Re: [OT] I hate HTML mail

Hi Ben, On Wed, 17 Jul 2002 00:35:03 +0100 GMT (Jul 17, 05:20 my local time), you [BK] wrote: BK> Mozilla 1.0 supports tabs just like Opera, comes without any BK> adverts and supports resumeable downloads. I'm becoming increasingly aware of Opera's shortcomings but I still use it primarily beca

Re[2]:[OT] I hate HTML mail

Hi Richard, On Tuesday, July 16, 2002, 10:46:53 PM, you [RE] wrote: RE> If she double clicks the HTML message to open it in her browser (IE RE> I'm afraid, I'll work on switching her to Opera once we've bedded the RE> Bat in) RE> Richard Evans RE> (happily married with a wife and child

Re: I hate HTML mail

ounds like some of you don't have this problem I may need to tweak some settings When She receives an HTML mail I have the viewer set to display the HTMl therefore any fancy fonts and background appear fine within the bat. The problem seems to be when there are gif's embedded in the

Re: I hate HTML mail

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Nick, @16 July 2002, 10:41 -0700 (18:41 UK time) Nick Andriash [NA] in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said to TBUDL: >> She receives a number of "Funnies" from her friends which consist of >> a joke written in HTML with coloured

Re: I hate HTML mail

Hello Richard, On Tue, 16 Jul 2002 18:27:03 +0100 GMT (17/07/02, 00:27 +0700 GMT), Richard Evans wrote: RE> I am trying to convince my Mother to switch from "lookout" to the bat RE> whilst she is quite impressed with the ease of use and functionality RE> she has one problem which I know you're

Re: I hate HTML mail

Hello Richard Evans, In Reference to your Posting on Tuesday, July 16 2002 at 10:27 AM PDT, > She receives a number of "Funnies" from her friends which consist of > a joke written in HTML with coloured backgrounds animated gifs > embedded in the text etc. In that case, I think all she

I hate HTML mail

Fellow Bat Lovers I am trying to convince my Mother to switch from "lookout" to the bat whilst she is quite impressed with the ease of use and functionality she has one problem which I know you're all going to Love :-) She receives a number of "Funnies" from her friends which consist of a jo

Re: Problems viewing russian html mail

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello Eriks, Saturday, June 8, 2002, 2:31:48 PM, you wrote: ET> Starting with version 1.60n and up to 1.60q (including) russian html ET> mail is displayed incorrectly (no russian characters). ET> Does anybody experience the same problem? I have

Re[3]: Problems viewing russian html mail

Hello Eriks, Saturday, June 8, 2002, 7:47:31 PM, you wrote: ET> I am also using The Bat! since version 1.53 and did not have this ET> problem until version 1.60n. Then I tried versions n/nolog, n5, p, q - ET> still the same problem. Oh, I see. I am still using version 1.60m, and so everythi

Re[2]: Problems viewing russian html mail

Hello Robert, Saturday, June 8, 2002, 3:12:07 PM, you wrote: RG> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- RG> Hash: SHA1 RG> Hello Eriks, RG> Well, Eriks, I am using The Bat! since version 1.53, and so far I had RG> no problems viewing Russian characters in html format. Perhaps you RG> just h

Re: Problems viewing russian html mail

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello Eriks, Saturday, June 8, 2002, 2:31:48 PM, you wrote: ET> Starting with version 1.60n and up to 1.60q (including) russian html ET> mail is displayed incorrectly (no russian characters). ET> Does anybody experience the same problem? ET> In ve

Problems viewing russian html mail

Hi, TBUDL! Starting with version 1.60n and up to 1.60q (including) russian html mail is displayed incorrectly (no russian characters). Does anybody experience the same problem? In versions up to 1.60m (including) everything worked O.K. Now I am using 1.60k. Erik

Re: HTML mail

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Saturday, 12 January 2002 at 8:24 p.m. Luc wrote: L> Hi list, L> When you receive HTML-mail (and i don't want to yap about the pro L> and cons here), in your preview window there are two tabs: one for L> the message in plain te

Re: HTML mail

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Friday, January 11, 2002, at 11:24:05 PM PST, Luc wrote: > Standard it's the HTML tab that's active. (atleast with me it is). > Is there a way to have the plain text tab active so that i don't > have to switch that on ? Options/Preferences... The

HTML mail

Hi list, When you receive HTML-mail (and i don't want to yap about the pro and cons here), in your preview window there are two tabs: one for the message in plain text format and one that shows the message in HTML. Standard it's the HTML tab that's active. (atleast with

Re: (SOT) Re: HTML-mail

Hi N., On Sun, 2 Dec 2001 11:40:27 -0700GMT (03/12/2001, 02:40 +0800GMT), N. Sean Timm wrote: NST>> To my the problem isn't HTML, per-se...it's the fact that the features NST>> of HTML can be misused by more unsavory types NST> I stand by my statement that there can and are valid uses of HTML N

Re: (SOT) Re: HTML-mail

Hi Kris, On Sun, 2 Dec 2001 19:35:06 +0100GMT (03/12/2001, 02:35 +0800GMT), Kris Vermandere wrote: KV> Hello, I also have a question about HTML : I know that I can't create KV> a HTML message, but what do I have to do when I want to reply to a KV> HTML message, or when I want to forward it? In

Re[3]: (SOT) Re: HTML-mail

Sunday, December 02, 2001, 12:25:55 PM, I wrote: NST> opinion. :) Fortunately, I, too saved by both The Bat! and Norton "I, too saved"? That's twice in less than 24 hours that I've found myself unable to speak grammatically correct English! I better do a little less programming and a little m

Re[2]: (SOT) Re: HTML-mail

Hello Zach, Sunday, December 02, 2001, 12:15:08 PM, you wrote: ZR> Sunday, December 02, 2001, 11:50:17 AM, James Senick wrote: >> I got the same. But I think that was an auto generated >> send from the trojan. Possibly not. But that would be my first >> guess seeing how it was the B

Re: (SOT) Re: HTML-mail

Sunday, December 02, 2001, 11:50:17 AM, James Senick wrote: > Sean, > I got the same. But I think that was an auto generated > send from the trojan. Possibly not. But that would be my first > guess seeing how it was the BadTrans worm that was attached. > Apparently it scans inboxes f

Re: (SOT) Re: HTML-mail

Hi Cyclon, Sunday, December 02, 2001, 1:35:06 PM, you wrote: Kris> Hello, I also have a question about HTML : I know that I can't create Kris> a HTML message, but what do I have to do when I want to reply to a Kris> HTML message, or when I want to forward it? Then the HTML structure Kris> is lo

Re: (SOT) Re: HTML-mail

Sean, I got the same. But I think that was an auto generated send from the trojan. Possibly not. But that would be my first guess seeing how it was the BadTrans worm that was attached. Apparently it scans inboxes for new prospects. I think people in this list are far above that sort o

Re[3]: (SOT) Re: HTML-mail

Saturday, December 01, 2001, 9:38:06 PM, I wrote: NST> Hello James, NST> Saturday, December 01, 2001, 8:54:39 PM, you wrote: JS>> On viruses and external images...from the business end JS>> it would be ridiculous to expect customers to put up with JS>> embedded images. Keeping them ext

Re[2]: (SOT) Re: HTML-mail

Hello, I also have a question about HTML : I know that I can't create a HTML message, but what do I have to do when I want to reply to a HTML message, or when I want to forward it? Then the HTML structure is lost, and all that is left is plain text, so the receiver will not see the original conte

Re: (SOT) Re: HTML-mail

Hello Dierk, Sunday, December 02, 2001, 4:17:59 AM, you wrote: Dierk> The biggest problems for me are: Dierk> 1. People send HTML but *don't* use the HTML features, making Dierk> messages unnecessarily big. Those are the messages that look Dierk> exactly the same in HTML and PT.

Re: (SOT) Re: HTML-mail

avorite is when someone sends HTML mail, I click on the message.htm tab on the bottom of the viewer pane, and their message is just regular black text, Times New Roman, on a white background. Especially when I know darn well that they *never* add any additional formatting to their mail, not even bo

Re: (SOT) Re: HTML-mail

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello Sean! On 2 Dec 2001 at 05:38:06 you wrote: > To my the problem isn't HTML, per-se...it's the fact that the features > of HTML can be misused by more unsavory types The biggest problems for me are: 1. People send HTML but *don't* use the

Re: (SOT) Re: HTML-mail

Hi Januk, Sunday, December 02, 2001, 12:31:38 AM, you wrote: Januk> Hello James, Januk> On Saturday, December 1, 2001 at 22:54 GMT -0500, a creature mimicking Januk> James Senick [JS] wrote: JS>> One would still want to be able to personalize mass e-mail JS>> messages and further more embed an

Re: (SOT) Re: HTML-mail

Hello N., On Sat, 1 Dec 2001 21:38:06 -0700 GMT (02/12/2001, 12:38 +0800 GMT), N. Sean Timm wrote: NST> To my the problem isn't HTML, per-se... To me it is. HTML blows the message up 2 or 3 times. -- Cheers, Thomas. Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste. Ad: Stock up and save. Li

Re: (SOT) Re: HTML-mail

Hello James, On Saturday, December 1, 2001 at 22:54 GMT -0500, a creature mimicking James Senick [JS] wrote: JS> One would still want to be able to personalize mass e-mail JS> messages and further more embed an ascii version for anyone not JS> able to view html. TB has a version of a mass maili

Re: (SOT) Re: HTML-mail

Hey Sean, N.> Hello James, N.> To my the problem isn't HTML, per-se...it's the fact that the features N.> of HTML can be misused by more unsavory types (such as spammers, who, N.> by merely including an external image, can determine whether or not your N.> email address is valid.) Good

Re[2]: (SOT) Re: HTML-mail

Hello James, Saturday, December 01, 2001, 8:54:39 PM, you wrote: JS> On viruses and external images...from the business end JS> it would be ridiculous to expect customers to put up with JS> embedded images. Keeping them external at least gives the JS> customer a chance to delete the mes

Re: (SOT) Re: HTML-mail

Alastair, Saturday, December 01, 2001, 4:50:43 AM, you wrote: Alastair> For what it's worth, my opinion is that TB! is doing the right thing Alastair> (read but not write). Alastair> The problem is that home and business have radically different Alastair> requirements. Good call. I'm glad t

Re[4]: (SOT) Re: HTML-mail

Hi Jernej, On samedi 1 décembre 2001 at 19:27:12, you wrote : EM>> IMHO, The Bat! is the only one which can't display external images EM>> (Becky! shows them too) JS> Correct me, if I'm wrong, but IIRC, Becky uses IE to display HTML JS> messages... Becky shows HTML messages in its own message

Re[3]: (SOT) Re: HTML-mail

Hello Eric, 1. december 2001, 13:29:48, you wrote: EM> IMHO, The Bat! is the only one which can't display external images EM> (Becky! shows them too) Correct me, if I'm wrong, but IIRC, Becky uses IE to display HTML messages... -- Jernej Simoncic, [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www2.arnes.si/~sopjs

Macro behaviour (was: HTML-mail)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello Pete! On 1 Dec 2001 at 17:22:09 you wrote: > I'd rather see a mail card actually handmade - not a bought one and > *definitely* not one created with a computer! Since I am unable to paint and use my computer for photo editing - years ago we

Re: HTML-mail

Hello Dierk, Saturday, December 01, 2001, 11:03:03 AM, you wrote: DH> I'd rather see a real mail card, either a nice one you can buy or one DH> created by you in a programme like CorelDraw. Aaaarrrgghh! I'd rather see a mail card actually handmade - not a bought one and *definitely* not one c

Re[2]: HTML-mail

Hi Alastair, On samedi 1 décembre 2001 at 13:39:37, you wrote : AS> (I'm currently using Becky!; although it has vices, most notably a poor AS> editor, plugin support is one area in which it is better than TB! AS> Particularly good is a plugin which supports reading and posting of AS> news; the

Re: HTML-mail

Marck wrote: > Hi Geoff, > > On 01 December 2001 at 11:54:50 [GMT+] (which was 11:54 where I > live) Geoff Lane wrote to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and made these > points: > > GL> Personally, I feel that the *option* of using HTML would add value > GL> to TB. (... but plain text should be the defau

Re[2]: (SOT) Re: HTML-mail

Hi Marck, On samedi 1 décembre 2001 at 12:47:31, you wrote : EM>> All other software I tried (Pegasus, Eudora, Pocomail...) let me EM>> see all "external" gif or jpeg included in HTML messages... MDP> Shame on them! Is this as an option? Even if it's optional, it's not MDP> right: IMHO, The Ba

Re: HTML-mail

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Geoff, On 01 December 2001 at 11:54:50 [GMT+] (which was 11:54 where I live) Geoff Lane wrote to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and made these points: GL> Personally, I feel that the *option* of using HTML would add value GL> to TB. (... but plain text sh

Re[2]: HTML-mail

Saturday, December 01, 2001, 11:23:43 AM, Peter Smitt wrote: > I agree wholeheartedly. My experience is that 99% of the people who > use html in their mails even don't know that they do so. They are just > the victims of the default options of Outlook. Spammers use html > deliberately, but I don'

Re: (SOT) Re: HTML-mail

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Eric, On 01 December 2001 at 12:23:24 [GMT+0100] (which was 11:23 where I live) Eric Malausséna wrote to Alastair Scott and made these points: EM> But there's another point in the reading HTML capabilites with The EM> Bat!. I can't see "external"

Re: HTML-mail

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello Peter! On 30 Nov 2001 at 22:51:25 you wrote: > you don't need HTML for that. It's easy in ascii to write *bold* or > /italics/ or even _underline_ ... ;-) > If I wanted to write someone an HTML styled christmas card, I'd do it in my > HTML edi

Re: HTML-mail

On Saturday, December 01, 2001 7:36:16 AM, Nick Andriash wrote: > At 12:47 AM 01/12/01, Don Zeigler wrote: >>The Bat *needs* to be able to compose in html format. As far as >>viewing html mails, we should have the option of using the Bat's >>built-in limited viewer (which is enought for my own n

Re: (SOT) Re: HTML-mail

Hi Alastair, On samedi 1 décembre 2001 at 10:50:43, you wrote : AS> Given all this, I would not encourage people to use HTML in emails, but AS> they have to be able to read it (or remove it) :) Yes. I do agree with you. An option is the best for everyone. But there's another point in the readi

(SOT) Re: HTML-mail

Don wrote: > As much as some of us hate it, html mail is here to stay, and any mail > client that doesn't offer the option to compose in this format is > doomed in the long run. I despise tacky Outlook html templates but > people love using them. > > The Bat *needs* t

Re[2]: HTML-mail

At 12:47 AM 01/12/01, Don Zeigler wrote: >The Bat *needs* to be able to compose in html format. As far as >viewing html mails, we should have the option of using the Bat's >built-in limited viewer (which is enought for my own needs, anyhow) or >selecting Microsoft's viewer if we want to see the m

Re[4]: HTML-mail

On 11/30/2001, Kenneth S. Rhee wrote: > Besides, with the broadband connection, most people don't suffer > from bandwidth limitation of 56K modems. More than 80% of the U.S. is still using dialup to access the Internet, though. Source: http://adsections.businessweek.com/broadband/future/bbtwo.h

Re[2]: HTML-mail

. This should never be encouraged. As much as some of us hate it, html mail is here to stay, and any mail client that doesn't offer the option to compose in this format is doomed in the long run. I despise tacky Outlook html templates but people love using them. The Bat *needs* to be able to

Re: HTML-mail

On 30 Nov 2001, 10:18:53 PM, Thomas F wrote: KSR>> Besides, with the broadband connection, most people don't suffer KSR>> from bandwidth limitation of 56K modems. > You live in a privileged country. And most likely in an urban area. There are large parts of rural US where there are no local ISP

Re: HTML-mail

Hello Kenneth, On Fri, 30 Nov 2001 16:22:16 -0500 GMT (01/12/2001, 05:22 +0800 GMT), Kenneth S. Rhee wrote: RR>> Although for the most part I also despise HTML emails, I'm not so RR>> certain that at least having the option to use it occasionally would RR>> be such a bad idea. The only HTML I us

Re: HTML-mail

On Fri, 30 Nov 2001 16:08:52 -0500GMT (which was 22:08 +0100GMT where I live), Rick Reumann thought about "HTML-mail" and wrote: RR> Although for the most part I also despise HTML emails, I'm not so RR> certain that at least having the option to use it occasionally would R

Re[3]: HTML-mail

Hello Rick, 30 Nov 2001, 4:08:52 PM, you wrote: RR> Although for the most part I also despise HTML emails, I'm not so RR> certain that at least having the option to use it occasionally would RR> be such a bad idea. The only HTML I used was some occasional bolding RR> or italics which I didn't th

Re[2]: HTML-mail

Peter, On Friday, November 30, 2001, 3:51:41 PM, you wrote: PM> I don't think so, Nick. There are too many Outlook (Express) users around. PM> I do like to be able to see their style, though I despise HTML in mails PM> generally. One of the reasons I switched to The Bat! from Pegasus was becaus

Re: HTML-mail

On Fri, 30 Nov 2001 12:27:27 -0800GMT (which was 21:27 +0100GMT where I live), Nick Andriash thought about "HTML-mail" and wrote: >> Yiur hunch is correct: TB doesn't allow styled text, only >> plain ascii - for a number of reasons, one of them being >> that plai

Re: HTML-mail

Hello Karin Spaink, On Friday, November 30 2001 at 03:58 AM PDT, you wrote: > Yiur hunch is correct: TB doesn't allow styled text, only > plain ascii - for a number of reasons, one of them being > that plain text is the preferred method of communication > for mail Hmmm... Then it would stand to

Re: HTML-mail

curity risk? Oh. But that's a different issue. That has to do with incoming HTML mail. The current query is about *composing* HTML mail for sending. -- | ©Allie Martin - Moderator o|--- | TB! v1.54/13a & Win2K SP 2 PGPKey - mail

Re: HTML-mail

On 30-11-2001 at 13:08, Allie C Martin kindly wrote: > Karin Spaink [KS] wrote: [no html] KS>> another being that this severly limits the danger KS>> of inadvertedly sending virii. > Really? How? Pictures. Didn't we even have a thread once in which somebody explained why TB doesn't include pic

Re: HTML-mail

@ 12:58:02 +0100 [ Fri, 30 Nov 2001], Karin Spaink [KS] wrote these words of wisdom: ... KS> another being that this severly limits the danger KS> of inadvertedly sending virii. Really? How? -- ©Allie C Martin (_ List Moderator and f

Re: HTML-mail

On 30-11-2001 at 12:04, Geoff Lane kindly wrote: > I've been trialling TB for three days. I normally send plain text, so > the question of HTML mail has only just occurred to me. I know that TB > can read HTML mail -- but can I use it to compose HTML mail? > (I suspect that

Re: HTML-mail

Hello Geoff, On Fri, 30 Nov 2001 11:04:14 +GMT (30-11-2001, 12:04 +0100GMT, where I live), you wrote: GL> but can I use it to compose HTML mail? No. Sending html mail is possible, by creating some html and sending it as an attachment. But no composing with TB. -- Groetjes, Roe

Re: HTML-mail

or three days. I normally send plain text, so GL> the question of HTML mail has only just occurred to me. I know that TB GL> can read HTML mail -- but can I use it to compose HTML mail? At this moment in time you can not compose HTML e-mail.There are ways around it. You can create an HTML

HTML-mail

Using The Bat! v1.53d on Windows NT 4.0 Build 1381 Service Pack 5 I'm a real TB newbie -- so please go easy on me for this question. I've been trialling TB for three days. I normally send plain text, so the question of HTML mail has only just occurred to me. I know that TB can read

Re[5]:(OT) Not view HTML mail?

Hello Wolfgang, On Tuesday, March 20, 2001 at 09:46:08GMT +0100 (which was 09:46 AM where I live) you wrote: WK> Uppps - this was intended as private mail and should not have WK> gone to the list. My apologies. sre ;-) -- Best regards, André /---

Re[4]: Not view HTML mail?

Hi all, WK> "The PROPER way to handle HTML postings is to cancel the article, ... Uppps - this was intended as private mail and should not have gone to the list. My apologies. -- Regards, Wolfgang Co-moderator TBUDL / TBBETA discussion lists writing without the moderator's hat on ;-) Using T

Re[3]: Not view HTML mail?

Hi ztrader, ... z> If I mentioned I like text better, we'd have 50 replies z> defending HTML. "The PROPER way to handle HTML postings is to cancel the article, then hire a hitman to kill the poster, his wife and kids, and fuck his dog and smash his computer into little bits. Anything more is

Re[2]: Not view HTML mail?

On Monday, March 19, 2001, 7:42:29 PM, Thomas wrote: T> On Mon, 19 Mar 2001 15:58:04 -0800GMT (20/03/2001, 07:58 +0800GMT), T> ztrader wrote: z>> Is there a way to set TB to view text, not HTML, as the 'default', z>> even when there is a HTML message there? T> Why would you want to do that? T>

Re: Not view HTML mail?

Hi ztrader, On Mon, 19 Mar 2001 15:58:04 -0800GMT (20/03/2001, 07:58 +0800GMT), ztrader wrote: z> Is there a way to set TB to view text, not HTML, as the 'default', z> even when there is a HTML message there? Why would you want to do that? -- Cheers, Thomas. Moderator der deutschen The Ba

Re[2]: Not view HTML mail?

On Monday, March 19, 2001, 4:04:55 PM, A Curtis Martin wrote: z>> Is there a way to set TB to view text, not HTML, as the 'default', z>> even when there is a HTML message there? ACM> In the main window, under 'options' untick the option 'HTML-autoview'. Thanks, ztrader -- ___

Re: Not view HTML mail?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 19 Mar 2001 15:58:04 -0800, ztrader contributed this to our collective wisdom: z> Is there a way to set TB to view text, not HTML, as the 'default', z> even when there is a HTML message there? In the main window, under 'options' untick the o

Not view HTML mail?

Is there a way to set TB to view text, not HTML, as the 'default', even when there is a HTML message there? Thank, ztrader -- __ Archives : Moderators : TBTech List:

Re[5]: HTML Mail viewing (images)

Hello Abigail M. [AM], Sometime around Monday, January 08, 2001, 7:14:44 PM, you wrote: AM> If there is to be a change in future releases of TB, PLEASE allow this AM> to be an option, with the DEFAULT setting being to not download AM> images. AM> This is just my preference, but for me it is a ma

Opening HTML Mail for the first time, slow

Dear « Bat-Man » on Selasa, 18:47 When I open HTML Mail for the first time when TB has loaded it's very slow.. If open second HTML Mail it's normal, When Close the bat and restart it again, it goes again.. This is normal or not ? Using, MB BXCell2000, Pentium II-350, RAM 64M

Re: HTML Mail viewing (images)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Abigail, On 10 January 2001 at 14:06:55 -0800 (which was 22:06 where I live) Abigail Marshall wrote and made these points: AM> Those of us who have joined the list relatively recently have no AM> way of knowing which issues and topics have been d

Re[3]: HTML Mail viewing (images)

net.ru><003801c079c2$457fe5c0$0500a8c0@HOME><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <005f01c079c9$27ba92e0$0500a8c0@HOME><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <010201c07a1d$22d68be0$0500a8c0@HOME> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transf

Re[2]: HTML Mail viewing (images)

-- On Tuesday, January 09, 2001, 11:12:08 PM, Andrey G. Sergeev (AKA Andris) wrote: AGSAA> Personally I don't think you're going against the rules of this ML when AGSAA> you're trying to discuss some topics like one you were raised. However AGSAA> this particular t

HTML Mail viewing solution for me anyway

view it in my web browser. Well for some unknown, unexplainable reason, I seemed to have missed that point in my mail reading, so thank you, it solves the problem just fine for me. So those of you who need to read the HTML mail, just click on it and let your web browser do what it's made for

Re: HTML Mail viewing (images)

Hello! Tuesday, January 09, 2001, 12:18:31 PM, Austin Dennis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: AD> Apologies for going against the rules of the list. I should have read the AD> rules more carefully. Personally I don't think you're going against the rules of this ML when you're trying to discuss som

Re[2]: DEAD PHOENIX (Was Re: HTML Mail viewing (images))

This message: 09/01/2001 11:45 GMT. Hello MartianRover, A reminder of what MartianRover ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) typed on: 09 January 2001 at 17:09:58 GMT -0800 MK> KF6KNC OT I know but... Is that a Radio Amateur call sign I see? -- Best regards,Tony.[EMAIL PROTECTED

Re: Re[5]: HTML Mail viewing (images)

I realise this has been DEAD-HORSED, so this will be my final posting. I just wanted to clear things up, because I didn't understand the original request properly. I totally agree that TB should not show inline HTML images by default. My desire was an option to show images attached to the message

OT: Re: DEAD PHOENIX (Was Re: HTML Mail viewing (images))

Hallo MartianRover, I'm doing something which is against the list rules: reply to a dead-horsed message. This is because you don't seem to have understood Marck's point. On Mon, 8 Jan 2001 17:09:58 -0800 GMT (09/01/2001, 09:09 +0800 GMT), MartianRover KF6KNC wrote: MDP>> This conversation has b

Re: DEAD PHOENIX (Was Re: HTML Mail viewing (images))

On January 9, 2001, at 5:09:58 PM, MartianRover KF6KNC Wrote: MK> Being that these questions get asked over and over again by new comers MK> and such, is there an archive that one could search through for an MK> answer before posting to the list? Check the footer of every message. There you will

Re: DEAD PHOENIX (Was Re: HTML Mail viewing (images))

Hi Marck and TB!ers :) [snip] MDP> This conversation has been Dead Horsed so many times that I can only MDP> roll my eyes as I have to kill it again . MDP> Of course the newcomers to the list haven't necessarily seen it MDP> before, but the above clips should show how "against the ru

Re: HTML Mail viewing (images)

Hallo Kent, On Mon, 8 Jan 2001 16:36:07 -0400 GMT (09/01/2001, 04:36 +0800 GMT), Kent Villard (iChef) wrote: Kent> I'm sure I missed this somewhere (if I did, please direct to where), Kent> but I was wondering is there a way to get the images to display when Kent> viewing HTML messages? If the

DEAD PHOENIX (Was Re: HTML Mail viewing (images))

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 09 January 2001 at 16:14:44 -0800 (which was 00:14 where I live) Abigail Marshall wrote and made these points: AD>> Me too. :) AM> Not me! This conversation has been Dead Horsed so many times that I can only roll my eyes as I have to kill it aga

Re[5]: HTML Mail viewing (images)

Hello Abigail, On Monday, January 08, 2001 16:14:44 -0800 you wrote the following in regards to "HTML Mail viewing (images)": Abigail> Not me! Abigail> If there is to be a change in future releases of TB, PLEASE allow this Abigail> to be an option, with the DEFAULT s

Re: Re[4]: HTML Mail viewing (images)

Hi Abigail > If there is to be a change in future releases of TB, PLEASE allow this > to be an option, with the DEFAULT setting being to not download > images. > > This is just my preference, but for me it is a main reason that I > switched to TB - I don't have a fast connection, and TB's automat

Re[4]: HTML Mail viewing (images)

-- On Monday, January 08, 2001, 3:17:22 PM, Austin Dennis wrote: AD> Hi Kent >> I would just like a HTML message to display all of the images :> AD> Me too. :) Not me! If there is to be a change in future releases of TB, PLEASE allow this to be an option, with

Re: Re[2]: HTML Mail viewing (images)

Hi Kent > I would just like a HTML message to display all of the images :> Me too. :) Austin -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here:

Re[2]: HTML Mail viewing (images)

Hello Austin, Monday, January 08, 2001, 6:28:05 PM, you wrote: AD> Hi >> What do you mean by saying that? Do you _really_ want that all that >> .html .ra .qt .scr .swf attachments will >> render/play/saving-your-screen/etc. upon the message view? I would just like a HTML message to display all

Re: HTML Mail viewing (images)

Hi > What do you mean by saying that? Do you _really_ want that all that > .html .ra .qt .scr .swf attachments will > render/play/saving-your-screen/etc. upon the message view? I wouldn't want any other types of attachments to do anything automatically, but images - yes (perhaps it could be an o

Re: HTML Mail viewing (images)

Hello! Tuesday, January 09, 2001, 12:20:13 AM, Austin Dennis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: AD> Do you mean you would like the attachment to automatically appear when you AD> view a message? If so, I emailed a similar suggestion to Ritlabs a few days AD> ago - this was the response: AD>> 2. It wou

Re: HTML Mail viewing (images)

Hi Kent > I'm sure I missed this somewhere (if I did, please direct to where), > but I was wondering is there a way to get the images to display when > viewing HTML messages? I have a constant connection and would love for > these messages to be complete. I have some messages that I get > periodi

Re: HTML Mail viewing (images)

Hello! Monday, January 08, 2001, 11:36:07 PM, Kent Villard (iChef) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: KVi> I'm sure I missed this somewhere (if I did, please direct to where), You can search the TBUDL archives for a long and repeated discussions about this feature. KVi> but I was wondering is there a

HTML Mail viewing (images)

Hello folks, I'm sure I missed this somewhere (if I did, please direct to where), but I was wondering is there a way to get the images to display when viewing HTML messages? I have a constant connection and would love for these messages to be complete. I have some messages that I get periodically

Re[3]: Reasons why html mail shouldn't be used

Hello, the Bat! list recipients, Saturday, September 16, 2000, Graham wrote to ztrader about Reasons why html mail shouldn't be used: G> I agree, but why, oh why, can't I have the convenience of using G> Trutype fonts?? Do you really think that it's a convenience? Ho

Re: Reasons why html mail shouldn't be used

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Luca, On 16 September 2000 at 12:56:32 GMT +0200 (which was 11:56 where I live) Luca wrote and made these points on the subject of "Reasons why html mail shouldn't be used": L> I'd like to use smaller fonts (possi

Re: Reasons why html mail shouldn't be used

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sat, 16 Sep 2000 12:56:32 +0200, Luca wrote: L> I'd like to use smaller fonts (possibly variable pitch ones, I'm used L> to arial narrow) for column titles, particularly in the headers list L> pane (from, subject, etc). Is that possible? L> I jus

Re: Reasons why html mail shouldn't be used

16/09/2000, Marck D. Pearlstone: > You can use variable pitch fonts by employing a registry hack (ask if > you want it - I will publish it for you). I'd like to use smaller fonts (possibly variable pitch ones, I'm used to arial narrow) for column titles, particularly in the headers list pane (f

<    1   2   3   4   >