Re: powermail-discuss Digest #2062 - 03/07/05

On or about Tue, 8 Mar 2005 05:24:22 -0500 Don said - >Reporting in... > >PB1400/133MHz; 64Mb RAM; MacOS 9.0.4; PM 4.2.1 > >-- >Don V. Zahniser Ah, lovely, still regret selling mine ! Now I have a Pismo 400MHz, running 10.3.8 and PM 5.1 Desktop is a B&W G3 with a G4 upgrade (600MHz), 10.3.8

Re: 05/03/08-RC (POWERMAIL/SAVE CHANGES DIALOGUE)

Hi Rein, >Opening up an old email always results in a Save Changes? dialogue when I >go to close it, even when I have done nothing to the email. I would >prefer a default that does nothing when I close an email. If I'm going >to save it I can do that without a prompt. Better yet would be a >pr

Re: 05/03/08-RC (POWERMAIL/SAVE CHANGES DIALOGUE)

This is solved in the newer version of PM, I do not believe CTM intends to change that in the older version(s). ---marlyse former message(s) quotes: - >Opening up an old email always results in a Save Changes? dialogue when I >go to close it, even when I have done nothi

05/03/08-RC (PM/IMAP FILTER ISSUE)

A while back I created a filter to auto-redirect all incoming email (IMAP server) (IMAP 4 protocol) to my previous email address. This worked very well until I decided a while ago to stop that action. Deleting that filter did nothing and all mail continued to redirect. I recreated the filter on

05/03/08-RC (PM/SPACEBAR ISSUE)

A very small issue I have is when saving an email and typing something in the Name cell if I hit the Spacebar the text in the body of the email (underneath the Save dialogue box) scrolls downward one section for every time I hit the Spacebar. I'm sure this is a simple programming oversight but it

05/03/08-RC (POWERMAIL/SAVE CHANGES DIALOGUE)

Opening up an old email always results in a Save Changes? dialogue when I go to close it, even when I have done nothing to the email. I would prefer a default that does nothing when I close an email. If I'm going to save it I can do that without a prompt. Better yet would be a preference to tog

05/03/08-(POWERMAIL/EPSON CONFLICT)

A problem has arisen with a conflict between PowerMail and my Epson Stylus Color 600 printer. Any time PM is turned on my printer fails to function properly and I must do a factory reset (only achieved by turning off my computer, unplugging the serial cord to the printer, resetting, reconnecting

Re: 05/03/08-RC (Barbara)

>If you have any System 9.x you can update to 9.2.2 for free. >See: Well, I stand corrected, big time! I'll stick by my guns with the terminology; upgrade=$, update=free. I'll also stick by my guns in terms of glitches with systems subseque

Re: Still Love PowerMail but...(Dr. D)

Dr. D >If something works, is efficient and cheap it does not need to "evolve." >Such biological metaphors in computing are tempting but possibly >misleading. There are lots of people out there with a financial interest >in such "evolution" but we know who they are and can try to resist them >by

05/03/08-RC (DON Z)

>Reporting in... >PB1400/133MHz; 64Mb RAM; MacOS 9.0.4; PM 4.2.1 >Don V. Zahniser Oh, thank God! Another non-power user! ;-) You know you can update to MacOS 9.1 for free, right? It'll fix some known problems you may be having. Email me aside? How long have you been using v4.2.1? RC Rein

Re: 05/03/08-RC (Barbara)

>>As far as 9.1, isn't 9.2 a free upgrade? > >... No, MacOS 9.2 is not a free upgrade, to my knowledge. If you have any System 9.x you can update to 9.2.2 for free. See: Chris --

05/03/08-RC (ANNA, ET AL)

>Hi, I am also relatively new here. I am using OS X.3.5 with PM 5.1. I >moved to OS X at the end of December, and before that was still using 9.1 >with Claris Emailer. It has been quite a project transitioning to a new >OS, but I am happy I did it. So far I am happy with PowerMail. Yeah; I'm stil

05/03/08-RC (CHRIS)

>You can always look at the headers to see which versions people are >using. Lurk a little and they'll show up. Duh! (slap myself up side the head) I *did* know that, but totally forgot! Brilliant, and *done*! Looks like (for those who could really give a ) that the predominant version i

05/03/08-RC (Barbara)

>It took me a long time to decide to upgrade from 4.2, since it really met >my needs. >As far as 9.1, isn't 9.2 a free upgrade? I don't tend to migrate rapidly either (although I wouldn't mind migrating annually to the BVI). ;-) When I do migrate, the upgrade has to be a finished release with

Re: Still Love PowerMail but...

At Tue, 8 Mar 2005 02:02:06 +0100 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Must norms always be static and prevent natural evolution? If something works, is efficient and cheap it does not need to "evolve." Such biological metaphors in computing are tempting but possibly misleading. There are lots of people o

Re: Still Love PowerMail but...

On 08 3 2005 at 8:02 pm -0500, Mikael Byström wrote: >Ben Kennedy said: > >>the established norms upon which the Internet (and the >>protocol in question) has been based for several decades > >meaning? >Must norms always be static and prevent natural evolution? Meaning that just because you or s

Re: Still Love PowerMail but...

On 3/7/05, at 11:19 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED], <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >Take a look at CTM's product page for the current version of PM: > > >Take a look at CTM's posting to MacUpdate: > So far as I can tell, the sta

Re: Still Love PowerMail but...

computer artwork by subhash sez: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb am 7.3.2005 um 23:19 Uhr:] > >>folks who >>think HTML in email is actually, gasp! -inappropriate- ! > >Just for information: I'm also one of them. I very seldom use HTML-Mail. > >-- >http://www.subhash.at > > I'm an

Re: Still Love PowerMail but...

[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: >I did not realize when I purchased PW that it had such an anti-HTML >following/agenda. You actually assumed sending of HTML was fully supported today? Didn't you notice? If you expected that, obviously you got the wrong client. PM 5.1 | OS X 10.3.6 | Powerbook G4/400 |

Re: Still Love PowerMail but...

Ben Kennedy said: >the established norms upon which the Internet (and the >protocol in question) has been based for several decades meaning? Must norms always be static and prevent natural evolution? While I'm fine not sending HTML messages, it seems unavoidable in the long run. Also, now we h

Re: powermail-discuss Digest #2062 - 03/07/05

Reporting in... PB1400/133MHz; 64Mb RAM; MacOS 9.0.4; PM 4.2.1 -- Don V. Zahniser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Brand new to the list and PowerMail, as you may have seen from my >previous post earlier today. I'd very much appreciate knowing how many >individuals utilize this list, how many of those ar

Re: Bounced messages due to malformed message ID

Janet Moe wrote: >According to the tech people at the other domain, the problem is the way >PowerMail is formatting the message ID. > >With PowerMail the messge ID is like this - Message-Id: ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]:465> It's a bug when you don't use the standard SMTP port. It will be fixed in the ne

Re(2): Still Love PowerMail but...

[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb am 7.3.2005 um 23:19 Uhr:] >folks who >think HTML in email is actually, gasp! -inappropriate- ! Just for information: I'm also one of them. I very seldom use HTML-Mail. -- http://www.subhash.at

Re: Still Love PowerMail but...

> Raúl Vera wrote: >You must be joking! CTM bills PM (not "PW") quite clearly as a text- >centric emailer for power email users, which they define as people who >need to handle hundreds if not thousands of messages a day in a mission- >critical capacity. > Take a look at CTM's product page for t

Re: Global Signature Change?

On Thu, Mar 03, 200511:31, the following words from Tom Dillon [EMAIL PROTECTED], emerged from a plethora of SPAM ... >I've amassed a veritable plethora of signatures in PowerMail. I just >changed addresses and need to change that info in my signatures. Is there >a file which containing them all

Re: Strange problem with attachments from Apple Mail

Here is the full header from one such email: X-POP3-Rcpt: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from maukdesign.com (h-66-134-44-90.snvacaid.covad.net [66.134.44.90]) by host3.teammediaonline.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j27IDK5P004227 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 7 Mar 2005 13:13:

Strange problem with attachments from Apple Mail

We have discussed the problem with Apple Mail sending double text when the default isn't sent to plain text but I have an ew problem with those who are using multi-part settings in Apple Mail. Besides the double content in the email, the attachments don't show up in PowerMail. I can guess at what

Re: Still Love PowerMail but...

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >I did not realize when I purchased PW that it had such an anti-HTML >following/agenda. >Must ask them! Perhaps I have erred in my purchase... > You must be joking! CTM bills PM (not "PW") quite clearly as a text- centric emailer for power email users, which they defi

Re(2): Still Love PowerMail but...

Well, 'true' PM users at least remain somewhat polite, even in heated discussion. ---marlyse former message(s) quotes: - > >> HTML is for ads and web browsers, plain text is for content and e-mail. >Some rigid, typophobic, fear-based PW fundamentalist out there I see...

Re: Still Love PowerMail but...

> HTML is for ads and web browsers, plain text is for content and e-mail. Some rigid, typophobic, fear-based PW fundamentalist out there I see... I doubt that such erroneous definitions of "content" will enable PW to survive for long in the market place. I did not realize when I purchased PW tha

Re: Still Love PowerMail but...

Here! Here! for Marlyse. Midi Marlyse caused electrons to hula in cyberspace with: >LOL, now I feel invalidated. > >I am a Graphic Designer since 25 years and I DEFINITELY know and >understand how to use such graphic variation for clearer communication - >in the right place at the right time.

Re: Still Love PowerMail but...

[EMAIL PROTECTED] / 05.3.7 / 05:06 PM wrote: >Snail mail composed on a typewriter is virtually non-existent because >such communication is merely verbal and the graphic encoding potential of >the page is a missed opportunity to communicate more effectively. At the risk of security and possible

Re: 05/03/06-RC (# of List Members/v4.2.1/OS?)

Recently, Rein Ciarfella wrote: >I'd very much appreciate knowing how many >individuals utilize this list, how many of those are currently working >with v4.2.1 and just for yucks, how many are still holdouts on MacOS 9.1. > Can I get a show of hands? :) > >If you feel like chiming in with other

Re: Still Love PowerMail but...

>Yet, for those who understand how use such >graphic variation for clearer communication LOL, now I feel invalidated. I am a Graphic Designer since 25 years and I DEFINITELY know and understand how to use such graphic variation for clearer communication - in the right place at the right tim

Re: 05/03/07-RC (PM ARCHIVE AND PM USER'S OS/PM VERSION)

>>2-Some individuals have given their input (Thanks!) on their OS, PM >>version, etc., but quite a few members have not responded, which makes me >>wonder whether they are receiving the List as a digest and how often/when >>that goes out (?) or whether my question is just being viewed as coming >>

Re: Still Love PowerMail but...

I agree that linking to a site for certain content is a useful technique. > If I can send a thousand emails in less than 30 minutes with the options of cc'ing a mail, cut and paste and yes even > attachments, why would I resort to the old fashioned way involving the cost of stamps, the hassle o

Re: 05/03/07-RC (PM ARCHIVE AND PM USER'S OS/PM VERSION)

Rein Ciarfella on 3/7/05 said >3-So far not one other individual has mentioned that they are still at OS >9.1 or using PowerMail 4.2.1. I'm getting really lonely here! ;-) It took me a long time to decide to upgrade from 4.2, since it really met my needs. As far as 9.1, isn't 9.2 a free upgrad

Re: 05/03/06-RC (# of List Members/v4.2.1/OS?)

A-NO-NE Music on 3/7/05 said >Sorry for a dumb question. >How are you seeing the info? I only see the number of messages per >folder. Now I am so curious how many messages I have. Message database >is about 1GB. I thought they meant just in PM folder... -- Barbara Needham

Re: Still Love PowerMail but...

Mel wrote: >At the foundation of contemporary >computer technology is the digital >graphic communication< machine. OK. But that is not an argument for HTML email. That's what a web page is for. >Snail mail composed on a typewriter is virtually non-existent because >such communication is merely

Re: 05/03/07-RC (PM ARCHIVE AND PM USER'S OS/PM VERSION)

Rein Ciarfella wrote: >2-Some individuals have given their input (Thanks!) on their OS, PM >version, etc., but quite a few members have not responded, which makes me >wonder whether they are receiving the List as a digest and how often/when >that goes out (?) or whether my question is just being

Re: Still Love PowerMail but...

On Monday, March 07, 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent forth: > > >Snail mail composed on a typewriter is virtually non-existent because >such communication is merely verbal and the graphic encoding potential of >the page is a missed opportunity to communicate more effectively. > Your argument i

Re: 05/03/07-RC (PM ARCHIVE AND PM USER'S OS/PM VERSION)

> 3-So far not one other individual has mentioned that they are > still at OS 9.1 or using PowerMail 4.2.1. I'm getting really > lonely here! ;-) I think it's going to tough going for you in that arena. I know of only a few folks still on Mac OS 9 on a regular basis and most are on 9.2.x.