Mosh Teitelbaum wrote:
> >Plain text certainly does *NOT* have to be like speaking in a monotone.
> > ^
Claude Schneegans wrote:
> That funny: you used exactly 35 extra characters to do this,...
> compared to only 7 in HTML.
> Should we conclude that HTML would save on
Mosh Teitelbaum wrote:
> >There have been standard conventions for emphasizing text in
> >email/usenet for ages.
Claude Schneegans wrote:
> As you say quite judiciously, they have been there for ages.
> It's about time we use something not so obsolete.
I wouldn't call them "obsolete." "Old" mayb
On Monday 15 Sep 2003 18:12 pm, John Wilker wrote:
> Plain text is like speaking in a monotone.
NO IT ISN'T !
> There is no emphasis on
> concepts, ideas, etc.. I can't stand trying to get something across when I
> don't even have Bold to work with :)
Who needs *bold* anyway ?
:-)
--
Tom Chi
On Monday 15 Sep 2003 22:32 pm, Claude Schneegans wrote:
> As you say quite judiciously, they have been there for ages.
> It's about time we use something not so obsolete.
Oh, right, because new is always better.
:gives up and catches-up thread
--
Tom Chiverton (sorry 'bout sig.)
Advanced ColdF
>I vote No for HTML email just because I don't ever want to receive it
>:-)... but following on from Rachel's email...
>Those that receive in Digest form would probably benefit from the option of
>HTML email as it can get a bit messy with the all the messages digested
>into one I get cf-tal
alk
> Subject: RE: KILL THIS was Re: (Admin) List upgrades - What about
PayPal?
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Michael Dinowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: 16 September 2003 05:12
> > To: CF-Talk
> > Subject: Re: KILL THIS was Re: (Admin) List upg
Amazon.com has something like that too
> -Original Message-
> From: Ben Doom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 10:27 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: KILL THIS was Re: (Admin) List upgrades - What about
> PayPal?
>
>
> : Can
: Can you add a Support House Of Fusion via PayPal link? I think
: you would be
: suprised at how many people would contribute. HoF lists are a
: valuable tool
: in my coding arsenal!
You mean like the "Make a Donation" link at the bottom of the HoF home page
that shunts you to Paypal? :-)
--Ben
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael Dinowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 16 September 2003 05:12
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: KILL THIS was Re: (Admin) List upgrades
>
> 5. Having mail with an HTML banner will allow us to attract advertisers to
> suppo
At this point I agree. The bottom line will be:
1. people will have the option to receive mail in HTML or text format. (HTML
default)
2. HTML format will be limited to a single bar at bottom of the message with all
of the list controls and a banner ad.
3. text format will have the same but with a 3
>Fine, fine...if this list goes HTML, send all the prettified email you
>want. Just know all of us whose email clients are not the leading
>virus infection vector in the world, won't be looking at it if we
>don't want to ;-)
>
Can we PLEASE kill this thread? It hasn't been anywhere near CF since t
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 10:07 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: (Admin) List upgrades
>
> Monday, September 15, 2003, 9:39:10 PM, you wrote:
> >> -Original Message-
>>Surely you've seen messages where a long (80+)
URL was broken two or more lines?
I confirm: a PITA.
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4
>A few questions:
>2. I'm going to add in a link on each post to send the user directly to the post
>in the archive. Should this link be before the message (a header) or after (a
>footer)?
I'd love it as part of the header. The digests already do something along these
lines.
>3. As an exten
Monday, September 15, 2003, 9:39:10 PM, you wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 5:29 PM
>> To: CF-Talk
>> Subject: RE: (Admin) List upgrades
>>
>> > Novelists ar
> -Original Message-
> From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 5:29 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: (Admin) List upgrades
>
> > Novelists are professional authors with refined skills in
> > conveying the sentiment of
> -Original Message-
> From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 4:39 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: (Admin) List upgrades
>
> > Plain text is like speaking in a monotone. There is no
> > emphasis on concepts, ideas, etc
> -Original Message-
> From: Mosh Teitelbaum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 3:18 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: (Admin) List upgrades
>
> Plain text certainly does *NOT* have to be like speaking in a
monotone.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Scott Wilhelm [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 1:52 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: (Admin) List upgrades
>
> Why not take Google's lead w/ text only ads? That would work well w/
both
> options for fo
>
> yeah, but a 2K HTML email with 10 1px clear GIFs passing your email
and
> such to spam lists is REAL SUPER dumb. I'd prefer the text based
anyday
> to this. Of course, email from this list would be clean anyway, so a
> preferential decision on the members part would seem fine.
I still see t
> On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 00:45:04 -0400, in cf-talk you wrote:
> >I'll also throw my hat in the ring as being pro UseNet - I'd much
rather
> >participate via NNTP. It's not a deal-breaker by any means (I'm
here!)
> >but it would be very nice.
>
> Did you know you can already get the list via NNTP? I
> -Original Message-
> From: Jochem van Dieten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 11:22 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: (Admin) List upgrades
>
> Jim Davis wrote:
> >
> > (As an aside - I've never understood the "war&q
ue :)
-Original Message-
From: John Wilker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 4:14 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: (Admin) List upgrades
And in general a moot point on this list. Have any of use ever posted
innappropriate links? Or otherwise attempted to fool or befud
All of that seems pretty user specific. I guess your limitations should
hinder the group?
-Original Message-
From: Jochem van Dieten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 4:05 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: (Admin) List upgrades
John Wilker wrote:
> Or you from us
> > Outlook 2002 tries to "sense" these breaks and
> > remove them, but it isn't very good at it. If you can suggest an
e-mail
> > client that guesses correctly every time, I'd be impressed.
>
> What is there to guess? There either are spaces or not.
Most e-mail clients break at around 80 charact
> I tested Outlook for 1 day and I discovered the following problems:
> charset problems (not specified in the headers)
> attachment problems (fictional attachments appear when using
> "begin ")
> IMAP problems (no server config autodetection)
> NNTP problems (timeout on connections too short)
S
: (Admin) List upgrades
> > Not to mention http://blahblah.com/myblahpage.cfm takes a lot more
visible
> > space than _my link_
>
> Which is nice, it allows people to see where they are going.
I agree. Unfortunately, when Outlook displays an HTML e-mail it doesn't
hono
John Wilker wrote:
> Or you from using outlook or another client?
Why would I want to switch over long URLs when my current mail
client supports them?
> Outlook has served me well for
> years on end. How about you switch?
I tested Outlook for 1 day and I discovered the following problems:
char
CTED]>
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 5:49 PM
Subject: Re: (Admin) List upgrades
| Benjamin S. Rogers wrote:
| >>
| >>Most HTML generated by email clients is invalid. Most of it uses
| >>inappropriate methods. Sending email with font="-3" just because
| >>tha
Benjamin S. Rogers wrote:
>
> Well, seeing as how I've written e-mail clients, I can't possibly
> imagine one that doesn't. Most mail clients which send mail break the
> line at around line 80.
Email clients should break at a space just before the maximum
number of characters set by the user, wi
al Message-
From: Jochem van Dieten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 3:43 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: (Admin) List upgrades
John Wilker wrote:
> Not to mention http://blahblah.com/myblahpage.cfm takes a lot more
> visible space than _my link_
Which is nice, it allo
> > Not to mention http://blahblah.com/myblahpage.cfm takes a lot more
visible
> > space than _my link_
>
> Which is nice, it allows people to see where they are going.
I agree. Unfortunately, when Outlook displays an HTML e-mail it doesn't
honor the Internet Explorer status bar. So, I can't tel
> > Well, Jochem, if text is illegible on your system at that size, then
> > hold down control and scroll up.
>
> Control + actually.
I was speaking of the of the mouse wheel on a Windows system in Internet
Explorer, the normal behavior or which is scrolling.
Benjamin S. Rogers
http://www.c4.net
Or you from using outlook or another client? Outlook has served me well for
years on end. How about you switch?
-Original Message-
From: Jochem van Dieten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 3:43 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: (Admin) List upgrades
Benjamin S
> > Yes, but most e-mail clients also have a problem with long URLs.
HTML
> > e-mail would solve that problem.
>
> What stops you from using an email client that does not have that
> problem?
Well, seeing as how I've written e-mail clients, I can't possibly
imagine one that doesn't. Most mail cl
Benjamin S. Rogers wrote:
>>
>>Most HTML generated by email clients is invalid. Most of it uses
>>inappropriate methods. Sending email with font="-3" just because
>>that looks nice on your system makes it illegible on my system.
>
> Well, Jochem, if text is illegible on your system at that size,
John Wilker wrote:
> Not to mention http://blahblah.com/myblahpage.cfm takes a lot more visible
> space than _my link_
Which is nice, it allows people to see where they are going.
Jochem
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.
Benjamin S. Rogers wrote:
>>Most(*) mail clients auto-hyperlink things that look like
>>http://blah.blah.blah - you don't need HTML for that.
>
>
> Yes, but most e-mail clients also have a problem with long URLs. HTML
> e-mail would solve that problem.
What stops you from using an email client
> > I don't know about you but That seems like an aweful lot of work
just to
> > emphasize a word, not to mention wasting a line.
>
> I suppose you don't see any *emphasis* in this line either then?
> If not, try a real email client.
>
> > Jochem, I didn't get the point you were making.
>
> Mos
> Can anyone direct me to an email list that uses HTML over text?
Actually, I just checked, and just about every other mailing list I
belong to allows HTML formatting. This includes our mail server vendor,
several SQL Server mailing lists, and even Netcraft. The only exception
is a SourceForge mai
Not to mention http://blahblah.com/myblahpage.cfm takes a lot more visible
space than _my link_
-Original Message-
From: Benjamin S. Rogers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 3:22 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: (Admin) List upgrades
> Most(*) mail clients a
> Most(*) mail clients auto-hyperlink things that look like
> http://blah.blah.blah - you don't need HTML for that.
Yes, but most e-mail clients also have a problem with long URLs. HTML
e-mail would solve that problem.
Benjamin S. Rogers
http://www.c4.net/
v.508.240.0051
f.508.240.0057
ot;CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 2:52 PM
Subject: Re: (Admin) List upgrades
> >>in conveying the
> sentiment of their thoughts, emotions, and surroundings. Some of us are
not
> so talented.
>
> Yes, and programing, especially in
Michael Dinowitz wrote:
> 2. I'm going to add in a link on each post to send the user directly to the
post
> in the archive. Should this link be before the message (a header) or after (a
> footer)?
Footer. I've been on lists with added junk at the top and it's incredibly
annoying. I don't real
>>in conveying the
sentiment of their thoughts, emotions, and surroundings. Some of us are not
so talented.
Yes, and programing, especially in CF, can bring sentiments and emotions even the best
talented novelist would have hard time to convey ;-)
Cuz it just happens here :)
-Original Message-
From: Claude Schneegans [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 2:40 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: (Admin) List upgrades
>>the WorldWide SQL Server Usergroup does.
All Microsft niews groups allow HTML Never heard
> > Perhaps, but there are plenty of lousy novelists, and yet
> > you wouldn't suggest to them that they use formatting to
> > become better writers, would you?
>
> This is why every novelist has an assigned editor. All the
> novelist has to do is tell the story, and the editor does
> the form
>>the WorldWide SQL Server Usergroup does.
All Microsft niews groups allow HTML Never heard of any complain.
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s
Superfluous to you perhaps, maybe not to others. Some might grasp an email
better if it provides a visual queue here and there.
-Original Message-
From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 2:28 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: (Admin) List upgrades
> G
|
| Perhaps, but there are plenty of lousy novelists, and yet you wouldn't
| suggest to them that they use formatting to become better writers, would
| you?
|
This is why every novelist has an assigned editor. All the novelist has to do
is tell the story, and the editor does the formatting before
>>Plain text certainly does *NOT* have to be like speaking in a monotone.
^
That funny: you used exactly 35 extra characters to do this,... compared to only 7 in
HTML.
Should we conclude that HTML would save on the bandwidth? ;-)
>>There have been standard conventions for emphasizing text in email/usenet
for ages.
As you say quite judiciously, they have been there for ages.
It's about time we use something not so obsolete.
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoff
> But some does - and most folks do expect (as they can in
> their word processors) to, at the very least, bold, italicize
> and underline (things we mimic badly in email with
> _underlining_ and BOLDING).
I've never found a need to do this, in all the mail I've sent.
> In our situation the ab
> Novelists are professional authors with refined skills in
> conveying the sentiment of their thoughts, emotions, and
> surroundings. Some of us are not so talented. :)
Perhaps, but there are plenty of lousy novelists, and yet you wouldn't
suggest to them that they use formatting to become bett
> Good point Dave (actually, cheap shot), but I think he would
> like to get something across without having to write a novel,
> as I am sure we would like to understand it without having
> to read a novel.
My point is simply that formatting isn't essential to comprehension, and in
many cases i
Hi,
Novelists are professional authors with refined skills in conveying the
sentiment of their thoughts, emotions, and surroundings. Some of us are not
so talented. :)
Best regards,
Michael Wilson
-Original Message-
From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I wonder how they do it?
-
From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 4:39 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: (Admin) List upgrades
> Plain text is like speaking in a monotone. There is no
> emphasis on concepts, ideas, etc.. I can't stand trying
> to get something across when I d
I vote YES on digest in HTML format if
1) it's an option
2) if you can organize the html output so that the
threads collapse and expand using JavaScript
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4
Subscriptio
o:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 4:52 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: (Admin) List upgrades
>
>
> I was kidding. Outlook gets the job done. To each his own.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jochem van Dieten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent:
What dat you mean? Couldn't resist. I don't get any, that I know of anyway.
-Original Message-
From: Tony Weeg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 1:52 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: (Admin) List upgrades
can anyone explain why .dat files are coming in
If Dave leaves, I'm leaving too!
-Original Message-
From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 1:34 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: (Admin) List upgrades
> This is another legend spread by Usenet groupies. Who wants
> to send huge images in mai
can anyone explain why .dat files are coming in to cftalk email?
odd?
tw
-Original Message-
From: John Wilker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 4:52 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: (Admin) List upgrades
I was kidding. Outlook gets the job done. To each his own
I was kidding. Outlook gets the job done. To each his own.
-Original Message-
From: Jochem van Dieten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 1:44 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: (Admin) List upgrades
John Wilker wrote:
> Nope. But then again Outlook can only do so m
Most Email clients send HTML messages as multipart messages, so you're
sending both a HTML and a plain text version. That adds to the bandwidth
quite a bit.
Looking forward to the RSS feed mike!
Also mike, why don't you add advertising to the pages in:
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/cache
John Wilker wrote:
> Nope. But then again Outlook can only do so much.
>
> Sounds like you need a better system ;)
Why would I need a better system? My email client is quite a bit
better on standards support as Outlook (Express) is. I even can
configure it to support different quoting styles.
nal use of html email" :)
Be strong!
-Original Message-
From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 1:34 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: (Admin) List upgrades
> This is another legend spread by Usenet groupies. Who wants
> to send huge images in mai
: RE: (Admin) List upgrades
> Plain text is like speaking in a monotone. There is no
> emphasis on concepts, ideas, etc.. I can't stand trying
> to get something across when I don't even have Bold to
> work with :)
That's funny, I can pick up any novel and read it just
> Plain text is like speaking in a monotone. There is no
> emphasis on concepts, ideas, etc.. I can't stand trying
> to get something across when I don't even have Bold to
> work with :)
That's funny, I can pick up any novel and read it just fine, beginning to
end, and they readily convey their
> This is another legend spread by Usenet groupies. Who wants
> to send huge images in mails? Any one can shout out bad words
> in plain text, but we still don't do it here, do we? With HTML
> any one can display a huge image, this does not mean we'll dot
> it.
Based on my experiences with som
and then multiply 100 or 1000.
*jk* eric
^^
-Original Message-
From: Scott Wilhelm [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
And for all those arguing about the bandwidth...count the emails that have
been created since the inception of this thread...then start counting up
your bytes, and how many you've
://www.evoch.com/
> -Original Message-
> From: John Wilker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 4:02 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: (Admin) List upgrades
>
>
> I don't know about you but That seems like an aweful lot of work just to
>
Nope. But then again Outlook can only do so much.
Sounds like you need a better system ;)
-Original Message-
From: Jochem van Dieten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 1:07 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: (Admin) List upgrades
John Wilker wrote:
> I don
rd is bold.
Knowing m$ it's
-Original Message-
From: Sean A Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 1:05 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: (Admin) List upgrades
On Monday, Sep 15, 2003, at 13:02 US/Pacific, John Wilker wrote:
> I don't know about you
On Monday, Sep 15, 2003, at 13:02 US/Pacific, John Wilker wrote:
> I don't know about you but That seems like an aweful lot of work just
> to
> emphasize a word, not to mention wasting a line.
Mosh's example is a little over the top. *bold* and _italic_ are
actually the 'standard' forms of empha
John Wilker wrote:
> I don't know about you but That seems like an aweful lot of work just to
> emphasize a word, not to mention wasting a line.
I suppose you don't see any *emphasis* in this line either then?
If not, try a real email client.
> Jochem, I didn't get the point you were making.
M
Always one at every party. :)
"This is dumb to me, move it away!"
;)
-Original Message-
From: Scott Wilhelm [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 12:19 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: (Admin) List upgrades
The arguement for & against HTML emails is
PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: (Admin) List upgrades
Plain text certainly does *NOT* have to be like speaking in a monotone.
^
There have been standard conventions for emphasizing text in email/usenet
for ages.
--
Mosh Teitelbaum
evoch, LLC
Tel: (301) 942-5378
Fax: (301
On Monday, Sep 15, 2003, at 10:41 US/Pacific, Michael Dinowitz wrote:
> but also have the footer be clean and nice looking. This would mean
> that the links would come out as links
Most(*) mail clients auto-hyperlink things that look like
http://blah.blah.blah - you don't need HTML for that.
*
WWW: http://www.evoch.com/
> -Original Message-
> From: Jim Campbell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 3:26 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: (Admin) List upgrades
>
>
> That's funny - I use Mozilla's Thunderbird mail client, a
; Tel: (301) 942-5378
MT> Fax: (301) 933-3651
MT> Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MT> WWW: http://www.evoch.com/
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Jochem van Dieten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 3:14 PM
>> To: CF-Talk
>>
>
>
>
>
>>-Original Message-
>>From: Jochem van Dieten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 3:14 PM
>>To: CF-Talk
>>Subject: Re: (Admin) List upgrades
>>
>>
>>John Wilker wrote:
>>
>>
>&
the WorldWide SQL Server Usergroup does... it works out fine.
http://www.sswug.org/
Jeff
- Original Message -
From: "Adam Wayne Lehman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 12:04 PM
Subject: RE:
gt; To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: (Admin) List upgrades
>
>
> John Wilker wrote:
> >
> > Plain text is like speaking in a monotone. There is no
> emphasis on concepts,
> > ideas, etc.. I can't stand trying to get something across
> when I don't even
&
://www.evoch.com/
> -Original Message-
> From: Jochem van Dieten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 3:14 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: (Admin) List upgrades
>
>
> John Wilker wrote:
> >
> > Plain text is like speaking in a monotone
Not everyone's email client supports HTML email for good reasons. That
means you either have to decide to require an HTML email client, which
will definitely alienate some members, or go multipart alternative,
which will end up increasing file size.
Let me say, the first time I see purple (or any
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> Perhaps its time to introduce two HTML Email standards? A Lite and Full approach
> maybe. Hard to validate this I suppose. Maybe all email will be XML based in the
> future anyhoo?
>
text/enriched exists for quite a while already.
Jochem
John Wilker wrote:
>
> Plain text is like speaking in a monotone. There is no emphasis on concepts,
> ideas, etc.. I can't stand trying to get something across when I don't even
> have Bold to work with :)
Considering there is a better tag for EMphasis as Bold, I think
you have just explained wh
: Monday, September 15, 2003 3:05 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: (Admin) List upgrades
The Fusebox lists on Topica used to. They no longer exist though.
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4
Subscription: http
: RE: (Admin) List upgrades
Use some elementary math and multiply that by 100-1000.
It _is_ a big deal.
Can anyone direct me to an email list that uses HTML over text?
Adam Wayne Lehman
Web Systems Developer
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
Distance Education Division
: Claude Schneegans [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 2:02 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: (Admin) List upgrades
>>Currently outlook takes about 5-10 minutes to download and sort them
all
So with HTML it will take from 15 to 30 more seconds ? Not a bi
e document more readable. Plain text works fine, but formatted text
works a bit better.
Best regards,
Michael Wilson
-Original Message-
From: Ben Doom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 2:18 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: (Admin) List upgrades
I don't really have
that is an issue for him or not, but it is where I work and I know we've
decided that our outgoing bandwidth can be better used than for html
formatted email.
-Kevin
- Original Message -
From: "Claude Schneegans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAI
neral Lackey
Moonbow Software, Inc
: -Original Message-
: From: Michael Dinowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
: Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 1:42 PM
: To: CF-Talk
: Subject: Re:(Admin) List upgrades
:
:
: Here's the problem. The CF-Talk email seems to be so efficient
: that few com
>>Currently outlook takes about 5-10 minutes to download and sort them all
So with HTML it will take from 15 to 30 more seconds ? Not a big deal.
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4
Subscription: http://
>>No images, no web bugs, no tables, no colors. Just text formatting.
This sounds quite reasonable.
But please allow the standard HTML tags, not this dumb [i]...[/i] stuff like in MM
forums.
The ... tags would be usefull also to show code.
Health
Distance Education Division
-Original Message-
From: Michael Dinowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 1:42 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re:(Admin) List upgrades
Here's the problem. The CF-Talk email seems to be so efficient that few
come to the HoF site as
>>yeah, but a 2K HTML email with 10 1px clear GIFs passing your email
This is another legend spread by Usenet groupies.
Who wants to send huge images in mails?
Any one can shout out bad words in plain text, but we still don't do it here, do we?
With HTML any one can display a huge image, this does
Why not take Google's lead w/ text only ads? That would work well w/ both options for
format.
> -Original Message-
> From: John Wilker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 1:53 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: (Admin) List upgrades
>
&
he current monotony of plain text.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 10:42 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re:(Admin) List upgrades
Here's the problem. The CF-Talk email seems to be so efficient that few come
to the HoF s
AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: (Admin) List upgrades
yeah, but a 2K HTML email with 10 1px clear GIFs passing your email and such
to spam lists is REAL SUPER dumb. I'd prefer the text based anyday to this.
Of course, email from this list would be clean anyway, so a preferential
decision on th
1 - 100 of 141 matches
Mail list logo
