HTML in emails. Possibly O-T
Ian Jones
with links underlines and in blue, and so on.
Can anyone point me to a resource that explains how Turnpike recognises
that an incoming email should be displayed in this way? As a test, I
have tried to create this type of email and send them to myself. So far,
Turnpike displays them in plain text, including all the HTML tags like
<HTML>, <HEAD> etc.
--
Ian Jones to reply by email, please change "nospam" to "ian"
Jack Howard
In the Greater Oracle, <j0l9LDAM...@bathplug.demon.co.uk>,
Ian Jones <nos...@bathplug.demon.co.uk> doth scribe:
> Sometimes when I receive emails, Turnpike displays them like a web page,
> with links underlines and in blue, and so on.
>
> Can anyone point me to a resource that explains how Turnpike recognises
> that an incoming email should be displayed in this way? As a test, I
> have tried to create this type of email and send them to myself. So far,
> Turnpike displays them in plain text, including all the HTML tags like
> <HTML>, <HEAD> etc.
I don't know any URLs off-hand, but I do know this is done via the
MIME header information, rather than looking at the message body
itself.
HTML e-mail is a major curse nowadays, mainly due to dubbious clients
like Outhouse Express having it set as the default format (which is
AFAIK totally in breach of the RFCs, etc).
At best it results in two copies of the same thing being sent, at worst
some clueless newbie decides to use it to send e-mail with a nice pretty
"background graphic" - which results in a ten line message being 25k in
size. ARRGGHHH!!!!
:-)
Turnpike does not have any facility for sending HTML e-mail, though
it does know how to read them. I don't know which group would be the
best place to discuss it, though, unless it was one of the net.abuse
ones.
Hope this helps!
--
- Jack Howard
John Sullivan
<root@[127.0.0.1]>
>Turnpike does not have any facility for sending HTML e-mail, though
>it does know how to read them. I don't know which group would be the
>best place to discuss it, though, unless it was one of the net.abuse
>ones.
How can you switch it off, i.e. just display messages in plain text
only?
--
John Sullivan
-------------
Die dulci fruimini, o vos omnes!
remove the dots from the first three (Welsh) words for my real address
Paul Terry
>Sometimes when I receive emails, Turnpike displays them like a web page,
>with links underlines and in blue, and so on.
>
>Can anyone point me to a resource that explains how Turnpike recognises
>that an incoming email should be displayed in this way?
Turnpike sees that the message has a "Content-Type: text/html;" header.
In practice, the message will include a plain text alternative (hence
the annoyance that Jack mentions, of getting two copies of the same
words), so the main header will be
"Content-Type: multipart/alternative;"
and this will define a boundary marker that is used to separate the
text/html and text/plain parts.
>As a test, I
>have tried to create this type of email and send them to myself. So far,
>Turnpike displays them in plain text, including all the HTML tags like
><HTML>, <HEAD> etc.
You need to add the correct header line. The MIME RFCs will tell you
more - or just take an incoming HTML message and then get Turnpike to
display Raw Text (and to display the Header) to see how it is
constructed.
--
Paul Terry
Ian Jones
writes
>
>I don't know any URLs off-hand, but I do know this is done via the
>MIME header information, rather than looking at the message body
>itself.
>
massive graphics to anyone! I am just trying to provide clickable URLs
in the mail message in a "nicer" way, by use of HTML links. Our web site
runs on Domino, and Domino URLs look 'orrible - they often contain
32-digit hex numbers. It looks better if we can substitute some text for
the user to click on, instead of the URL itself.
I will get in touch with Lotus to find out whether I can control what
goes into the mail headers when the mails are sent.
All the best,
John Woodgate
<nos...@bathplug.demon.co.uk> inimitably wrote:
>I am just trying to provide clickable URLs
>in the mail message in a "nicer" way, by use of HTML links. Our web site
>runs on Domino, and Domino URLs look 'orrible - they often contain
>32-digit hex numbers. It looks better if we can substitute some text for
>the user to click on, instead of the URL itself.
In another newsgroup, someone said that that practice can get you into
ISP trouble, because it is used by porn merchants. I have no more
details, but I suggest you check with your ISP about it.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
Phone +44 (0)1268 747839 Fax +44 (0)1268 777124.
http://www/jmwa.demon.co.uk Did you hear about
the hungry genetic engineer who made a pig of himself?
PLEASE DO ****NOT**** MAIL COPIES OF NEWSGROUP POSTS TO ME!!!!
Philip Kendall
<jo...@y.ddraig.goch.demon.co.uk> writes
[Display of HTML]
>How can you switch it off, i.e. just display messages in plain text
>only?
Most HTML messages are sent as *both* HTML and plain text (so they take
up at least twice as much bandwidth...). In this case, TP will display a
bar at the top of the message which looks something like:
<sheets of paper icon> [Plain text] [HTML text]
Press the 'Plain text' button to see the plain text version :-) (TP
displays the HTML version by default as RFC requirement is to display
the *last* alternative you are capable of, IIRC).
If there isn't a plain text alternative, Options | Display 'raw' text
will let you see what's going on, but it might not be very readable (the
HTML produced by most mailers is absolutely awful, and it's also quoted-
printable encoded...).
HTH
Phil
--
Philip Kendall (pa...@cam.ac.uk pa...@kendalls.demon.co.uk)
Andy Mabbett
writes
In news, doubly so.
http://www.usenet.org.uk/ukpost.html
Which describes how to turn off the default settings for news (similar
for e-mail?) may be of interest.
--
Andy Mabbett
"If they censure you, they tell you to cut it out.
If they censor you, they just cut it out."
Roger Oakley
this newsgroup. So what if the message size is larger than that of plain
text? Does it really matter - except perhaps to Demon? and how much
longer does it actually take to download? For one who regularly receives
newsletters and other email in HTML, can't say I've seen a great deal of
difference.
Personally I quite enjoy fooling around with wallpaper and fonts etc and
find such mail coming to me to be interesting and fun too. Is it really
necessary to confine email to boring old plain text? I think not.
In article <30xlsyDe...@pigsonthewing.demon.co.uk>, Andy Mabbett
<an...@pigsonthewing.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <cAbB3.6238$C7.141794@wards>, Jack Howard <root@[127.0.0.1]>
>writes
>>HTML e-mail is a major curse nowadays
>
>In news, doubly so.
>
> http://www.usenet.org.uk/ukpost.html
>
>Which describes how to turn off the default settings for news (similar
>for e-mail?) may be of interest.
--
Roger Oakley
Paul Terry
>One has to wonder why there is so much "anti" towards HTML messages in
>this newsgroup.
I have seen similar responses in many newsgroups (and mailing lists) but
not so often from Americans (and others who get free local calls to
their ISP). Conclusions can doubt be drawn from this.
>So what if the message size is larger than that of plain
>text? Does it really matter
It matters to my phone bill and to (a lesser extent) to the amount of
disk space I want to devote to storing news in duplicate.
>longer does it actually take to download?
Around 2.5 times the time it takes for plain text: quite expensive if
your day-time collections just fit into BT's minimum charge period.
>Personally I quite enjoy fooling around with wallpaper and fonts etc
And there, I think, you have hit the nail very precisely on the head :(
--
Paul Terry
Jack Howard
Roger Oakley <R.M.O...@nocannedham.demon.co.uk> doth scribe:
> One has to wonder why there is so much "anti" towards HTML messages in
> text? Does it really matter - except perhaps to Demon? and how much
> longer does it actually take to download? For one who regularly receives
> newsletters and other email in HTML, can't say I've seen a great deal of
> difference.
>
> Personally I quite enjoy fooling around with wallpaper and fonts etc and
> find such mail coming to me to be interesting and fun too. Is it really
> necessary to confine email to boring old plain text? I think not.
I can assure you, sending an HTML e-mail to my personal account with an
embedded 25k graphic "wallpaper" will result in a "don't do that again!"
message from me, any further messages in the same format will be forwarded
to your ISP's abuse department. I do _not_ appreciate other people
deciding at random that they want to increase my phone bill for no
good reason.
I've also noticed that in general, the more time someone spends messing
about with fonts, colours, background graphics, etc, the less thought
goes into the actual message itself. I know this is not true of everyone,
my partner spends a _lot_ of time laying out personal documents, web
pages, etc, that way - but she doesn't send them via e-mail. She also
spends about half a day on each one.
--
- Jack Howard
d
, Paul Terry <pa...@musonix.demon.co.uk> writes
>>this newsgroup.
>
>not so often from Americans (and others who get free local calls to
>their ISP). Conclusions can doubt be drawn from this.
>
>>text? Does it really matter
Having (by recommendation) just joined a newsgroup whose main
constituency is in the US, I have been horrified at how long news is now
taking to download. Not only are many folks posting with html tags but
they're also then taking the opportunity to post 3-4K .gifs as
signatures! - sometimes several of them at a time!!! It's a shame
there's no way of not downloading these files other than by 'kill'ing
excessively sized posts.
Also, because of an apparent bug in OE5 (surprise) a proportion of html-
tagged articles are getting posted in MIME which treats me to such
enlightenment as (for example) "яю & &&& & &&&&&&&&&&&& & & "
TGF TP's ability to display plain/raw text!!!
PS, Since writing this I've opened an article containing a 49K (encoded
size 65K) .jpg as a .sig!!! NB, the ng is not a binaries group but folks
seem to be unaware of what they are posting - I attribute this maddening
behaviour to the use of html. :(
--
dave d
Achilles Heel Magazine : http://www.stejonda.demon.co.uk/achilles/
Working with Men : http://www.stejonda.demon.co.uk/wwm/
Dr John Stockton
1999 20:29:11 in news:demon.ip.support.turnpike, Roger Oakley <R.M.Oakle
y...@nocannedham.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>One has to wonder why there is so much "anti" towards HTML messages in
>text? Does it really matter - except perhaps to Demon? and how much
>longer does it actually take to download? For one who regularly receives
>newsletters and other email in HTML, can't say I've seen a great deal of
>difference.
Other things apart, it is a useful indication of the author of an
article being under-endowed with gaum.
Another sign, for instance, is using a header From (or Reply-To) line
which breaches RFCs, convention, or an applicable AUP.
--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web <URL: http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Correct 4-line sig. separator is as above, a line precisely "-- " (SoRFC1036)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with ">" or "> " (SoRFC1036)
Andy
<pos...@stejonda.demon.co.uk> writes
[]
>Also, because of an apparent bug in OE5 (surprise) a proportion of html-
>tagged articles are getting posted in MIME which treats me to such
>enlightenment as (for example) "яю & &&& & &&&&&&&&&&&& & & "
Ah, you are intended to whistle it - it's morse code.
--
Andy
For Austria & its philately, Lupus, & much else visit
<URL:http://www.kitzbuhel.demon.co.uk/>
Andy
<R.M.O...@nocannedham.demon.co.uk> writes
>One has to wonder why there is so much "anti" towards HTML messages in
>this newsgroup. So what if the message size is larger than that of plain
>text? Does it really matter - except perhaps to Demon? and how much
>longer does it actually take to download? For one who regularly receives
>newsletters and other email in HTML, can't say I've seen a great deal of
>difference.
Since I currently use an underpowered box, I resent having to fire up
IE3 to read a message, which slows everything down dreadfully.
Since I pay for my own calls, I resent superfluous bytes.
>
>Personally I quite enjoy fooling around with wallpaper and fonts etc and
>find such mail coming to me to be interesting and fun too. Is it really
>necessary to confine email to boring old plain text? I think not.
Personally I don't; I prefer factual content. If I *want* graphical
elegance I seek it elsewhere.
[]
Rosalind Walter
<pa...@musonix.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <j0l9LDAM...@bathplug.demon.co.uk> Ian Jones wrote:
>
>>Sometimes when I receive emails, Turnpike displays them like a web page,
>>with links underlines and in blue, and so on.
>>
>>have tried to create this type of email and send them to myself. So far,
>>Turnpike displays them in plain text, including all the HTML tags like
>><HTML>, <HEAD> etc.
>
>You need to add the correct header line. The MIME RFCs will tell you
>more - or just take an incoming HTML message and then get Turnpike to
>display Raw Text (and to display the Header) to see how it is
>constructed.
>
satisfying). I am certainly not going to take the trouble to use IE? !
I expect a load of spam from that type of message.
--
Rosalind Walter
John Underwood
in demon.ip.support.turnpike:
(Reference: <iPGfkIAP$m33...@kitzbuhel.demon.co.uk>)
I propose a solution which might make itself clear to the original
author. I intend to buy a twenty ton block of stone, employ a mason to
carve my explanation of why I do not want to receive html messages in
usenet - or e-mail for that matter - and have it delivered by some means
which requires the recipient to pay. In any case, instruct the delivery
agents to leave it on his doorstep. I could of course write an e-mail,
or send a letter on paper, but I prefer this method and see no reason
why he should object to my choice of preferred method, even if he does
have to pay for its receipt.
--
John Underwood
Andy
<jo...@jsunderwood.demon.co.uk> writes
[[]]
>I propose a solution which might make itself clear to the original
>author. I intend to buy a twenty ton block of stone, employ a mason to
>carve my explanation of why I do not want to receive html messages in
>usenet - or e-mail for that matter - and have it delivered by some means
>which requires the recipient to pay. In any case, instruct the delivery
>agents to leave it on his doorstep. I could of course write an e-mail,
>or send a letter on paper, but I prefer this method and see no reason
>why he should object to my choice of preferred method, even if he does
>have to pay for its receipt.
If you were to send dinosaur dung, you could save the cost of the
carving.
John Woodgate
<jo...@jsunderwood.demon.co.uk> inimitably wrote:
>I intend to buy a twenty ton block of stone, employ a mason to
>carve my explanation of why I do not want to receive html messages in
>usenet - or e-mail for that matter - and have it delivered by some means
>which requires the recipient to pay.
You could, more conveniently, carve it on a very old cod, and send it
COD.
John Woodgate
<an...@kitzbuhel.demon.co.uk> inimitably wrote:
>If you were to send dinosaur dung, you could save the cost of the
>carving.
do?
Andrew Wilkes
<jo...@jsunderwood.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>I propose a solution which might make itself clear to the original
>carve my explanation of why I do not want to receive html messages in
>usenet - or e-mail for that matter - and have it delivered by some means
>agents to leave it on his doorstep. I could of course write an e-mail,
>or send a letter on paper, but I prefer this method and see no reason
>why he should object to my choice of preferred method, even if he does
>have to pay for its receipt.
But that's not fair. You should at least put a paper copy underneath
the block - so if they want to see the "sensible" version they can get a
crane to move the block and get at the paper version.
--
regards andyw