A Request To Forte Folks...
No Spam
Why can't you folks understand that the "features" added in 6.0 were not
worth calling it an upgrade?
Why can't you folks understand that the users today want software that
has what other modern software has:
1. Proper HTML support. For goodness sake!
2. Unicode support.
3. IMAP Support.
4. Support filtering on ALL headers and body.
Please, I think it is time to catch up with the rest of the world,
instead of ignoring such features/upgrades/bug fixes and wasting your
resources on features that are of less important.
Thank you for listening.
nos...@nospam.invalid
No Spam <nos...@nospam.nospam> wrote:
Agreed
> Thank you for listening.
Ken Blake
wrote:
> I upgraded just because I don't want to move to another software.
>
> Why can't you folks understand that the "features" added in 6.0 were not
> worth calling it an upgrade?
I don't mind calling it an "upgrade," but I do mind the charge for so
little in the way of improvements. I think it should have been a free
upgrade to 5.1.
> Why can't you folks understand that the users today want software that
> has what other modern software has:
>
> 1. Proper HTML support. For goodness sake!
> 2. Unicode support.
> 3. IMAP Support.
> 4. Support filtering on ALL headers and body.
We don't all want the same things. I have no interest in your points
1, 2, and 3, but I would certainly like to see Agent do number 4.
> Please, I think it is time to catch up with the rest of the world,
> instead of ignoring such features/upgrades/bug fixes and wasting your
> resources on features that are of less important.
>
> Thank you for listening.
--
Ken Blake
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
Stephen Wolstenholme
>> 1. Proper HTML support. For goodness sake!
>> 2. Unicode support.
>> 3. IMAP Support.
>> 4. Support filtering on ALL headers and body.
>>
>> Please, I think it is time to catch up with the rest of the world,
>> instead of ignoring such features/upgrades/bug fixes and wasting your
>> resources on features that are of less important.
>
>
>Agreed
I disagree about HTML as I hate to see it in newsgroups and emails.
It's so distracting from reading text and that's all I want to do.
Pictures and fancy formatting are for the web.
Steve
--
Neural Planner Software Ltd www.NPSL1.com
Rich Webb
<kbl...@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote:
>On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 23:16:27 -0800, No Spam <nos...@nospam.nospam>
>wrote:
>
>> I upgraded just because I don't want to move to another software.
>>
>> Why can't you folks understand that the "features" added in 6.0 were not
>> worth calling it an upgrade?
>
>
>I don't mind calling it an "upgrade," but I do mind the charge for so
>little in the way of improvements. I think it should have been a free
>upgrade to 5.1.
>
>
>> Why can't you folks understand that the users today want software that
>> has what other modern software has:
>>
>> 1. Proper HTML support. For goodness sake!
>> 2. Unicode support.
>> 3. IMAP Support.
>> 4. Support filtering on ALL headers and body.
>
>
>We don't all want the same things. I have no interest in your points
>1, 2, and 3, but I would certainly like to see Agent do number 4.
While you may realize that filtering on non-overview header lines or on
the article body would require downloading the entire contents of all
new posts in subscribed (or, possibly, specific targeted) groups, it's
likely that many (most? nearly all?) users don't know or care about
that. And they would be the ones most likely to complain the loudest
that "Agent iz teh suxorz!!111!" or whatever when refreshing new traffic
suddenly takes more than an order of magnitude longer.
Such a capability probably could be added -- I do it separately using a
local news server (Hamster Playground) -- but I wonder if it is worth
the resulting hurricane of abuse?
--
Rich Webb Norfolk, VA
Nick Spalding
on Sat, 21 Nov 2009 10:10:18 -0500:
> While you may realize that filtering on non-overview header lines or on
> the article body would require downloading the entire contents of all
> new posts in subscribed (or, possibly, specific targeted) groups, it's
> likely that many (most? nearly all?) users don't know or care about
> that. And they would be the ones most likely to complain the loudest
> that "Agent iz teh suxorz!!111!" or whatever when refreshing new traffic
> suddenly takes more than an order of magnitude longer.
>
> Such a capability probably could be added -- I do it separately using a
> local news server (Hamster Playground) -- but I wonder if it is worth
> the resulting hurricane of abuse?
It could indeed be added, and reading the whole message isn't required.
There is a NNTP command HEAD that reads the headers only. It could well
be implemented as an option, preferably at the folder level, in place of
a default of XOVER then only those who do know and care need use it -
one of the things that they know would be that it would be a bit slower.
I suggested this in April 2005.
--
Nick Spalding
Agent 5.0/32.1171 IE8 Vista Home Premium SP2 32 bit,
Intel Viiv dual core E6300 (1.86Ghz, 1066MHz FSB), 2GB RAM,
320GB NTFS HD, Video Nvidia GeForce 7900GS LCD 1024x768x75Hz
Ken Blake
<bbe...@mapson.nozirev.ten> wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 07:45:44 -0700, Ken Blake
> <kbl...@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 23:16:27 -0800, No Spam <nos...@nospam.nospam>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> I upgraded just because I don't want to move to another software.
> >>
> >> Why can't you folks understand that the "features" added in 6.0 were not
> >> worth calling it an upgrade?
> >
> >
> >I don't mind calling it an "upgrade," but I do mind the charge for so
> >little in the way of improvements. I think it should have been a free
> >upgrade to 5.1.
> >
> >
> >> Why can't you folks understand that the users today want software that
> >> has what other modern software has:
> >>
> >> 1. Proper HTML support. For goodness sake!
> >> 2. Unicode support.
> >> 3. IMAP Support.
> >> 4. Support filtering on ALL headers and body.
> >
> >
> >We don't all want the same things. I have no interest in your points
> >1, 2, and 3, but I would certainly like to see Agent do number 4.
>
> While you may realize that filtering on non-overview header lines or on
> the article body would require downloading the entire contents of all
> new posts in subscribed (or, possibly, specific targeted) groups,
Yes, I realize it.
> it's
> likely that many (most? nearly all?) users don't know or care about
> that. And they would be the ones most likely to complain the loudest
> that "Agent iz teh suxorz!!111!" or whatever when refreshing new traffic
> suddenly takes more than an order of magnitude longer.
>
> Such a capability probably could be added -- I do it separately using a
> local news server (Hamster Playground) -- but I wonder if it is worth
> the resulting hurricane of abuse?
Anything that might be liked by some people and not others should be
made optional. I don't suggest that everything should be done my way.
Here's another example. In newsgroups, in the first message of a
thread, Agent puts the name of the author in the Author column, but
the names of subsequent posters in the thread in the Subject column.
I'm aware that some people like it that way, but I don't and would
greatly prefer all author names in the author column. Again, I don't
suggest that everybody should have it my way, but I would very much
like to see us all having the choice of which way we prefer it.
By the way, the reason I would prefer the names in a single column is
that it would make it much easier to visually scan a bunch of messages
looking for a particular name.
Adam
Stephen Wolstenholme <st...@tropheus.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Do you even receive any emails?
If so, don't you get frustrated when your yahoo or gmail web based email
reader handles those while Agent can't?
Who in this day and time does not receive HTML email?
Nobody wants HTML in newsgroups, and the software that allows you post
HTML in newsgroups should be banned.
Adam
Ken Blake <kbl...@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote:
>On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 23:16:27 -0800, No Spam <nos...@nospam.nospam>
>wrote:
>
>> I upgraded just because I don't want to move to another software.
>>
>> Why can't you folks understand that the "features" added in 6.0 were not
>> worth calling it an upgrade?
>
>
>I don't mind calling it an "upgrade," but I do mind the charge for so
>little in the way of improvements. I think it should have been a free
>upgrade to 5.1.
>
>
>> Why can't you folks understand that the users today want software that
>> has what other modern software has:
>>
>> 1. Proper HTML support. For goodness sake!
>> 2. Unicode support.
>> 3. IMAP Support.
>> 4. Support filtering on ALL headers and body.
>
>
>We don't all want the same things. I have no interest in your points
>1, 2, and 3, but I would certainly like to see Agent do number 4.
>
Maybe you are not using Agent for email.
Proper HTML support is needed today for Agent to be of any use handling
email.
If you live in the US or UK then I guess you think there are no users in
any other country and probably don't even understand what Unicode
support is.
Just because you don't need it, it doesn't make it not a required
feature for Agent.
Geoff
wrote:
>1. Proper HTML support. For goodness sake!
Define "proper".
>2. Unicode support.
Yes, this would be good.
>3. IMAP Support.
Why is this needed?
>4. Support filtering on ALL headers and body.
Filtering on all headers can be done with moderate increase in
bandwidth usage. Filtering on body content would require download of
all the bodies just to filter them, a huge increase in bandwidth just
to move or delete a message. Is this what you want?
Dennis
<ad...@myemailaddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>Who in this day and time does not receive HTML email?
I receive them but I filter them to Junk.
--
Dennis
nos...@nospam.invalid
Adam <ad...@myemailaddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> Nobody wants HTML in newsgroups, and the software that allows you post
> HTML in newsgroups should be banned.
Except that Agent is also an e-mail client. That's what I
understood he wanted HTML capability for, and so do I. That's
just normal for any e-mail client, including free ones.
nos...@nospam.invalid
Geoff <ge...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> 3. IMAP Support.
> Why is this needed?
To handle IMAP accounts like gmail. That way your online
experience is automatically synchronized with your local client.
nos...@nospam.invalid
Dennis <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
Do you also do all your work from a command prompt, instead of
using Windows?
nos...@nospam.invalid
Sj <S...@NOTforMAIL.not> wrote:
> I do have 1 friend who uses some web mail site but have
> asked him to e-mail in text, not html.
Since Agent already allows you to respond in the way you want to,
i.e. by html, plain text, or both, there's no reason why we
shouldn't allow people who want send or receive html e-mail, to
have normal Html capabilities.
Stephen Wolstenholme
<ad...@myemailaddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>In article <trvfg5ti8q6tfetoi...@4ax.com>
>Stephen Wolstenholme <st...@tropheus.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 08:26:44 -0600, nos...@nospam.invalid wrote:
>>
>>>> 1. Proper HTML support. For goodness sake!
>>>> 2. Unicode support.
>>>> 3. IMAP Support.
>>>> 4. Support filtering on ALL headers and body.
>>>>
>>>> Please, I think it is time to catch up with the rest of the world,
>>>> instead of ignoring such features/upgrades/bug fixes and wasting your
>>>> resources on features that are of less important.
>>>
>>>
>>>Agreed
>>
>>I disagree about HTML as I hate to see it in newsgroups and emails.
>>It's so distracting from reading text and that's all I want to do.
>>Pictures and fancy formatting are for the web.
>>
>
>Do you even receive any emails?
My company gets about 50 a day. I get about 10.
>If so, don't you get frustrated when your yahoo or gmail web based email
>reader handles those while Agent can't?
>
I use Agent with gmail. I set gmail to forward my messages in POP3. I
rarely use web based email but when I do I use the web!
>Who in this day and time does not receive HTML email?
>
I don't. My company just sends a reply requesting plain text with
pictures if needed. The very rare customer who insists on HTML can
reference one of our many web sites.
>Nobody wants HTML in newsgroups, and the software that allows you post
>HTML in newsgroups should be banned.
We agree on that.
Christopher A. Lee
<ad...@myemailaddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>In article <24vfg55jllqq5fcnk...@4ax.com>
>Ken Blake <kbl...@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 23:16:27 -0800, No Spam <nos...@nospam.nospam>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> I upgraded just because I don't want to move to another software.
>>>
>>> Why can't you folks understand that the "features" added in 6.0 were not
>>> worth calling it an upgrade?
>>
>>I don't mind calling it an "upgrade," but I do mind the charge for so
>>little in the way of improvements. I think it should have been a free
>>upgrade to 5.1.
>>
>>> Why can't you folks understand that the users today want software that
>>> has what other modern software has:
>>>
>>> 1. Proper HTML support. For goodness sake!
>>> 2. Unicode support.
>>> 3. IMAP Support.
>>> 4. Support filtering on ALL headers and body.
>>
>>We don't all want the same things. I have no interest in your points
>>1, 2, and 3, but I would certainly like to see Agent do number 4.
>
>Maybe you are not using Agent for email.
I am, and I just display text.
>Proper HTML support is needed today for Agent to be of any use handling
>email.
>
>If you live in the US or UK then I guess you think there are no users in
>any other country and probably don't even understand what Unicode
>support is.
A mind reader?
Jim Higgins
<bbe...@mapson.nozirev.ten> wrote:
><kbl...@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote:
>
>> 4. Support filtering on ALL headers and body.
>
>While you may realize that filtering on non-overview header lines or on
>the article body would require downloading the entire contents of all
>new posts in subscribed (or, possibly, specific targeted) groups, it's
>likely that many (most? nearly all?) users don't know or care about
>that. And they would be the ones most likely to complain the loudest
>that "Agent iz teh suxorz!!111!" or whatever when refreshing new traffic
>suddenly takes more than an order of magnitude longer.
>
>Such a capability probably could be added -- I do it separately using a
>local news server (Hamster Playground) -- but I wonder if it is worth
>the resulting hurricane of abuse?
Filtering on body content has almost negligible added overhead if
restricted to filters that REJECT the downloaded article. If this
were provided, Agent wouldn't download every article, but instead it
would download only those articles that match your existing header
filtration options and then Agent would apply body filtration to only
those downloaded articles to remove unwanted content or maybe to
better highlight wanted content.
As you point out - the idea of downloading EVERYTHING in order to
apply body filtration that would find most of it uninteresting would
be a ridiculous notion to most users. Strikes me as an option for the
terminally obsessed.
Dennis
No.
--
Dennis
Ken Blake
<ad...@myemailaddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> In article <24vfg55jllqq5fcnk...@4ax.com>
> Ken Blake <kbl...@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 23:16:27 -0800, No Spam <nos...@nospam.nospam>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> I upgraded just because I don't want to move to another software.
> >>
> >> Why can't you folks understand that the "features" added in 6.0 were not
> >> worth calling it an upgrade?
> >
> >
> >I don't mind calling it an "upgrade," but I do mind the charge for so
> >little in the way of improvements. I think it should have been a free
> >upgrade to 5.1.
> >
> >
> >> Why can't you folks understand that the users today want software that
> >> has what other modern software has:
> >>
> >> 1. Proper HTML support. For goodness sake!
> >> 2. Unicode support.
> >> 3. IMAP Support.
> >> 4. Support filtering on ALL headers and body.
> >
> >
> >We don't all want the same things. I have no interest in your points
> >1, 2, and 3, but I would certainly like to see Agent do number 4.
> >
>
> Maybe you are not using Agent for email.
That's correct.
> Proper HTML support is needed today for Agent to be of any use handling
> email.
That's your point of view. It's not mine.
> If you live in the US or UK
Yes, I live in the US.
> then I guess you think there are no users in
> any other country and probably don't even understand what Unicode
> support is.
You are wrong on both counts. Why do you need to be insulting to make
the point you want to make?
> Just because you don't need it, it doesn't make it not a required
> feature for Agent.
Not correct. My point was a very simple one. We don't all have the
same requirements. What is required for you, or for any other person,
is not necessarily required for all of us.
I gave an example of something I would like to see in Agent, but I was
careful to point that just because *I* want it doesn't mean that it's
a requirement for everyone.
Don Kirkman
<rn2fg5tuiaai1ghv2...@4ax.com>:
You really should address your message TO the Forte Folks instead of
to the Agent users who formed and populate this group. If "Forte
Folks" see it it'll only be because on of them happened to pop in for
a quick look-see.
--
Don Kirkman
don...@charter.net
Adam
Dennis <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:57:52 -0600, nos...@nospam.invalid wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 11/21/09, at 11:45:26AM,
>>Dennis <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 08:51:07 -0800, Adam
>>> <ad...@myemailaddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Who in this day and time does not receive HTML email?
>>>
>>> I receive them but I filter them to Junk.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Do you also do all your work from a command prompt, instead of
>>using Windows?
>
>No.
Either that, or you've been living under a rock for the last 8 years or
so.
Adam
Sj <S...@NOTforMAIL.not> wrote:
>On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 08:51:07 -0800, Adam
><ad...@myemailaddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
>>In article <trvfg5ti8q6tfetoi...@4ax.com>
>>Stephen Wolstenholme <st...@tropheus.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 08:26:44 -0600, nos...@nospam.invalid wrote:
>>>
>>>>> 1. Proper HTML support. For goodness sake!
>>>>> 2. Unicode support.
>>>>> 3. IMAP Support.
>>>>> 4. Support filtering on ALL headers and body.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please, I think it is time to catch up with the rest of the world,
>>>>> instead of ignoring such features/upgrades/bug fixes and wasting your
>>>>> resources on features that are of less important.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Agreed
>>>
>>>I disagree about HTML as I hate to see it in newsgroups and emails.
>>>It's so distracting from reading text and that's all I want to do.
>>>Pictures and fancy formatting are for the web.
>>>
>>
>>Do you even receive any emails?
>>If so, don't you get frustrated when your yahoo or gmail web based email
>>reader handles those while Agent can't?
>>
>>Who in this day and time does not receive HTML email?
>
>Very few - some subscriptions which take me to the web
>& which I trust, but if they allow me to choose which format,
>I choose txt.
>
>From friends? No - in replying to their mail, one gets a
>mess of code, interspersed w/ words.
>
>I do have 1 friend who uses some web mail site but have
>asked him to e-mail in text, not html.
>
>I don't open any which I don't trust.
>
>Some more reasons here:
>http://www.georgedillon.com/web/html_email_is_evil_still.shtml
>
>Don't know if I go along w/ all but I still don't want html
>e-mail - some of the links are no longer active - some are
>also old but the george dillon site was updated earlier this
>year, so still relevant.
>
>Plain txt e-mail is fine by me :)
>
In short, you prefer to live in the past.
Just because Outlook can be attacked from HTML email doesn't mean that
others need to be that insecure.
Look at any other email client in the market right now.
Agent is the only one that messes HTML.
Adam
Stephen Wolstenholme <st...@tropheus.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Do you even receive any emails?
>
>My company gets about 50 a day. I get about 10.
That is not the standard.
I get much more at home.
Adam
>>Proper HTML support is needed today for Agent to be of any use handling
>>email.
>>
>>If you live in the US or UK then I guess you think there are no users in
>>any other country and probably don't even understand what Unicode
>>support is.
>
>A mind reader?
No, just applying logic, given your response.
Adam
Ken Blake <kbl...@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote:
>> If you live in the US or UK
>
>
>Yes, I live in the US.
>
>
>> then I guess you think there are no users in
>> any other country and probably don't even understand what Unicode
>> support is.
>
>
>You are wrong on both counts. Why do you need to be insulting to make
>the point you want to make?
There was no insult.
You said Unicode support is not important, and that implies that you
don't understand what it is.
Adam
Geoff <ge...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 23:16:27 -0800, No Spam <nos...@nospam.nospam>
>wrote:
>
>>1. Proper HTML support. For goodness sake!
>
>Define "proper".
>
I guess you are happy with messed HTML message that Agent renders?
Or maybe you don't even know what HTML is?
>>2. Unicode support.
>
>Yes, this would be good.
>
>>3. IMAP Support.
>
>Why is this needed?
If you have to ask, that means you don't use it or you don't understand
it.
>>4. Support filtering on ALL headers and body.
>
>Filtering on all headers can be done with moderate increase in
>bandwidth usage.
What?
>Filtering on body content would require download of
>all the bodies just to filter them, a huge increase in bandwidth just
>to move or delete a message. Is this what you want?
Why should anyone be concerned about bandwidth?
It like most of those who are objecting to the valid points raised by
the OP are still stuck in the 80s or something like that.
Dennis
I'm retired. 99% of HTML email I receive is UCE or scams. The 1% I miss
is not important. If someone calls me and asks why I didn't reply, I
explain it to them and ask them to resend in plain text. This has
happened only once or twice.
You asked "Who in this day and time does not receive HTML email?" and I
raised my hand.
--
Dennis
Ken Blake
<ad...@myemailaddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> In article <hgfgg55hkrrmebh1h...@4ax.com>
> Ken Blake <kbl...@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote:
>
> >> If you live in the US or UK
> >
> >
> >Yes, I live in the US.
> >
> >
> >> then I guess you think there are no users in
> >> any other country and probably don't even understand what Unicode
> >> support is.
> >
> >
> >You are wrong on both counts. Why do you need to be insulting to make
> >the point you want to make?
>
> There was no insult.
> You said Unicode support is not important,
I did *not* say unicode support is not important. I said it wasn't
important to *me*. Once again, my point is that each of us has
different things that are important to us. We do *not* all have the
same views of things. I don't disparage your views of what's important
because they are different from mine.
> and that implies that you don't understand what it is.
And you don't think that's an insult?
And you said "I guess you think there are no users in any other
country." You don't think that's an insult either?
Christopher A. Lee
<ad...@myemailaddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>In article <gt3gg5hrje5eji7mb...@4ax.com>
>Geoff <ge...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 23:16:27 -0800, No Spam <nos...@nospam.nospam>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>1. Proper HTML support. For goodness sake!
>>
>>Define "proper".
>
>I guess you are happy with messed HTML message that Agent renders?
>Or maybe you don't even know what HTML is?
And you pretend you're not nasty?
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 12:59:28 -0800, Adam
><ad...@myemailaddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
>>In article <lkcgg5to9e5vrm4bu...@4ax.com>
>>Dennis <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:57:52 -0600, nos...@nospam.invalid wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 11/21/09, at 11:45:26AM,
>>>>Dennis <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 08:51:07 -0800, Adam
>>>>> <ad...@myemailaddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Who in this day and time does not receive HTML email?
>>>>>
>>>>> I receive them but I filter them to Junk.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Do you also do all your work from a command prompt, instead of
>>>>using Windows?
>>>
>>>No.
>>
>>Either that, or you've been living under a rock for the last 8 years or
>>so.
>
>I'm retired. 99% of HTML email I receive is UCE or scams. The 1% I miss
>is not important. If someone calls me and asks why I didn't reply, I
>explain it to them and ask them to resend in plain text. This has
>happened only once or twice.
>
>You asked "Who in this day and time does not receive HTML email?" and I
>raised my hand.
As did I.
Luca
I don't believe you. And I myself would burn in hell the inventor of html for
email.
--
Luca - e-mail: p.stevens at linuxfan.it
Adam
Dennis <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 12:59:28 -0800, Adam
><ad...@myemailaddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
>>In article <lkcgg5to9e5vrm4bu...@4ax.com>
>>Dennis <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:57:52 -0600, nos...@nospam.invalid wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 11/21/09, at 11:45:26AM,
>>>>Dennis <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 08:51:07 -0800, Adam
>>>>> <ad...@myemailaddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Who in this day and time does not receive HTML email?
>>>>>
>>>>> I receive them but I filter them to Junk.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Do you also do all your work from a command prompt, instead of
>>>>using Windows?
>>>
>>>No.
>>
>>Either that, or you've been living under a rock for the last 8 years or
>>so.
>
>I'm retired. 99% of HTML email I receive is UCE or scams. The 1% I miss
>is not important. If someone calls me and asks why I didn't reply, I
>explain it to them and ask them to resend in plain text. This has
>happened only once or twice.
>
>You asked "Who in this day and time does not receive HTML email?" and I
>raised my hand.
You are not the general rule, you are the exception to the rule.
And you want Forte to ignore the rest of the world because only you and
couple of others are still living in the past.
Nick Spalding
on Sat, 21 Nov 2009 12:41:09 -0800:
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 15:37:16 +0000, Nick Spalding <spal...@iol.ie>
> wrote:
>
>
> >It could indeed be added, and reading the whole message isn't required.
> >There is a NNTP command HEAD that reads the headers only.
>
> BUT, the server has to SEND the header you need, and many don't send
> ALL the headers, as anyone who has tried NFilter can attest to.
It does indeed send them in response to HEAD instead of XOVER. My
understanding is that NFilter uses XOVER just as Agent does; the
difference is that it allows access to headers that Agent ignores
because they can't be guaranteed to be delivered.
--
Nick Spalding
Agent 5.0/32.1171 IE8 Vista Home Premium SP2 32 bit,
Intel Viiv dual core E6300 (1.86Ghz, 1066MHz FSB), 2GB RAM,
320GB NTFS HD, Video Nvidia GeForce 7900GS LCD 1024x768x75Hz
Jaimie Vandenbergh
<ad...@myemailaddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>In article <ntlgg5dpi91blc028...@4ax.com>
>Dennis <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>
>>I'm retired. 99% of HTML email I receive is UCE or scams. The 1% I miss
>>is not important. If someone calls me and asks why I didn't reply, I
>>explain it to them and ask them to resend in plain text. This has
>>happened only once or twice.
>>
>>You asked "Who in this day and time does not receive HTML email?" and I
>>raised my hand.
>
>You are not the general rule, you are the exception to the rule.
*An* exception. As am I.
>And you want Forte to ignore the rest of the world because only you and
>couple of others are still living in the past.
Nothing he's said implied that. Why try and put words in his mouth?
Cheers - Jaimie
--
Programs that crash have been proven to be less useful than those that don't.
-- Apple Technical Note OV04
Adam
Ken Blake <kbl...@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote:
>On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:04:52 -0800, Adam
><ad...@myemailaddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
>> In article <hgfgg55hkrrmebh1h...@4ax.com>
>> Ken Blake <kbl...@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote:
>>
>> >> If you live in the US or UK
>> >
>> >
>> >Yes, I live in the US.
>> >
>> >
>> >> then I guess you think there are no users in
>> >> any other country and probably don't even understand what Unicode
>> >> support is.
>> >
>> >
>> >You are wrong on both counts. Why do you need to be insulting to make
>> >the point you want to make?
>>
>> There was no insult.
>> You said Unicode support is not important,
>
>
>I did *not* say unicode support is not important. I said it wasn't
>important to *me*. Once again, my point is that each of us has
>different things that are important to us. We do *not* all have the
>same views of things. I don't disparage your views of what's important
>because they are different from mine.
>
Then why jump on a thread and discourage it because of your own
*personal* needs?
So Agent should be left retarded just because you don't need a feature?
This just doesn't make sense.
>
>
>> and that implies that you don't understand what it is.
>
>
>And you don't think that's an insult?
>
No.
>And you said "I guess you think there are no users in any other
>country." You don't think that's an insult either?
No.
I think that you should grow a thicket skin and understand that Usenet
is a discussion based, and discussion *means* that there are agreements
and disagreements, and when someone questions your understanding of
something (especially when you give them valid reasons to do so), that
doesn't mean that you are being insulted.
When I want to insult you, trust me, you'll know it.
Jaimie Vandenbergh
<ad...@myemailaddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>Look at any other email client in the market right now.
>Agent is the only one that messes HTML.
Rubbish. Most HTML formatted mail is completely broken, and will screw
up on many email clients.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
"If apathy and manipulation aren't strengths, I don't know what is" - Zadok, 1/0
Adam
I think you are a not grown up enough to understand and discuss like
adults.
If you think that I am nasty, may it is because you are nasty, and think
that others are like you.
When you post a retarded remark like "Define "proper".", that is the
least that you get of a response.
Posting a remark like that implies either that you are sarcastic or you
just don't understand it.
So which is it?
The question stands, are you happy with the messed up HTML that Agent
renders?Or maybe you don't understand it?
Now instead of whining and complaining about imaginary things, answer
the question.
Adam
Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
>On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:34:24 -0800, Adam
><ad...@myemailaddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
>>In article <ntlgg5dpi91blc028...@4ax.com>
>>Dennis <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>I'm retired. 99% of HTML email I receive is UCE or scams. The 1% I miss
>>>is not important. If someone calls me and asks why I didn't reply, I
>>>explain it to them and ask them to resend in plain text. This has
>>>happened only once or twice.
>>>
>>>You asked "Who in this day and time does not receive HTML email?" and I
>>>raised my hand.
>>
>>You are not the general rule, you are the exception to the rule.
>
>*An* exception. As am I.
Correct, you are an exception, just like him.
Glad you understand that little fact.
>>And you want Forte to ignore the rest of the world because only you and
>>couple of others are still living in the past.
>
>Nothing he's said implied that.
He didn't?
I guess we are all imagining his objection to HTML rendering.
>Why try and put words in his mouth?
And who the hell appointed you to be his defender?
Adam
Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
>On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:01:21 -0800, Adam
><ad...@myemailaddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Look at any other email client in the market right now.
>>Agent is the only one that messes HTML.
>
>Rubbish. Most HTML formatted mail is completely broken, and will screw
>up on many email clients.
>
Rubbish yourself.
I suggest you use the software before you open your mouth.
Luca
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 23:16:27 -0800, No Spam <nos...@nospam.nospam>
> >4. Support filtering on ALL headers and body.
...
> Filtering on body content would require download of
> all the bodies just to filter them, a huge increase in bandwidth just
> to move or delete a message. Is this what you want?
A newsreader could:
1) Retrieve new email or Usenet headers
2) Apply filters, based on any information available in the email header
or in the Usenet record (Head or Xover, choice up to users)
3) Perform all needed actions:
- messages to be ignored/killed: mark read/delete
- messages to be watched: retrieve Usenet articles bodies
and email complete messages
- any other specified action.
4) Apply filters based on retrieved bodies contents
5) Perform subsequent actions as in 3)
This would bring to a negligible increase in bandwidth, and only if a user
would select Head instead of Xover.
Jaimie Vandenbergh
<ad...@myemailaddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>In article <2cngg51ihcc72a5mv...@4ax.com>
>Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:34:24 -0800, Adam
>><ad...@myemailaddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>And you want Forte to ignore the rest of the world because only you and
>>>couple of others are still living in the past.
>>
>>Nothing he's said implied that.
>
>He didn't?
>I guess we are all imagining his objection to HTML rendering.
Indeed you are. Go back up and read what Dennis actually wrote. He
simply answered the question you asked.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
"I believe every human has a finite number of heartbeats. I don't intend
to waste any of mine running around doing exercises." - Neil Armstrong
Dennis
>Dennis:
>
>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 08:51:07 -0800, Adam
>> <ad...@myemailaddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >Who in this day and time does not receive HTML email?
>>
>> I receive them but I filter them to Junk.
>
>I don't believe you.
You are free to do so.
--
Dennis
Adam
Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
>On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:46:24 -0800, Adam
><ad...@myemailaddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
>>In article <2cngg51ihcc72a5mv...@4ax.com>
>>Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:34:24 -0800, Adam
>>><ad...@myemailaddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>And you want Forte to ignore the rest of the world because only you and
>>>>couple of others are still living in the past.
>>>
>>>Nothing he's said implied that.
>>
>>He didn't?
>>I guess we are all imagining his objection to HTML rendering.
>
>Indeed you are. Go back up and read what Dennis actually wrote. He
>simply answered the question you asked.
What are you?13 year old?
Not only you can't read and discuss like adults, you also have attitude
problems.
Dennis
<ad...@myemailaddress.is.invalid> wrote:
I would not know since I have not seen any statistics that define what
the rule is.
>And you want Forte to ignore the rest of the world because only you and
>couple of others are still living in the past.
I will speak for myself. I said no such thing. I simply raised my hand.
--
Dennis
Ken Blake
<ad...@myemailaddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> >You asked "Who in this day and time does not receive HTML email?" and I
> >raised my hand.
>
> You are not the general rule, you are the exception to the rule.
> And you want Forte to ignore the rest of the world because only you and
> couple of others are still living in the past.
Dennis didn't say anything like that, and neither did I. You are
constantly trying to put words in people's mouths. I assume that
Dennis's point was the same as mine: the things that are important to
you are not necessarily the same things that are important to all of
us. That does not mean that we suggest that Forte should ignore the
issue, just that *we* care more about other issues.
Ken Blake
<ad...@myemailaddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> >I did *not* say unicode support is not important. I said it wasn't
> >important to *me*. Once again, my point is that each of us has
> >different things that are important to us. We do *not* all have the
> >same views of things. I don't disparage your views of what's important
> >because they are different from mine.
> >
>
> Then why jump on a thread and discourage it because of your own
> *personal* needs?
> So Agent should be left retarded just because you don't need a feature?
> This just doesn't make sense.
I don't know how many times I have to tell you the same thing. I did
not suggest that Agent should not have its HTML improved. I simply
said that it's not important to me.
But I'm tired of repeating the same thing to you, and this is the end
of the thread, as far as I'm concerned. Believe whatever you like.
vince
<ad...@myemailaddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>You are not the general rule, you are the exception to the rule.
Hey!! I resemble that remark.
No HTML in mail or news allowed here, either.
Adam
Dennis <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
All you gotta do is check the world outside your house.
Nicetameetya
[Default] On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 16:25:28 -0500, Dennis
<nob...@nowhere.invalid> declared to all and sundry:
>I'm retired. 99% of HTML email I receive is UCE or scams. The 1% I miss
>is not important. If someone calls me and asks why I didn't reply, I
>explain it to them and ask them to resend in plain text. This has
>happened only once or twice.
I'm also retired, but 0% of the email I receive in my inbox is spam or
scams. Why? Because I use MailWasher Pro to filter what my mailserver
doesn't.
Of all that legitimate email, 99% is HTML. So I would be missing one
hell of a lot of email if I only allowed text messages.
Adam
Ken Blake <kbl...@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote:
>On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:34:24 -0800, Adam
><ad...@myemailaddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>> >You asked "Who in this day and time does not receive HTML email?" and I
>> >raised my hand.
>>
>> You are not the general rule, you are the exception to the rule.
>> And you want Forte to ignore the rest of the world because only you and
>> couple of others are still living in the past.
>
>
>Dennis didn't say anything like that, and neither did I. You are
>constantly trying to put words in people's mouths.
Blah blah blah.
>I assume that
>Dennis's point was the same as mine: the things that are important to
>you are not necessarily the same things that are important to all of
>us.
Who's "all of us"?
Wake up and smell the coffee.
You and Dennis are in the minority.
>That does not mean that we suggest that Forte should ignore the
>issue, just that *we* care more about other issues.
Then you should say it this way, not putting the issues that the
majority raise as unimportant in a general way.
Sheesh.
Adam
Ken Blake <kbl...@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote:
>On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:38:57 -0800, Adam
><ad...@myemailaddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>> >I did *not* say unicode support is not important. I said it wasn't
>> >important to *me*. Once again, my point is that each of us has
>> >different things that are important to us. We do *not* all have the
>> >same views of things. I don't disparage your views of what's important
>> >because they are different from mine.
>> >
>>
>> Then why jump on a thread and discourage it because of your own
>> *personal* needs?
>> So Agent should be left retarded just because you don't need a feature?
>> This just doesn't make sense.
>
>
>I don't know how many times I have to tell you the same thing. I did
>not suggest that Agent should not have its HTML improved.
You implied that when you jumped into the discussion which was *about*
this and other things.
Next time, read the thread thoroughly before jumping in.
>I simply
>said that it's not important to me.
>
>But I'm tired of repeating the same thing to you, and this is the end
>of the thread, as far as I'm concerned.
Good.
Although I wouldn't call it discussion.
All I see is whining from few who insist that the world should revolve
around them and live in the past.
>Believe whatever you like.
I call things as I see them.
You don't like that?
Tough for you.
Adam
Don Kirkman <don...@charter.net> wrote:
>It seems to me I heard somewhere that No Spam wrote in article
><rn2fg5tuiaai1ghv2...@4ax.com>:
>
>>I upgraded just because I don't want to move to another software.
>
>>Why can't you folks understand that the "features" added in 6.0 were not
>>worth calling it an upgrade?
>>
>>Why can't you folks understand that the users today want software that
>>has what other modern software has:
>>
>>1. Proper HTML support. For goodness sake!
>>2. Unicode support.
>>3. IMAP Support.
>>4. Support filtering on ALL headers and body.
>>
>>Please, I think it is time to catch up with the rest of the world,
>>instead of ignoring such features/upgrades/bug fixes and wasting your
>>resources on features that are of less important.
>>
>>Thank you for listening.
>
>You really should address your message TO the Forte Folks instead of
>to the Agent users who formed and populate this group.
I thought he or she did.
The subject line clearly says "To Forte Folks" and is addressed to them.
>If "Forte
>Folks" see it it'll only be because on of them happened to pop in for
>a quick look-see.
How else do you suggest it should be done then?
Forte people do read this newsgroup, I see messages from Mark Prince and
others here occasionally.
Dennis
<ad...@myemailaddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>>>>You asked "Who in this day and time does not receive HTML email?" and I
>>>>raised my hand.
>>>
>>>You are not the general rule, you are the exception to the rule.
>>
>>I would not know since I have not seen any statistics that define what
>>the rule is.
>>
>
>All you gotta do is check the world outside your house.
Maybe I will someday. But for now my "content-type: text/html" Junk
filter is alive and kicking.
--
Dennis
Christopher A. Lee
<ad...@myemailaddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>In article <nhogg5d7quh1hc8ei...@4ax.com>
>Ken Blake <kbl...@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:34:24 -0800, Adam
>><ad...@myemailaddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> >You asked "Who in this day and time does not receive HTML email?" and I
>>> >raised my hand.
>>>
>>> You are not the general rule, you are the exception to the rule.
>>> And you want Forte to ignore the rest of the world because only you and
>>> couple of others are still living in the past.
>>
>>
>>Dennis didn't say anything like that, and neither did I. You are
>>constantly trying to put words in people's mouths.
>
>Blah blah blah.
<plonk>
Geordie
>In article <7eogg5pl41b1dgkkb...@4ax.com>
>Dennis <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>
<snip>
>>I would not know since I have not seen any statistics that define what
>>the rule is.
>>
>
>All you gotta do is check the world outside your house.
Well, I am another one that doesn't allow HTML e-mails and I know
plenty of others that don't accept them.
--
Geordie
Usenet, how to post info:
http://www.dickgaughan.co.uk/usenet/guide/faq08-topp.html
http://www.i-hate-computers.demon.co.uk/quote.html
Stephen Wolstenholme
<ad...@myemailaddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>In article <1pbgg5d1p3714tdl6...@4ax.com>
>Stephen Wolstenholme <st...@tropheus.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>Do you even receive any emails?
>>
>>My company gets about 50 a day. I get about 10.
>
>That is not the standard.
That is the standard. Email has used plain text since it was invented.
HTML is a recent addition that most email users do not use.
AAMOI, I have just looked at our rejection stats for the last year
company email messages. There are six rejected because they were in
HTML and 14 because they were in languages we couldn't translate. We
don't keep records of processed emails so I can only guess at the
total but it's into thousands. The download registrations alone are
nearly 3,000 and there are many more support emails.
The HTML messages were all from people using versions of Outlook
Express that defaulted to HTML. The later versions default to plain
text.
It's a fact that the bulk of email is in plain text.
>I get much more at home.
I don't encourage home emails. Most are for the wife!
Steve
--
Neural Planner Software Ltd www.NPSL1.com
Adam
Dennis <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
Good for you.
The rest of the world advances on.
Adam
Geordie <geord...@hotmail.invalid.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 14:24:41 -0800, Adam
><ad...@myemailaddress.is.invalid> compiled the following:
>
>>In article <7eogg5pl41b1dgkkb...@4ax.com>
>>Dennis <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>>
><snip>
>>>I would not know since I have not seen any statistics that define what
>>>the rule is.
>>>
>>
>>All you gotta do is check the world outside your house.
>
>Well, I am another one that doesn't allow HTML e-mails and I know
>plenty of others that don't accept them.
And you are still in the minority.
Plonk This
Adam
Sj <S...@NOTforMAIL.not> wrote:
>On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:34:24 -0800, Adam
><ad...@myemailaddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
>>In article <ntlgg5dpi91blc028...@4ax.com>
>>Dennis <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 12:59:28 -0800, Adam
>>><ad...@myemailaddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <lkcgg5to9e5vrm4bu...@4ax.com>
>>>>Dennis <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:57:52 -0600, nos...@nospam.invalid wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sat, 11/21/09, at 11:45:26AM,
>>>>>>Dennis <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 08:51:07 -0800, Adam
>>>>>>> <ad...@myemailaddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Who in this day and time does not receive HTML email?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I receive them but I filter them to Junk.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Do you also do all your work from a command prompt, instead of
>>>>>>using Windows?
>>>>>
>>>>>No.
>>>>
>>>>Either that, or you've been living under a rock for the last 8 years or
>>>>so.
>>>
>>>I'm retired. 99% of HTML email I receive is UCE or scams. The 1% I miss
>>>is not important. If someone calls me and asks why I didn't reply, I
>>>explain it to them and ask them to resend in plain text. This has
>>>happened only once or twice.
>>>
>>>You asked "Who in this day and time does not receive HTML email?" and I
>>>raised my hand.
>>
>>You are not the general rule, you are the exception to the rule.
>>And you want Forte to ignore the rest of the world because only you and
>>couple of others are still living in the past.
>
>No, we do not want Forte to ignore but neither are we
>wrong just because we do things differently from you.
>
>We're just letting you know there's more than one way
>to do something & if both ways work, we both are right.
>
I have no problem if opinions are shared.
Never said that someone should not have an opinion.
But some strongly opposed to HTML support and still do.
Jaimie Vandenbergh
<ad...@myemailaddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>In article <laogg5h81rdjpnu0l...@4ax.com>
>Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:46:24 -0800, Adam
>><ad...@myemailaddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <2cngg51ihcc72a5mv...@4ax.com>
>>>Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:34:24 -0800, Adam
>>>><ad...@myemailaddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>And you want Forte to ignore the rest of the world because only you and
>>>>>couple of others are still living in the past.
>>>>
>>>>Nothing he's said implied that.
>>>
>>>He didn't?
>>>I guess we are all imagining his objection to HTML rendering.
>>
>>Indeed you are. Go back up and read what Dennis actually wrote. He
>>simply answered the question you asked.
>
>What are you?13 year old?
>Not only you can't read and discuss like adults, you also have attitude
>problems.
I'm perfectly calm and equable. You're the one getting frothy, stating
your own preferences as global absolutes, and having complete reading
comprehension failure.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
I love VoIP. You don't get people phoning up to complain that the
network is down. -- Peter Corlett, ASR
Jaimie Vandenbergh
Not in this thread!
Cheers - Jaimie
--
207 BC: Chrysippus, Greek stoic philosopher, is believed to have died of
laughter after watching his drunken donkey attempt to eat figs.
Joe Boxers
Adam
Stephen Wolstenholme <st...@tropheus.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:02:47 -0800, Adam
><ad...@myemailaddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
>>In article <1pbgg5d1p3714tdl6...@4ax.com>
>>Stephen Wolstenholme <st...@tropheus.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>>Do you even receive any emails?
>>>
>>>My company gets about 50 a day. I get about 10.
>>
>>That is not the standard.
>
>That is the standard.
No it is not.
That is not the standard volume of email for a *company*, even a small
business of single person, in an active business gets more.
>Email has used plain text since it was invented.
So?
What's your point?
Did computers start with 64 Bit architecture and millions of color and
24Bit sound cards?
We should be stuck in the past because email started that way?
No, things advance, especially technologies, get used to it and move on.
>HTML is a recent addition that most email users do not use.
>
Where did you bring this "most" from?
Have you looked at the world outside your computer?
The fact is, almost ALL email software today defaults to HTML message
composing, and so do almost all web email message composing defaults.
So, your statement that "most users do not use HTML" is wrong if not
blatantly made up.
>AAMOI, I have just looked at our rejection stats for the last year
>company email messages. There are six rejected because they were in
>HTML and 14 because they were in languages we couldn't translate. We
>don't keep records of processed emails so I can only guess at the
>total but it's into thousands. The download registrations alone are
>nearly 3,000 and there are many more support emails.
>
>The HTML messages were all from people using versions of Outlook
>Express that defaulted to HTML. The later versions default to plain
>text.
>
>It's a fact that the bulk of email is in plain text.
Then your company is one of the unique ones out there.
You think only Outlook Express defaults to HTML composition for emails?
If so, then I have some news for you.
>>I get much more at home.
>
>I don't encourage home emails. Most are for the wife!
>
That's your personal choice, and you're entitled to it.
I know lots of people doing work from home, insurance and real state
agents, small business owners, I have my own consulting business and run
it from my home too. My home email account(s) that I collect through
Agent can add up to around 75-100 emails in each account daily, and my
business account is much more than that, and around 85% of them are in
HTML. I also have dozens of contacts for business and friends overseas,
and they are NOT English speakers. Most of the emails sent to me are
messed up when viewed in Agent, I gave up and configured Firefox to
handle the HTML viewing, and quite honestly, I am not happy at all with
the fact that I have to clean up the message in Agent before sending the
reply just because Agent can't handle formatting the text properly
because it strips out the HTML part, and has no HTML editing
capabilities.
Is it to hard to add that feature and allow the few who don't want it to
turn it off?
I doubt it.
To tell you the truth, I am about to give up on Agent.
I am waiting for the next release/news from Forte, and if they don't get
their act together, I will move away from Agent and I am sure that lots
of their users will do the same, and since usenet is not that popular
anymore, Agent will be useful for handful of people in the future and if
Forte wants to stay in business they better start working on the email
part to attract new users or keep their current customer base, the
competition is out there and the rest of the world is not sleeping.
In fact, the only thing that I see that Agent has over the rest of
similar software for now is its search, nothing else.
Adam
Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
>On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:57:49 -0800, Adam
><ad...@myemailaddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
>>In article <laogg5h81rdjpnu0l...@4ax.com>
>>Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:46:24 -0800, Adam
>>><ad...@myemailaddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <2cngg51ihcc72a5mv...@4ax.com>
>>>>Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:34:24 -0800, Adam
>>>>><ad...@myemailaddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>And you want Forte to ignore the rest of the world because only you and
>>>>>>couple of others are still living in the past.
>>>>>
>>>>>Nothing he's said implied that.
>>>>
>>>>He didn't?
>>>>I guess we are all imagining his objection to HTML rendering.
>>>
>>>Indeed you are. Go back up and read what Dennis actually wrote. He
>>>simply answered the question you asked.
>>
>>What are you?13 year old?
>>Not only you can't read and discuss like adults, you also have attitude
>>problems.
>
>I'm perfectly calm and equable. You're the one getting frothy,
LOL.
Thanks for the laugh.
>stating your own preferences as global absolutes,
I never said they are global absolutes.
Please quote where did I say that, or just shut your trap.
>and having complete reading comprehension failure.
You must be referring to yourself here, as you are the only one who is
having reading comprehension failures.
I suggest enrolling in some reading classes next summer.
Adam
Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
>On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 15:22:48 -0800, Adam
><ad...@myemailaddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
>>In article <qgrgg5h9t5gd31drr...@4ax.com>
>>Geordie <geord...@hotmail.invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 14:24:41 -0800, Adam
>>><ad...@myemailaddress.is.invalid> compiled the following:
>>>
>>>>In article <7eogg5pl41b1dgkkb...@4ax.com>
>>>>Dennis <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>><snip>
>>>>>I would not know since I have not seen any statistics that define what
>>>>>the rule is.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>All you gotta do is check the world outside your house.
>>>
>>>Well, I am another one that doesn't allow HTML e-mails and I know
>>>plenty of others that don't accept them.
>>
>>And you are still in the minority.
>
>Not in this thread!
The world is bigger than this thread, genius.
Adam
Sj <S...@NOTforMAIL.not> wrote:
>Adam, I think you're funny - stop trying to start a fight
>w/ everyone who doesn't think like you - I read what
>you say, take into account what I think is important,
>check out what I'm not sure of - but that doesn't mean
>I think like you - but I respect those who think differently
>from me - please do the same.
>
Save me the lecture.
I clearly stated that I don't mind anyone posting his or her opinion,
just don't try to make it sound that the world should revolve around
that opinion and don't give me an attitude just because you don't like
what I post.
I am not trying to start a fight, go back and read in this thread how
these heated posts started and who started them and then talk.
And notice when I say you it doesn't mean you personally.
Geoff
<ad...@myemailaddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>In article <e2ngg5lt6n9ev9657...@4ax.com>
>Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:07:25 -0800, Adam
>><ad...@myemailaddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <gt3gg5hrje5eji7mb...@4ax.com>
>>>Geoff <ge...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 23:16:27 -0800, No Spam <nos...@nospam.nospam>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>1. Proper HTML support. For goodness sake!
>>>>
>>>>Define "proper".
>>>
>>>I guess you are happy with messed HTML message that Agent renders?
>>>Or maybe you don't even know what HTML is?
>>
>>And you pretend you're not nasty?
>
>I think you are a not grown up enough to understand and discuss like
>adults.
>If you think that I am nasty, may it is because you are nasty, and think
>that others are like you.
>
>When you post a retarded remark like "Define "proper".", that is the
>least that you get of a response.
>
>Posting a remark like that implies either that you are sarcastic or you
>just don't understand it.
>
>So which is it?
>
>The question stands, are you happy with the messed up HTML that Agent
>renders?Or maybe you don't understand it?
>
>Now instead of whining and complaining about imaginary things, answer
>the question.
>
>
I used to code CGI when it was fashionable and I have detailed
knowledge of what HTML is and how to use it. There have been numerous
changes in the HTML specification since Agent was first coded to
render it. The OP was not clear on whether it was rendering, posting
or safely rendering HTML in news articles or just email that he wanted
"proper", I was asking for clarification.
Since it was my statement and not Christopher's and since my response
was directed at the OP and not you I won't be answering you any time
soon. You can go do whatever it is that your juvenile mind does when
you find yourself alone and in need of comfort.
Adam
Geoff <ge...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Sure, you can claim all you want, who's gonna verify it?
Let's move on.
>There have been numerous
>changes in the HTML specification since Agent was first coded to
>render it.
ROFL.
Thanks for the laugh.
Are you aware that Agent NEVER supported HTML rendering until recently?
What were those "numerous changes in the HTML specification" during this
small time?
Go ahead and list them.
Are you also aware of the little fact that Agent fails on rendering some
basic HTML tables for example?
Apparently not.
>The OP was not clear on whether it was rendering, posting
>or safely rendering HTML in news articles or just email that he wanted
>"proper", I was asking for clarification.
>
It was clear, if you read it properly.
He asked for proper HTML support.
Anyone who has his head not in his ass since Agent started supporting
HTML rendering knows for fact that it does not do it properly and it
does not support editing HTML.
And since the OP posted in text and his message looked polished and
intelligent, once ca safely assume that he is not asking for newsgroup
HTML posting, since that is not a reasonable request.
>Since it was my statement and not Christopher's and since my response
>was directed at the OP and not you I won't be answering you any time
>soon.
Big deal, I think that I will stop living now. ;-)
>You can go do whatever it is that your juvenile mind does when
>you find yourself alone and in need of comfort.
LOL.
I am older than your dad, only not as stupid to bring people like you to
this world. It is full of retards as is.
I think it is clear from your posts and mine who is the juvenile here,
but don't let that discourage you from making an ass out of yourself
again.
But you can always assume that you are a programmer and you are a grown
up too, it helps you overcoming the fact that you have issues and hide
them behind your usenet personality.
Christopher A. Lee
<geord...@hotmail.invalid.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 14:24:41 -0800, Adam
><ad...@myemailaddress.is.invalid> compiled the following:
>
>>In article <7eogg5pl41b1dgkkb...@4ax.com>
>>Dennis <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>>
><snip>
>>>I would not know since I have not seen any statistics that define what
>>>the rule is.
>>>
>>
>>All you gotta do is check the world outside your house.
>
>Well, I am another one that doesn't allow HTML e-mails and I know
>plenty of others that don't accept them.
I don't either. It's a security thing.
Geoff
<ad...@myemailaddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>I am older than your dad, only not as stupid to bring people like you to
>this world. It is full of retards as is.
My father died at the age of 75 in 2000. You really are just a punk,
whiney, dick head, tosser troll looking for a fight aren't you?
Nothing you write is worth reading or bothering about anyway.
Adam
Geoff <ge...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 16:25:18 -0800, Adam
><ad...@myemailaddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
>>I am older than your dad, only not as stupid to bring people like you to
>>this world. It is full of retards as is.
>
>My father died at the age of 75 in 2000.
So you say, still there is no proof of anything that you post.
And what does that serve anyway?
Looking for sympathy?
Try alt.support.* hierarchy.
I recommend alt.support.tourette for your likes, given your responses,
and your unwarranted insults, snapping at others for no reason.
>You really are just a punk, whiney, dick head, tosser
Ahh, can't handle the truth and you start throwing 3rd grader insults.
Truth hurts, bitch.
>troll
That's funny.
I am not the one trolling for posts boasting about my programming skills
and other crap, you are.
And you call me a troll.
I guess looking in the mirror makes you think that others are like you.
>looking for a fight aren't you?
I am not the one throwing insults and making himself look like a
complete ass, you are.
It is obvious who is the one looking for a fight.
>Nothing you write is worth reading or bothering about anyway.
And you continue reading my posts and responding to them.
I suggest that you grow up.
Richard
wrote:
>On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 08:51:07 -0800, Adam
><ad...@myemailaddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Who in this day and time does not receive HTML email?
>
>I receive them but I filter them to Junk.
Then you miss a lot of important email from your friends and family.
Most people use Outlook, which by default uses HTML to send email.
Richard
wrote:
>>4. Support filtering on ALL headers and body.
>
>Filtering on all headers can be done with moderate increase in
>bandwidth usage. Filtering on body content would require download of
>all the bodies just to filter them, a huge increase in bandwidth just
>to move or delete a message. Is this what you want?
I would like to see filtering-on-body for email.
And there would be no download penalty, because you have to download
all the mail anyway.
Ralph Fox
Geoff <ge...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 23:16:27 -0800, No Spam <nos...@nospam.nospam>
> wrote:
>
> >1. Proper HTML support. For goodness sake!
>
> Define "proper".
1. HTML viewer to be compliant with HTML standards.
Compliance with HTML 4.01, CSS 2.1 and XHTML 1.0 is a minimum.
2. Message composition is
� able to compose HTML emails.
� able to reply to HTML emails in HTML.
� able to use forward quoted/inline with HTML emails to
edit and forward HTML emails in HTML.
> >2. Unicode support.
>
> Yes, this would be good.
Lack of Unicode support is one of the problems with Agent's HTML support.
Lack of Unicode support is why Agent often replaces curley quotes and
long dashes with question marks in HTML messages.
> >3. IMAP Support.
>
> Why is this needed?
This is for people who get their mail from an IMAP server (instead of a POP3 server).
> >4. Support filtering on ALL headers and body.
>
> Filtering on all headers can be done with moderate increase in
> bandwidth usage. Filtering on body content would require download of
> all the bodies just to filter them, a huge increase in bandwidth just
> to move or delete a message. Is this what you want?
--
Regards
Ralph
Ralph Fox
Adam <ad...@myemailaddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> >You really should address your message TO the Forte Folks instead of
> >to the Agent users who formed and populate this group.
>
> I thought he or she did.
> The subject line clearly says "To Forte Folks" and is addressed to them.
The message was sent to alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent, not to Fort�.
That is like writing "Dear Ridge Bicycle Company" on a letter, but addressing
the envelope to the Bay Area Cycling Group.
> >If "Forte
> >Folks" see it it'll only be because on of them happened to pop in for
> >a quick look-see.
>
> How else do you suggest it should be done then?
Send it to Fort� themselves, at Fort�'s address. Not c/o this newsgroup.
If you go to the Fort� web site, there is a "Contact Us" pull-down menu.
> Forte people do read this newsgroup, I see messages from Mark Prince and
> others here occasionally.
The operative word is "occasionally". It is over 8 months between the
last two posts from Fort� staff.
That is like saying "I addressed it to the Bay Area Cycling Group because
I see Ridge Bicycle Company staff visited the Bay Area at 8-month intervals".
--
Regards
Ralph
Loren Pechtel
<bbe...@mapson.nozirev.ten> wrote:
>>We don't all want the same things. I have no interest in your points
>>1, 2, and 3, but I would certainly like to see Agent do number 4.
>
>While you may realize that filtering on non-overview header lines or on
>the article body would require downloading the entire contents of all
>new posts in subscribed (or, possibly, specific targeted) groups, it's
>likely that many (most? nearly all?) users don't know or care about
>that. And they would be the ones most likely to complain the loudest
>that "Agent iz teh suxorz!!111!" or whatever when refreshing new traffic
>suddenly takes more than an order of magnitude longer.
>
>Such a capability probably could be added -- I do it separately using a
>local news server (Hamster Playground) -- but I wonder if it is worth
>the resulting hurricane of abuse?
What I've been after is a two-state filter process. Retain all the
current filtering working like it does now. *ADD* a second set of
filters that run after the bodies have been downloaded. This will not
cause any more downloading than happens now.
Loren Pechtel
<ad...@myemailaddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>There was no insult.
>You said Unicode support is not important, and that implies that you
>don't understand what it is.
I've seen very few unicode messages that are in English. Thus it's
lack isn't that big a deal.
DevilsPGD
<knews...@gmail.com> was claimed to have wrote:
>On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 15:37:16 +0000, Nick Spalding <spal...@iol.ie>
>wrote:
>
>
>>It could indeed be added, and reading the whole message isn't required.
>>There is a NNTP command HEAD that reads the headers only.
>
>BUT, the server has to SEND the header you need, and many don't send
>ALL the headers, as anyone who has tried NFilter can attest to.
HEAD works fine on all servers. NFilter is a bit different, it doesn't
use HEAD, it tries to XHDR to pull the header it needs from every
article in a given range at once. Some servers answer XHDR on all
headers, others only answer on overview headers.
In Agent's case, rather than using ARTICLE to download an entire article
at once, Agent could use HEAD, filter against the full headers locally,
and finally issue a BODY command (skipping the already downloaded
HEADERS) and filter against the body all before wasting my time.
Also useful would be the ability to apply a new filter to all messages
dated in the last 'x' days in all groups, without refiltering every
message in every group. This would allow me to filter a spammer by
header or body characteristic once identified without re-processing
every single message in every single group.
DevilsPGD
<bbe...@mapson.nozirev.ten> was claimed to have wrote:
>While you may realize that filtering on non-overview header lines or on
>the article body would require downloading the entire contents of all
>new posts in subscribed (or, possibly, specific targeted) groups, it's
>likely that many (most? nearly all?) users don't know or care about
>that. And they would be the ones most likely to complain the loudest
>that "Agent iz teh suxorz!!111!" or whatever when refreshing new traffic
>suddenly takes more than an order of magnitude longer.
Compare this to the current system, where you download the entire
contents of messages, then waste brain power reviewing and dumping spam.
If the bandwidth is being wasted anyway, I'd sure rather have the
computer use it's available resources to filter message bodies rather
then doing using more valuable meat processor power.
This is obviously only useful for text users for filtering spam or
watching messages, it wouldn't be functional for "Mark for download"
actions.
DevilsPGD
<ad...@myemailaddress.is.invalid> was claimed to have wrote:
>Maybe you are not using Agent for email.
>Proper HTML support is needed today for Agent to be of any use handling
>email.
That really depends on your needs. I don't use Agent as my primary
email client, I only use it for answering mail sent to addresses used by
Agent in newsgroups, but even for my primary mail client I normally have
HTML off by default and only rarely need to enable it.
I'm not against Agent having better HTML support, I suspect it might
help bring Agent into the mainstream somewhat, but honestly, I don't
know any company making it big selling a mail client, not even Microsoft
managed to sell Outlook alone, and it's only available as part of the
Office suite now.
Adam
Loren Pechtel <lorenp...@hotmail.invalid.com> wrote:
Huh?
I think Ralph gave a very good example right in this thread about this
specific point.
Geordie
<ad...@myemailaddress.is.invalid> compiled the following:
>In article <qgrgg5h9t5gd31drr...@4ax.com>
>Geordie <geord...@hotmail.invalid.com> wrote:
>
<snip>
>>Well, I am another one that doesn't allow HTML e-mails and I know
>>plenty of others that don't accept them.
>
>And you are still in the minority.
You are talking absolute BS, but that doesn't surprise me with your
attitude to other posters in here.
No doubt you will require to have the last word, so, goodbye.
--
Geordie
Usenet, how to post info:
http://www.dickgaughan.co.uk/usenet/guide/faq08-topp.html
http://www.i-hate-computers.demon.co.uk/quote.html
Auld Phart
wrote:
>On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 12:45:26 -0500, Dennis <nob...@nowhere.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 08:51:07 -0800, Adam
>><ad...@myemailaddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>Who in this day and time does not receive HTML email?
>>
>>I receive them but I filter them to Junk.
>
>Then you miss a lot of important email from your friends and family.
>Most people use Outlook, which by default uses HTML to send email.
It doesn't. It uses a bastardised Microsoft pidgin version of HTML.
Any message which is sent from Outlook in HTML can only be read
exactly as sent by someone also using Outlook.