-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Graham,
On 16 September 2000 at 10:17:43 GMT +0100 (which was 10:17 where I
live) Graham wrote and made these points on the subject
of "Reasons why html mail shouldn't be used":
>> Hey - somebody else can put emphasis
Hallo Graham,
On Sat, 16 Sep 2000 10:17:43 +0100 GMT (16/09/2000, 17:17 +0800 GMT),
Graham wrote:
G> I agree, but why, oh why, can't I have the convenience of using
G> Trutype fonts??
I understand you can use TrueType as long as it's fixed width. ;-)
But don't worry too much, in v2 you will be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> n Friday, September 15, 2000, 12:29:09 AM, you wrote:
>
JD>> TB! still doesn't support bold and underline because it's
*plain*
>
> Hey - somebody else can put emphasis in plain text :-). *I*
> understood it just fine.
I agree, but why, oh why, can
Hi John,
On Fri, 15 Sep 2000 13:12:13 +0100GMT (15/09/2000, 20:12 +0800GMT),
John Hinson wrote:
JH> Sorry Curtis (and Thomas and Jamie), I only said half of what I meant to.
[...]
JH> but not
JH> 6. Collect/send for all accounts.
Yes, you can. I do it all the time.
All of my account have Combi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 15 Sep 2000 13:12:13 +0100, John Hinson wrote:
JH> It seems to me you can do all this at the click of a button or key combination
JH> 1. Collect for an individual account
JH> 2. Send for an individual account
JH> 3. Collect/send for an indivi
This message: 15/09/2000 22:24 GMT.
Hello Steve,
A reminder of what Steve ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) typed on:
15 September 2000 at 10:50:52 GMT -0700
SL> Thanks, I'm going to have to go home sick now.
As long as you don't come round here sick I'm not worried :-)
--
___
On Friday, September 15, 2000, 2:03:27 AM, you wrote:
JH> I shall watch for version 2 with interest - I certainly don't /always/
JH> want to send in HTML, but I like to have the choice.
You could always fire up the M$ bloatware :-). That *is* a choice.
JH> My other irritation with TB's handling
On Friday, September 15, 2000, 12:29:09 AM, you wrote:
JD> TB! still doesn't support bold and underline because it's *plain*
Hey - somebody else can put emphasis in plain text :-). *I* understood
it just fine.
JD> Note the use of PDF, Word
JD> documents are not a universal format.
Thank the he
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi John,
On 15 September 2000 at 13:12:13 GMT +0100 (which was 13:12 where I
live) John Hinson wrote and made these points on the subject
of "HTML mail":
JH> but not
JH> 6. Collect/send for all accounts.
JH> Obviously di
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Friday, September 15, 2000, 11:33:27 AM, Peter wrote:
SL>> What makes you think I'm not using one of them?
> The mail that Tony replied to was written (according to the X-Mailer
> header) with "Mutt/1.2.5i"
Right. Is it now mandated that on
On Fri, 15 Sep 2000 10:46:34 -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
SL> Friday, September 15, 2000, 4:02:36 AM, Tony wrote:
SL>>> They both have their strengths and weaknesses.
>> Any reason why your not using either of them?
SL> What makes you think I'm not using one of them?
The mail that Tony replied
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Friday, September 15, 2000, 4:43:49 AM, Tony wrote:
> http://www.incredimail.com/english/index.html
Thanks, I'm going to have to go home sick now.
- --
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Friday, September 15, 2000, 4:02:36 AM, Tony wrote:
SL>> They both have their strengths and weaknesses.
> Any reason why your not using either of them?
What makes you think I'm not using one of them?
- --
Steve C. Lamb | I'm y
Sorry Curtis (and Thomas and Jamie), I only said half of what I meant to.
It seems to me you can do all this at the click of a button or key combination
1. Collect for an individual account
2. Send for an individual account
3. Collect/send for an individual account
4. Collect for all accounts
5.
This message: 15/09/2000 11:19 GMT.
Sorry if this is a bit late but my pop server was down all day yesterday.
Hello John,
A reminder of what John ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) typed on:
14 September 2000 at 16:20:17 GMT +0100
JH> And finally, I plead guilty. I'm writing this using a rival product
This message: 15/09/2000 12:01 GMT.
Hello Steve,
A reminder of what Steve ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) typed on:
15 September 2000 at 16:02:43 GMT -0700
SL> They both have their strengths and weaknesses.
Any reason why your not using either of them?
--
__
Hello John Hinson,
On Fri, 15 Sep 2000 10:03:27 +0100 GMT your local time,
which was Friday, September 15, 2000, 10:03:27 (GMT+0100) (BST) my local time,
John Hinson wrote:
JH> My other irritation with TB's handling of multiple accounts is that
JH> there is no easy button/key combination to coll
Hello John,
Friday, September 15, 2000, 5:03:27 AM, you wrote:
JH> My other irritation with TB's handling of multiple accounts is that
JH> there is no easy button/key combination to collect email from all
JH> accounts. I keep collecting from just one in error. perhaps I have
JH> missed something
Hi John,
On Fri, 15 Sep 2000 10:03:27 +0100GMT (15/09/2000, 17:03 +0800GMT),
John Hinson wrote:
JH> My other irritation with TB's handling of multiple accounts is that
JH> there is no easy button/key combination to collect email from all
JH> accounts. I keep collecting from just one in error. pe
Hello Marck and all,
Thursday, September 14, 2000, 5:54:55 PM, you wrote:
> While you can (with a great deal of effort), it is not part of the TB
> remit to cover HTML mail creation. There are a number of other
> products which do this. There are also a large majority of
o much.
Ztrader has already made this point but I'd just like to help flesh out
his argument. Currently my TB! holds 10K messages each being
approximately 2K. So this works out at about 2K of messages
approximately 20MB. In reality it is actually near 30MB. As the
average html mail is 12 time
15/09/2000, Steve Lamb:
> Aside from templates what does TB! really do better?
Hi all.
I'm pretty new to TB, used Pegasus Mail and Eudora for years, and the
main reason why I gave up with PM is that you can't have any copy of
actually sent messages, but only [multiple] copies of queued ones
On Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 06:36:23PM -0500, A . Curtis Martin wrote:
> You're asking me to put aside, perhaps, the single most significant
> reason why I use TB! over PMMail. I cannot just put it aside like that
> and continue the argument. :-)
That's the point. You use templates extensively,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 16:02:43 -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
>> PMMail as a straightforward multi-account e-mail system is
>> comparable. Once you start moving to advanced features, PMMail in
>> general becomes a shadow of TB!. I used PMMail for a longer t
On Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 04:36:12PM -0700, ztrader wrote:
> I'd have to agree there, although good help files and examples could
> have answered many of the questions I had.
Even with help I'm afraid the filtering is just poorly laid out.
> SL> limited scripting capabilities in advanced
> SL>
On Thursday, September 14, 2000, 4:14:06 PM, you wrote:
SL> With TB! the
SL> configuration of filters is quite cryptic.
I'd have to agree there, although good help files and examples could
have answered many of the questions I had.
SL> limited scripting capabilities in advanced
SL> mode.
Hey -
On Thursday, September 14, 2000, 4:02:43 PM, you wrote:
SL> PMMail has nicer filtering,
Oops - there's that word again :-). I'm very interested in good
filtering. What does PMM do better re filtering?
ztrader
--
--
View the TBUDL
On Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 04:03:20PM -0700, ztrader wrote:
> What sorting functions or operations does it do better?
The layout and accessability is generally better in PMMail. With TB! the
configuration of filters is quite cryptic. With PMMial it is straightforward
in basic mode and quite ni
On Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 05:59:22PM -0500, A . Curtis Martin wrote:
> PMMail as a straightforward multi-account e-mail system is
> comparable. Once you start moving to advanced features, PMMail in
> general becomes a shadow of TB!. I used PMMail for a longer time than
> I've been using TB!. :-)
On Thursday, September 14, 2000, 3:30:04 PM, you wrote:
SL> On Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 03:26:33PM -0700, ztrader wrote:
>> On Thursday, September 14, 2000, 10:10:51 AM, you wrote:
>> SL> has better sorting
>> What is better?
SL> That is not enough context to go by.
For example, can it do numer
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 10:10:51 -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
>> Now, show me another client that handles multiple accounts, with
>> template facilities like TB offers, as powerful a sorting office and
>> the very useful ticker and its' virtual f
On Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 03:26:33PM -0700, ztrader wrote:
> On Thursday, September 14, 2000, 10:10:51 AM, you wrote:
> SL> has better sorting
> What is better?
That is not enough context to go by.
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
IC
On Thursday, September 14, 2000, 10:10:51 AM, you wrote:
SL> has better sorting
What is better?
ztrader
--
--
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team double click here:
Hello Steve,
Thursday, September 14, 2000, 1:29:02 PM, you wrote:
SL> On Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 01:22:21AM +0800, Thomas Fernandez wrote:
>> My main argument is always the waste of bandwidth (and that I find
>> emails with different fonts and colours offensive or just plain ugly,
>> but that's cer
Hallo Steve,
On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 10:29:02 -0700 GMT (15/09/2000, 01:29 +0800 GMT),
Steve Lamb wrote:
SL> There is no standard set of HTML defined for email clients to support.
SL> There is no standard set for displaying HTML from email, only for the
SL> transport of the HTML in MIME.
On Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 01:22:21AM +0800, Thomas Fernandez wrote:
> My main argument is always the waste of bandwidth (and that I find
> emails with different fonts and colours offensive or just plain ugly,
> but that's certainly a matter of taste). What other reasons are there?
There is no s
Hallo Steve,
On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 10:10:51 -0700 GMT (15/09/2000, 01:10 +0800 GMT),
Steve Lamb wrote:
SL> Heh, you should take a look at one of the threads on the PMMail mailing
SL> list. We've gone over many reasons why HTML in email shouldn't be done. :)
My main argument is always the wa
On Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 05:54:55PM +0100, Marck D. Pearlstone wrote:
> attachment. Thus you can attach a prepared HTML file to an email an
> and in that way send an "HTML mail". I don't want to get into an
> argument about OE and Poco and all of the ot
Hallo John,
On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 16:20:17 +0100 GMT (14/09/2000, 23:20 +0800 GMT),
John Hinson wrote:
JH> One feature defeats me, though. Is it possible to send HTML
JH> ("styled") text? Certainly, it receives such messages fine, but
JH> Ican't figure out any way to send such messages.
TB does n
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi John,
On 14 September 2000 at 16:20:17 GMT +0100 (which was 16:20 where I
live) John Hinson wrote and made these points on the subject
of "HTML mail":
JH> One feature defeats me, though. Is it possible to send HTML
JH>
Hi Folks.
I've recently started a-plating with a trial version of The Bat! It has some pretty good features and seems quite a superior product.
One feature defeats me, though. Is it possible to send HTML ("styled") text? Certainly, it receives such messages fine, but I can't figure out any wa
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Aaron,
On 23 August 2000 at 09:09:29 GMT -0700 (which was 17:09 where I
live) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote and made these points on the subject
of "Where are the pictures in my html mail":
AG> When I open html mail, instead of pict
Hello TBUDL,
When I open html mail, instead of pictures, I get a box with an
exclamation point in it. Where are the pictures?
--
Best regards,
Aaron mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
--
View the TBUDL archive
301 - 343 of 343 matches
Mail list logo
