Garth Wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Emacs (short for Editing MACroS) is a text editor primarily
used on UNIX (although it is also available for Windows IIRC),
snip
Emacs isn't a text editor, it's a way of life
Simon Montagu wrote:
Garth Wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Emacs (short for Editing MACroS) is a text editor primarily
used on UNIX (although it is also available for Windows IIRC),
snip
Emacs isn't a text editor, it's a way of life
Exactly. Finally someone said it. :)
And don't
Simon Montagu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Garth Wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Emacs (short for Editing MACroS) is a text editor primarily
used on UNIX (although it is also available for Windows IIRC),
snip
Emacs isn't a text editor,
And it came to pass that Garth Wallace wrote:
Christopher Jahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
And it came to pass that Cexy© wrote:
I here lots of good things about Gravity, but it's only
recently become available at no cost. And I'm so
Emacs has nothing what so ever to do with Macs.
Emacs is something used on UNIX
Christopher Jahn wrote:
And it came to pass that Garth Wallace wrote:
Christopher Jahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
And it came to pass that Cexy© wrote:
Christopher Jahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
And it came to pass that Garth Wallace wrote:
Christopher Jahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
I'm suspicious of Gnus, as it started out as a
On Fri, 6 Jul 2001 07:24:01 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Holger Metzger)
wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jul 2001 19:04:35 -0400, Cexy© [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That reminds me, a co-worker yelled over my cube that she was sending me
an important email, she needed status on a order, so I said OK! Well when
I
On Thu, 5 Jul 2001, Holger Metzger wrote:
Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry to disagree but, this medium is all about fun.
Downloading bloated HTML messages over a 9600bps connection at 10p per
minute is not fun.
Reading html news with a text console reader is no fun
On Thu, 5 Jul 2001, Cevpx wrote:
Holger Metzger wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jul 2001 15:16:49 -0400, Cevpx [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hans-Peter Fischer wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jul 2001 03:24:00 GMT Cexy© [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No I am talking about using something other than this boring Font! No
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. wrote:
9600?
You can't use a 56K modem?
As everyone knows, 56k modems aren't 56k. Mine goes at between 33600 and
44000.
But I was referring to people on mobile connections over 1st generation
mobile networks, of which there are a great deal; here in the UK, we
Oh, I forgot he isn't in the USA. Sorry about that.
jesus X wrote:
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. wrote:
9600?
You can't use a 56K modem?
Maybe he IS using a 56k modem. Maybe he's out in the English country side with a
laptop, and the ISP is so far away and the line so noisy that 9600
James Ross wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jul 2001, Cevpx wrote:
Holger Metzger wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jul 2001 15:16:49 -0400, Cevpx [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hans-Peter Fischer wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jul 2001 03:24:00 GMT Cexy© [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No I am talking about using something other
I'm lucky I can get at least a 48000 connection. Ocassionally a 49333 conection. and
once-in-a-blue-moon a 50666 Connection.
I live about two miles from the main phone switching station in my city. The phone
lineman when setting up my connection found two quiet wire to make op the pair used
for
On Fri, 06 Jul 2001 16:27:24 -0400, Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh, I forgot he isn't in the USA. Sorry about that.
Debates and disagreements are one of the things that keep newsgroups
interesting but personal attacks should be avoided. However, Family
Squabbles do occur
On Fri, 06 Jul 2001 19:05:14 -0400, Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This was not an attack, though reading it again it could be construed that way. IF it
was taken that way, my appoligies.
I don't care where one lives, who he/she is, what color you are, your religion. etc.
Cexy© wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jul 2001 19:05:14 -0400, Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This was not an attack, though reading it again it could be construed that way. IF it
was taken that way, my appoligies.
Sorry I was just trying to interject some humor. I do understand
Cevpx [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Cexy© wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jul 2001 19:05:14 -0400, Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This was not an attack, though reading it again it could be construed
that way. IF it
was taken that
Cexy© [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
7Cv17.9383$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:7Cv17.9383$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Cevpx [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Cexy© wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jul 2001 19:05:14 -0400, Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.
[EMAIL
Christopher Jahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
And it came to pass that Cexy© wrote:
I here lots of good things about Gravity, but it's only recently
become available at no cost. And I'm so happy with Xnews, I
can't see how it could be an
On Wed, 04 Jul 2001 03:24:00 GMT Cexy© [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No I am talking about using something other than this boring Font! No
sound or pictures but Comic Sans for example, what is the big deal about
that, and maybe in a nice dark blue colorG
Posting in Comic Sans won't make your
Sorry to disagree but, this medium is all about fun.
Downloading bloated HTML messages over a 9600bps connection at 10p per
minute is not fun.
Gerv
Hans-Peter Fischer wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jul 2001 03:24:00 GMT Cexy© [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No I am talking about using something other than this boring Font! No
sound or pictures but Comic Sans for example, what is the big deal about
that, and maybe in a nice dark blue colorG
Posting in
On Thu, 05 Jul 2001 15:16:49 -0400, Cevpx [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hans-Peter Fischer wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jul 2001 03:24:00 GMT Cexy© [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No I am talking about using something other than this boring Font! No
sound or pictures but Comic Sans for example, what is the big
Holger Metzger wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jul 2001 15:16:49 -0400, Cevpx [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hans-Peter Fischer wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jul 2001 03:24:00 GMT Cexy© [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No I am talking about using something other than this boring Font! No
sound or pictures but Comic Sans for example,
On Thu, 05 Jul 2001 15:39:00 -0400, Cevpx [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't either. I believe Comic Sans is a Microsoft font anyway. Maybe
it would be illegal to use it on Linux? Don't know... just wondering
though.
Hmmm... interesting. Do we have to care? :)
btw; Donna the Cyber Suggle
On Thu, 05 Jul 2001 16:55:38 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Hans-Peter
Fischer) wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jul 2001 03:24:00 GMT Cexy© [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No I am talking about using something other than this boring Font! No
sound or pictures but Comic Sans for example, what is the big deal about
that, and
On Thu, 5 Jul 2001 21:49:47 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Holger Metzger)
wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jul 2001 15:39:00 -0400, Cevpx [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't either. I believe Comic Sans is a Microsoft font anyway. Maybe
it would be illegal to use it on Linux? Don't know... just wondering
9600?
You can't use a 56K modem?
Gervase Markham wrote:
Sorry to disagree but, this medium is all about fun.
Downloading bloated HTML messages over a 9600bps connection at 10p per
minute is not fun.
Gerv
--
--
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. wrote:
9600?
You can't use a 56K modem?
These folks are gonna be asking for donations soon, just wait. ;)
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. wrote:
9600?
You can't use a 56K modem?
Maybe he IS using a 56k modem. Maybe he's out in the English country side with a
laptop, and the ISP is so far away and the line so noisy that 9600 is all he can
get.
--
jesus X [ Booze-fueled paragon of pointless cruelty
On Thu, 05 Jul 2001 19:04:35 -0400, Cexy© [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That reminds me, a co-worker yelled over my cube that she was sending me
an important email, she needed status on a order, so I said OK! Well when
I opened it was a whole page of wingdingsG I printed it out and folded
it into
DeMoN_LaG wrote:
Cevpx wrote:
I'm not advocating posting HTML in a newsgroup where the regulars
don't want it. OTOH, I think software developers need to understand
that this new generation getting hooked up to the internet just won't
understand why a news readers doesn't have this
Cevpx [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Presentation is what HTML is all about.
No. That is how it tends to be *used*, granted, but it is really
about document structure. The whole CSS effort is an attempt to make
the disctinction more clear.
How can anyone not want to have a tool that has the
Christopher Jahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
And it came to pass that Cexy© wrote:
Cevpx [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Christopher Jahn wrote:
Adding a flowered background or six
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Cevpx says...
DeMoN_LaG wrote:
[snip]
doesn't limit what a news client is capable of. News clients can make
posts in HTML. The fact that most ignorant people do post in HTML is
proof that it *can* do it. You just shouldn't when it isn't appropriate:
You
Cexy© wrote:
Cevpx [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Cexy© wrote:
Cevpx [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Screw who?
Ok can somebody give me an answer to this question.Is
DeMoN_LaG wrote:
Cevpx wrote:
I'm not advocating posting HTML in a newsgroup where the regulars don't
want it. OTOH, I think software developers need to understand that this
new generation getting hooked up to the internet just won't understand
why a news readers doesn't have
[reply posted to n.p.m.general only - watch the crossposting, people]
And even in the rest of the world, many folks pay:
by the minute for the phone connection
By the minute for the INTERNET connection
and by the kilobyte for the download.
Adding a flowered background or six kind of
Gavin Long wrote:
Most of us this side of the Atlantic pay for internet connections (over
56k modems) by the minute. Charges in the UK are approx 3-5 pence (that's
~5-7 cents) per minute during weekdays, dropping to about 0.6-1 pence per
minute (about 1-1.5 cents) at the weekend. AFAIK,
Now returning you to our scheduled holy war on HTML vs. plain text
posting.
Those of you wanting to join in our regular holy war re: top vs.
bottom
quoting should see the thread Mozilla should put the Signature
ABOVE...
elsewhere in this group.
LOL, let's also start a thread why
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
»I am absolutely serious. I know people in Brazil and Argentina
»whose ISP's do not carry HTML because of the added costs.
It surprises me that some people concerned about the extra size
associated with HTML, are requoting the *entire*
Gavin Long wrote:
--
Gav, typing his sig manually, just to be really, really, sure that as it
leaves me, that's dash-dash-space
That doesn't work, because OE deletes the blank when sending the message.
Holger
--
Leela: Just relax, Bender. Tomorrow we'll pry you down, have a nice
And it came to pass that Cevpx wrote:
Christopher Jahn wrote:
And it came to pass that Cevpx wrote:
Christopher Jahn wrote:
And it came to pass that Cevpx wrote:
Presentation is what HTML is all about. How can anyone
not want to have a tool that has the potential to augment
their attempts
And it came to pass that DeMoN_LaG wrote:
Cevpx wrote:
I'm not advocating posting HTML in a newsgroup where the
regulars don't want it. OTOH, I think software developers
need to understand that this new generation getting hooked
up to the internet just won't understand why a news
And it came to pass that Cexy© wrote:
Christopher Jahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
And it came to pass that Cexy© wrote:
Cevpx [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Christopher Jahn
And it came to pass that Holger Metzger wrote:
LOL, let's also start a thread why Outlook Express sucks.. :)
Here's that email an OE user sent me:
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( Dionysian Reveler
If it weren't for lawyers, I think we could have invented a
universal
And it came to pass that Mark wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
»I am absolutely serious. I know people in Brazil and
»Argentina whose ISP's do not carry HTML because of the
»added costs.
It surprises me that some people concerned about the extra
size
Christopher Jahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
And it came to pass that Cexy© wrote:
Christopher Jahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
And it came to pass that Cexy© wrote:
Cevpx
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
»Mark, if you ever wonder why americans are becoming more and
»more despised the world over, you have only to read you last
»post. No consideration of others, just pure selfishness.
Well, please note that I *am* posting in plain text,
And it came to pass that Cexy© wrote:
Christopher Jahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
And it came to pass that Cexy© wrote:
Christopher Jahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
And it came
Stick with plaintext. Or don't post.
What/who are these many clients.could it be the servers are
filtering out RTF?
Donna
These clients are every client on the planet that doesn't bow down to
what MS calls a web standard. Just cause Outlook Express does it
doesn't mean
Christopher Jahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
And it came to pass that Cexy© wrote:
Christopher Jahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
And it came to pass that Cexy© wrote:
DeMoN_LaG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Stick with plaintext. Or don't post.
What/who are these many clients.could it be the servers
are
filtering out RTF?
Donna
These clients are every client on the planet that
Cexy© wrote:
DeMoN_LaG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Stick with plaintext. Or don't post.
What/who are these many clients.could it be the servers
are
filtering out RTF?
Donna
These clients are every client on the planet
hello everyone.
why are some people so keen to post in HTML? Have you ever seen what an
HTML mail looks like on a mail client that doesn't support it? Never
mind the extra dialup charges, do you have any idea of just how many
people can't *choose* their mail client (students, academics,
DeMoN_LaG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Cexy© wrote:
DeMoN_LaG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Stick with plaintext. Or don't post.
What/who are these many clients.could it
Cexy© wrote:
DeMoN_LaG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
MS wants the world to say hey, MS says it's a standard, we all have to
support it now.
Well I guess it all boils down to Choices.the world would
be very boring if
Cevpx [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Yep, that's it in a nutshell. The main deal is some people don't like
to be forced to do certain things. Back to the topic of HTML as an
alternative posting format; I think many people feel it was forced on
And it came to pass that Cexy© wrote:
Cevpx [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Yep, that's it in a nutshell. The main deal is some people
don't like to be forced to do certain things. Back to the
topic of HTML as an alternative posting
Christopher Jahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
And it came to pass that Cexy© wrote:
Cevpx [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Yep, that's it in a nutshell. The main deal is some people
And it came to pass that Cexy© wrote:
Christopher Jahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
And it came to pass that Cexy© wrote:
Cevpx [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Yep, that's it in a
Cexy© wrote:
Well I guess it all boils down to Choices.the world would
be very boring if everybody used the same computer programs.
No. I use Eudora for email because I like it. I like how my mail is
presented to me. Some people use Pegasus, some use Outlook. The idea
And it came to pass that Cexy© wrote:
On 4 Jul 2001 23:54:40 GMT, Christopher Jahn
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And it came to pass that Cexy© wrote:
Cevpx [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Ok yes when I had my PC upgraded to Win 95 OE came
On 5 Jul 2001 02:21:02 GMT, Christopher Jahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And it came to pass that Cexy© wrote:
On 4 Jul 2001 23:54:40 GMT, Christopher Jahn
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And it came to pass that Cexy© wrote:
Cevpx [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL
Cexy© wrote:
Oh get off the Microsoft Bashing, are you using a MAC/Apple based System?
Do you have Windows,Word, or Office software on your PC, or are you using
Linux?
Uncalled for bashing of a company is wrong. If I were to say Final
Fantasy 8 is too hard, Square soft SUCKS!,
And it came to pass that Cexy© wrote:
On 5 Jul 2001 02:21:02 GMT, Christopher Jahn
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So they turned an information exchange into a way to hook
users into bad posting habits, that - SURPRISE! - are
supported primarily by MicroSoft products.
Oh get off the
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Which prompts the question . . . why is it still, or should it be? I
can understand, back in the days of BBS popularity, where it would be a
financial burden on the SYSOP to send packets of larger size than they
needed to be. But
Adam James Fitzpatrick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And often enough the poster hasn't written anything that actually
*requires* HTML markup - it's just plain text anyway.
I even see some posters go to great lengths to make their HTML look
like plain text, including monospaced type and 80-column
Mark wrote:
Holger Metzger wrote:
Would you like to receive a snail
mail letter written in different colors, different font sizes, different
background pictures?
Well, not necessarily, but I *do* appreciate an occasional underline for
emphasis. :) Yes, I know we can do _this_ and
Attributed Meowbot wrote:
Adam James Fitzpatrick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And often enough the poster hasn't written anything that actually
*requires* HTML markup - it's just plain text anyway.
I even see some posters go to great lengths to make their HTML look
like plain text, including
Cevpx wrote:
Attributed Meowbot wrote:
Adam James Fitzpatrick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And often enough the poster hasn't written anything that actually
*requires* HTML markup - it's just plain text anyway.
I even see some posters go to great lengths to make their HTML look
like plain
Mark wrote:
Gervase Markham wrote:
Now, as for newsgroup posts, that's a different thing, and I understand
that I probably should send in text format. How much of an issue is that
these days?
Still a big one.
Which prompts the question . . . why is it still, or should it be? I
can
We have all heard the pussy that goes by the name Fluffy expound the
scripture that usenet is not the web... ad nauseam... etc., etc. Are we
talking about bandwidth here? Do we still have people connecting at 300
bps?
A 56k modem which will only connect at 33.6 over your dodgy phone line,
I guess that's why most Unix/Linux text-mode readers understand word
formatting like *bold* /italic/, _underline_.
Seems like Mozilla doesn't understand the _underline_ . *bold* and
/italic/ are nicely formated.
Is there a bug for the _underline_ ?
And by the way, pressing the back
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], A Martinez wrote:
Seems like Mozilla doesn't understand the _underline_ . *bold* and
/italic/ are nicely formated.
Is there a bug for the _underline_ ?
I think that it is actually implemented, but deactivated for
whatever reason.
Holger
--
Human beings, who
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
»Having or not having the feature is not the issue. Knowing WHEN, WHERE
»and HOW to use it IS the issue. Courtesy rules !! :-D
You are correct, my friend! I'm using Gravity now. :) I was using it
for the binary groups anyway, so . . .
And it came to pass that Cevpx wrote:
Attributed Meowbot wrote:
Adam James Fitzpatrick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And often enough the poster hasn't written anything that
actually *requires* HTML markup - it's just plain text
anyway.
I even see some posters go to great lengths to make
Cexy© wrote:
Cevpx [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Screw who?
Ok can somebody give me an answer to this question.Is Rich Text
HTML no pictures or flowers but just TEXT!
Who is finally going to get some? Damn I need to post that in
Cevpx [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Cexy© wrote:
Cevpx [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Screw who?
Ok can somebody give me an answer to this question.Is Rich
Text
HTML no
And it came to pass that Cevpx wrote:
Christopher Jahn wrote:
And it came to pass that Cevpx wrote:
Attributed Meowbot wrote:
Adam James Fitzpatrick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And often enough the poster hasn't written anything that
actually *requires* HTML markup - it's just plain text
And it came to pass that Cexy© wrote:
Cevpx [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Christopher Jahn wrote:
Adding a flowered background or six kind of fonts in
seven colors just doesn't seem to be a compelling
argument for screwing these
Christopher Jahn wrote:
And it came to pass that Cevpx wrote:
Christopher Jahn wrote:
And it came to pass that Cevpx wrote:
Attributed Meowbot wrote:
Adam James Fitzpatrick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And often enough the poster hasn't written anything that
actually *requires* HTML markup - it's
passed, I now prefer sending and receiving e-mail HTML formatted. It
just looks nicer.
If that's the only reason, set your mail program to display plain text
mails in a proportional font, and dump this HTML mail rubbish which causes
so much grief to others ;-)
Now, as for newsgroup posts,
On Mon, 02 Jul 2001 00:15:52 -0400, DeMoN_LaG
[EMAIL PROTECTED] somehow managed to type:
You should NOT send HTML messages to newsgroups.
All blanket statements have exceptions.
There are a number of situations in which HTML mail and news postings are
appropriate (think intranets, for
Mark wrote:
Gervase Markham wrote:
Now, as for newsgroup posts, that's a different thing, and I understand
that I probably should send in text format. How much of an issue is that
these days?
Still a big one.
Which prompts the question . . . why is it still, or should it be? I
Mark wrote:
Gervase Markham wrote:
Now, as for newsgroup posts, that's a different thing, and I understand
that I probably should send in text format. How much of an issue is that
these days?
Still a big one.
Which prompts the question . . . why is it still, or should it be? I
can
And it came to pass that Justin H. wrote:
Mark wrote:
Gervase Markham wrote:
Now, as for newsgroup posts, that's a different thing,
and I understand that I probably should send in text
format. How much of an issue is that these days?
Still a big one.
Which prompts the question .
Justin H. wrote:
Because there are still people on per-minute dial-ups, or
pay-per-connection telcos. Quite a LOT of people, in fact.
There ya go. That's a *very* good reason, and I should hang my head in
shame for forgetting that there are folks outside of the US, who might
incur very
Holger Metzger wrote:
Would you like to receive a snail
mail letter written in different colors, different font sizes, different
background pictures?
Well, not necessarily, but I *do* appreciate an occasional underline for
emphasis. :) Yes, I know we can do _this_ and *that*, but after
Christopher Jahn wrote:
And you must also figure in the fact that all these new
'internet appliances' - including cellphones, beepers, as well
as those special units - will only display plaintext, OR have a
message size limit.
That's true too. Geez . . . I definitely chose the right
Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
multipart/meowbot wrote:
[snip]
Plus, multipart/alternative
doesn't deliver on the hope that it would appease those who would have
mail and news remain plaintext-only media forever (it just makes
curmudgeons angrier about the increased size),
ROTFL! Yes, again,
These days, with the variety of mail clients and personal tastes, it's hard
to please everyone. However, what I'm attempting to do is configure Mozilla
mail to send an HTML formatted sig with my HTML format messages. I send
messages in both HTML and text (that might be violating some sort of
Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
These days, with the variety of mail clients and personal tastes,
it's hard to please everyone. However, what I'm attempting to do is
configure Mozilla mail to send an HTML formatted sig with my HTML
format messages. I send messages in both HTML and text (that
multipart/meowbot wrote:
Yeah, the multipart/alternative approach is kind of icky for this
application. If a client has enough MIME smarts to extract the text
part from such a message, chances aren't bad that it has the means to
display the HTML in a reasonable way too.
Good point, and now
Mark wrote:
These days, with the variety of mail clients and personal tastes, it's
hard to please everyone. However, what I'm attempting to do is
configure Mozilla mail to send an HTML formatted sig with my HTML format
messages. I send messages in both HTML and text (that might be
DeMoN_LaG wrote:
You should NOT send HTML messages to newsgroups. If the person's
newsreader supports [EMAIL PROTECTED] style email addresses, then they
can click it. If their client doesn't, and it bothers them, it's their
job to get a new client. Same with web links. If I use such
96 matches
Mail list logo
