Why Doesn't PMail Display HTML Messages?
rianna
Most (maybe all) HTML e-mails that I get on PMail do not display
properly. All I see is gray boxes. The same messages show up
perfectly on Outlook and Eudora. I just looked at 10 different
e-mails and none of them showed up correctly in PMail. Does PMail
support HTML? Am I missing a setting somewhere?
Thank you.
rianna
setting I was looking for. I'll try that and see if it works. Please
ignore my request. Thank you.
On Mon, 14 Apr 2003 16:02:15 GMT, rianna <ria...@stopthespammers.com>
wrote:
Thomas Nimmesgern
Hi,
rianna wrote:
> OK, I see there is a "show pictures option." I think that is the
> setting I was looking for. I'll try that and see if it works. Please
> ignore my request. Thank you.
At the end of this posting, there is some more information about
this...and please don't use top-posting (->answer at the the top,
question at the end) as it makes it complicate to understand the
posting.
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2003 16:02:15 GMT, rianna <ria...@stopthespammers.com>
> wrote:
>>I have 3 e-mail clients on this PC...PMail, Outlook and Eudora.
>>Most (maybe all) HTML e-mails that I get on PMail do not display
>>properly. All I see is gray boxes. The same messages show up
>>perfectly on Outlook and Eudora. I just looked at 10 different
>>e-mails and none of them showed up correctly in PMail. Does PMail
>>support HTML? Am I missing a setting somewhere?
Pegasus Mail does support HTML.
At the "Pegasus Mail for Windows Discussion list", there was a similar
question which was answered this way:
***from the PM-WIN list***
The graphics are not in the message but are only pointers to graphics,
and whatever on the internet.
I got this information from David Harris on HTML support.
"To understand what's happening here, you have to realize that there are
two types of HTML you can get in e-mail:
MHTML - this is HTML that has been adapted for use in e-mail: any
graphics required in the message are added to the message as attachments
and referenced in a particular way that allows them to be located when
the message is read.
"Lazy" HTML - this is nothing more than sending a web page; graphics are
linked using their full URLs and have to be downloaded from the web to
be viewed.
MHTML is safe - there are no security issues with it, and you do not
have to be online to read the message. Lazy HTML, however, is a
minefield: not only do you have to be online to see the graphics (and
endure painful download times as they are retrieved), but the fact that
the graphics are retrieved creates a significant security problem; it
can allow the person who sent the message to determine that you have
read the message, when you read it, how often you read it and whether or
not you forwarded it to someone else. Furthermore, by using a 1-pixel by
1-pixel graphic somewhere in the message, this information can be
gleaned completely without your knowledge or even being aware that it is
happening. Then there's the fact that Lazy HTML messages are usually
also the vehicle of choice for HMTL worms and trojans, and that opening
such messages in a web browser exposes you to those dangers (whereas
Pegasus Mail is able to protect you *completely* from them in its
internal viewer)
Pegasus Mail v4.0 has full support for MHTML; it also generates MHTML
properly, as any responsible mail program should. Pegasus Mail v4.0 is
*capable* of downloading graphics for Lazy HTML, but we explicitly
disabled this because of the security ramifications.
I have been quite amazed how many Pegasus Mail users seem to have no
awareness of the security and privacy issues associated with Lazy HTML
mail messages, but in response to a demand (however suicidal I might
personally think it may be) I have added a right-click option to open
Lazy HTML in a browser in v4.02a release."
******
I hope this answers your question.
Yours,
Thomas
rianna
Hi Thomas
Thank you for your reply. I am using bottom posting out of respect
for your request even though I prefer top posting when I receive a
reply. I am aware of the issues involved with HTML that are discussed
above. In spite of that, I'd like to enable the display of all HTML
message images without having to right click on every image. Is there
a universal option that enables this so I can set it once and have it
display all messages?
In addition, I have tried the right click method on images as
explained above. It does not seem to work. No image appears even
after waiting for a download. I know there are images there because
they appear in my other e-mail clients.
Thanks again for your help.
rianna
Bebop & Rocksteady
> for your request even though I prefer top posting when I receive a
> reply. I am aware of the issues involved with HTML that are discussed
> above. In spite of that, I'd like to enable the display of all HTML
> message images without having to right click on every image. Is there
> a universal option that enables this so I can set it once and have it
> display all messages?
>
> In addition, I have tried the right click method on images as
> explained above. It does not seem to work. No image appears even
> after waiting for a download. I know there are images there because
> they appear in my other e-mail clients.
They are not really issuses, it is done on purpose for your security.
Pegasus does not download images that not embedded in the message and
probably never will.
As stated this is for security, so the site can not track you when you
read your mail and download the image to view and then send more spam
etc...
The only option is the right click and the Open In Browser. But be warned
this is very danagerous as it opens up your system not only to the email
but any other nasties java scripts which can be viruses, and then can
effect there intended target which 9 X out of 10 is Windows Address Book
and OE. If you are sure about the email then this is your best option but
make sure your Antivirus and even firewall is upto date... but you
already do don't yah :-)
As for your top posting in the longer threads are, it makes it very hard
to follow the comments made as they do not flow down the page from start
to finish. Like reading a letter. You would read a letter starting in the
middle then the top and jump to the end
--
Quantum Illusions
http://quantum.co-inc.net
Pegasus Mail Support Site
http://pegasus252.tripod.com
Freeware Site
http://www.freeware.co-inc.com
rianna
wrote:
Hi Bebop & Rocksteady
Thank you. I appreciate the helpful nature of your reply.
I am fully aware of the "dangers" of displaying images in html
documents. Having said this, I want to be able to set my e-mail
client to display all images anyway. My company creates a lot of htlm
documents and uses them in e-mails and I know the source of the
documents...there is no safety issue. Unless I can set an option to
display these images, it will render Pmail just about useless to me as
I need this feature daily for many e-mails. It would be absurdly
cumbersome to have to load every image separately when I can use any
other e-mail client and just get it done with no fuss at all.
On top vs. bottom posting...I have already written more than most
people wanted to hear about my opinion on that. Mostly, I wrote about
how I want to be able to have the signature line appear at the *top*
of a reply or forward e-mail instead of the bottom. I think that
there is a difference between e-mail and usenet posting as far as the
top/bottom isssue goes and that generally bottom posting in usenet
posts makes a lot of sense.
BUT...I do maybe 10-20 e-mails per day, and every other manager I
communicate with nearly always top posts. The fact is, that that is
the way we do it and the way most people I work with prefer it
(regardless of what others may think is right). I have already stated
why I usually prefer it so I won't bother everybody with that again.
But here is my main point. What is the use in arguing about which way
is best? I'm fine if you prefer doing it your way (I mean this
respectfully to everyone who has a different opinion). I am just now
remembering the only thing about PMail that I always found
disappointing: the close minded attitude about giving users *options*.
Both the html issue and the signature on top issues are perfect cases
in point. Why not give the user an *option* to display html images
(default is not displayed if you like)? And why not give the user and
*option* to have signatures display on top (default is display on
bottom if you like)? Since these are clearly areas where a
significant number of users want the setting to be one way or another,
why not accommodate both by simply adding an option.
I don't want to give the impression that I am not appreciative of
PMail. Indeed, if not for this lack of (probably only a
handful..albiet an essential handful) of options, I think it is the
best client around. And I really appreciate those who have toiled so
hard to produce it at no profit to themselves other than the
satisfaction of creating a beautiful program. Certainly, the
developers have the right to include or exclude any features they
wish.
I can only say that I would think it much more noble effort if some
people in this forum could consider being a little more open minded
and accommodating and not assume that every issue has only one
solution. And perhaps even consider advocating the empowerment of the
PMail user a little more by offering *options* in the program to
accommodate features that are clearly desired by significant numbers
of users.
By the way Bebop & Rocksteady, the above is not directed at you. I
saw nothing close minded about your helpful reply. Thanks again!
Fred Viles
news:di2o9vcgoa97oqa90...@4ax.com:
>...
> I am fully aware of the "dangers" of displaying images in html
> documents. Having said this, I want to be able to set my e-mail
> client to display all images anyway.
That's fine, but it means you will have to choose a different email
client.
Martin Ireland
I hope your company is using Html images correctly in its email
messages, and not just sending out Urls pointing back to your site?
Martin
========
rianna
Well, I guess this proves the point on my last post. I find it
disappointing that some people here are so narrow minded and rigid in
their thinking that they are only concerned with their own needs and
opinions and their own small world thinking..."it has to be my way or
you're out of luck." I have a 5 year old child that thinks like that,
but most of us grew out of it shortly after that age. Perhaps your
life is so lacking in any success that this is your way of feeling you
have some power. But then, you are entitled to your opinion however
childish.
I just find it a shame that an otherwise great e-mail client is
stifled by such self centered and small minded thinkers. This seems
to be the Pmail development philosophy....it's not about accommodating
users and their needs, it's about psychological satisfaction for a few
desperate control freaks...fair enough...so I have to go elsewhere for
a client...it isn't exactly the end of my world.
Bebop & Rocksteady
>>> Thank you for your reply. I am using bottom posting out of respect
>>> for your request even though I prefer top posting when I receive a
>>> reply. I am aware of the issues involved with HTML that are
>>> discussed above. In spite of that, I'd like to enable the display
>>> of all HTML message images without having to right click on every
>>> image. Is there a universal option that enables this so I can set
>>> it once and have it display all messages?
As some one else has stated if the your company is embedding the image then
Pegasus fine if not and just using a link back to their server then no
sorry.
As a side note:
BTW I personally automatically delete any email that has links for images
or if they are not embedded. Even if I know who it is from...
As for the Pmail development philosophy... best not go there the only
person that can answer that is David Harris. (The author)
My theory is if the product doesn't work for you after you have given it a
good go and or trail... then look for one that does... It has not cost you
anything, so you really have nothing to complain about... have a look at
Fox Mail. It is similar to OE and has some nice features as well. Another
on would be Eudora... though personally I found it clumsy compare to other
Email clients
rianna
wrote:
>My theory is if the product doesn't work for you after you have given it a
>good go and or trail... then look for one that does
Bebop & Rocksteady
Thank you for your thoughtful and helpful replies. My experience has
been this. When I have encountered a program that seems promising to
me, but that has areas that I would like to see improved, I work hard
to offer my best constructive criticism and suggestions to try to
cooperatively make it even better. I have participated in the
development of many programs in this way, and I lead in development of
several programs myself.
I find there are two types of development philosophies. One is very
open to improvement, positive, constructive and not so insecure as to
constantly defend a narrow minded view at the expense of building a
product that adds value to users and not just the developer's ego.
The other is not.
I have seen a number of awesome products that I liked a lot, but could
not use simply because they were closed minded to the point of
absurdity about development issues.
Thank you for pointing out that which I should clarify. I don't know
who, if anyone, in this ng is actually involved directly in
development of PMail. So my comments cannot go to development
philosophy except to the extent that those making what I view as the
narrow minded comments here are actually involved. It may be that the
author, David Harris, does not approve of the these views of these
people. I'd like to think that is the case, but I do not know
anything about his opinion on the comments I have made. I do however
commend him for authoring this nice product, regardless of his views.
Andy
>>> I am fully aware of the "dangers" of displaying images in html
>>> documents. Having said this, I want to be able to set my e-mail
>>> client to display all images anyway.
>>That's fine, but it means you will have to choose a different email
>>client.
>Well, I guess this proves the point on my last post. I find it
It "proves" nothing. It's just *your* opinion which you are entitled to.
>disappointing that some people here are so narrow minded and rigid in
>their thinking that they are only concerned with their own needs and
>opinions and their own small world thinking..."it has to be my way or
What's really disappointing is your attitude to users of an application who are essentially happly
with it. There's always room for improvement, but because it doesn't follow the direction you
decided it should, does not make it narrow, selfish or small, just different.
It would be all too easy to issue rebuttals in regards to "other" mainstream email clients.
>have some power. But then, you are entitled to your opinion however
>childish.
I think I just covered this. <sigh>
>I just find it a shame that an otherwise great e-mail client is
>stifled by such self centered and small minded thinkers. This seems
>to be the Pmail development philosophy....it's not about accommodating
>users and their needs, it's about psychological satisfaction for a few
>desperate control freaks...fair enough...so I have to go elsewhere for
>a client...it isn't exactly the end of my world.
What truly is a shame that you fail to recognized Pegasus for what it is, not for what *you* think
it should be. As a car fanatic I offer you this parallel. Porsche for years bucked the trend with
the 901 body/chassis (engine on top of rear wheels), to paraphrase "You can't make a racehorse out
of a pig, but you can make an awfully damn fast pig!" To this day it is considered one of the
world's outstanding automobiles. Pegasus is no different in it's field.
<stepping off soapbox>
PS. Apologies to Mr. Harris if he doesn't care for the analogy.
Andy
The Perpetual Novice Programmer
Fred Viles
news:qerq9vsflc3712frg...@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 21:28:21 GMT, Fred Viles
> <fv+a...@nospam.epitools.com> wrote:
>
>>rianna <ria...@stopthespammers.com> wrote in
>>news:di2o9vcgoa97oqa90...@4ax.com:
>>
>>>...
>>> I am fully aware of the "dangers" of displaying images in html
>>> documents. Having said this, I want to be able to set my
>>> e-mail client to display all images anyway.
>>
>>That's fine, but it means you will have to choose a different
>>email client.
>
> Well, I guess this proves the point on my last post. ...
I don't see how. I expressed no opinion about the feature you are
suggesting.
Others have pointed out that the current behavior is an intentional
decision by the program's author. It was made with full knowledge
that not everyone would agree with it.
You are one of those who disagree, and that's fine. There's no
harm in saying so, but it is pointless to keep *arguing* about it
with other users, not to mention insulting them when they don't see
it the same way you do.
- Fred
Stewbaby
wrote:
>Well, I guess this proves the point on my last post. I find it
>disappointing that some people here are so narrow minded and rigid in
>their thinking that they are only concerned with their own needs and
>opinions and their own small world thinking..."it has to be my way or
>you're out of luck." I have a 5 year old child that thinks like that,
>but most of us grew out of it shortly after that age. Perhaps your
>life is so lacking in any success that this is your way of feeling you
>have some power. But then, you are entitled to your opinion however
>childish.
You have an issue with the right-click mouse button??? Does the
simple, two-click operation required to achieve your needs (and
potentially cause you no end of trouble) tax you soooo much?
You speak of five year olds and childishness, but fail to see the "I
want it and I WANT IT NOW!!!" in your own posts. Your selfishness is
showing.
Most people who choose Pegasus Mail these days choose it for the
precise reasons that you are wishing to compromise... security and
privacy.
Fred V (who is a guru in his own right and a log-standing member of
the David Harris Support team - both Pmail and Mercury Support teams,
isn't it Fred?) was merely stating that Pegasus mail is NEVER likely
to suit your requirements in this case, as David Harris (the
developer, owner/operator and guru) has decided that these issues of
remote images and such-like are just too risky. If you find that a
problem, you are using the wrong product.
>I just find it a shame that an otherwise great e-mail client is
>stifled by such self centered and small minded thinkers. This seems
>to be the Pmail development philosophy....it's not about accommodating
>users and their needs, it's about psychological satisfaction for a few
>desperate control freaks...fair enough...so I have to go elsewhere for
>a client...it isn't exactly the end of my world.
The "Pmail philosophy" is one of adherence to accepted standards, and
supplying users with a tool that they can use without compromising
their safety and security.
I fail to see how giving you a free alternative to the "default
Windows Email Client" is the act of a control freak, but there you go.
I would suggest that if you decide to change, you should investigate
Mozilla (rather than the MS offerings) as the browser and email are
both far superior (in security and functionality) to that offered by
MS.
I wish you well,
Stewbaby
rianna
Hell is the impossibility of reason.
I think it applies here.
My point was about offering users ***OPTIONS*** not about debating the
pros and cons of displaying images in html messages. Yet no one seems
to have responded to that point. I said several times in my posts
that I know that some people want to NOT display images. And unlike
many others I even expressed ***RESPECT*** for others' opinions (if
they deserved it). As a matter of fact I think there ***SHOULD*** be
an OPTION so you can decide NOT to display images...I support that.
The point is that there is no reasonable reason NOT to offer a user an
***OPTION*** to do this if they choose to. Then everyone can do as
they please. Everyone seems to want to debate whether to show images
or not...I am not debating that. And as I pointed out earlier, there
are some needs for this option that do not pose a safety risk.
I don't think it is so strange to ask for an OPTION to set the
behavior of image rendering so that they automatically
display....jeez...it's not like I am asking for an option to turn
Pmail into an MP3 player. Automatic image display is default on every
other browser I have used. (please don't say "that doesn't make it
right" I already know that...that isn't the point).
Make the default no images...show a warning if someone changes
it...but all I did is suggest that I would like there to be an
***OPTION*** to just plain display the images. I have not seen any
reasonable statement as to why that should not be.
Frankly, even if it DID pose a safety risk for a given user, I think
it is absurd not to give the user the choice to assume that risk for
the benefit of convenience if they choose to do so. If the idea is to
force the user to conform to one person's idea of what is the best
choice for features like this, I think that is childishly
controlling. That's my opinion and I stand by it. What is wrong with
letting the USER make those decisions instead of controlling them like
a child.
This will be my last post here as I can see I am not welcome. I'm
sorry if I offended anyone as I only meant to ask for some features
that I thought would improve PMail. But I felt like they were met
with nothing but arrogance and small minded twittyness by some here.
So I think it best for me and everyone else that I move on. For all
others here. Thank you for the help you gave.
bye
rianna
Fred Viles
news:ik3u9vor22f5ou99u...@4ax.com:
>...
> My point was about offering users ***OPTIONS*** not about
> debating the pros and cons of displaying images in html
> messages.
I think everyone understands that. You wish there was an option
to have the mailer automatically fetch content from the web,
rather than having it be a manual operation on a per-message
basis. We get it, really.
However, the program's author has already considered rejected the
idea of such an option, for reasons that you obviously do not
agree with.
BTW, it may interest you to know that the 3.xx version had a
similar option - you could configure 3.xx to automatically open
HTML messages in your browser. The option was *removed* in 4.xx.
The program is evolving in a direction away from what you want.
>...
> I don't think it is so strange to ask for an OPTION to set the
> behavior of image rendering so that they automatically
> display.
Nobody said it was strange to ask. Some said they see no value in
it themselves, and others tried to explain the reasons such an
option is not (and will not be) provided. To the latter group you
responded with name calling.
Apparently, you cannot grant the possibility of rational arguments
against providing this option (or maybe *any* option). So you
believe that anyone who disagrees must be willfully ignoring your
points, putting them in the group who do not "deserve" to have
their opinions respected. Even people who expressed no opinion at
all apparently deserved to be called names for some reason.
This is not conducive to polite conversation. Re-reading the
thread, I notice that this got lost in all the noise:
> In addition, I have tried the right click method on images as
> explained above. It does not seem to work. No image appears
> even after waiting for a download
Since the "show pictures" option *does* work for most of us, there
is a mystery here. Have you installed the 4.01a patch? Perhaps
you could post an example of an HTML tag that is not being honored.
There may be something about the way the IMG SRC URL is written.
You mentioned that these are internal messages, so maybe they are
using file: URLs. That would not have been well-tested.
>...
- Fred
Bebop & Rocksteady
> Since the "show pictures" option *does* work for most of us, there
> is a mystery here. Have you installed the 4.01a patch? Perhaps
> you could post an example of an HTML tag that is not being honored.
> There may be something about the way the IMG SRC URL is written.
> You mentioned that these are internal messages, so maybe they are
> using file: URLs. That would not have been well-tested.
if its for internal messages only why not emmbed the image properly....
Fred Viles
news:Xns936185B187B...@203.96.92.12:
>...
> if its for internal messages only why not emmbed the image
> properly....
We don't know what clients the senders are using, how easy it is do
do generate "proper" MHTML with them, or what difficulties there may
be in getting all the senders in the organization to change their
behavior. Then there's the fact that doing it that way would mean a
potentially very large number of duplicate copies of the image files
being generated and stored on company servers, which is wastefull.
Here I've been struggling with the opposite problem, trying to get
users to send file: links instead of attaching copies of documents to
internal messages.
In short, there may be good reasons.
- Fred
Gary Fritz
> In short, there may be good reasons.
There may be. However in my opinion the whole issue is rather moot.
Pegasus' HTML-rendering capability is so crude that I don't trust it to
display complex HTML messages (anything beyond basic formatted text)
anyway. Even if you tell 4.11 to display pictures in the message, if you
then tell it to display the message in your browser, you will generally see
enormous differences in formatting, fonts, layout, etc. (Perfect example:
I just displayed a newsletter-type message in Pegasus and in a browser.
The newsletter had a "sidebar column" with links. The browser rendered it
very nicely and readably. Pegasus rendered the column with an
appropriate width, but only displayed 1 character per line instead of the
10-12 chars per line in the browser. Gack. OffByOne, a crude freebie
browser, did 10x better than Pegasus.) Plus Pegasus doesn't handle certain
characters (notably "&") in URLs correctly, while browsers do.
If you care about what the message actually looks like, you don't want
Pegasus to display it. I'm not entirely sure why Pegasus can't do what
Eudora and other clients can -- display HTML reasonably correctly -- but it
doesn't, so who cares whether it displays pictures or not?
Gary
Bebop & Rocksteady
> There may be. However in my opinion the whole issue is rather moot.
> Pegasus' HTML-rendering capability is so crude that I don't trust it
> to display complex HTML messages (anything beyond basic formatted
> text) anyway.
IMHO HTML should not be used in eMail in the first place.
Gary Fritz
> IMHO HTML should not be used in eMail in the first place.
That's nice. However your HO doesn't change the fact that it DOES get used
quite a bit.
Gary
Bebop & Rocksteady
>> IMHO HTML should not be used in eMail in the first place.
>
> That's nice. However your HO doesn't change the fact that it DOES get
> used quite a bit.
I will not risk the security of my network for anybody. Thats why I never
except HTML emails... and your email will be deleted at a server level...
simple, no skin off my nose.
Jack Palance
wrote:
>
>>> IMHO HTML should not be used in eMail in the first place.
>>
>> That's nice. However your HO doesn't change the fact that it DOES get
>> used quite a bit.
>
>I will not risk the security of my network for anybody. Thats why I never
>except HTML emails... and your email will be deleted at a server level...
>simple, no skin off my nose.
¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨
Oh, aren't we smart !
John Warner
>Pegasus to display it. I'm not entirely sure why Pegasus can't do what
>Eudora and other clients can -- display HTML reasonably correctly -- but it
>doesn't, so who cares whether it displays pictures or not?
Probably, the reason it does such a poor job on HTML is that there are
so many childish and closed minded individuals in this group when it
comes to the subject of HTML rendering. Every other e-mail client can
display HTML messages with pictures, but, for some reason, somebody
involved with Pegasus figures they know so much more about Internet
security and feels they have to prove it by making pictures
undisplayable. It's just absurd. Like we don't know the "dangers" of
showing pictures. Like we are too stupid to decide for ourselves.
One checkbox with an option to display pictures is all that is needed.
Then the user can decide for themself how they want to handle it. The
other clients don't try to impose their idea of HTML technosavvy on
the users; they just work. It's beyond moronic.
Gary Fritz
> One checkbox with an option to display pictures is all that is needed.
No, that's NOT all that's needed. Displaying pictures in badly mangled
HTML still results in a badly mangled message.
Gary
John Warner
>No, that's NOT all that's needed. Displaying pictures in badly mangled
>HTML still results in a badly mangled message.
That IS all that is needed to display pictures. And that is what I
was referring to. The rest of the rendering problems will still not
be fixed, but at least the damn messages can show pictures if the user
wants, like every other client already does.
The problem here is that some people think that they can rewrite
reality. Instead of supporting focusing PMAIL on meeting the needs of
the real world (the world in which you correctly stated that zillions
of users WANT to use, DO use and WILL CONTINUE to use HTML e-mail
messages) these people think that they can stop the world from using
HTML instead. "Close your eyes and the big bad HTML boogie man will
go away." (the same applies to the top posting issue BTW)
If PMAIL supports HTML, it needs to be able to accurately render an
HTML page right there in the message where you read it...pictures and
all...just like every other decent e-mail client...without any BS
about...it shows this part, but not that part, because that part is
scary. I'm a business user, I don't have time for the mumbo jumbo BS
story....just render the damn page. If it doesn't support HTML, then
drop HTML and stop misleading potential users. Half assed doesn't
work. If you want to have security OPTIONS, fine. But give me a way
to just show the whole e-mail please. Other people can do what they
want.
Magenta Sky
> The problem here is that some people think that they can rewrite
> reality. Instead of supporting focusing PMAIL on meeting the needs of
> the real world (the world in which you correctly stated that zillions
> of users WANT to use, DO use and WILL CONTINUE to use HTML e-mail
> messages) these people think that they can stop the world from using
> HTML instead. "Close your eyes and the big bad HTML boogie man will
> go away." (the same applies to the top posting issue BTW)
If you're not happy with Pegasus, maybe you should ask for your money back.
John Warner
<magen...@SAFe-mail.net> wrote:
>If you're not happy with Pegasus, maybe you should ask for your money back.
I'd rather try to help make PMAIL an even better e-mail client than it
already is. And I think it will be a better client if the
capabilities I am suggesting are adopted. Just because it's free
doesn't mean that I have no right to ask for what I view as
improvements. The people who actually make the development calls will
always decide for themselves if they agree, whether the software is
free or not. Everyone else is entitled to an opinion.
Bebop & Rocksteady
news:tuc7cvc74ug00hi48...@4ax.com:
Right Click message show pictures or open in browser whats the difference
Change email client then to OutLook Express or Eudora... simple
--
----------------------------------------
Quantum Illusions: http://quantum.co-inc.net
Pegasus Mail Support Site: http://pegasus252.tripod.com
Freeware Site: http://www.freeware.co-inc.com
If you truely want to contact me click the link
http://dale_forsyth.tripod.com/email.htm
John Warner
wrote:
>Right Click message show pictures or open in browser whats the difference
The answer is obvious, but I'll fill you in anyway since you still
don't seem to know. The difference is that that takes unnecessary
time, clicks and inconvenience (not to mention that it doesn't work on
all pictures). If there is a single picture in an e-mail this is a
waste of time. If there are 10 pictures in an e-mail this is
rediculous.
The solution is to show the ENTIRE HTML message including pictures
without clicking anything, just like every other good e-mail client.
All it takes is a single OPTION to give EVERYONE what they need>
Automatically display all pictures in HTML e-mails yes/no. That way
everybody can do it the way they want. I just can't understand why
anyone would be so opposed to making this OPTIONAL. No one is taking
anything away from anyone. You can still do it the way YOU want.
>Change email client then to OutLook Express or Eudora... simple
Glad you mentioned this, I wasn't aware I could do that. No thanks.
I like PMAIL and I want to stay here and make it better.