Eudora full release for X
Andy Hewitt
(using Mail Converter). Apart from a bit of speed, it doesn't seem much
different to the Betas.
Is it me, or is it really starting to look and feel dated? Having used
Mail now since January, I just can't get used to the way Eudora looks
and works anymore, not to mention the poor HTML support.
I'm also amazed that nobody has yet made an importer from Mail.
--
Andy Hewitt ** FAF#1, OSOS#5 - BMW K100RS 8v, Honda Concerto 16v
(RIP H100s, CB400N, CB750KZ, XJ600s) Windows free zone (Mac G3)
<http://homepage.ntlworld.com/ahewitt/index.htm> (last update 11/01)
Sak Wathanasin
hairy...@ntlworld.com (Andy Hewitt) wrote:
> Is it me, or is it really starting to look and feel dated?
It's you: I hate flashy UIs, esp when they are mind-bogglingly slow. Set up
4 Macs for an unamed company in London. Since the PC_techies hadn't been
able to get the Macs on the network for about 4 months, they had between
100-200 messages on the server and Mail took forerver. Eudora just zipped
through the lot (as did Exchange on a PC). The eye-candy wears thin pretty
quickly, I can tell you.
> Having used
> Mail now since January, I just can't get used to the way Eudora looks
> and works anymore, not to mention the poor HTML support.
Well, what there is a) works b) works and c) works. Esp for recipients who
aren't using OS X Mail (ie 95% of the rest of the world).
--
Sak Wathanasin
Network Analysis Limited
http://www.network-analysis.ltd.uk
Andy Hewitt
> In article <1fd49k5.1e5z6695kb39cN%hairy...@ntlworld.com>,
> hairy...@ntlworld.com (Andy Hewitt) wrote:
>
> > Is it me, or is it really starting to look and feel dated?
>
> It's you: I hate flashy UIs, esp when they are mind-bogglingly slow. Set up
> 4 Macs for an unamed company in London. Since the PC_techies hadn't been
> able to get the Macs on the network for about 4 months, they had between
> 100-200 messages on the server and Mail took forerver. Eudora just zipped
> through the lot (as did Exchange on a PC). The eye-candy wears thin pretty
> quickly, I can tell you.
Eye-Candy? hmmm, it's not so much that, I don't care much for what the
boxes round the outside look like, but how the whole thing is laid out.
I have found Eudora has at least as many quirks and bugs as Mail does -
Eudora frequently forgets how I want a window opening, making a bit of
resizing and repositioning necessary.
> > Having used
> > Mail now since January, I just can't get used to the way Eudora looks
> > and works anymore, not to mention the poor HTML support.
>
> Well, what there is a) works b) works and c) works. Esp for recipients who
> aren't using OS X Mail (ie 95% of the rest of the world).
95%? I doubt it's that much. Knowing how the public work, and how they
tend to just use a computer how it was supplied, I would think it more
likely that there will be more and more users of Mail, for the sdame
reasons there are so, many users of Outlook on Wintels.
But you still have to admit that the HTML support in Eudora sucks. Like
it or not, it is becoming an increasinly popular format for Emails, and
I just can't believe that such a 'power' mail client can't handle it.
Even the little freeware client 'Green' can do it.
Peter Ceresole
hairy...@ntlworld.com (Andy Hewitt) wrote:
>Is it me, or is it really starting to look and feel dated?
I agree with Sak; it just feels right. A superb spanner for handling proper
mail.
Andy Hewitt
Ok, giving it another go. I used it for a couple of years before I got
OSX, but apart from the small speed deficiency, I didn't think Mail was
all that bad. Besides, it's hardly a spanner, more like a full Snap On
tool box ;-)
Cheers.
--
Andy Hewitt
Testing Gunnar
Woody
1fd5psc.t8lz6j1usd939N%hairy...@ntlworld.com, "Andy Hewitt"
<hairy...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> Well, what there is a) works b) works and c) works. Esp for recipients who
>> aren't using OS X Mail (ie 95% of the rest of the world).
>
> 95%? I doubt it's that much. Knowing how the public work, and how they
> tend to just use a computer how it was supplied, I would think it more
> likely that there will be more and more users of Mail, for the sdame
> reasons there are so, many users of Outlook on Wintels.
I think you misread that sentence!
>
> But you still have to admit that the HTML support in Eudora sucks. Like
> it or not, it is becoming an increasinly popular format for Emails, and
> I just can't believe that such a 'power' mail client can't handle it.
> Even the little freeware client 'Green' can do it.
>
I am happy that HTML emails suck on eudora, that零 one of the things I like.
Any HTML emails I get are spam, no-one sends me html email personally (at
least not twice and not if they want an answer)
Woody
Andy Hewitt
> On 2/6/02 3:39 pm, in article
> 1fd5psc.t8lz6j1usd939N%hairy...@ntlworld.com, "Andy Hewitt"
> <hairy...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> >> Well, what there is a) works b) works and c) works. Esp for recipients who
> >> aren't using OS X Mail (ie 95% of the rest of the world).
> >
> > 95%? I doubt it's that much. Knowing how the public work, and how they
> > tend to just use a computer how it was supplied, I would think it more
> > likely that there will be more and more users of Mail, for the sdame
> > reasons there are so, many users of Outlook on Wintels.
>
> I think you misread that sentence!
Yes, I did, sorry. Although I doubt that it would apply to all mail
clients.
> > But you still have to admit that the HTML support in Eudora sucks. Like
> > it or not, it is becoming an increasinly popular format for Emails, and
> > I just can't believe that such a 'power' mail client can't handle it.
> > Even the little freeware client 'Green' can do it.
> >
>
> I am happy that HTML emails suck on eudora, that's one of the things I like.
> Any HTML emails I get are spam, no-one sends me html email personally (at
> least not twice and not if they want an answer)
Fair enough, although I do get a couple of HTMl mails That *I* choose to
get, so Eudora isn't an option. It'd at least be nice to have the choice
of whether you see HTML or not.
Peter Ceresole
hairy...@ntlworld.com (Andy Hewitt) wrote:
>Fair enough, although I do get a couple of HTMl mails That *I* choose to
>get, so Eudora isn't an option. It'd at least be nice to have the choice
>of whether you see HTML or not.
Doesn't it do "Open in Browser" any more?
Sak Wathanasin
hairy...@ntlworld.com (Andy Hewitt) wrote:
> Eudora frequently forgets how I want a window opening, making a bit of
> resizing and repositioning necessary.
It saves it in the resource fork of the mbox file like a good Mac appl -
I can xfer my mail folder between my G4, iMac and even between OS 8 and
OS X and everything opens in exactly the same place.
--
Sak Wathanasin
Network Analysis Limited
Phone: (+44) 24 76 419996 Fax: (+44) 24 76 690690
Andy Hewitt
Andy Hewitt
> In article <1fd5psc.t8lz6j1usd939N%hairy...@ntlworld.com>,
> hairy...@ntlworld.com (Andy Hewitt) wrote:
>
> > Eudora frequently forgets how I want a window opening, making a bit of
> > resizing and repositioning necessary.
>
> It saves it in the resource fork of the mbox file like a good Mac appl -
> I can xfer my mail folder between my G4, iMac and even between OS 8 and
> OS X and everything opens in exactly the same place.
Hmmm, I quite often find (found!) the Inbox opening up at the same size
I last used it, but in preview mode, so I got two tiny panes. And yes, I
did turn off the option for preview mode in Settings.
Peter Ceresole
hairy...@ntlworld.com (Andy Hewitt) wrote:
>> Doesn't it do "Open in Browser" any more?
>
>No, doesn't work.
Bummer. What happens? Have Qualcomm removed the item from the 'File' menu,
or is it just broken?
Andy Hewitt
It's broken. I just get a message saying that the HTML code couldn't be
sent to the browser.
Peter Ceresole
hairy...@ntlworld.com (Andy Hewitt) wrote:
>> Bummer. What happens? Have Qualcomm removed the item from the 'File' menu,
>> or is it just broken?
>
>It's broken. I just get a message saying that the HTML code couldn't be
>sent to the browser.
Oh dear.
I do admire you beta testers, but as an old man set in his ways, every day
I read new reasons not to try OS10... Yet.
Andy Hewitt
> In article <1fd86uy.1rg3ki3182orn9N%hairy...@ntlworld.com>,
> hairy...@ntlworld.com (Andy Hewitt) wrote:
>
> >> Bummer. What happens? Have Qualcomm removed the item from the 'File' menu,
> >> or is it just broken?
> >
> >It's broken. I just get a message saying that the HTML code couldn't be
> >sent to the browser.
>
> Oh dear.
Indeed, so it's back to Mail. Which, apart from the slightly slower
operation, seems to work much better for *me*. However, I can't say that
I have really noticed the speed issue that people ar raving about. HTML
pages take as long to load in either app, and not at all properly in
one.
> I do admire you beta testers, but as an old man set in his ways, every day
> I read new reasons not to try OS10... Yet.
The frightening thing is, I'm not using any Beta versions on a daily
basis. But, and FWIW, there is no doubt that overall OSX *is* a step
forward, it's so much more stable, and I honestly don't notice that it
is (may be) slow (again as others have raved about).
Peter Ceresole
hairy...@ntlworld.com (Andy Hewitt) wrote:
>> I do admire you beta testers, but as an old man set in his ways, every day
>> I read new reasons not to try OS10... Yet.
>
>The frightening thing is, I'm not using any Beta versions on a daily
>basis.
Well they all sound like beta versions to me. Here, the classic OS (9 and
8) simply work. They don't have these missing bits and flaky apps...
Sak Wathanasin
hairy...@ntlworld.com (Andy Hewitt) wrote:
> > Bummer. What happens? Have Qualcomm removed the item from the 'File' menu,
> > or is it just broken?
>
> It's broken. I just get a message saying that the HTML code couldn't be
> sent to the browser.
>
Well it works for me: I've just tried it with an e-mail from a Windows user.
The mai is displayed correctly in Eudora (in blue - ugh!) and in the browser.
Andy Hewitt
> In article <1fd86uy.1rg3ki3182orn9N%hairy...@ntlworld.com>,
> hairy...@ntlworld.com (Andy Hewitt) wrote:
>
> > > Bummer. What happens? Have Qualcomm removed the item from the 'File' menu,
> > > or is it just broken?
> >
> > It's broken. I just get a message saying that the HTML code couldn't be
> > sent to the browser.
> >
>
> Well it works for me: I've just tried it with an e-mail from a Windows user.
> The mai is displayed correctly in Eudora (in blue - ugh!) and in the browser.
YMMV I suppose?
Sak Wathanasin
hairy...@ntlworld.com (Andy Hewitt) wrote:
> YMMV I suppose?
Or maybe my Visa card is still valid.
Andy Hewitt
Again, YMMV! I have not seen better stability overall since installing
OSX.
Rowland McDonnell
But IIRC, Peter uses Eudora 3.1.3 Light as I do - a different kettle of
fish to more recent versions.
Rowland.
--
Remove the animal for email address: rowland....@dog.physics.org
PGP pub key 0x62DCCA78 Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org
UK biker? Join MAG and help keep bureaucracy at bay
Rowland McDonnell
> Sak Wathanasin <s...@network-analysis.ltd.uk> wrote:
>
> > In article <1fd49k5.1e5z6695kb39cN%hairy...@ntlworld.com>,
> > hairy...@ntlworld.com (Andy Hewitt) wrote:
[snip]
> > > Having used
> > > Mail now since January, I just can't get used to the way Eudora looks
> > > and works anymore, not to mention the poor HTML support.
> >
> > Well, what there is a) works b) works and c) works. Esp for recipients who
> > aren't using OS X Mail (ie 95% of the rest of the world).
>
> 95%? I doubt it's that much. Knowing how the public work, and how they
> tend to just use a computer how it was supplied, I would think it more
> likely that there will be more and more users of Mail, for the sdame
> reasons there are so, many users of Outlook on Wintels.
Oh aye, but he was talking about the rest of the world, not the rest of
the world's Mac users. Well over 95% of the computer users in the world
don't use Macs and even if you consider Macs users, only a minority of
'em have Macs capable of using MacOS X let alone Macs with MacOS X
installed.
> But you still have to admit that the HTML support in Eudora sucks.
HTML email sucks.
[snip]
Andy Hewitt
<Snipped Text>
> > 95%? I doubt it's that much. Knowing how the public work, and how they
> > tend to just use a computer how it was supplied, I would think it more
> > likely that there will be more and more users of Mail, for the sdame
> > reasons there are so, many users of Outlook on Wintels.
>
> Oh aye, but he was talking about the rest of the world, not the rest of
> the world's Mac users. Well over 95% of the computer users in the world
> don't use Macs and even if you consider Macs users, only a minority of
> 'em have Macs capable of using MacOS X let alone Macs with MacOS X
> installed.
Yeah, we sorted that bit. :-)
> > But you still have to admit that the HTML support in Eudora sucks.
>
> HTML email sucks.
True enough, but like it or not, things change :-/
Andy Hewitt
> Andy Hewitt <andrew_he...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 02 Jun 2002 17:39:27 +0100, Peter Ceresole wrote:
> >
> > > In article <1fd49k5.1e5z6695kb39cN%hairy...@ntlworld.com>,
> > > hairy...@ntlworld.com (Andy Hewitt) wrote:
> > >
> > > >Is it me, or is it really starting to look and feel dated?
> > >
> > > I agree with Sak; it just feels right. A superb spanner for handling
> > > proper mail.
> >
> > Ok, giving it another go. I used it for a couple of years before I got
> > OSX, but apart from the small speed deficiency, I didn't think Mail was
> > all that bad. Besides, it's hardly a spanner, more like a full Snap On
> > tool box ;-)
>
> But IIRC, Peter uses Eudora 3.1.3 Light as I do - a different kettle of
> fish to more recent versions.
It is, and if v3.1.3 handled multiple accounts (easily!) I would also
still be using it.
zoara
> Peter Ceresole <pe...@cara.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Well they all sound like beta versions to me. Here, the classic OS (9 and
> > 8) simply work. They don't have these missing bits and flaky apps...
>
> Again, YMMV! I have not seen better stability overall since installing
> OSX.
My Mileage Varies considerably. While OS9 was never a crashfest like my
Windows box was, I never felt quite confident enough to set several
things going at once, or have twenty-odd web pages left open in the
background waiting to be read... cos crashes were just a little too
often for comfort (maybe once every couple of weeks).
Now with OSX I feel more.... confident... in being able to run stuff
without worrying about one app bringing down the whole pile. I can even
happily test half-baked badly written alpha software without having to
worry about a crash meaning I have to re-open all my files and find all
those web pages again.
OSX's stability has been a breath of fresh air for me.
-z-
--
The devil may have the best tunes, but his operating system sucks.
Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow?
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting
Andy Hewitt
> Andy Hewitt <hairy...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> > Peter Ceresole <pe...@cara.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > Well they all sound like beta versions to me. Here, the classic OS (9 and
> > > 8) simply work. They don't have these missing bits and flaky apps...
> >
> > Again, YMMV! I have not seen better stability overall since installing
> > OSX.
>
> My Mileage Varies considerably. While OS9 was never a crashfest like my
> Windows box was, I never felt quite confident enough to set several
> things going at once, or have twenty-odd web pages left open in the
> background waiting to be read... cos crashes were just a little too
> often for comfort (maybe once every couple of weeks).
>
> Now with OSX I feel more.... confident... in being able to run stuff
> without worrying about one app bringing down the whole pile. I can even
> happily test half-baked badly written alpha software without having to
> worry about a crash meaning I have to re-open all my files and find all
> those web pages again.
>
> OSX's stability has been a breath of fresh air for me.
Likewise. I usually have a dozen apps running in OSX (and a couple in
Classic too). If I try and run only three or four on the WinBoxes at
work, they almost stop. I also have 79 background processes running
(Steve knows what for!), I know that Windows struggles when you get to
about 30.
Alan W. Frame
> In article <1fd5psc.t8lz6j1usd939N%hairy...@ntlworld.com>,
> hairy...@ntlworld.com (Andy Hewitt) wrote:
>
> > Eudora frequently forgets how I want a window opening, making a bit of
> > resizing and repositioning necessary.
>
> It saves it in the resource fork of the mbox file like a good Mac appl -
> I can xfer my mail folder between my G4, iMac and even between OS 8 and
> OS X and everything opens in exactly the same place.
Is it a "real" unix mbox?
i.e. can you ssh on from somewhere else and fire up, say, Pine?
Or even serve it out over IMAP?
rgds, Alan
--
99 Ducati 748BP, 95 Ducati 600SS, 81 Guzzi Monza, 74 MV Agusta 350
"Ride to Work, Work to Ride" SI# 7.067 DoD#1930 PGP Key 0xBDED56C5
Sak Wathanasin
alan....@acm.org (Alan W. Frame) wrote:
> Is it a "real" unix mbox?
As in every piece of mail concatenated together separated by those stupid
"From..." lines put in for the benefit of uucp 30 years ago? Yes.
--
Sak Wathanasin
Network Analysis Limited
Rowland McDonnell
> Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet> wrote:
[snip]
> > > But you still have to admit that the HTML support in Eudora sucks.
> >
> > HTML email sucks.
>
> True enough, but like it or not, things change :-/
And if things change for the worse, why not complain about it? I don't
see why we should put up with rubbish just because some moron in a
software firm thinks its a good idea.
Rowland McDonnell
> Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet> wrote:
>
> > Andy Hewitt <andrew_he...@mac.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, 02 Jun 2002 17:39:27 +0100, Peter Ceresole wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <1fd49k5.1e5z6695kb39cN%hairy...@ntlworld.com>,
> > > > hairy...@ntlworld.com (Andy Hewitt) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >Is it me, or is it really starting to look and feel dated?
> > > >
> > > > I agree with Sak; it just feels right. A superb spanner for handling
> > > > proper mail.
> > >
> > > Ok, giving it another go. I used it for a couple of years before I got
> > > OSX, but apart from the small speed deficiency, I didn't think Mail was
> > > all that bad. Besides, it's hardly a spanner, more like a full Snap On
> > > tool box ;-)
> >
> > But IIRC, Peter uses Eudora 3.1.3 Light as I do - a different kettle of
> > fish to more recent versions.
>
> It is, and if v3.1.3 handled multiple accounts (easily!)
It's easy enough for *me*. What's awkward about it from your point of
view?
> I would also
> still be using it.
The only reason I'm using it is that I've not come across anything else
which works as I like.
Peter Ceresole
hairy...@ntlworld.com (Andy Hewitt) wrote:
>> But IIRC, Peter uses Eudora 3.1.3 Light as I do - a different kettle of
>> fish to more recent versions.
>
>It is, and if v3.1.3 handled multiple accounts (easily!) I would also
>still be using it.
Creating different settings for different accounts, and starting Eudora
from those (with a dummy 'Eudora Settings' folder in the Eudora folder to
stop it creating a new settings file each time), seems simple enough.
What's your main objection?
Andy Hewitt
> Andy Hewitt <hairy...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> > Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > > But you still have to admit that the HTML support in Eudora sucks.
> > >
> > > HTML email sucks.
> >
> > True enough, but like it or not, things change :-/
>
> And if things change for the worse, why not complain about it? I don't
> see why we should put up with rubbish just because some moron in a
> software firm thinks its a good idea.
That's true, but with the advent of broadband, and the greater
performance in computers now, why stand still?
I agree that something like Usenet shouldn't have HTML, but why should
Email be treated any different to the rest of the Internet now?
Just my opinion, but most of the lists I subscribe too offer a choice
between plain text and HTML. Because I have the available resources I
generally choose HTML. I like to see a nicely laid out page now.
Just my opinion of course.
Andy Hewitt
I *know* how to do it, but I like being able to check all my accounts at
once. I also, on occasion, may want to reply using a different account.
Andy Hewitt
<Snipped Text>
> > > But IIRC, Peter uses Eudora 3.1.3 Light as I do - a different kettle of
> > > fish to more recent versions.
> >
> > It is, and if v3.1.3 handled multiple accounts (easily!)
>
> It's easy enough for *me*. What's awkward about it from your point of
> view?
The bit where I click 'Check Mail' and all my accounts get checked at
the same time.
> > I would also
> > still be using it.
>
> The only reason I'm using it is that I've not come across anything else
> which works as I like.
Fair enough.
Rowland McDonnell
> Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet> wrote:
>
> <Snipped Text>
> > > > But IIRC, Peter uses Eudora 3.1.3 Light as I do - a different kettle of
> > > > fish to more recent versions.
> > >
> > > It is, and if v3.1.3 handled multiple accounts (easily!)
> >
> > It's easy enough for *me*. What's awkward about it from your point of
> > view?
>
> The bit where I click 'Check Mail' and all my accounts get checked at
> the same time.
Ah. What, *all* of them, from multiple ISPs?
[snip]
Rowland McDonnell
> Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet> wrote:
>
> > Andy Hewitt <hairy...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet> wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > > > But you still have to admit that the HTML support in Eudora sucks.
> > > >
> > > > HTML email sucks.
> > >
> > > True enough, but like it or not, things change :-/
> >
> > And if things change for the worse, why not complain about it? I don't
> > see why we should put up with rubbish just because some moron in a
> > software firm thinks its a good idea.
>
> That's true, but with the advent of broadband, and the greater
> performance in computers now, why stand still?
I don't see what that's got to do with it. Computers were up to the job
of handling html email a decade ago, performance wise. So what?
> I agree that something like Usenet shouldn't have HTML, but why should
> Email be treated any different to the rest of the Internet now?
Because email is basically plain text. Why should email - a very nice,
very efficient form of communication, go the way of the Web (not the
rest of the 'net) and suffer horribly disfiguring bloat?
[snip]
Woody
1fdmtui.o7wmivw6ns27N%real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet, "Rowland
McDonnell" <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet> wrote:
>> I agree that something like Usenet shouldn't have HTML, but why should
>> Email be treated any different to the rest of the Internet now?
>
> Because email is basically plain text. Why should email - a very nice,
> very efficient form of communication, go the way of the Web (not the
> rest of the 'net) and suffer horribly disfiguring bloat?
>
How are microsoft supposed to make any money if they can't replace all those
vile, nasty, downright communist open formats with nice bloaty proprietary
ones?
Woody
PeterD
> Andy Hewitt <hairy...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> > Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet> wrote:
> >
> > <Snipped Text>
> > > > > But IIRC, Peter uses Eudora 3.1.3 Light as I do - a different
> > > > > kettle of fish to more recent versions.
> > > >
> > > > It is, and if v3.1.3 handled multiple accounts (easily!)
> > >
> > > It's easy enough for *me*. What's awkward about it from your point of
> > > view?
> >
> > The bit where I click 'Check Mail' and all my accounts get checked at
> > the same time.
>
> Ah. What, *all* of them, from multiple ISPs?
Yes. (This is a "me too")
I have recently rationalised my "personalities" down to 28 different
email addresses, from 11 different ISPs. Firing up even 11 different
settings files would be painful, to say the least. Even doing it using a
script still means opening them all one at a time to read the messages.
And yes, I really do need all those different addresses, particularly
when I'm out of the country want to check email from an internet cafe, I
can choose which email to check via the web interface.
I love Eudora.
Pd
Andy Hewitt
<Snipped Text>
> > > And if things change for the worse, why not complain about it? I don't
> > > see why we should put up with rubbish just because some moron in a
> > > software firm thinks its a good idea.
> >
> > That's true, but with the advent of broadband, and the greater
> > performance in computers now, why stand still?
>
> I don't see what that's got to do with it. Computers were up to the job
> of handling html email a decade ago, performance wise. So what?
They may have been up to the job, but we now have a surplus of
performance, handling things like HTML in mail is really the least of
our worries.
> > I agree that something like Usenet shouldn't have HTML, but why should
> > Email be treated any different to the rest of the Internet now?
>
> Because email is basically plain text. Why should email - a very nice,
> very efficient form of communication, go the way of the Web (not the
> rest of the 'net) and suffer horribly disfiguring bloat?
Bloat? Most of the 'legitimate' HTML based mails I get are fairly small,
between 3 and 6k usually.
As I said it's only my opinion, and I wouldn't lose any sleep if HTML
was outlawed tomorrow.
Andy Hewitt
<Snipped Text>
> > The bit where I click 'Check Mail' and all my accounts get checked at
> > the same time.
>
> Ah. What, *all* of them, from multiple ISPs?
Yes.
Sak Wathanasin
hairy...@ntlworld.com (Andy Hewitt) wrote:
> I agree that something like Usenet shouldn't have HTML, but why should
> Email be treated any different to the rest of the Internet now?
Because of the people who send you executable JavaScript that, er,
checks your disk for viruses (see separate thread). We go to quite a lot
of trouble to "defang" HTML here...
--
Sak Wathanasin
Network Analysis Limited
Phone: (+44) 24 76 419996 Fax: (+44) 24 76 690690
Rowland McDonnell
> Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet> wrote:
>
> <Snipped Text>
> > > > And if things change for the worse, why not complain about it? I don't
> > > > see why we should put up with rubbish just because some moron in a
> > > > software firm thinks its a good idea.
> > >
> > > That's true, but with the advent of broadband, and the greater
> > > performance in computers now, why stand still?
> >
> > I don't see what that's got to do with it. Computers were up to the job
> > of handling html email a decade ago, performance wise. So what?
>
> They may have been up to the job, but we now have a surplus of
> performance, handling things like HTML in mail is really the least of
> our worries.
What of it? Email is carried over the 'net. There is not a huge
surplus in bandwidth available out there. On top of that, we downloaded
about 700 emails today - the job took the dog slow mail.app a little
over two hours. Not much of that was html email. If it *had* been -
well, a 6 hour wait might have been in order. Think on that.
> > > I agree that something like Usenet shouldn't have HTML, but why should
> > > Email be treated any different to the rest of the Internet now?
> >
> > Because email is basically plain text. Why should email - a very nice,
> > very efficient form of communication, go the way of the Web (not the
> > rest of the 'net) and suffer horribly disfiguring bloat?
>
> Bloat?
Yep.
>Most of the 'legitimate' HTML based mails I get are fairly small,
> between 3 and 6k usually.
I saw a legit and admittedly very pretty html email today - which was
maybe 5-10 times the size it would have been if it had been plain text
once you take the pictures into account. The size itself doesn't
matter: how much storage/bandwidth has been wasted?
> As I said it's only my opinion, and I wouldn't lose any sleep if HTML
> was outlawed tomorrow.
Wouldn't be a day too soon...
David Kennedy
>
> Bloat? Most of the 'legitimate' HTML based mails I get are fairly small,
> between 3 and 6k usually.
>
yesterday and 4 others at >450k. When you're on a dial up connection it
does tend to influence your thoughts a little.
David Kennedy
>
> I *know* how to do it, but I like being able to check all my accounts at
> once. I also, on occasion, may want to reply using a different account.
>
input the settings - at one go.
bogus address
>> HTML email sucks.
> Just my opinion, but most of the lists I subscribe too offer a choice
> between plain text and HTML. Because I have the available resources I
> generally choose HTML. I like to see a nicely laid out page now.
I sort out email problems for my girlfriend's dietetic consultancy. One
of the most important kinds of document she works with is the "diet and
symptom diary", a week's list of exactly what somebody ate when and what
they felt at the time. You need it to spot food allergy reactions; they
can be delayed, with yesterday's breakfast causing tonight's diarrhoea.
Certain types of reaction have distinctive temporal patterns.
These diaries are easiest to handle when they arrive on paper. They're
most useful when most immediate, i.e. scribbled in a small notebook.
Computer texts are less reliable unless you know the user has been
toting a PDA around. We got a new one a couple of weeks ago that set
a new low: some kind of Microsoft-generated HTML email. As the patient
saw it, it must have looked ultra-organized, everything in some kind of
neat tabular form. Of course getting it into that form must have been
a time-consuming process in which useful information got left out, but
what took the biscuit was that we don't have any software here that
could read the table code *at all*. The diary conveyed no information
whatever about what correlated with what, and was absolutely unusable.
The patient ended up having to start over writing a new diary, as the
notes for that HTML had been lost. Simply writing it in plain text
with each entry like
Thursday 9th 11am
slept late
half tin of peaches with muesli
black coffee
stiff knees, neck blotches itching a lot
would have avoided the whole problem.
This particular patient's condition wasn't life-threatening: the foulup
just meant a few weeks of avoidable illness, weight loss, fucked-up
holiday etc. In other situations where medical information is exchanged
by email, the fragility of HTML-coded relationships between data fields
only visible through a screen rendering could get somebody killed.
========> Email to "jc" at this site; email to "bogus" will bounce. <========
Jack Campin: 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU; 0131 6604760
http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/purrhome.html food intolerance data and recipes,
freeware logic fonts for the Macintosh, and Scots traditional music resources
D.M. Procida
> That's true, but with the advent of broadband, and the greater
> performance in computers now, why stand still?
>
> I agree that something like Usenet shouldn't have HTML, but why should
> Email be treated any different to the rest of the Internet now?
HTML mail is the Internet equivalent of unprotected sex. The more you
casual you are about it, the more you contribute to a culture of it, and
the greater the risk that *everybody* faces of nasty viral infection.
Just because we can do it (either because of the pill or because of
increased bandwidth and power) doesn't mean it's a good idea.
Mac users are the lesbians of the computing world. It's all very well
our being smug and telling everyone else we don't get those viruses and
that all we worry about is the occasional sore elbow, but nasty
surprises have a habit of being (a) nasty and (b) suprises.
Daniele
--
Apple Juice. Macintosh service, support and sales, Cardiff
www.apple-juice.co.uk 029 2041 0050
Jon B
pd....@dsl.pipex.invalid wrote on 11/6/02 10:38 pm:
> Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet> wrote:
>
>> Andy Hewitt <hairy...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet> wrote:
>>>
>>> <Snipped Text>
>>>>>> But IIRC, Peter uses Eudora 3.1.3 Light as I do - a different
>>>>>> kettle of fish to more recent versions.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is, and if v3.1.3 handled multiple accounts (easily!)
>>>>
>>>> It's easy enough for *me*. What's awkward about it from your point of
>>>> view?
>>>
>>> The bit where I click 'Check Mail' and all my accounts get checked at
>>> the same time.
>>
>> Ah. What, *all* of them, from multiple ISPs?
>
> Yes. (This is a "me too")
> I have recently rationalised my "personalities" down to 28 different
> email addresses, from 11 different ISPs. Firing up even 11 different
> settings files would be painful, to say the least. Even doing it using a
> script still means opening them all one at a time to read the messages.
>
And me, it's just sending that's the arse but tweeking the smtp setting's to
the ISP your connected to normally cures it.
--
Jon
Jon.br...@btinternet.com
Elliott Roper
P. Grant <rp...@yahoo.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
> In article <1fdnvf2.1qy09jxwfjflN%{$usenet$}@apple-juice.co.uk>,
> {$usenet$}@apple-juice.co.uk (D.M. Procida) wrote:
>
> > HTML mail is the Internet equivalent of unprotected sex.
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> > Mac users are the lesbians of the computing world.
>
> Oh my - food, food I say for the sigmonster.
Mac OS X, the operating system in sensible shoes.
Peter Ceresole
{$usenet$}@apple-juice.co.uk (D.M. Procida) wrote:
>Mac users are the lesbians of the computing world. It's all very well
>our being smug and telling everyone else we don't get those viruses and
>that all we worry about is the occasional sore elbow
I take it you've researched these hazards?
Sak Wathanasin
pd....@dsl.pipex.invalid (PeterD) wrote:
> I have recently rationalised my "personalities" down to 28 different
Just as well the looney bins (sorry, I mean mental health recuperation
units) are full then, isn't it?
--
Sak Wathanasin
Network Analysis Limited
Alan W. Frame
> In article <1fdhawh.1mv1g1p1elpwzbN%alan....@acm.org>,
> alan....@acm.org (Alan W. Frame) wrote:
>
> > Is it a "real" unix mbox?
>
> As in every piece of mail concatenated together separated by those stupid
> "From..." lines put in for the benefit of uucp 30 years ago? Yes.
You would prefer some half-baked, NeXT-inspired, 'mailinfo'-based
hybrid format that's neither fish nor fowl? :-/
Alan W. Frame
[]
> It is, and if v3.1.3 handled multiple accounts (easily!) I would also
> still be using it.
<cough>
Under OS X?
<cough>
'man fetchmail'
HTH, Alan
Andy Hewitt
> >> HTML email sucks.
<Snipped Text>
> This particular patient's condition wasn't life-threatening: the foulup
> just meant a few weeks of avoidable illness, weight loss, fucked-up
> holiday etc. In other situations where medical information is exchanged
> by email, the fragility of HTML-coded relationships between data fields
> only visible through a screen rendering could get somebody killed.
You've just described a reason NOT to use Email at all, rather than just
HTML.
Andy Hewitt
<Snipped Text>
> > > I don't see what that's got to do with it. Computers were up to the job
> > > of handling html email a decade ago, performance wise. So what?
> >
> > They may have been up to the job, but we now have a surplus of
> > performance, handling things like HTML in mail is really the least of
> > our worries.
>
> What of it? Email is carried over the 'net. There is not a huge
> surplus in bandwidth available out there. On top of that, we downloaded
> about 700 emails today - the job took the dog slow mail.app a little
> over two hours. Not much of that was html email. If it *had* been -
> well, a 6 hour wait might have been in order. Think on that.
I wasn't saying that HTML was for everybody, but we have to accept that
it's here, like it or not!
> > > > I agree that something like Usenet shouldn't have HTML, but why should
> > > > Email be treated any different to the rest of the Internet now?
> > >
> > > Because email is basically plain text. Why should email - a very nice,
> > > very efficient form of communication, go the way of the Web (not the
> > > rest of the 'net) and suffer horribly disfiguring bloat?
> >
> > Bloat?
>
> Yep.
>
> >Most of the 'legitimate' HTML based mails I get are fairly small,
> > between 3 and 6k usually.
>
> I saw a legit and admittedly very pretty html email today - which was
> maybe 5-10 times the size it would have been if it had been plain text
> once you take the pictures into account. The size itself doesn't
> matter: how much storage/bandwidth has been wasted?
Now pictures is a different matter, I'm thinking more on the lines of
the mails I get from TidBits that are HTML, but only in such a way to
make the text better.
In fact I've just checked the ones I have, and the HTML ones are not
perceptibly larger than the plain text ones.
> > As I said it's only my opinion, and I wouldn't lose any sleep if HTML
> > was outlawed tomorrow.
>
> Wouldn't be a day too soon...
<shrug>
Andy Hewitt
My largest Emails I get regularly are from TidBits, at around 35k, and
they are the same regardless of being plain text or HTML.
Not counting Spam of course.
Andy Hewitt
> Andy Hewitt <hairy...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> > That's true, but with the advent of broadband, and the greater
> > performance in computers now, why stand still?
> >
> > I agree that something like Usenet shouldn't have HTML, but why should
> > Email be treated any different to the rest of the Internet now?
>
> HTML mail is the Internet equivalent of unprotected sex. The more you
> casual you are about it, the more you contribute to a culture of it, and
> the greater the risk that *everybody* faces of nasty viral infection.
>
> Just because we can do it (either because of the pill or because of
> increased bandwidth and power) doesn't mean it's a good idea.
>
> Mac users are the lesbians of the computing world. It's all very well
> our being smug and telling everyone else we don't get those viruses and
> that all we worry about is the occasional sore elbow, but nasty
> surprises have a habit of being (a) nasty and (b) suprises.
I think you people are taking me too literally here. I wasn't suggesting
that every single Email should be HTML. Only that if an individual
should *choose* they want to recieve such - like the TidBits list (which
is a well laid out and informative Email, that doesn't increase
significantly by being HTML) - then why not?
Andy Hewitt
Yes it does, it also nearly always 'unexpectedly quits' every time I try
and use the Mail module. Apart from that it's even slower than Mail is.
Andy Hewitt
> Andy Hewitt <hairy...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> []
> > It is, and if v3.1.3 handled multiple accounts (easily!) I would also
> > still be using it.
>
> <cough>
> Under OS X?
> <cough>
> 'man fetchmail'
>
> HTH, Alan
But Eudora v3.1.3 is a Classic app?
Alan W. Frame
> Alan W. Frame <alan....@acm.org> wrote:
>
> > Andy Hewitt <hairy...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >
> > []
> > > It is, and if v3.1.3 handled multiple accounts (easily!) I would also
> > > still be using it.
> >
> > <cough>
> > Under OS X?
> > <cough>
> > 'man fetchmail'
> >
> > HTH, Alan
>
> But Eudora v3.1.3 is a Classic app?
Is it?
That's what I get for reading subjects - anyway, I'm /sure/ you^Wone
could persuade classic Eudora to talk to $POPSERVER under OS X...
rgds, Alan
Andy Hewitt
> Andy Hewitt <hairy...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> > Alan W. Frame <alan....@acm.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Andy Hewitt <hairy...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > []
> > > > It is, and if v3.1.3 handled multiple accounts (easily!) I would also
> > > > still be using it.
> > >
> > > <cough>
> > > Under OS X?
> > > <cough>
> > > 'man fetchmail'
> > >
> > > HTH, Alan
> >
> > But Eudora v3.1.3 is a Classic app?
>
> Is it?
>
> That's what I get for reading subjects - anyway, I'm /sure/ you^Wone
^^^^^^^^
???
> could persuade classic Eudora to talk to $POPSERVER under OS X...
Possibly.
Rowland McDonnell
> bogus address <bo...@purr.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > >> HTML email sucks.
> <Snipped Text>
> > This particular patient's condition wasn't life-threatening: the foulup
> > just meant a few weeks of avoidable illness, weight loss, fucked-up
> > holiday etc. In other situations where medical information is exchanged
> > by email, the fragility of HTML-coded relationships between data fields
> > only visible through a screen rendering could get somebody killed.
>
> You've just described a reason NOT to use Email at all, rather than just
> HTML.
Not at all. If the email had been written in plain text, there would
have been no problem.
Rowland McDonnell
> Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet> wrote:
>
> <Snipped Text>
> > > > I don't see what that's got to do with it. Computers were up to the job
> > > > of handling html email a decade ago, performance wise. So what?
> > >
> > > They may have been up to the job, but we now have a surplus of
> > > performance, handling things like HTML in mail is really the least of
> > > our worries.
> >
> > What of it? Email is carried over the 'net. There is not a huge
> > surplus in bandwidth available out there. On top of that, we downloaded
> > about 700 emails today - the job took the dog slow mail.app a little
> > over two hours. Not much of that was html email. If it *had* been -
> > well, a 6 hour wait might have been in order. Think on that.
>
> I wasn't saying that HTML was for everybody, but we have to accept that
> it's here, like it or not!
HTML's great - at what it was designed for. It might be here in email,
but we don't have to accept it as `normal, unobjectionable, standard
practice', do we?
[snip]
> > >Most of the 'legitimate' HTML based mails I get are fairly small,
> > > between 3 and 6k usually.
> >
> > I saw a legit and admittedly very pretty html email today - which was
> > maybe 5-10 times the size it would have been if it had been plain text
> > once you take the pictures into account. The size itself doesn't
> > matter: how much storage/bandwidth has been wasted?
>
> Now pictures is a different matter, I'm thinking more on the lines of
> the mails I get from TidBits that are HTML, but only in such a way to
> make the text better.
Well, maybe - but tarting things up doesn't make 'em better.
> In fact I've just checked the ones I have, and the HTML ones are not
> perceptibly larger than the plain text ones.
[snip]
Fair enough.
Rowland McDonnell
[snip]
> I think you people are taking me too literally here. I wasn't suggesting
> that every single Email should be HTML. Only that if an individual
> should *choose* they want to recieve such - like the TidBits list (which
> is a well laid out and informative Email, that doesn't increase
> significantly by being HTML) - then why not?
But that's not how it works, is it? I've never chosen to receive html
email in my life - but I get it.
No-one requests Javascript to run the email virus - but they get it. If
email clients didn't do HTML and Javascript, we wouldn't have the
problem of viruses being sprayed all over the 'net via email. I usually
get at least half a dozen a week (sent to me via mailing lists I'm
genuinely subscribed to but which have no spam/virus blocking).
If the world the way you'd like it to, HTML email would never be a
problem. But it doesn't: people send HTML email by default, they leave
HTML interpreting and Javascript on all the time, and we all suffer as a
result.
Rowland McDonnell
> Andy Hewitt <hairy...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
[snip]
> > But Eudora v3.1.3 is a Classic app?
>
> Is it?
Somewhat; it's dated 1997.
> That's what I get for reading subjects
The subject's right - but we got talking about a different version of
Eudora.
[snip]
Rowland McDonnell
> Alan W. Frame <alan....@acm.org> wrote:
[snip]
> > That's what I get for reading subjects - anyway, I'm /sure/ you^Wone
>
> ???
ctrl-w = delete word (VT100 speak?); ^w is one way of representing that
keystroke.
Therefore, you^Wone means `you, no, I mean one'. It's an approximation
to humour.
David Kennedy
> David Kennedy <davidk...@NOSPAM.dmnc.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>Andy Hewitt wrote:
>>
>>>Bloat? Most of the 'legitimate' HTML based mails I get are fairly small,
>>>between 3 and 6k usually.
>>>
>>
>>Then you can borrow my mail box for a few days, I had one at 968k
>>yesterday and 4 others at >450k. When you're on a dial up connection it
>>does tend to influence your thoughts a little.
>
>
> My largest Emails I get regularly are from TidBits, at around 35k, and
> they are the same regardless of being plain text or HTML.
>
> Not counting Spam of course.
>
30 or 40k is OK but, once they start growing then, like Topsy, they
never seem to stop. I had one last week which was over 50k for plain
text - except that every word was in a different font and colour .....
The mind boggles [and mine seems to boggle very easily these days]
bogus address
>> This particular patient's condition wasn't life-threatening: the foulup
>> just meant a few weeks of avoidable illness, weight loss, fucked-up
>> holiday etc. In other situations where medical information is exchanged
>> by email, the fragility of HTML-coded relationships between data fields
>> only visible through a screen rendering could get somebody killed.
> You've just described a reason NOT to use Email at all, rather than just
> HTML.
I gave an example of how the same sort of information could be reliably
coded in plain text. The reason it works that way and not in HTML is
that data which is close in the byte order of the file represents real-
world phenomena that happened close together; arrangement on the screen
isn't necessary to convey the meaning, and a text-to-speech interface
wouldn't lose anything. A tabular layout screws that up (even a plaintext
table, if the receiver doesn't know what the sender's record width and
record separators are) and an HTML tabular layout screws it up even more
by adding redundant syntactic noise and even more non-local features, and
allowing nesting so you don't even know how many rows or columns there
are without trying it in a browser.
Think you could find an HTML4-to-speech renderer for the Mac? It might
well be possible but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for one.
SGML and its instances can work for exchanging data in high-risk
situations (the US military has been using it that way for decades)
but only if transmitter and receiver are using systems developed
in really high compliance with common standards. You aren't going
to get that with some email client implementor whose main design
aim is a pretty interface. Safety-critical data exchange is one
situation where "be liberal in what you accept" in a formatter is
disastrous: if there's any chance of of ambiguity in the data you've
been sent you want the thing to scream blue murder rather than guess.
zoara
> That's true, but with the advent of broadband, and the greater
> performance in computers now, why stand still?
>
> I agree that something like Usenet shouldn't have HTML, but why should
> Email be treated any different to the rest of the Internet now?
1. Not everyone is on broadband. In fact, hardly anyone is.
2. Wasting bandwidth is wasting bandwidth - why don't we all send
uncompressed pictures instead of JPEG, now that we have broadband?
3. With the advent of things like GPRS, there's likely to be an increase
in people downloading at *slower* than 56k. So emails should not be
three times the size that they can be.
4. I'd rather choose the formatting of my email than allow the sender to
do it. I can choose the most readable fonts and colours, rather than
relying on the highly suspect design aesthetic of people I know.
5. Why fix what ain't broke? What's so wrong with plain text?
JMHO
-z-
--
The devil may have the best tunes, but his operating system sucks.
Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow?
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting
Rowland McDonnell
> >> This particular patient's condition wasn't life-threatening: the foulup
> >> just meant a few weeks of avoidable illness, weight loss, fucked-up
> >> holiday etc. In other situations where medical information is exchanged
> >> by email, the fragility of HTML-coded relationships between data fields
> >> only visible through a screen rendering could get somebody killed.
> > You've just described a reason NOT to use Email at all, rather than just
> > HTML.
>
> I gave an example of how the same sort of information could be reliably
> coded in plain text. The reason it works that way and not in HTML is
> that data which is close in the byte order of the file represents real-
> world phenomena that happened close together; arrangement on the screen
> isn't necessary to convey the meaning, and a text-to-speech interface
> wouldn't lose anything. A tabular layout screws that up (even a plaintext
> table, if the receiver doesn't know what the sender's record width and
> record separators are)
In some cases, but not always. You could always use LaTeX markup:
\begin{tabularx}{llXX}
Monday 9th & 11am & half tin of peaches with muesli, black coffee, stiff
knees & slept late \\
Tuesday 10th & 5am & fried egg on fried bread, Lapsang Souchong, stiff
knees & Woke up too soon \\
\end{tabularx}
Which is admittedly not the most user-friendly way of expressing it, but
*is* an example of tabular layout which can be figured out by a human
being in the absence of appropriate software (and since the appropriate
software is freely available over the 'net...)
[snip]
> SGML and its instances can work for exchanging data in high-risk
> situations (the US military has been using it that way for decades)
> but only if transmitter and receiver are using systems developed
> in really high compliance with common standards.
Yes, but what about XML?
> You aren't going
> to get that with some email client implementor whose main design
> aim is a pretty interface. Safety-critical data exchange is one
> situation where "be liberal in what you accept" in a formatter is
> disastrous: if there's any chance of of ambiguity in the data you've
> been sent you want the thing to scream blue murder rather than guess.
[snip]
Damned right.
Andy Hewitt
<Snipped Text>
> > I wasn't saying that HTML was for everybody, but we have to accept that
> > it's here, like it or not!
>
> HTML's great - at what it was designed for. It might be here in email,
> but we don't have to accept it as `normal, unobjectionable, standard
> practice', do we?
It didn't say it had to be a standard either. If somebody asks *me* if
*I* want to recieve a mail in HTML, then fine. Most of the lists I
choose offer the choice of either plain text or HTML. Certainly all the
the legitimate mail lists seem to offer HTML messages that aren't
bloated.
<Snipped Text>
> > Now pictures is a different matter, I'm thinking more on the lines of
> > the mails I get from TidBits that are HTML, but only in such a way to
> > make the text better.
>
> Well, maybe - but tarting things up doesn't make 'em better.
If it makes it easier for *me* to read, then it's better!
Andy Hewitt
> Andy Hewitt <hairy...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> > bogus address <bo...@purr.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > >> HTML email sucks.
> > <Snipped Text>
> > > This particular patient's condition wasn't life-threatening: the foulup
> > > just meant a few weeks of avoidable illness, weight loss, fucked-up
> > > holiday etc. In other situations where medical information is exchanged
> > > by email, the fragility of HTML-coded relationships between data fields
> > > only visible through a screen rendering could get somebody killed.
> >
> > You've just described a reason NOT to use Email at all, rather than just
> > HTML.
>
> Not at all. If the email had been written in plain text, there would
> have been no problem.
Possibly.
Andy Hewitt
<Snipped Text>
> > Not counting Spam of course.
> >
>
> 30 or 40k is OK but, once they start growing then, like Topsy, they
> never seem to stop. I had one last week which was over 50k for plain
> text - except that every word was in a different font and colour .....
> The mind boggles [and mine seems to boggle very easily these days]
I tend to set my accounts to not allow mail above about 40k anyway.
Andy Hewitt
> Andy Hewitt <hairy...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> > That's true, but with the advent of broadband, and the greater
> > performance in computers now, why stand still?
> >
> > I agree that something like Usenet shouldn't have HTML, but why should
> > Email be treated any different to the rest of the Internet now?
>
> 1. Not everyone is on broadband. In fact, hardly anyone is.
Certainly as a percentage that's possibly true enough, although I don't
know the exact data regarding that myself.
> 2. Wasting bandwidth is wasting bandwidth - why don't we all send
> uncompressed pictures instead of JPEG, now that we have broadband?
I use JPEG images because it uses less storage space on my HD. Besides,
uncompressed images are phenomenally larger than compressed ones.
> 3. With the advent of things like GPRS, there's likely to be an increase
> in people downloading at *slower* than 56k. So emails should not be
> three times the size that they can be.
Indeed, I'm just saying that we have a choice.
> 4. I'd rather choose the formatting of my email than allow the sender to
> do it. I can choose the most readable fonts and colours, rather than
> relying on the highly suspect design aesthetic of people I know.
Fine.
> 5. Why fix what ain't broke? What's so wrong with plain text?
Nothing.
Andy Hewitt
<Snipped Text>
> SGML and its instances can work for exchanging data in high-risk
> situations (the US military has been using it that way for decades)
> but only if transmitter and receiver are using systems developed
> in really high compliance with common standards. You aren't going
> to get that with some email client implementor whose main design
> aim is a pretty interface. Safety-critical data exchange is one
> situation where "be liberal in what you accept" in a formatter is
> disastrous: if there's any chance of of ambiguity in the data you've
> been sent you want the thing to scream blue murder rather than guess.
I see your point, but surely your example shows that whoever thought of
the idea had no clue of what they were doing anyway. Would that
particular person have made a better job using something other than
HTML?
Andy Hewitt
> Andy Hewitt <hairy...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> > Alan W. Frame <alan....@acm.org> wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > > That's what I get for reading subjects - anyway, I'm /sure/ you^Wone
> >
> > ???
>
> ctrl-w = delete word (VT100 speak?); ^w is one way of representing that
> keystroke.
>
> Therefore, you^Wone means `you, no, I mean one'. It's an approximation
> to humour.
Ah, I understand now, well as I don't know VT100 it's not surprising I
didn't get that ;-)
Andy Hewitt
> Andy Hewitt <hairy...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > I think you people are taking me too literally here. I wasn't suggesting
> > that every single Email should be HTML. Only that if an individual
> > should *choose* they want to recieve such - like the TidBits list (which
> > is a well laid out and informative Email, that doesn't increase
> > significantly by being HTML) - then why not?
>
> But that's not how it works, is it? I've never chosen to receive html
> email in my life - but I get it.
Indeed, and it's irrelevant whether SPAM is HTML or plain text, either
way you don't want it.
> No-one requests Javascript to run the email virus - but they get it. If
> email clients didn't do HTML and Javascript, we wouldn't have the
> problem of viruses being sprayed all over the 'net via email. I usually
> get at least half a dozen a week (sent to me via mailing lists I'm
> genuinely subscribed to but which have no spam/virus blocking).
Email is just the easiest way, surely they'd find others ways anyway.
> If the world the way you'd like it to, HTML email would never be a
> problem. But it doesn't: people send HTML email by default, they leave
> HTML interpreting and Javascript on all the time, and we all suffer as a
> result.
Indeed, and I am not suggesting that we should accept HTML as a
standard, just that it exists and there are those that may want it.
Rowland McDonnell
> Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet> wrote:
>
> > Andy Hewitt <hairy...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >
> > > bogus address <bo...@purr.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > > >> HTML email sucks.
> > > <Snipped Text>
> > > > This particular patient's condition wasn't life-threatening: the foulup
> > > > just meant a few weeks of avoidable illness, weight loss, fucked-up
> > > > holiday etc. In other situations where medical information is exchanged
> > > > by email, the fragility of HTML-coded relationships between data fields
> > > > only visible through a screen rendering could get somebody killed.
> > >
> > > You've just described a reason NOT to use Email at all, rather than just
> > > HTML.
> >
> > Not at all. If the email had been written in plain text, there would
> > have been no problem.
>
> Possibly.
Definitely, because there's nothing to go wrong.
Rowland McDonnell
> Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet> wrote:
>
> > Andy Hewitt <hairy...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > I think you people are taking me too literally here. I wasn't suggesting
> > > that every single Email should be HTML. Only that if an individual
> > > should *choose* they want to recieve such - like the TidBits list (which
> > > is a well laid out and informative Email, that doesn't increase
> > > significantly by being HTML) - then why not?
> >
> > But that's not how it works, is it? I've never chosen to receive html
> > email in my life - but I get it.
>
> Indeed, and it's irrelevant whether SPAM is HTML or plain text, either
> way you don't want it.
It's not irrelevant: HTML spam often carries a virus load.
> > No-one requests Javascript to run the email virus - but they get it. If
> > email clients didn't do HTML and Javascript, we wouldn't have the
> > problem of viruses being sprayed all over the 'net via email. I usually
> > get at least half a dozen a week (sent to me via mailing lists I'm
> > genuinely subscribed to but which have no spam/virus blocking).
>
> Email is just the easiest way,
Only because of the Javascript and email lark.
> surely they'd find others ways anyway.
Such as?
> > If the world the way you'd like it to, HTML email would never be a
> > problem. But it doesn't: people send HTML email by default, they leave
> > HTML interpreting and Javascript on all the time, and we all suffer as a
> > result.
>
> Indeed, and I am not suggesting that we should accept HTML as a
> standard, just that it exists and there are those that may want it.
Oh aye, but the fact is that the average computer user doesn't get much
of a choice.
Rowland McDonnell
> Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet> wrote:
>
> <Snipped Text>
> > > I wasn't saying that HTML was for everybody, but we have to accept that
> > > it's here, like it or not!
> >
> > HTML's great - at what it was designed for. It might be here in email,
> > but we don't have to accept it as `normal, unobjectionable, standard
> > practice', do we?
>
> It didn't say it had to be a standard either.
But it *is*.
> If somebody asks *me* if
> *I* want to recieve a mail in HTML, then fine. Most of the lists I
> choose offer the choice of either plain text or HTML. Certainly all the
> the legitimate mail lists seem to offer HTML messages that aren't
> bloated.
That's not a problem. The problem comes from email clients being
shipped to use HTML email by default and to execute Javascript by
default. This is causing that mode of operation to be considered by
many as `normal, unobjectionable, standard practice'. And it's a
problem - security problems are caused by this sort of thing.
> <Snipped Text>
> > > Now pictures is a different matter, I'm thinking more on the lines of
> > > the mails I get from TidBits that are HTML, but only in such a way to
> > > make the text better.
> >
> > Well, maybe - but tarting things up doesn't make 'em better.
>
> If it makes it easier for *me* to read, then it's better!
Yes, but it's more likely to make it harder for you to read, because the
average person hasn't a clue how to produce decent typography. Plain
text is usually easier to read than styled text produced by the
clueless.
Rowland McDonnell
> zoara <n...@all.valid> wrote:
[snip]
> > 3. With the advent of things like GPRS, there's likely to be an increase
> > in people downloading at *slower* than 56k. So emails should not be
> > three times the size that they can be.
>
> Indeed, I'm just saying that we have a choice.
[snip]
But we don't, not really.
David Kennedy
> David Kennedy <davidk...@NOSPAM.dmnc.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> <Snipped Text>
>
>>>Not counting Spam of course.
>>>
>>
>>30 or 40k is OK but, once they start growing then, like Topsy, they
>>never seem to stop. I had one last week which was over 50k for plain
>>text - except that every word was in a different font and colour .....
>>The mind boggles [and mine seems to boggle very easily these days]
>
>
> I tend to set my accounts to not allow mail above about 40k anyway.
>
attachments which [sometimes] prove very useful.
Elliott Roper
Kennedy <davidk...@NOSPAM.dmnc.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
Eudora 5.1.1 on OS X has a neat trick. If you are using a pop server,
you can set Eudora to take the first n K bytes of mail.
Settings->Checking Mail (mail management) check and set n for "Skip
messages over ? K
When a large mail arrives you see something like this
WARNING: The remainder of this 293K message has not been transferred.
Turn on the ³Fetch² button in the icon bar and check mail again to get
the whole thing.
Follow the directions if you really want to read the mail.
Quite handy if you are connected via your mobile phone
David Kennedy
snip
>
>
> Eudora 5.1.1 on OS X has a neat trick. If you are using a pop server,
> you can set Eudora to take the first n K bytes of mail.
>
I'm waiting for you guys to finish beta testing before I go to OSX ;-)
>
> Follow the directions if you really want to read the mail.
> Quite handy if you are connected via your mobile phone
Handy when you're in a hurry too.
Sak Wathanasin
Elliott Roper <ell...@yrl.co.uk> wrote:
> Follow the directions if you really want to read the mail.
> Quite handy if you are connected via your mobile phone
Or if you're using Eudora on a Newton (:-)...
--
Sak Wathanasin
Network Analysis Limited
http://www.network-analysis.ltd.uk
D.M. Procida
> In article <1fdnvf2.1qy09jxwfjflN%{$usenet$}@apple-juice.co.uk>,
> {$usenet$}@apple-juice.co.uk (D.M. Procida) wrote:
>
> >Mac users are the lesbians of the computing world. It's all very well
> >our being smug and telling everyone else we don't get those viruses and
> >that all we worry about is the occasional sore elbow
>
> I take it you've researched these hazards?
If you know any lesbians you'll find that they often have plasters on
their elbows. Apparently lesbian sex is hard on the elbows. I don't know
why it (particularly) should be.
Daniele
--
Apple Juice. Macintosh service, support and sales, Cardiff
www.apple-juice.co.uk 029 2041 0050
Andy Hewitt
<Snipped Text>
> > > HTML's great - at what it was designed for. It might be here in email,
> > > but we don't have to accept it as `normal, unobjectionable, standard
> > > practice', do we?
> >
> > It didn't say it had to be a standard either.
>
> But it *is*.
Ok, it is, but not out of choice.
> > If somebody asks *me* if
> > *I* want to recieve a mail in HTML, then fine. Most of the lists I
> > choose offer the choice of either plain text or HTML. Certainly all the
> > the legitimate mail lists seem to offer HTML messages that aren't
> > bloated.
>
> That's not a problem. The problem comes from email clients being
> shipped to use HTML email by default and to execute Javascript by
> default. This is causing that mode of operation to be considered by
> many as `normal, unobjectionable, standard practice'. And it's a
> problem - security problems are caused by this sort of thing.
And I fully agree with you there.
> > <Snipped Text>
> > If it makes it easier for *me* to read, then it's better!
>
> Yes, but it's more likely to make it harder for you to read, because the
> average person hasn't a clue how to produce decent typography. Plain
> text is usually easier to read than styled text produced by the
> clueless.
Hmmm, quite true, although the HTML mail I get from TidBits is really
well done (IMHO of course!), and doesn't increase the size of the
message by any amount I can measure. But that's probably a case of the
job being by somebody who cares about what they're doing.
Andy Hewitt
But you can choose whether to delete the mail or download it instead.
Mail pops up a dialogue asking what you want to do, and lets you see the
sender and subject line.
Andy Hewitt
> Andy Hewitt <hairy...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> > zoara <n...@all.valid> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > 3. With the advent of things like GPRS, there's likely to be an increase
> > > in people downloading at *slower* than 56k. So emails should not be
> > > three times the size that they can be.
> >
> > Indeed, I'm just saying that we have a choice.
>
> [snip]
>
> But we don't, not really.
When it comes to Spam, or numpties that don't know they are sending
HTML, you are right. But I can still choose to recieve HTML mail from
certain sources.
Andy Hewitt
> > Indeed, and it's irrelevant whether SPAM is HTML or plain text, either
> > way you don't want it.
>
> It's not irrelevant: HTML spam often carries a virus load.
So do many downloaded things on the Internet.
>
> > > No-one requests Javascript to run the email virus - but they get it. If
> > > email clients didn't do HTML and Javascript, we wouldn't have the
> > > problem of viruses being sprayed all over the 'net via email. I usually
> > > get at least half a dozen a week (sent to me via mailing lists I'm
> > > genuinely subscribed to but which have no spam/virus blocking).
> >
> > Email is just the easiest way,
>
> Only because of the Javascript and email lark.
>
> > surely they'd find others ways anyway.
>
> Such as?
There are already ways for broadband users. I have had an attempt by a
trojan horse hack on my Mac (which was sucessfully stopped by my
firewall). This is an increasingly common form of attack now.
The worst part is that the 'average' user, who may not even know what a
firewall is, may not even know they are being infected. This is far
worse than Email.
> > > If the world the way you'd like it to, HTML email would never be a
> > > problem. But it doesn't: people send HTML email by default, they leave
> > > HTML interpreting and Javascript on all the time, and we all suffer as a
> > > result.
> >
> > Indeed, and I am not suggesting that we should accept HTML as a
> > standard, just that it exists and there are those that may want it.
>
> Oh aye, but the fact is that the average computer user doesn't get much
> of a choice.
They have the choice, they just don't know they do!........ baaaaaaaaa!
;-)
PeterD
> Peter Ceresole <pe...@cara.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > In article <1fdnvf2.1qy09jxwfjflN%{$usenet$}@apple-juice.co.uk>,
> > {$usenet$}@apple-juice.co.uk (D.M. Procida) wrote:
> >
> > >Mac users are the lesbians of the computing world. It's all very well
> > >our being smug and telling everyone else we don't get those viruses and
> > >that all we worry about is the occasional sore elbow
> >
> > I take it you've researched these hazards?
>
> If you know any lesbians you'll find that they often have plasters on
> their elbows. Apparently lesbian sex is hard on the elbows. I don't know
> why it (particularly) should be.
I know lots of lesbians, and none of them have plasters on their elbows.
The only thing I've heard them express concern about is the possibility
of spit babies (whatever they might be! ;-)
Is this an attempt to create an urban legend?
Pd
D.M. Procida
> I know lots of lesbians, and none of them have plasters on their elbows.
> The only thing I've heard them express concern about is the possibility
> of spit babies (whatever they might be! ;-)
"... even though I appreciate the concept of parthenogenesis, I kind of
like that each time I have sex with a woman I don't have to worry about
her knocking me up...spit babies don't live!"
D.M. Procida
> There are already ways for broadband users. I have had an attempt by a
> trojan horse hack on my Mac (which was sucessfully stopped by my
> firewall).
Do you really mean a trojan horse? That's where you are tricked into
allowing some file, which promises to be one kind of thing but turns out
to have a hidden purpose, into your system.
Andy Hewitt
> Andy Hewitt <hairy...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> > There are already ways for broadband users. I have had an attempt by a
> > trojan horse hack on my Mac (which was sucessfully stopped by my
> > firewall).
>
> Do you really mean a trojan horse? That's where you are tricked into
> allowing some file, which promises to be one kind of thing but turns out
> to have a hidden purpose, into your system.
>
> Daniele
Norton Personal Firewall reports thus:
**
Type of access: This access attempt was made to a "Trojan horse" named
Sub7. Sub7 was originally made for the Windows envioirment but has now
been ported to the Macintosh network. Sub7 can be used to access your
computer and retrieve valuable information from your system.
**
D.M. Procida
> D.M. Procida <{$usenet$}@apple-juice.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Andy Hewitt <hairy...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >
> > > There are already ways for broadband users. I have had an attempt by a
> > > trojan horse hack on my Mac (which was sucessfully stopped by my
> > > firewall).
> >
> > Do you really mean a trojan horse? That's where you are tricked into
> > allowing some file, which promises to be one kind of thing but turns out
> > to have a hidden purpose, into your system.
> Norton Personal Firewall reports thus:
>
> **
> Type of access: This access attempt was made to a "Trojan horse" named
> Sub7. Sub7 was originally made for the Windows envioirment but has now
> been ported to the Macintosh network. Sub7 can be used to access your
> computer and retrieve valuable information from your system.
> **
OK, but I'm not exactly impressed. If Greek soldiers went around,
bellowing outside cities for the soldiers who may have been hidden in a
wooden horse inside to come out and let them in, then I think there
would be a lot of irritation at the annoying shouting, but you wouldn't
be that overwhelmed if someone came rushing up to tell you that they'd
managed to drown out the bellowing and prevent a disaster.
PeterD
> PeterD <pd....@dsl.pipex.invalid> wrote:
>
> > I know lots of lesbians, and none of them have plasters on their elbows.
> > The only thing I've heard them express concern about is the possibility
> > of spit babies (whatever they might be! ;-)
>
> "... even though I appreciate the concept of parthenogenesis, I kind of
> like that each time I have sex with a woman I don't have to worry about
> her knocking me up...spit babies don't live!"
Who's that quoted from? One of your elbow-plastered huîtrière?
Pd
D.M. Procida
Peter Ceresole
{$usenet$}@apple-juice.co.uk (D.M. Procida) wrote:
>Do you really mean a trojan horse? That's where you are tricked into
>allowing some file, which promises to be one kind of thing but turns out
>to have a hidden purpose, into your system.
Like the 'Undeliverable mail--"please try again"' with a virus masquerading
as the bounced mail? I've had four in the past seven days; clearly it's
flavour of the month in hacker weenie circles.
PeterD
> <http://www.cliterationline.com/clitlit/booty.html>
Oooh err, that's good writing. And strikes a strangely familiar though
dissonant chord. I, like any pianist, appreciate a good flautist.
Pd
Andy Hewitt
<Snipped Text>
> > Norton Personal Firewall reports thus:
> >
> > **
> > Type of access: This access attempt was made to a "Trojan horse" named
> > Sub7. Sub7 was originally made for the Windows envioirment but has now
> > been ported to the Macintosh network. Sub7 can be used to access your
> > computer and retrieve valuable information from your system.
> > **
>
> OK, but I'm not exactly impressed. If Greek soldiers went around,
> bellowing outside cities for the soldiers who may have been hidden in a
> wooden horse inside to come out and let them in, then I think there
> would be a lot of irritation at the annoying shouting, but you wouldn't
> be that overwhelmed if someone came rushing up to tell you that they'd
> managed to drown out the bellowing and prevent a disaster.
Hmmm, not sure the Greek soldier bit is so relevant here. The fact that
somebody *could* have accessed my machine without me knowing is worrying
nonetheless.
Peter Ceresole
pd....@dsl.pipex.invalid (PeterD) wrote:
Maybe. But she sounds a bit hung up to me. A bit florid... Arab tents
indeed.
And there's nothing about plasters on elbows.