nose for using HTML (a bad idea when it's my boss' boss' boss doing it) or I can take some minimal comfort that at least they're getting the spirit of proper quoting. And take some more comfort that I'm following Postel's Law. Anyway, to the original question: the elinks and links family of text browsers can render HTML colors as ascii. If you use those as your HTML viewers you can get the colors and follow the quoting. pgpxI5PT2n8EZ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: reading color quoted replies
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Monday, February 5 at 05:53 PM, quoth Jeremy Blosser: > Anyway, to the original question: the elinks and links family of > text browsers can render HTML colors as ascii. If you use those as > your HTML viewers you can get the colors and follow the quoting. It would be really nice if I could convince them to do so in combination with the -dump flag, so that I could view the pretty HTML *inline*. I heard a rumor that elinks supported --dump-color-mode, but... 0.11.1 (the version in Debian stable) does not appear to do so. ~Kyle - -- The search for the truth is the noblest occupation of man. Its publication is a duty. -- Anne Louise Germaine de Stael -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Comment: Thank you for using encryption! iD8DBQFFx8sMBkIOoMqOI14RApKYAKCIPlP6nzO48tj9a/PvBz20gMc9JwCfWjCq JyLLFIIk4uz/qEneVofDUzQ= =nG8L -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: reading color quoted replies
On Fri, Feb 02, 2007 at 05:02:32PM +0100, Rado S wrote:
> {...}
> I'm sorry, explain, I don't see how it works against you when 2 sides
> agree on a common course that helps both by making things simpler.
>
> > I'm not afraid to ask, I'm just wise enough to know that its
> > futile, or worse, detrimental.
>
> How do you know that before actually getting confirmation from them?!
I don't have the time or energy to push this much further so I'm just
going to make a couple comments. I apologize for loosing my cool a bit
in my previous message. I should have admitted that I am afraid: If
%80 comply and %20 don't, then that's at least %20 who think I'm a
lunatic for wasting time working in a crippled environment. I work in a
startup of 10 people. I'm the only reason why our sys admin supports an
IMAP server along with Exchange. I'm the only reason why port 22 needs
to be open on our firewall and forwarded to a linux machine so I can
ssh, ssh tunnel, etc, use mutt, etc. By most in our company, the effort
to keep this going is considered a waste of time. Asking them to
restrict how they use their email--no matter how compelling an argument
I give--has a high probability of just strengthening that view. I don't
want to give them more fodder that might lead to losing my
environment. So, I'm not willing to just take a chance and see what
happens. Here's a Dilbert strip that my CEO put on my desk the other
day:
http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/dilbert-20070125.html
It's these experiences and anecdotes that contribute to my pessimistic
view.
Re: reading color quoted replies
On Mon, Feb 05, 2007 at 05:53:39PM -0600, Jeremy Blosser wrote: > Anyway, to the original question: the elinks and links family of text > browsers can render HTML colors as ascii. If you use those as your HTML > viewers you can get the colors and follow the quoting. Thanks very much. Hoping that it can sensibly dump HTML colors as ascii as well? I'll look into it. Marc
Re: reading color quoted replies
=- Marc Vaillant wrote on Thu 8.Feb'07 at 11:52:23 -0500 -=
> > I'm sorry, explain, I don't see how it works against you when
> > 2 sides agree on a common course that helps both by making
> > things simpler.
> >
> > > I'm not afraid to ask, I'm just wise enough to know that its
> > > futile, or worse, detrimental.
> >
> > How do you know that before actually getting confirmation from
> > them?!
>
> I should have admitted that I am afraid: If %80 comply and %20
> don't, then that's at least %20 who think I'm a lunatic for
> wasting time working in a crippled environment.
That would be 80% improvement for you (and with it your company).
If the 20% still keep thinking this about you after telling them about
the negative aspects of HTML (security, phishing, spam in and out),
then they're beyond reasoning. Why worry about their ignorance?
But you/ we know better, and when you tell the persons in charge
(management or sysadmin) about the reasons we gave you about security
and spam, they might install a new policy, what will the 20% say then?
In the name of security many bad things have happened in the past
and present, could work for the good (mutt) side for a change. ;)
> I work in a startup of 10 people. I'm the only reason {... for
> IMAP, ssh, linux.}
> By most in our company, the effort to keep this going is
> considered a waste of time.
So you have some kind of experience/ feedback from your collegues:
prejudice against you.
Because they haven't met the evil side yet, lucky them.
And because they haven't seen your efficient mail management.
> Asking them to restrict how they use their email--no matter how
> compelling an argument I give--has a high probability of just
> strengthening that view.
If they consider it restrictive (i.e. they care about that at
all), then probably. Whatever, I'd give it a shot, given that
you're on the losing end already there isn't much more to lose. ;)
> I don't want to give them more fodder that might lead to losing
> my environment.
Ok, if they have power over you, then this is a different matter.
> http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/dilbert-20070125.html
> It's these experiences and anecdotes that contribute to my
> pessimistic view.
But the hope never dies, and sometimes we're lucky. :)
--
© Rado S. -- You must provide YOUR effort for your goal!
EVERY effort counts: at least to show your attitude.
You're responsible for ALL of it: you get what you give.
Re: reading color quoted replies
On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 06:29:35PM +0100, Rado S wrote:
> > I work in a startup of 10 people. I'm the only reason {... for
> > IMAP, ssh, linux.}
> > By most in our company, the effort to keep this going is
> > considered a waste of time.
I'd jump ship, honestly. I really don't like the Windows environment;
I don't know what it's doing well enough, and Redmond makes it as hard
as possible to learn. It can't easily be automated, etc. etc...
If you would be interested in doing Linux work, send me your
resume... my employer is trying very hard to find Linux techs. It's
not really desktop support, mostly troubleshooting and system
administration for servers (mostly web). We don't do Windows. Though
I'd rather be coding, it is really a great work environment (I've been
through ten employers or more; this is the best one by far). I really
can't imagine a position where you get exposed to more open-source
software all the time...
> > http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/dilbert-20070125.html
> > It's these experiences and anecdotes that contribute to my
> > pessimistic view.
Well, at least the PHB recognizes Linux as advanced technology :-)
Based on what you've said, I'd be exploring my career options. Some
people will hate you for making them think, and I think you're right,
the more you try the more they will resent you.
--
Good code works. Great code can't fail. -><-
http://www.subspacefield.org/~travis/>
For a good time on my UBE blacklist, email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
pgpr0Bg7434fB.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: reading color quoted replies
On Feb 08, Marc Vaillant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Mon, Feb 05, 2007 at 05:53:39PM -0600, Jeremy Blosser wrote: > > Anyway, to the original question: the elinks and links family of text > > browsers can render HTML colors as ascii. If you use those as your HTML > > viewers you can get the colors and follow the quoting. > > Thanks very much. Hoping that it can sensibly dump HTML colors as ascii > as well? I'll look into it. Kyle mentioned the newer versions have an option for this, and I looked far enough to see the git version has the option, but I haven't actually tried it yet. pgpZhePkesbew.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: reading color quoted replies
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thursday, February 8 at 11:40 PM, quoth Jeremy Blosser: >> Thanks very much. Hoping that it can sensibly dump HTML colors as >> ascii as well? I'll look into it. > > Kyle mentioned the newer versions have an option for this, and I looked far > enough to see the git version has the option, but I haven't actually tried > it yet. I tried it, and was disappointed. While in the *terminal*, it works like a charm (though it has the nasty habit of not restoring the original color scheme), mutt seems to strip all the color commands from the output of mailcap programs. ~Kyle - -- Never worry about theory as long as the machinery does what it's supposed to do. -- Robert A. Heinlein -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Comment: Thank you for using encryption! iD8DBQFFzBDRBkIOoMqOI14RAqOpAJ4k/I5YM82Tr2SJMdpE1JKPwRe8igCg7BLl FWzpp5y9PQprRmrP3Hc04k8= =reS2 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: reading color quoted replies
On 2007-02-08, Kyle Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thursday, February 8 at 11:40 PM, quoth Jeremy Blosser: > >> Thanks very much. Hoping that it can sensibly dump HTML colors as > >> ascii as well? I'll look into it. > > > > Kyle mentioned the newer versions have an option for this, and I looked far > > enough to see the git version has the option, but I haven't actually tried > > it yet. > > I tried it, and was disappointed. While in the *terminal*, it works > like a charm (though it has the nasty habit of not restoring the > original color scheme), mutt seems to strip all the color commands > from the output of mailcap programs. Even with set allow_ansi in your muttrc? Gary -- Gary Johnson | Agilent Technologies [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Wireless Division http://www.spocom.com/users/gjohnson/mutt/ | Spokane, Washington, USA
Re: reading color quoted replies
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Friday, February 9 at 12:04 AM, quoth Gary Johnson: > On 2007-02-08, Kyle Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Thursday, February 8 at 11:40 PM, quoth Jeremy Blosser: Thanks very much. Hoping that it can sensibly dump HTML colors as ascii as well? I'll look into it. >>> >>> Kyle mentioned the newer versions have an option for this, and I looked far >>> enough to see the git version has the option, but I haven't actually tried >>> it yet. >> >> I tried it, and was disappointed. While in the *terminal*, it works >> like a charm (though it has the nasty habit of not restoring the >> original color scheme), mutt seems to strip all the color commands >> from the output of mailcap programs. > > Even with > >set allow_ansi > > in your muttrc? Yes. Now, interestingly, that is only true for autoview'd html. If I and then view the html part by itself, suddenly it's in color (yay!), but for some reason those colors are stripped when the html is viewed inline. (Yes, I'm sure it's autoviewing the html.) ~Kyle - -- If the president is the head of the American body politic, Congress is its gastrointestinal tract. Its vast and convoluted inner workings may be mysterious and unpleasant, but in the end they excrete a great deal of material whose successful passage is crucial to our nation's survival. This is Congress's duty. -- Jon Stewart -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Comment: Thank you for using encryption! iD8DBQFFzJabBkIOoMqOI14RAqlUAKDJjTzefyFbi+GjPhsUq7d41LF4BgCcCgr4 iV7gLMMKf7D/RVJYqgnrI68= =Nisa -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: reading color quoted replies
On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 05:49:45PM -0600, Travis H. wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 06:29:35PM +0100, Rado S wrote:
> > > I work in a startup of 10 people. I'm the only reason {... for
> > > IMAP, ssh, linux.}
> > > By most in our company, the effort to keep this going is
> > > considered a waste of time.
>
> I'd jump ship, honestly. I really don't like the Windows environment;
> I don't know what it's doing well enough, and Redmond makes it as hard
> as possible to learn. It can't easily be automated, etc. etc...
>
> If you would be interested in doing Linux work, send me your
> resume... my employer is trying very hard to find Linux techs.
> {...}
>
I hate the windows environment, but fortunately I don't do anything
close to the os. I'm a scientific programmer/applied mathematician
writing software in C++. I can live with the environment because of
tools like vnc, smb, sshfs, which let me work in linux or os x for 98%
of what I need to do. I used cygwin for about 3 years but grew tired
of its little issues (still using it when I actually must do something
on a windows machine).
Thanks for encouraging me to submit my resume but even though I hate
Windows, I wouldn't change my job for anything right now.
Best,
Marc
[OT] Re: reading color quoted replies
On Sun, Feb 04, 2007 at 11:52:15PM +1300, Chris Bannister wrote: > And there is probably a mumble-oven-user list where people are > discussing things like: "...with this mod, think of the power they would > save ... but they just don't listen." Totally OT, but perhaps amusing true story. I had a co-worker who used to work with robots and electromechanical stuff for Dow. Her group designed a washing machine (not sure if it was dishwashing or clothes) that blew bubbles with the water/soap mixture. From the size of the bubbles, they could tell how much soap it needed. They found that the suggested amounts were too much, and more importantly, most of the granulated soap never dissolved and went down the drain unused. Dow never did anything with the project, because it meant that people would buy less soap from them. Stories like these are great for those arguments where your opponent believes that what is good for corporations is good for everyone.* Basically, the corporation isn't paying for the cost of removing soap from the environment, and so this (plus incomplete customer knowledge) means that the invisible hand of the free market is not yielding an optimal result. [*] Which can be paraphrased as "what is good for your tumors is good for you", at which point the absurdity is self-evident. -- The driving force behind innovation is sublimation. -><- http://www.subspacefield.org/~travis/> For a good time on my UBE blacklist, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpI2yriFOge4.pgp Description: PGP signature
HTML email, was Re: reading color quoted replies
On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 03:59:51PM -0500, Marc Vaillant wrote: > This just isn't realistic. What sort of view of mutt do you think an > outlook user (potential mutt user) is going to get if I tell them "Hey > check out this great text based MUA that I have... only thing is, you > know that feature that everyone in the office loves to use with their > clients, well you have to tell them not to use it." Disclaimer: I am a security enthusiast I would say your best angle is a security angle. See if you can get someone with the authority to recognize that reading your email with a web browser and/or sending HTML poses a threat to the security of the company and the users who don't know better. If they don't know what phishing is, explain it to them. Be sure you communicate how HTML rendering (and especially javascript) have capabilities to confuse and mislead the user. Further, say that email worked fine with no phishing incidents for a good 20 years before HTML came along. Do you think HTML email is so important that the Internet did without it for 20 years? If the person needs to send an attachment, that's fine. That takes care of any argument about images. While the content of an attachment may not be obvious from its filename (a book and its cover), at least you know 1) Who sent it (modulo sender spoofing; HTML can only make it worse) 2) That it is an attachment 3) That you are downloading and/or executing that attachment. If they have any doubts about the misleading potential of overly complex formats like HTML and all the active crap that it can contain, I'll be happy to convince them. Just send me written permission, your email address, and view each email, then email me and tell me what they did. Then I'll show you what you didn't know they did. You will, however, be on your own when it comes to cleaning up the resulting mess. You can see a harmless example of many of them by going to this: http://www.digicrime.com/ (NOTE: Browsing this site will cause all sorts of surprising behavior, including sending emails from your machine). If you need some "argument by authority", I point you to the fact that the DoD banned the use of HTML email and OWA: http://www.fcw.com/article97178-12-22-06-Web On a personal level, you can always create an autoresponder that says something like, "I'm sorry, but I was expecting an email from you and instead I got a web page. I do not use a web browser to read email, so I cannot view this. If you wish to communicate by email, please try sending one." > Yes, but equally sad are those who waste their lives pipe dreaming. > Having enough foresight to know which battles will bring gain sorts the > successful from the unsuccessful. I hear the same arguments about using Windows instead of other OSes. -- The driving force behind innovation is sublimation. -><- http://www.subspacefield.org/~travis/> For a good time on my UBE blacklist, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpYkE36F8EPk.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: HTML email, was Re: reading color quoted replies
=- Travis H. wrote on Thu 1.Feb'07 at 23:04:23 -0600 -=
> On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 03:59:51PM -0500, Marc Vaillant wrote:
> > This just isn't realistic. What sort of view of mutt do you
> > think an outlook user (potential mutt user) is going to get if
> > I tell them "Hey check out this great text based MUA that I
> > have... only thing is, you know that feature that everyone in
> > the office loves to use with their clients, well you have to
> > tell them not to use it."
>
> Disclaimer: I am a security enthusiast
>
> I would say your best angle is a security angle. {...}
... one part being the defensive things listed by Travis, but you
also shouldn't forget that some "outsiders" rate html-ized mails
as spammy, so at least the score increases or in the worst case
it's outright blocked unless white-listed.
If they don't want to change their mind just for you as collegue
to make you more efficient at work, those arguments should make
some responsible dudes think about it.
(min. 50% of my total spam is html-ized: when I explain this to
my partners, they understand and click their box. I haven't heard
any of them complain about having lost quality of life ;)
--
© Rado S. -- You must provide YOUR effort for your goal!
EVERY effort counts: at least to show your attitude.
You're responsible for ALL of it: you get what you give.
Re: HTML email, was Re: reading color quoted replies
On Mon, Feb 05, 2007 at 06:31:03PM +0100, Rado S wrote: > ... one part being the defensive things listed by Travis, but you > also shouldn't forget that some "outsiders" rate html-ized mails > as spammy, so at least the score increases or in the worst case > it's outright blocked unless white-listed. > ... > (min. 50% of my total spam is html-ized: when I explain this to > my partners, they understand and click their box. I haven't heard > any of them complain about having lost quality of life ;) Yep... spamassassin has this as a test in every install. It may not be weighted enough to force a failure by default, but it does count towards the overall spam score. I'm reading this on a system that doesn't have X11 libraries, so I can't easily view graphics anyway. When I get around to content filtering, I'm going to file those in =.spam automatically. BTW, the bayesian learning page at CRM114 or dspam (I forget) has some interesting facts about HTML keywords. -- Good code works. Great code can't fail. -><- http://www.subspacefield.org/~travis/> For a good time on my UBE blacklist, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpW10KHC0Eyc.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: HTML email, was Re: reading color quoted replies
On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 11:04:23PM -0600, Travis H. wrote: > I would say your best angle is a security angle. See if you can get > someone with the authority to recognize that reading your email with a > web browser and/or sending HTML poses a threat to the security of the > company and the users who don't know better. Ok, thanks Travis. I'm still pessimistic about being able to bring about real change this way. Unfortunately, I think that it's likely going to take enough people getting burned before widespread change. > > If you need some "argument by authority", I point you to the fact that > the DoD banned the use of HTML email and OWA: > > http://www.fcw.com/article97178-12-22-06-Web > Perhaps it starts with the DoD. Interestingly, all of the cited anecdotes suggest that html is not getting blocked, but is getting converted to text. Is there still considerable danger in dumping html via w3m or some other html to text converter? That's not a rhetorical question; I really don't know the answer and I'm not suggesting that html email not be banned even if the answer is no. Also, we correspond with several DoD organizations on a weekly basis. We've never had an email blocked, nor have we been told not to send html email. > On a personal level, you can always create an autoresponder that says > something like, "I'm sorry, but I was expecting an email from you and > instead I got a web page. I do not use a web browser to read email, > so I cannot view this. If you wish to communicate by email, please > try sending one." Ok, but I think that a less condescending, more diplomatic message that cites a real reason--like security--would be more effective.
Re: HTML email, was Re: reading color quoted replies
=- Marc Vaillant wrote on Thu 8.Feb'07 at 11:58:48 -0500 -= > Is there still considerable danger in dumping html via w3m or > some other html to text converter? No, see wiki FAQ how to make it work. > Also, we correspond with several DoD organizations on a weekly > basis. We've never had an email blocked, nor have we been told > not to send html email. Some blocks are black holes: no response. Not being told: maybe the other side sorts them as spam and deals with it later when searching for false positives rather than responding normally. The correspondence itself is not lost, but time. But of course your company might be white-listed, so no problems at all, no matter how spammy it looks. -- © Rado S. -- You must provide YOUR effort for your goal! EVERY effort counts: at least to show your attitude. You're responsible for ALL of it: you get what you give.
Re: HTML email, was Re: reading color quoted replies
On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 06:34:19PM +0100, Rado S wrote: > =- Marc Vaillant wrote on Thu 8.Feb'07 at 11:58:48 -0500 -= > > > Is there still considerable danger in dumping html via w3m or > > some other html to text converter? > > No, see wiki FAQ how to make it work. Ok thanks. I do it now, just wondering if there were any security risks. > > > Also, we correspond with several DoD organizations on a weekly > > basis. We've never had an email blocked, nor have we been told > > not to send html email. > > Some blocks are black holes: no response. > Not being told: maybe the other side sorts them as spam and deals > with it later when searching for false positives rather than > responding normally. The correspondence itself is not lost, but time. > But of course your company might be white-listed, so no problems > at all, no matter how spammy it looks. Understand, thanks. Marc
Re: HTML email, was Re: reading color quoted replies
On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 06:34:19PM +0100, Rado S wrote: > > Is there still considerable danger in dumping html via w3m or > > some other html to text converter? Well, theoretically, any time you operate on data provided by someone who may not be trustworthy, you face a risk. The magnitude of the risk is dependent on the complexity of the program you're using to process it. I think most of the threat here is from javascript and stuff like that which has no analog in plain text and would be filtered out. The only problem then would be a "data-directed attack" against the HTML parser. This would typically involve a buffer overflow of some kind in the parser. One thing you can try to do is sandbox it, via chroot or jail or whatever you fancy. The program isn't going to need to access anything else, and has simple I/O (HTML in, text out), and probably doesn't invoke any external programs so this shouldn't be hard at all. In practical terms, shoot for a program written in a HLL like python, perl, ruby or ocaml, if you can find one. They don't suffer from as many problems as C programs, and speed isn't really an issue. You would probably be very safe even without any of these procedures, unless someone who knew you were doing this conversion, could guess which one, and with good exploitation skills took a personal interest in you. In any case, if there were a bug in HTML parsers, it'd likely be discovered on some of the phishing websites before email. There just aren't enough people doing this to justify the time. -- Good code works. Great code can't fail. -><- http://www.subspacefield.org/~travis/> For a good time on my UBE blacklist, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpoSDNuW5CY7.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: HTML email, was Re: reading color quoted replies
On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 05:38:15PM -0600, Travis H. wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 06:34:19PM +0100, Rado S wrote:
> > > Is there still considerable danger in dumping html via w3m or
> > > some other html to text converter?
>
> Well, theoretically, any time you operate on data provided by someone
> who may not be trustworthy, you face a risk. The magnitude of the
> risk is dependent on the complexity of the program you're using to
> process it. {}
Thanks for the info Travis.
Marc
