Re: reason for HTML-only?
Tim Lapin wrote: When one opens the message, one gets a blank window with an HTML attachment. Opening the HTML attachment forces the opening of a web browser application window containing the message. Other people have noted that such messages open properly in Apple Mail and I can attest that they open in Thunderbird. So, why not PowerMail? This will be addressed in PM 6. You can send me the raw source of a few sample messages with this behaviour, so I can test various cases. To do so, retrieve the message using Apple Mail.app, Thunderbird, or a webmail access (as PowerMail does not preserve the message's raw source), save it in raw message source or Mail file format, then send it to me as an attached file. Jérôme - CTM Engineering - Powermail's search capabilities, already mind-boggling fast, seem to be even faster. You'll never say I think I have that in an email somewhere, ever again. Because, you'll know in a half second. PowerMail user comment on www.versiontracker.com Download a demo version from www.ctmdev.com -
Re: PM6 hopes.. was:: reason for HTML-only?
Please add to my list of Hopes for PM6: * Ability to highlight copy text in a html message. Dave N in reply to ([EMAIL PROTECTED]), Dave N's message of 10:40 AM, 8/24/08 Since I have (finally) started to use the 3 pane view, I noticed that PM doesn't allow you to edit unsent emails in the 3rd pane. Even if you save an email reopen it in the 3rd pane later, you may view, but not edit there. Sort of odd that you must open the unsent email in a separate window to work on it. This is a minor complaint, but one easily fixed in PM6 perhaps. Along with the usual feature requests of: *Normal Printing (with a print dialog box, message headers, choice of html or text versions, etc) * the infamous html issues * Find/Replace function in the email being edited. * Smart folders (saved searches) * Pop-up menu to file incoming emails AND outgoing emails. * More choices of toolbar functions. * Lift the 2 gb db limit. * Even more robust Filter criteria, to include IF this AND that, OR IF the other thing, then... * Continued support for the existing great features of PM for Power users. Best, Dave N in reply to ([EMAIL PROTECTED]), Bill Schjelderup's message of 9:54 AM, 8/24/08 I sure hope Powermail v6 is a real product and not vaporwareand that one of it's major enhancements is better integration of HTML email.
Re: reason for HTML-only?
C. A. Niemiec suggested: 1. view plain text portion 2. view HTML portion 3. view HTML portion scrubbed to plain text #3 is HTML part minus tags. Links reduced to PowerMail's usual angle- bracketed plain text style. The 3rd alternative is usually possible with PM since some time, if there is no pure text part. If there is a pure text part, usually it makes sense to default to that. I'd consider it feature though to be able to view any HTML-message to text only, even if there was a pure text part. However, some HTML-messages end up as attachments only, which is a big problem IMHO. Some problems with this: ? The PM built-search index won't contain the data as it's only available in an external file. Thus, information in these attached files won't turn up in any searches. ? The information is fragile. If the external file is moved or deleted only an empty message will be what's left. ? The information can only be read, copied and treated in the web browser, which is quite inconvenient. ? It's likely that forwards or redirects will keep the message as attachment only, which will expand the problem to users of other more HTML-capable email clients. Friends (sic), family, co-workers all get their HTML mail via the client of their choice. PowerMail users can send back plain text replies. PowerMail users with a grudge against HTML mail can send back plain text with maniacal glee. Hehe, this sounds nice. Would this really take more than some regex? Why? It's much better to let an HTML interpreter do its stuff and use the result, which is text after all (and media obviously, but that would have to be scrapped I think). Which is what PM does now. Mikael Technoids: PM 5.6.5 build 4509 sv / SpamSieve 2.7.1 sv | OS X 10.4.8 | Powerbook G4/400 | 1GB / 80GB
Re: reason for HTML-only?
However, some HTML-messages end up as attachments only, which is a big problem IMHO. Some problems with this: ? The PM built-search index won't contain the data as it's only available in an external file. Thus, information in these attached files won't turn up in any searches. ? The information is fragile. If the external file is moved or deleted only an empty message will be what's left. ? The information can only be read, copied and treated in the web browser, which is quite inconvenient. I would envision an HTML importer that would squeeze the content of .html attachments sans tags into a message that would be indexed and placed in the database as normal (heh, as a normal message). ala: Mail Import HTML attachment as text ... and a corresponding action for filter purposes. If message is [ not evaluated as spam || from sender in address book || etc ], make a plain text part from HTML attachment. ? It's likely that forwards or redirects will keep the message as attachment only, which will expand the problem to users of other more HTML-capable email clients. Forwarding with attachments -- didn't think of that. Would this really take more than some regex? Why? It's much better to let an HTML interpreter do its stuff and use the result, which is text after all (and media obviously, but that would have to be scrapped I think). Which is what PM does now. For PowerMail to create a tagless, plain text version of the HTML part would take more than regex? Or take the results of the HTML interpreter and make plain text of that? Same end: text I can select from within PowerMail for quoting or whatnot. I guess my point was I wouldn't have to use/look at the HTML interpreter unless the conversion ended up too scrambled. I honestly don't get enough HTML messages to know how often this would be. Chris --
Re(3): reason for HTML-only?
Although trying to deal with HTML email is not as smooth as it could be, MY major problem with PM right now is that when I configure PM to view HTML email, I get frequent crashes as a skim through these messages. It was REALLY bad when I installed Safari v4 beta - but even after I reverted, the crash rate is irritating. When I turn off viewing of HTML email, the crashes go awayBut then my messages are a pain to read. I dislike HTML email, but the hard fact is that MANY people use it - including many of my employees, even after I TRY to get them to use plain text. It's a battle I'm tried of fighting. Family, friends, customers, spam -- it doesn't matter who we curse, Microsoft or Apple -- it's a fact of life and our tools need to deal with it correctly. I sure hope Powermail v6 is a real product and not vaporwareand that one of it's major enhancements is better integration of HTML email. I don't want to SEND HTML email -- and I control that, but receiving it...please make it as easy as plain text Bill
Re: PM6 hopes.. was:: reason for HTML-only?
Since I have (finally) started to use the 3 pane view, I noticed that PM doesn't allow you to edit unsent emails in the 3rd pane. Even if you save an email reopen it in the 3rd pane later, you may view, but not edit there. Sort of odd that you must open the unsent email in a separate window to work on it. This is a minor complaint, but one easily fixed in PM6 perhaps. Along with the usual feature requests of: *Normal Printing (with a print dialog box, message headers, choice of html or text versions, etc) * the infamous html issues * Find/Replace function in the email being edited. * Smart folders (saved searches) * Pop-up menu to file incoming emails AND outgoing emails. * More choices of toolbar functions. * Lift the 2 gb db limit. * Even more robust Filter criteria, to include IF this AND that, OR IF the other thing, then... * Continued support for the existing great features of PM for Power users. Best, Dave N in reply to ([EMAIL PROTECTED]), Bill Schjelderup's message of 9:54 AM, 8/24/08 I sure hope Powermail v6 is a real product and not vaporwareand that one of it's major enhancements is better integration of HTML email.
Re: reason for HTML-only?
MB hat am Donnerstag, 21. August 2008 geschrieben: Do anyone here have clue on what possible reasons there could be to choosing to send HTML-only messages, instead of mixed messages without a pure text part as well? Is stupidity a good reason for it? A 2004 study by AWeber.com shows that plain text messages are undeliverable 1.15% of the time and HTML only messages were undeliverable 2.3%. If sending HTML it is important to always send a plain text alternative message, also called text/HTML multi-part mime format. And of course (AWeber.com is in that business): In the meantime HTML-mails (especially HTML-only mails) are recognised by mailservers ans mailprograms as SPAM.
Re: reason for HTML-only?
Am/On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 13:30:40 +0200 schrieb/wrote Rene Merz: MB hat am Donnerstag, 21. August 2008 geschrieben: Do anyone here have clue on what possible reasons there could be to choosing to send HTML-only messages, instead of mixed messages without a pure text part as well? Is stupidity a good reason for it? No. I meanwhile also get sme messages html only. And this is increasing.. More and more people do so and some services as well. So yes, it gets more and more difficult t stick with PM. One file database (time machine) with its 2GB limit, html messages and some other missing features would make a major revision imho necessary. Thanks and all the best Matthias
Re: reason for HTML-only?
Matthias Schmidt sez: So yes, it gets more and more difficult t stick with PM. Can you not use the button at the bottom to switch to HTML view or view the message in a web browser. If neither of those work, than the email has crappy HTML code and it isn't PM's fault. -- Michael Lewis Off Balance Productions [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.offbalance.com
Re: reason for HTML-only?
On Saturday, August 23, 2008, Michael Lewis sent forth: Matthias Schmidt sez: So yes, it gets more and more difficult t stick with PM. Can you not use the button at the bottom to switch to HTML view or view the message in a web browser. If neither of those work, than the email has crappy HTML code and it isn't PM's fault. -- Michael Lewis Off Balance Productions [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.offbalance.com You miss the point, I think. These messages cannot be displayed by PM in any mode. I have received a few myself. If mail is increasingly of the HTML-only variety, then using PM becomes increasingly a chore as the very automatic nature of viewing email is changed. What it means is that more and more we will have to go down to the icon at the bottom of the page and click on that little globe, invoking a second program to do what the first program should have done but couldn't. I like text based email, you like text based email. Unfortunately, it seems relatively few other groups do. :-( As far as whose fault it is, such arguments are futile at best. If you really press the point, people will then point to the fact that other email clients can read the stuff, so why can't PM? A second problem is with the database and backups. I just upgraded to Leopard because of, among other things, Time Machine. I bought a LaCie 2 big Triple 1 TB drive (2 x 500 GB physical drives) and set the second drive as a mirror of the first. Combined with Time Machine, I now have redundant backups plus a whack of extra storage space. PowerMail, however, is the fly in the ointment with its monolithic structure. I know it is not alone in this and Apple clearly had Mail.app in mind when designing Time Machine but neither is Mail.app alone. Thunderbird can be set up so that its parent folders become separate databases; each one allowing a 4 GB file or database in effect. Eudora, though now in legacy mode, is another. The smaller files result in a less onerous automated backup by Time Machine. I can only be thankful that my database is small by the standards of some users here (? 150 MB and growing) through careful pruning of messages that are important in the moment but have no lasting value. It should be pointed out that the same problem would exist with any backup regime but I point to Time Machine as most of us have it and probably more than a few of us are either using it or thinking of using it. It is a slick, automated, no fuss product. Besides, free is good. :-) -- Tim Lapin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Intel iMacOS 10.5.1PowerMail 5.6.1 1 GB RAM 250 GB HD
Re: reason for HTML-only?
Tim Lapin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: You miss the point, I think. These messages cannot be displayed by PM in any mode. I have received a few myself. So far, this thread was about HTML-only mails, and PM has no problems displaying HTML-only mails that I am aware of. There is an issue with mails containing multiple HTML parts or combinations of HTML and plain text parts, but that's a different matter. In those cases, the individual parts can only be displayed in a web browser. PowerMail, however, is the fly in the ointment with its monolithic structure. Hmm .. actually, I prefer monolithic databases, if only for the fact that monolithic files copy much much faster than folders containing a myriad of small files. But then, I don't use Time Machine. Even when PM's mail database was dissolved into many small files, other databases, virtual disks and such won't be going away. - Michael Michael J. Hußmann E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW (personal): http://michael-hussmann.de WWW (professional): http://digicam-experts.de
Re: reason for HTML-only?
Tim Lapin sez: You miss the point, I think. These messages cannot be displayed by PM in any mode. I have received a few myself. I don't think that point was made. The original message only asked about HTML-only messages not being sent with text parts. If they aren't formatting the multipart emails properly, then they may be creating improper HTML code, too. I can only reply to the info I have. :) -- Michael Lewis Off Balance Productions [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.offbalance.com
Re: reason for HTML-only?
On Saturday, August 23, 2008, Richard Hart sent forth: Tim Lapin wrote: These messages cannot be displayed by PM in any mode. I have received a few myself. Are you sure you meant to write that? I believe you might be experiencing problems, but I have never received a message in PowerMail that cannot be displayed. What does that mean: cannot be displayed? Richard Hart Exactly what I and others have written. When one opens the message, one gets a blank window with an HTML attachment. Opening the HTML attachment forces the opening of a web browser application window containing the message. Other people have noted that such messages open properly in Apple Mail and I can attest that they open in Thunderbird. So, why not PowerMail? Look back in this list and you will see others have written about the same thing. The fact that it might be spam is irrelevant. The fact that it might be objectionable on principle to some here (including me, BTW) is irrelevant. If I have to see that message, I don't appreciate my e-mailer telling me in effect to piss off and use another product. I like PM but unless issues like this get addressed, I might have to reconsider. -- Tim Lapin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Intel iMacOS 10.5.1PowerMail 5.6.1 1 GB RAM 250 GB HD
Re: reason for HTML-only?
Tim Lapin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Exactly what I and others have written. This thread started with the question: Do anyone here have clue on what possible reasons there could be to choosing to send HTML-only messages, instead of mixed messages without a pure text part as well? Then the thread got hijacked and now you are complaining about the well- known issue of PM being unable to make multiple HTML parts into something it can display. It might have been better to start a new thread if you want to discuss this (although I don't think anything has changed since Jérôme explained CTM's take the issue on 6/20/2008). - Michael Michael J. Hußmann E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW (personal): http://michael-hussmann.de WWW (professional): http://digicam-experts.de
Re: reason for HTML-only?
On Saturday, August 23, 2008, Michael J. Hußmann sent forth: Tim Lapin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Exactly what I and others have written. This thread started with the question: Do anyone here have clue on what possible reasons there could be to choosing to send HTML-only messages, instead of mixed messages without a pure text part as well? Then the thread got hijacked and now you are complaining about the well- known issue of PM being unable to make multiple HTML parts into something it can display. It might have been better to start a new thread if you want to discuss this (although I don't think anything has changed since Jérôme explained CTM's take the issue on 6/20/2008). - Michael Michael J. Hußmann E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW (personal): http://michael-hussmann.de WWW (professional): http://digicam-experts.de Ah, my mistake. Apologies. I have a summer head cold and clearly, I am not reading things carefully enough. As to the original question, I don't know, given that such messages are more likely to be considered spam. -- Tim Lapin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Intel iMacOS 10.5.1PowerMail 5.6.1 1 GB RAM 250 GB HD
Re: reason for HTML-only?
Am/On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 12:05:52 -0500 schrieb/wrote Michael Lewis: Matthias Schmidt sez: So yes, it gets more and more difficult t stick with PM. Can you not use the button at the bottom to switch to HTML view or view the message in a web browser. If neither of those work, than the email has crappy HTML code and it isn't PM's fault. of course I can view html messages usually. But replying to them is sometimes ... let's say uncomfortable, because I have to mark the text. The other point is, that some messages just contain in the text part something, like the service ... requires html in the moment. Regarding the database, weather people prefer monolithic databases or not, it doesn't matter. The current backup technology doesn't prefer this structure. Same thing with priority and some other features. All mail clients do support that stuff, PM doesn't ... PM doesn't define the standards, the major players do, so PM should stick with it. Thanks and all the best Matthias
Re(2): reason for HTML-only?
Do anyone here have clue on what possible reasons there could be to choosing to send HTML-only messages, instead of mixed messages without a pure text part as well? ... As to the original question, I don't know, given that such messages are more likely to be considered spam. Actually, I see quite a few that are all, or almost all, html and don't display well, or at all. There are also some that are not very well formed - the usual ones I see of these are airline tickets and confirmations. So I wouldn't consider them all to be spam. Some maybe, but not all. Regards.Peter
Re: reason for HTML-only?
Richard Hart said: Are you sure you meant to write that? I believe you might be experiencing problems, but I have never received a message in PowerMail that cannot be displayed. What does that mean: cannot be displayed? Well, if the HTML-message ends up in an attached file and there's no pure text part, there's no way to view that message withing PowerMail as the message body itself contain no data except for the headers. You'll have to open the attachment in a web browser. If there was a HTML-only message that was contained also inside PowerMail as usually is the case, PM could possibly utilize its ability to turn HTML to text. Something it does a great job at this from time to time, though not always of course. For clarity, what I asked about intially was if you people could think of reasons for not sending messages with a pure text part. I'd prefer if the focus remained on that. For professional opt-in mailers, this manner of mailing out messages doesn't make sense to me, because I'm unaware of any general non-PM technical reasons for omitting the pure text part.
Re: reason for HTML-only?
Matthias Schmidt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Regarding the database, weather people prefer monolithic databases or not, it doesn't matter. The current backup technology doesn't prefer this structure. Same thing with priority and some other features. All mail clients do support that stuff, PM doesn't ... PM doesn't define the standards, the major players do, so PM should stick with it. Years ago, I switched to PM because (coming from Claris Emailer) I felt immediately at home with it. I still do. For a while, I had been forced to use Outlook, which I despised, and I've tried Apple's Mail, which I thought was a bit strange. PM is still the mail client I like best. Now from time to time, there are people complaining about how PM isn't more like mail client X, Y, or Z. But if I preferred X, Y, or Z, I would have switched to one of those a long time ago. As it happens, I like the basic philosophy behind PM. There is certainly room for improvement, no doubt about that, but basically, PM's just fine. I would hate it to turn into a replica of one of the competing clients. Diversity is a good thing, and certainly preferrable to following standards that aren't even standards. - Michael Michael J. Hußmann E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW (personal): http://michael-hussmann.de WWW (professional): http://digicam-experts.de
HTML capabilities (was: reason for HTML-only?)
Michael J. Hußmann said: PM's just fine. I would hate it to turn into a replica of one of the competing clients. Diversity is a good thing, and certainly preferrable to following standards that aren't even standards. Improving PowerMails HTML-capabilities is hardly a call for anything of what you suggest here.
Re: reason for HTML-only?
Tim Lapin sez: What are you talking about? RE-READ the part you quoted. I have received some HTML-only e-mails that did NOT open in PowerMail. Not often, mind you but more than once. What are you talking about? I responded to another message. Not yours. The original message said some HTML-only messages can't be viewed in PowerMail. It did notsay if those HTML-only messages were properly formatted HTML, but the fact they are HTML-only and not multipart HTML and Text like the RFC requires, indicates to me they could just as well be improperly formatted HTML. Again, I can only reply to the information I am given. Extrapolating that the HTML-only messages are proper ones and the PM should be rendering them was not possible from the information I had. And my last word on this is: http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20080822 -- Michael Lewis Off Balance Production [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.offbalance.com
Re: reason for HTML-only?
Tim Lapin sez: Ah, my mistake. Apologies. I have a summer head cold and clearly, I am not reading things carefully enough. :) I sent out my last message before reading through the thread. Tried not to seem snarky, but may have come across that way anyway, especially after this had already wound down. My bad, and my apologies, too. I sitll like the cartoon at http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/? id=20080822 though. :) -- Michael Lewis Off Balance Productions [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.offbalance.com
reason for HTML-only?
Do anyone here have clue on what possible reasons there could be to choosing to send HTML-only messages, instead of mixed messages without a pure text part as well?
Re: reason for HTML-only?
I don't know, but I'm getting a lot of those. Some look like almost blank in Powermail, and I have to use Apple Mail to view them. It's getting harder to stick with PM now. CTM: Please hurry up with v 6! We need some important features, like being able to forward an (html) email without ruining it. And printing that works as expected. And a Find/Replace function. DN in reply to ([EMAIL PROTECTED]), MB's message of 7:19 AM, 8/21/08 Do anyone here have clue on what possible reasons there could be to choosing to send HTML-only messages, instead of mixed messages without a pure text part as well?
