CTED]
Intnl tel/fax: +44 1524 845559
UK tel/fax: 01524845559
Mobile: (+44) (0) 370 963410
-Original Message-
From: Greg Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Tony Wells <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Friday, June 26, 1998 5:21 AM
Subject: Re: HTML-formatted mail
--
PLEASE read the
-+-> If Shawn is unwilling to continue to argue the case for html, I
-+-> am.
-+-
-+-Fine, but please, keep it off of the list... very few people are
-+-interested in this thread anymore...
Thanks Chris.
-Paul
--
PLEASE read the Red Hat FAQ, Tips, Errata and the MAILING LIST ARCHIVES!
http
> If Shawn is unwilling to continue to argue the case for html, I
> am.
Fine, but please, keep it off of the list... very few people are
interested in this thread anymore...
Regards
Chris
--
PLEASE read the Red Hat FAQ, Tips, Errata and the MAILING LIST ARCHIVES!
http://www.redhat.com/RedH
Just before making his bedtime cocoa Thomas wrote:
>Doubling or tripling of mail size will double or triple the price
of
>Internet access for those who actually have to pay for their
access - e.g.
>in those countries, where you pay for local phone calls by the
minute (or any
>other time unit). Th
Once upon a time Shawn McMahon wrote:
>
>
> >> A tremendous number of people agree that there should be some kind of
> markup
> >> language established as a standard for email. Every commercial email
> >> package supports one or more markup methods.
> >
> >Sorry, but your second sentence does n
On Wed, Jun 24, 1998 at 02:49:59PM -0700, Kenyon Ralph wrote:
> Shawn McMahon wrote:
> > Most of the rest of the world does have the ability to read it, however.
> > That wasn't true as late as a year ago, but I'll bet you dollars to donuts
> > it is now.
>
> And if your mail reader can't, then y
Shawn McMahon writes:
> From: Greg Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >The rest of the tags make extremely annoying messages. Also, it's funny
> >that HTML proponents never address the addtional size of HTML mail.
>
> But I'll address it again the way we always do:
>
> Mail is tiny. It's a minisc
-Original Message-
From: GateKeepeR News <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Shawn McMahon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wednesday, June 24, 1998 8:41 PM
Subject: Re: HTML-formatted mail
>Came here to read intelligent information and comments, not stupid shit
>from an ignorant pric
-Original Message-
From: Greg Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wednesday, June 24, 1998 12:44 PM
Subject: Re: HTML-formatted mail
>The rest of the tags make extremely annoying messages. Also, it's funny
>that HTML propo
-Original Message-
From: dreamwvr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Chris Fishwick
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thursday, June 18, 1998 1:53 PM
Subject: Re: HTML-formatted mail
>right tool f
-Original Message-
From: Derek Balling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wednesday, June 17, 1998 1:38 PM
Subject: Re: HTML-formatted mail
>>case-by-case basis. There _is_ a place for HTML mail.
>
>That may be. But not in my
This was over a LONG time ago, I would suggest you drop it.
On Wed, 24 Jun 1998, Shawn McMahon wrote:
|-Original Message-
|From: M. Neidorff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
|To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
|Date: Sunday, June 14, 1998 8:54 AM
|Subject: Re: HTML-fo
Shawn McMahon wrote:
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Greg Fall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wednesday, June 17, 1998 12:26 PM
> Subject: Re: HTML-formatted mail
>
> >To me the troubling aspect o
-Original Message-
From: Greg Fall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wednesday, June 17, 1998 12:26 PM
Subject: Re: HTML-formatted mail
>To me the troubling aspect of these HTML-formatted messages is this:
>implicit in them is an i
-Original Message-
From: Deryk Barker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Monday, June 15, 1998 4:56 PM
Subject: Re: HTML-formatted mail
>> A tremendous number of people agree that there should be some kind of
markup
>> language e
> >What keeps people interested in and using the Internet is e-mail. E-mail
> >mimics letter writing. It is plain text. There is no need for inline
> >images, different sized fonts and font attributes like bold, etc. Sure, in
> >a letter you can press harder on the pen/pencil, you can even swi
-Original Message-
From: M. Neidorff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sunday, June 14, 1998 8:54 AM
Subject: Re: HTML-formatted mail
>What keeps people interested in and using the Internet is e-mail. E-mail
>mimics letter writing.
-Original Message-
From: Steve Frampton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sunday, June 14, 1998 9:35 AM
Subject: Re: HTML-formatted mail
>Lowest common denominator. X-Windows doesn't work very well on a 386 SX
>with 2 Mb of RAM n
-Original Message-
From: Fred Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sunday, June 14, 1998 8:54 AM
Subject: Re: HTML-formatted mail
>don't NEED any of that stuff. MIME already defines a way to send and
>interpret similar encodin
Hi,
Just felt i suppose like agreeing. Nothing more frustrating than
recieving a email from someone who thinks they are being so informed
that is formatted wrong so that it is all tags. That is rm
without hesitation. What i found amazing is that the people sending
this info get so indignant
>
> At 08:15 6/17/98 -0600, James Boorn wrote:
> >Maybe I am just dense, so please enlighten me. What problem does HTML
> >email solve? I see no reason for it, and am one of those that just
> >deletes it. But maybe if I knew the problem it solved I'ld be willing to
> >consider it a solution.
>
Here's my 2 cents:
Maybe you all should create an "linux-HTML-formatted-mail" list
Time to kill this thread, don't you all think so?
:)
Dave C.
--
PLEASE read the Red Hat FAQ, Tips, Errata and the MAILING LIST ARCHIVES!
http://www.redhat.com/RedHat-FAQ /RedHat-Errata /RedHat-Tips /mailin
Greg Fall writes:
and maybe he doesn't even realize that he is using HTML.
Since I accidentally started this thread, I've kept silent,
waiting for a response of this type. Now it has popped up, here is
my reply.
The snip above digs deep into the golden thread of why this list
exists.
People t
>At 08:19 6/17/98 -0600, James Boorn wrote:
>[about emailing HTML formatted documents]
>>Waste of bandwidth. Put up a web page and email the url to subscribers
>>when it gets updated.
>
> Some people prefer push.
>
> Some do not have toll-free local calling (not everyone lives in the
>U.S.).
To me the troubling aspect of these HTML-formatted messages is this:
implicit in them is an indication that the sender does not realize that
the rest of the world doesn't use HTML for e-mail, mostly, and maybe he
doesn't even realize that he is using HTML. Which sort of takes away the
person's c
>One size does not fit all. Besides, the only bandwidth saved will be for
>those users that do not retrieve the document. That will vary on a
>case-by-case basis. There _is_ a place for HTML mail.
That may be. But not in my mailbox. :)
--
PLEASE read the Red Hat FAQ, Tips, Errata and the M
Anthony E. Greene wrote:
>
> I see formatted email (via HTML or any other scheme) as useful only within
> organizatons or specified groups. Within those limits it can be *very*
> useful. I have a newsletter that I'd like to publish in a fashion that's
> readable with all it's formatting from with
At 08:19 6/17/98 -0600, James Boorn wrote:
[about emailing HTML formatted documents]
>Waste of bandwidth. Put up a web page and email the url to subscribers
>when it gets updated.
Some people prefer push.
Some do not have toll-free local calling (not everyone lives in the
U.S.). Downloadi
At 08:15 6/17/98 -0600, James Boorn wrote:
>Maybe I am just dense, so please enlighten me. What problem does HTML
>email solve? I see no reason for it, and am one of those that just
>deletes it. But maybe if I knew the problem it solved I'ld be willing to
>consider it a solution.
HTML can serv
Waste of bandwidth. Put up a web page and email the url to subscribers
when it gets updated.
On Wed, 17 Jun 1998, Anthony E. Greene wrote:
> I see formatted email (via HTML or any other scheme) as useful only within
> organizatons or specified groups. Within those limits it can be *very*
> usef
Maybe I am just dense, so please enlighten me. What problem does HTML
email solve? I see no reason for it, and am one of those that just
deletes it. But maybe if I knew the problem it solved I'ld be willing to
consider it a solution.
On Tue, 16 Jun 1998, David Hauck wrote:
> In the responses
In a message dated 98-06-16 21:37:24 EDT, you write:
<< Personally, I can say that HTML-formatted mail also has many advantages. I
do not wish to elaborate them here for various reasons. However, I was
very surprised at the lack of appreciation by a technical group. Most
importantly, I thin
I see formatted email (via HTML or any other scheme) as useful only within
organizatons or specified groups. Within those limits it can be *very*
useful. I have a newsletter that I'd like to publish in a fashion that's
readable with all it's formatting from within the recipient's mail client.
Hope
Chris Humphres writes:
> If I remember correctly, the email in question only contained the html. I
> deleted it and yes I use pine. When you've got hundreds of emails to go
> through, you don't have the time to save to a tmpfile and browse with
> netscape or scan with a text editor. I agree wit
At 04:29 PM 6/16/98 -0700, you wrote:
>This is a long thread that is out of place on this list, but I just
>had to respond to this particular message.
Jeff is right. I feel guilty responding (again) because this list in
particular is quite full with these kinds of exchanges.
>Think of it this
This is a long thread that is out of place on this list, but I just
had to respond to this particular message.
Joe Klemmer wrote:
>On Mon, 15 Jun 1998, Deryk Barker wrote:
>
>> I know that it is to late to stop HTML encoded email. The genie
>>is out of the bottle. But it is my contention t
On Tue, 16 Jun 1998, Deryk Barker wrote:
> Once upon a time Kenyon Ralph wrote:
> >
> > Deryk Barker wrote:
> [...]
Could you guys *please* keep this off the redhat-list?! If you want to
have a pissing contest then do it through personal e-mail. The rest of us
don't care about this thread any
Once upon a time Kenyon Ralph wrote:
>
> Deryk Barker wrote:
[...]
> > As far as I'mn concerned, adding bloody HTML tags makes the mail
> > *harder* to read and certainly doesn't increase its
> > comprehensibililty.
>
> That's because you're not supposed to read the raw HTML source, you're
> sup
>
>> If you see html tags in the text ... get another mail reader ;)
>
>> Please. Lighten up. The ability to communicate has NOTHING to do with
HTML.
>> However, having a link in a mail message that is available with a
>> double-click can be really clean.
>
>That's funny, I don't need a messa
On Mon, 15 Jun 1998, Deryk Barker wrote:
> > It really comes down to this:
> >
> > You're either in favor of HTML markup in email, or you're not in favor of
> > email being a very rich method of communication compared to speech.
>
> Oh really? And I say that I *am* against HTML in email and I a
> >>> As far as I'm concerned, adding bloody HTML tags makes the mail
> >>> *harder* to read and certainly doesn't increase its
> >>> comprehensibility.
> >>
> >>Without a doubt.
> >
> >If you see html tags in the text ... get another mail reader ;)
>
> Nah, I prefer to excerise the same thin
At 02:59 PM 6/16/98 -0400, you wrote:
>On Mon, 15 Jun 1998, Deryk Barker wrote:
>
>> > It really comes down to this:
>> >
>> > You're either in favor of HTML markup in email, or you're not in favor of
>> > email being a very rich method of communication compared to speech.
>>
>> Oh really? And I
> If you see html tags in the text ... get another mail reader ;)
> Please. Lighten up. The ability to communicate has NOTHING to do with HTML.
> However, having a link in a mail message that is available with a
> double-click can be really clean.
That's funny, I don't need a message to be
At 02:29 PM 6/16/98 -0600, David Hauck wrote:
>>> As far as I'm concerned, adding bloody HTML tags makes the mail
>>> *harder* to read and certainly doesn't increase its
>>> comprehensibility.
>>
>> Without a doubt.
>
>If you see html tags in the text ... get another mail reader ;)
Nah, I pr
I have to agree with the opinion that HTML does NOT belong in
email, but I think this is a waste of space. I for one don't bother to
read email written in HTML. If someone sends me an email thus encoded,
they better know by now not to expect a response. Email is indeed for
transfer of inf
On Mon, 15 Jun 1998, Kenyon Ralph wrote:
->> As far as I'mn concerned, adding bloody HTML tags makes the mail
->> *harder* to read and certainly doesn't increase its
->> comprehensibililty.
->
->That's because you're not supposed to read the raw HTML source, you're
->supposed to read the formatte
Deryk Barker wrote:
>
> Once upon a time Shawn McMahon wrote:
> >
> > >Hmm.. I'd have to disagree here... In my opinion, HTML should *never*
> > >have been integrated with email. Email should always have been a text
> > >only medium rather than all this colour and font crap that people are
> >
Once upon a time Shawn McMahon wrote:
>
> >Hmm.. I'd have to disagree here... In my opinion, HTML should *never*
> >have been integrated with email. Email should always have been a text
> >only medium rather than all this colour and font crap that people are
> >putting in with it...
>
>
> And
On Mon, 15 Jun 1998, Bruce Tong wrote:
> > If I remember correctly, the email in question only contained the html. I
> > deleted it and yes I use pine. When you've got hundreds of emails to go
> > through, you don't have the time to save to a tmpfile and browse with
> > netscape or scan with a
> If I remember correctly, the email in question only contained the html. I
> deleted it and yes I use pine. When you've got hundreds of emails to go
> through, you don't have the time to save to a tmpfile and browse with
> netscape or scan with a text editor.
I've noticed if while in Pine you
If I remember correctly, the email in question only contained the html. I
deleted it and yes I use pine. When you've got hundreds of emails to go
through, you don't have the time to save to a tmpfile and browse with
netscape or scan with a text editor. I agree with the others, if you want
every
> "smm" == Shawn McMahon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
smm> Microsoft Outlook Express, and most other email programs that
smm> allow HTML formatting, put the plain-ASCII text in the main
smm> body, and attach the HTML-formatted version as a MIME
smm> attachment.
Indeed. However, this
On Sat, 13 Jun 1998, Shawn McMahon wrote:
> Being opposed to HTML in email is a lot like being opposed to X-Windows.
Lowest common denominator. X-Windows doesn't work very well on a 386 SX
with 2 Mb of RAM now, does it. Yet Linux in console mode works fairly
adequately. It may be the only thi
This is totally off the subject of the original thread, but maybe that's not
such a bad idea
Has anyone tried XFMail? Just started using it yesterday and I've finally found
an X email client for Linux that is as good as Pegasus for windows. (Well
almost)
--
At 10:54 PM 6/13/98 -0500, you wrote:
[snip]
Name calling??? luddites??? That doesn't help.
Web documents created in html do a lot. They are important and they have
their place. IMO, they are the "eye-candy" of the Internet. They are what
catches people's attention and gets them interested
On Sat, Jun 13, 1998 at 11:32:49PM -0500, Shawn McMahon wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: Chris Fishwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Saturday, June 13, 1998 10:59 PM
> Subject: Re: HTML-formatted mail
>
>
&
pond personally...
Bryan
On Sat, 13 Jun 1998, Shawn McMahon wrote:
|-Original Message-
|From: GateKeepeR News <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
|To: Chris Fishwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
|Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
|Date: Saturday, June 13, 1998 11:20 PM
|Subject: Re:
On Sat, 13 Jun 1998, Shawn McMahon wrote:
> Microsoft Outlook Express, and most other email programs that allow HTML
> formatting, put the plain-ASCII text in the main body, and attach the
> HTML-formatted version as a MIME attachment.
That's not true. They put the plain-ASCII text in another a
-Original Message-
From: GateKeepeR News <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Chris Fishwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Saturday, June 13, 1998 11:20 PM
Subject: Re: HTML-formatted mail
>3 hours to get their email..Take us back to
-Original Message-
From: Chris Fishwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Saturday, June 13, 1998 10:59 PM
Subject: Re: HTML-formatted mail
>Hmm.. I'd have to disagree here... In my opinion, HTML should *never*
>have been integr
I agree completely.. And (as I have told my customers) email is ONLY for
text and not for transferring 10 meg files! And they wonder why it takes
3 hours to get their email..Take us back to the beginning of the
internet when everyone was using lynx and pine through a dial-up shell
account..
On S
> If my email program was refusing to show me the main body of a message, and
> instead insisting on showing me one of the attachments, I'd be grousing at
> the author of the program, not the author of the email.
Hmm.. I'd have to disagree here... In my opinion, HTML should *never*
have been int
62 matches
Mail list logo
