Philip Chee philip.c...@gmail.com wrote:
I think some priority has to be given to fix both bugs.
The pretty-printing should at least be made optional, defaulting
to off, and the change that introduced the font size problem should
be reverted or looked at.
I had to disable font size
Ed Mullen wrote:
Amen. The last job I had was in 1996 and ALL email was HTML. Where are you
text-only people coming from?
A world that recognises that it takes only 10 bytes to say Thank you.,
not 2500.
Philip Taylor
___
support-seamonkey
Philip TAYLOR wrote:
Ed Mullen wrote:
Amen. The last job I had was in 1996 and ALL email was HTML. Where are you
text-only people coming from?
A world that recognises that it takes only 10 bytes to say Thank you.,
not 2500.
Philip Taylor
Amen, Philip!
--
Daniel
Rob wrote:
Philip Chee philip.c...@gmail.com wrote:
I think some priority has to be given to fix both bugs.
The pretty-printing should at least be made optional, defaulting
to off, and the change that introduced the font size problem should
be reverted or looked at.
I had to disable font size
On 12/19/12 5:09 PM, Ed Mullen wrote:
Rob wrote:
David E. Ross nobody@nowhere.invalid wrote:
However, the problem is easily resolved by composing only
ASCII-formatted messages.
This is not realistic in today's world when using the program
in a company. Most mail being processed is in HTML.
On 12/20/12 6:40 AM, Rob wrote:
Philip TAYLOR p.tay...@rhul.ac.uk wrote:
Ed Mullen wrote:
Amen. The last job I had was in 1996 and ALL email was HTML. Where are
you text-only people coming from?
A world that recognises that it takes only 10 bytes to say Thank you.,
not 2500.
The
Rob wrote:
The world today is no longer about bytes or kilobytes.
Today we calculate in megabytes, gigabytes or terabytes.
People no longer treat mail as a novelty that can transfer messages
like a telex did in the past. They use it like a fax or letter.
That means mail includes
David E. Ross nobody@nowhere.invalid wrote:
On 12/20/12 6:40 AM, Rob wrote:
Philip TAYLOR p.tay...@rhul.ac.uk wrote:
Ed Mullen wrote:
Amen. The last job I had was in 1996 and ALL email was HTML. Where are
you text-only people coming from?
A world that recognises that it takes only 10
Philip TAYLOR p.tay...@rhul.ac.uk wrote:
Rob wrote:
The world today is no longer about bytes or kilobytes.
Today we calculate in megabytes, gigabytes or terabytes.
People no longer treat mail as a novelty that can transfer messages
like a telex did in the past. They use it like a fax or
Rob wrote:
What does this message demonstrate?
That information can be transmitted very successfully using e-mail
without requiring HTML, markup, letter-heads, signatures, etc.
It appears the accessability software industry focusses heavily on
mainstream software and less on opensource
Philip TAYLOR p.tay...@rhul.ac.uk wrote:
Rob wrote:
What does this message demonstrate?
That information can be transmitted very successfully using e-mail
without requiring HTML, markup, letter-heads, signatures, etc.
But I never denied that!
What I claim is that it requires HTML mail to
David E. Ross nobody@nowhere.invalid wrote:
On 12/20/12 9:29 AM, Rob wrote:
Philip TAYLOR p.tay...@rhul.ac.uk wrote:
Rob wrote:
The world today is no longer about bytes or kilobytes.
Today we calculate in megabytes, gigabytes or terabytes.
People no longer treat mail as a novelty that
Philip TAYLOR wrote, On 20/12/2012 11:57:
Ed Mullen wrote:
Amen. The last job I had was in 1996 and ALL email was HTML. Where are you
text-only people coming from?
A world that recognises that it takes only 10 bytes to say Thank you.,
not 2500.
Philip Taylor
I suppose that you never use
David E. Ross wrote:
On 12/20/12 6:40 AM, Rob wrote:
Philip TAYLOR p.tay...@rhul.ac.uk wrote:
Ed Mullen wrote:
Amen. The last job I had was in 1996 and ALL email was HTML. Where are you
text-only people coming from?
A world that recognises that it takes only 10 bytes to say Thank
Philip TAYLOR wrote:
Ed Mullen wrote:
Amen. The last job I had was in 1996 and ALL email was HTML. Where are you
text-only people coming from?
A world that recognises that it takes only 10 bytes to say Thank you.,
not 2500.
Philip Taylor
And with my 15Mbps download connection???
Rob wrote:
Philip TAYLOR p.tay...@rhul.ac.uk wrote:
Ed Mullen wrote:
Amen. The last job I had was in 1996 and ALL email was HTML. Where are you
text-only people coming from?
A world that recognises that it takes only 10 bytes to say Thank you.,
not 2500.
The world today is no longer
Rob wrote:
David E. Ross nobody@nowhere.invalid wrote:
On 12/20/12 6:40 AM, Rob wrote:
Philip TAYLOR p.tay...@rhul.ac.uk wrote:
Ed Mullen wrote:
Amen. The last job I had was in 1996 and ALL email was HTML. Where are you
text-only people coming from?
A world that recognises that it
Philip TAYLOR wrote:
Rob wrote:
The world today is no longer about bytes or kilobytes.
Today we calculate in megabytes, gigabytes or terabytes.
People no longer treat mail as a novelty that can transfer messages
like a telex did in the past. They use it like a fax or letter.
That means
David E. Ross wrote:
On 12/20/12 9:29 AM, Rob wrote:
Philip TAYLOR p.tay...@rhul.ac.uk wrote:
Rob wrote:
The world today is no longer about bytes or kilobytes.
Today we calculate in megabytes, gigabytes or terabytes.
People no longer treat mail as a novelty that can transfer messages
like
David E. Ross wrote:
On 12/19/12 5:09 PM, Ed Mullen wrote:
Rob wrote:
David E. Ross nobody@nowhere.invalid wrote:
However, the problem is easily resolved by composing only
ASCII-formatted messages.
This is not realistic in today's world when using the program
in a company. Most mail being
Ed Mullen wrote:
Philip TAYLOR wrote:
Ed Mullen wrote:
Amen. The last job I had was in 1996 and ALL email was HTML. Where
are you text-only people coming from?
A world that recognises that it takes only 10 bytes to say Thank you.,
not 2500.
Philip Taylor
And with my 15Mbps download
Ed Mullen wrote:
Snip
HTML email has become a de-facto standard for corporate email. Look
around.
and we all know the the corporate world can do no wrong!! . *NOT*
--
Daniel
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
On 12/19/2012 11:59 AM, David E. Ross wrote:
On 12/19/12 10:53 AM, Rob wrote:
...
(I know I should join the development team instead of criticize,
however while I have done a lot of C programming in the past this
project is simply too large for me. I tried finding the location
of a bug
Rob wrote:
David E. Ross nobody@nowhere.invalid wrote:
On 12/20/12 6:40 AM, Rob wrote:
Philip TAYLOR p.tay...@rhul.ac.uk wrote:
Ed Mullen wrote:
Amen. The last job I had was in 1996 and ALL email was HTML. Where are you
text-only people coming from?
A world that recognises that it
On 12/20/12 6:30 PM, NoOp wrote:
On 12/19/2012 11:59 AM, David E. Ross wrote:
On 12/19/12 10:53 AM, Rob wrote:
...
(I know I should join the development team instead of criticize,
however while I have done a lot of C programming in the past this
project is simply too large for me. I tried
I found by accident that the 2.14.1 version we are using now has
a nasty bug in the message composition mode.
When composing in HTML, and after setting a custom font size in
the options for message composition (default is medium, set to
small or large for example) the composer peppers a lot of
Rob wrote:
I found by accident that the 2.14.1 version we are using now has
a nasty bug in the message composition mode.
When composing in HTML, and after setting a custom font size in
the options for message composition (default is medium, set to
small or large for example) the composer
On 12/19/12 7:30 AM, Rob wrote:
I found by accident that the 2.14.1 version we are using now has
a nasty bug in the message composition mode.
When composing in HTML, and after setting a custom font size in
the options for message composition (default is medium, set to
small or large for
On 12/19/2012 10:30 AM, Rob wrote:
I found by accident that the 2.14.1 version we are using now has
a nasty bug in the message composition mode.
When composing in HTML, and after setting a custom font size in
the options for message composition (default is medium, set to
small or large for
David E. Ross nobody@nowhere.invalid wrote:
On 12/19/12 7:30 AM, Rob wrote:
I found by accident that the 2.14.1 version we are using now has
a nasty bug in the message composition mode.
When composing in HTML, and after setting a custom font size in
the options for message composition
WaltS wls15...@removeyahoo.com wrote:
On 12/19/2012 10:30 AM, Rob wrote:
I found by accident that the 2.14.1 version we are using now has
a nasty bug in the message composition mode.
When composing in HTML, and after setting a custom font size in
the options for message composition (default
On 12/19/2012 01:11 PM, Rob wrote:
WaltS wls15...@removeyahoo.com wrote:
On 12/19/2012 10:30 AM, Rob wrote:
I found by accident that the 2.14.1 version we are using now has
a nasty bug in the message composition mode.
When composing in HTML, and after setting a custom font size in
the options
Ed Mullen e...@mungeedmullen.net wrote:
Rob wrote:
I found by accident that the 2.14.1 version we are using now has
a nasty bug in the message composition mode.
When composing in HTML, and after setting a custom font size in
the options for message composition (default is medium, set to
WaltS wls15...@removeyahoo.com wrote:
On 12/19/2012 01:11 PM, Rob wrote:
WaltS wls15...@removeyahoo.com wrote:
On 12/19/2012 10:30 AM, Rob wrote:
I found by accident that the 2.14.1 version we are using now has
a nasty bug in the message composition mode.
When composing in HTML, and after
On 12/19/12 10:53 AM, Rob wrote:
WaltS wls15...@removeyahoo.com wrote:
On 12/19/2012 01:11 PM, Rob wrote:
WaltS wls15...@removeyahoo.com wrote:
On 12/19/2012 10:30 AM, Rob wrote:
I found by accident that the 2.14.1 version we are using now has
a nasty bug in the message composition mode.
David E. Ross nobody@nowhere.invalid wrote:
However, the problem is easily resolved by composing only
ASCII-formatted messages.
This is not realistic in today's world when using the program
in a company. Most mail being processed is in HTML.
We even have HTML signatures.
Rob wrote:
David E. Ross nobody@nowhere.invalid wrote:
However, the problem is easily resolved by composing only
ASCII-formatted messages.
This is not realistic in today's world when using the program
in a company. Most mail being processed is in HTML.
We even have HTML signatures.
Amen.
On 19/12/2012 23:30, Rob wrote:
I found by accident that the 2.14.1 version we are using now has
a nasty bug in the message composition mode.
When composing in HTML, and after setting a custom font size in
the options for message composition (default is medium, set to
small or large for
38 matches
Mail list logo
