seperating plain text and html

[gwp...@gmail.com]

Hi,

I'm working on a newsletter that will be sent in HTML. There might be
people who only read in plain text on my mailing list, and rather than
use the "send in plain and rich text" option, which would strip the
HTML out of my newsletter, I would simply like it to say "This email
best viewed in HTML".

I know that there are some bulk emailer programs that will do this, but
I already use thunderbird and my mailing list isn't so big that I need
some kind of professional mailer app. Does anyone know of an extension
that will give thunderbird this flexibility (or is there some option
already there that I'm just missing)?

Thanks,

Wiley Page

[Leonidas Jones]

I think there is a misunderstanding here. The warning you will receive
is to send in "plain text and html", not"plain and rich text". Nothing
will get stripped, your newsletter will be sent exactly as you created
it. How it is viewed on the other end, of course, is up to the recipient.

The advantage of sending this mail in both formats is that the people
who prefer plain text, or, more importantly, those who cannot receive
html mail, will still be able to read the textual content, and be able
to click on any links you insert.

If you insert Best viewed in HTML somewhere at the top of the text
content, it will have the effect you desire, with the added bonus of
allowing plain text readers to continue in plain t4ext if they prefer.

Better yet, post the newsletter on the internet as a web page. Then
insert a link, something like "If you cannot view html content in your
mail reader, click here". That recipient can then choose to view the
content in a web browser.

Lee

--
Leonidas Jones, Mozilla/Netscape Champion
Learn about the Champs! http://mozillachampions.ufaq.org
The UFAQ'S http://www.ufaq.org/
http://www.mozilla.org/community/etiquette.html
http://mozilla.com http://mozilla.org

[David E. Ross]

Less than a year ago, Congress's Government Accountability Office
released a report stating that over half of the Internet connections in
the U.S. still involve dial-up. HTML messages require 3-5 times more
bytes than ASCII messages for the same textual content; thus, they take
3-5 times longer to download. They also occupy 3-5 times as much disc
space.

I strongly urge you to publish your newsletter as a Web page. Then, you
can send a very brief ASCII message to your subscribers with an
announcement that the newsletter has been updated and with a link to the
page.

--

David E. Ross
<http://www.rossde.com/>

Concerned about someone (e.g., Pres. Bush) snooping
into your E-mail? Use PGP.
See my <http://www.rossde.com/PGP/>

[Brian Heinrich]

On 2006-11-29 18:02 (-0700 UTC), David E. Ross wrote:

<snip />

> Less than a year ago, Congress's Government Accountability Office
> released a report stating that over half of the Internet connections in
> the U.S. still involve dial-up. HTML messages require 3-5 times more
> bytes than ASCII messages for the same textual content; thus, they take
> 3-5 times longer to download. They also occupy 3-5 times as much disc
> space.

I think we've all seen horribly bloated HTML e-mail -- several years ago,
someone posted about a Word HTML message that consisted of one word but was
8 kB in size -- but this strikes me as painting with an overly broad brush.

One of the reasons I like the Mozilla e-mail clients is that they don't
bloat their HTML.

Unless you happen to do a huge amount of formatting, a message sent from
Moz/SM/Tb as multipart/alternative will take up marginally twice the space
of one sent in plain text.

The only place where I've encountered 'bloat' in Moz/SM/Tb HTML mail is,
perhaps unsurprisingly, when interleaving a response.

That said, the advice to publish the newsletter as a Web page is good, since
it would allow for a better-designed newsletter than would be possible in an
e-mail client. He could even sent out his brief announcement as
multipart/alternative. :-P

/b.

<snip />

--
'There is caution, and there is irrational paranoia.' -- Ron Hunter

[gwp...@gmail.com]

I really didn't intend for this to turn into a debate over the merits
of HTML vs plain text. I personally have my own email client set to
display only text. But the marketing guys at my organization like to
be able to design what they send out in HTML. They specifically asked
me about the capability to send alternate versions of plain text and
HTML as I described in my original post. I know that most commercial
bulk email programs do have this capability, but since we're only going
to be sending to a few hundred people at a time and I have a very
limited budget, I was hoping there was an easy way to do it with
Thunderbird.

Thanks anyway,

Wiley Page

[Andrew DeFaria]

David E. Ross wrote:

Less than a year ago, Congress's Government Accountability Office released a report stating that over half of the Internet connections in the U.S. still involve dial-up.  HTML messages require 3-5 times more bytes than ASCII messages for the same textual content; thus, they take 3-5 times longer to download.  They also occupy 3-5 times as much disc space.

So let me get this straight. You're saying that instead of waiting 0.2 seconds to download it's gonna take 0.6 - 1.0 seconds?!? And instead of occupying 2k of my 50 gig disk it's gonna be like 6 -10k?!? My god alert the media!

-- 

Andrew DeFaria
There is one thing I would break up over and that is if she caught me with another woman. I wouldn't stand for that. - Steve Martin

[Andrew DeFaria]

gwp...@gmail.com wrote:

I really didn't intend for this to turn into a debate over the merits of HTML vs plain text. I personally have my own email client set to
display only text. But the marketing guys at my organization like to be able to design what they send out in HTML. They specifically asked me about the capability to send alternate versions of plain text and HTML as I described in my original post. I know that most commercial bulk email programs do have this capability, but since we're only going to be sending to a few hundred people at a time and I have a very limited budget, I was hoping there was an easy way to do it with Thunderbird.

This is what I don't understand. TB already does this. Compose your HTML email and send it. When prompted for HTML, Plain or both select both. What's the question here?

-- 

Andrew DeFaria
Right now I'm having vu ja de--deja vu and amnesia at the same time. I could have sworn I forgot this before!

[David E. Ross]

Andrew DeFaria wrote:
> David E. Ross wrote:
>> Less than a year ago, Congress's Government Accountability Office
>> released a report stating that over half of the Internet connections
>> in the U.S. still involve dial-up. HTML messages require 3-5 times
>> more bytes than ASCII messages for the same textual content; thus,
>> they take 3-5 times longer to download. They also occupy 3-5 times as
>> much disc space.
> So let me get this straight. You're saying that instead of waiting 0.2
> seconds to download it's gonna take 0.6 - 1.0 seconds?!? And instead of
> occupying 2k of my 50 gig disk it's gonna be like 6 -10k?!? My god alert
> the media!
>

Let's see --

I got a newsletter as HTML mail that was 50.5KB. At 56 Kbps though my
dial-up modem, that's 7.2 seconds, not "0.6 - 1.0 seconds". (Note that
"B" is bytes but "b" is bits.)

The newsletter had 16.4KB of text content, no images, and no serious
formatting. At 56 Kbps, the newsletter in ASCCI would have taken 2.3
seconds, less than one-third the time for the HTML content.

However, an ASCII message that merely says:
"The the 1 November 2006 issue of the Widget Newsletter is now available
at <http://www.widgetsRus.com/newsltr/1Nov06.html>."
would be less than 1.5KB with headers. At 56 Kbps, that would be 0.2
seconds, an order of magnitude less than either the HTML or the ASCII
newsletter. In the meantime, the recipient would then have the option
to download the newsletter (via a browser) when he or she is ready to
view it.

Note that my E-mail client is set not to download any message larger
than 50KB. This speeds the downloading of the shorter messages.