On Sat, Jul 06, 2024 at 07:17:51PM -0400, Felix Miata wrote:
[...]
> FWIW to any not familiar with how email was 30+ years ago, M$ and Win95 seem
> to be
> the root blame for the practice of both use of not only HTML for email by
> default,
> but also of defaulting to imposition of a smaller
Van Snyder composed on 2024-07-06 14:13 (UTC-0700):
> I know what to do to read messages with tiny fonts -- if I can see
> enough of it to decide they're interesting.
> So far, only one correspondent, whom I have by-and-large concluded
> doesn't have anything interesting to way.
> What I'm
On Sat, 2024-07-06 at 15:41 +0100, debian-u...@howorth.org.uk wrote:
> > It's not my responsibility to deal with messages the senders aren't
> > serious about being read.
>
> It's up to you of course but if that's your opinion then you always
> have the option of simply not reading messages that
Van Snyder wrote:
> It's not my responsibility to deal with messages the senders aren't
> serious about being read.
It's up to you of course but if that's your opinion then you always
have the option of simply not reading messages that are sent (against
list guidelines) with HTML parts that
On 06/07/2024 01:01, Van Snyder wrote:
I'm not able to read this message.
I do not think you will manage to achieve anything on this way. The
person has clearly expressed that their are not going to follow
recommendations concerning message format and do not care if messages
cause trouble
On Fri, 2024-07-05 at 15:04 -0400, Felix Miata wrote:
> I don't use Evolution, but I suspect being a Gnome application that
> it works like
> web browsers, where fonts can be enlarged using Ctrl-+ as many times
> as it takes
> to grow the fonts adequately. Possibly it also has a minimum
>
Van Snyder composed on 2024-07-05 11:45 (UTC-0700):
> On Fri, 2024-07-05 at 14:07 -0400, Felix Miata wrote:
>> > I'm not able to read this message.
>> Can you suggest to us why you think that might be?
> Because the message was composed in html using a very small font,
On Fri, 2024-07-05 at 14:07 -0400, Felix Miata wrote:
> > I'm not able to read this message.
>
> Can you suggest to us why you think that might be?
Because the message was composed in html using a very small font, and
my mail reader (evolution) automatically prefers to read mail in
Van Snyder composed on 2024-07-05 11:01 (UTC-0700):
> I'm not able to read this message.
Can you suggest to us why you think that might be?
> On Fri, 2024-07-05 at 14:01 +0200, Richard wrote:
>> You really need to better read who writes what. I didn't start the
>> discussion on message sizes
I'm not able to read this message.
On Fri, 2024-07-05 at 14:01 +0200, Richard wrote:
> You really need to better read who writes what. I didn't start the
> discussion on message sizes due to HTML, I simply ended it because of
> irrelevance.
>
> On Fri, Jul 5, 2024 at 1:30 PM Greg Wooledge
>
Thank god nobody needs help from people so hung up on absolute irrelevant
stuff and rules that haven't made sense in decades - if ever. As you may
have read from the threads, those rules aren't undisputed at all. If they
where seen as relevant as some people want to make believe, the list
Richard (12024-07-05):
> You really need to better read who writes what. I didn't start the
> discussion on message sizes due to HTML, I simply ended it because of
> irrelevance.
And that ended the willingness of many people to help you.
Good luck with your problems.
--
Nicolas George
You really need to better read who writes what. I didn't start the
discussion on message sizes due to HTML, I simply ended it because of
irrelevance.
On Fri, Jul 5, 2024 at 1:30 PM Greg Wooledge wrote:
> [...] you chose to shift the topic to message
> sizes (which isn't the primary reason HTML
r text in a small font. Some readers found your
messages difficult to read for that reason, and we politely pointed it
out to you.
Everything after that has been you ranting against everyone who talks to
you, shifting the goalposts, and refusing to acknowledge that *any* of
your etiquette violations ar
And who was talking about transport? The whole discussion was about
storage, and storing mail compressed is hardly a security issue.
On Fri, Jul 5, 2024 at 5:02 AM Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> Compression is a security hole. It leaks information. It should be
> disabled. Infact, TLS v1.3 removed it
Not how lossless compression works. The final size depends much more on the
content than on how much content there is. By no means it's "proportional".
On Thu, Jul 4, 2024 at 10:09 PM Michel Verdier wrote:
> Compression reduces the size but it's proportionnal so don't negate the
> extra html
> Compression reduces the size but it's proportionnal so don't negate the
> extra html size. The global size will always be 4-10x.
No, the compression is not proportional. HTML is naturally very
redundant, and machine-generated HTML like the one seen in Richard's
email tends to be excruciatingly
On Thu, Jul 4, 2024 at 2:58 PM Richard wrote:
>
> Right, because 4x = 10x. Jesus, stop being so ridiculous. Also, there's some
> magic trick called compression.
Compression is a security hole. It leaks information. It should be
disabled. Infact, TLS v1.3 removed it from the protocol. Also see
On Thu, Jul 4, 2024 at 9:58 AM jeremy ardley wrote:
>
> On 4/7/24 17:13, Roger Price wrote:
> >
> > The Debian mailing list Code of Conduct at
> > https://www.debian.org/MailingLists/
> > is clear:
> >
> > « Please don't send your messages in HTML; use plain text instead »
>
> I presume there is
On 2024-07-04, Richard wrote:
> Right, because 4x = 10x. Jesus, stop being so ridiculous. Also, there's
> some magic trick called compression. Human readable text is especially easy
> to compress, basically negating all those effects. So just stick to
> reality, everything else is just
Right, because 4x = 10x. Jesus, stop being so ridiculous. Also, there's
some magic trick called compression. Human readable text is especially easy
to compress, basically negating all those effects. So just stick to
reality, everything else is just embarrassing.
On Thu, Jul 4, 2024, 16:48 Greg
On Thu, Jul 04, 2024 at 16:19:44 +0200, Richard wrote:
> If you ever want to be taken seriously, stop spreading such bogus nonsense.
> Even base64 encoding wouldn't blow up the size that much. No idea what bs
> mail you are talking about, but for me, both the plain text and html
> version are said
If you ever want to be taken seriously, stop spreading such bogus nonsense.
Even base64 encoding wouldn't blow up the size that much. No idea what bs
mail you are talking about, but for me, both the plain text and html
version are said to be 4k in size (by du). Even though that's not that
exact,
The bug is reported already, as that's by no means what's intended or what
the settings would suggest. Anything beyond that is out of my hands. And as
already explained, since there are enough tools out there to have messages
look the way you want, this simply doesn't have any priority.
Best
On
On Thu, Jul 04, 2024 at 11:29:43 +0200, Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> Regrettably the list archives seem to have a preference for publishing
> the HTML version of list mails. At least i see two different fonts in
> an archived mail of Richard:
>
On Thu, Jul 04, 2024 at 19:09:47 +0800, jeremy ardley wrote:
> Unless there is a compelling reason to accept mixed format ( HTML ) I can't
> see why the list can't filter submissions to text only - which is the list
> policy anyway - and by doing so provide education to users about what the
> list
On 2024-07-04, jeremy ardley wrote:
> The problem is mostly because users have email software that automatically
> uses mixed format. That's not their fault as they are probably unaware of the
> problem.
And lots of MUA only show HTML version, hiding the text copy and the
problem.
> Unless
On 07/04/2024 06:09 AM, jeremy ardley wrote:
On 4/7/24 18:34, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
But let me try: perhaps because the people who set up the mailing
list don't believe in enforcing behavior by technological means,
but rather by convincing people?
If I understand the history correctly:
-
On 4/7/24 18:34, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
But let me try: perhaps because the people who set up the mailing
list don't believe in enforcing behavior by technological means,
but rather by convincing people?
If I understand the history correctly:
- All early email lists were text only
-
On Thu, Jul 04, 2024 at 06:20:22PM +0800, jeremy ardley wrote:
>
>
> On 4/7/24 17:13, Roger Price wrote:
> >
> > The Debian mailing list Code of Conduct at
> > https://www.debian.org/MailingLists/
> > is clear:
> >
> > « Please don't send your messages in HTML; use plain text instead »
>
> I
On 4/7/24 17:13, Roger Price wrote:
The Debian mailing list Code of Conduct at
https://www.debian.org/MailingLists/
is clear:
« Please don't send your messages in HTML; use plain text instead »
I presume there is some compelling reason that the mailing list doesn't
filter html emails
On Thu, 4 Jul 2024, Michel Verdier wrote:
Tell that to your mail progra=
---^^^
I would add that it's up to the *sender* mail program to send text only
mail to this list (and others). As the html part is useless and multiply
the mail size by almost
Hi,
Michel Verdier wrote:
> I would add that it's up to the *sender* mail program to send text only
> mail to this list (and others).
I found this link in the monthly list FAQ:
https://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
where i read:
"Please don't send your messages in HTML; use
On 2024-07-04, Max Nikulin wrote:
>> Tell that to your mail program. If it chooses to show you the mail that way,
>> don't blame me.
>
> - insisting on an "industry standard" mail style
>
>> > y:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small">Tell that to your mail progra=
>
>
I am in doubts what is more rude:
On 04/07/2024 04:02, Richard wrote:
Please stop using such a dinky font. There are plenty of old farts
trying to read this list.
- writing this before an attempt to hijack the thread using an already
discussed question,
Tell that to your mail
op 10-09-14 21:00, Siard schreef:
On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 17:17:02 +0100, Brian wrote:
On Wed 10 Sep 2014 at 10:20:39 +0200, Paul van der Vlis wrote:
I've tested it with 2 different printers (HP, Samsung).
When I turn off the option ignore scale and reduce to paper
size (free translation) in
On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 17:17:02 +0100, Brian wrote:
On Wed 10 Sep 2014 at 10:20:39 +0200, Paul van der Vlis wrote:
When I turn off the option ignore scale and reduce to paper
size (free translation) in the print options, the problem is gone,
but I have to do that every time, I don't know a way
Paul van der Vlis:
Siard:
In iceweasel and seamonkey, using the same gtk print dialog, it is
also possible to set this default in about:config.
In Icedove you can reach this with preferences | advanced |
configuration editor.
Ah! That is, indeed, another method to set this option.
On Thu 11 Sep 2014 at 15:31:40 +0200, Siard wrote:
On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 17:17:02 +0100, Brian wrote:
On Wed 10 Sep 2014 at 10:20:39 +0200, Paul van der Vlis wrote:
When I turn off the option ignore scale and reduce to paper
size (free translation) in the print options, the problem is
On Thu 11 Sep 2014 at 15:57:28 +0100, Brian wrote:
On Thu 11 Sep 2014 at 15:31:40 +0200, Siard wrote:
On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 17:17:02 +0100, Brian wrote:
On Wed 10 Sep 2014 at 10:20:39 +0200, Paul van der Vlis wrote:
When I turn off the option ignore scale and reduce to paper
size
Hello,
I've a problem with printing from Icedove. Some mails are printed with
very small fonts, so you cannot read them.
In my opinion the problem occurs when there is a long URL in a mail from
some mailclients, something like:
On Wed 10 Sep 2014 at 10:20:39 +0200, Paul van der Vlis wrote:
I've tested it with 2 different printers (HP, Samsung).
When I turn off the option ignore scale and reduce to paper size (free
translation) in the print options, the problem is gone, but I have to do
that every time, I don't
On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 17:17:02 +0100, Brian wrote:
On Wed 10 Sep 2014 at 10:20:39 +0200, Paul van der Vlis wrote:
I've tested it with 2 different printers (HP, Samsung).
When I turn off the option ignore scale and reduce to paper
size (free translation) in the print options, the problem
43 matches
Mail list logo
