Re: How to stop the formatting of plain-text messages

[Richard Alan]

Fred wrote:

> I use plain text emails in instances where I specifically do not want
> any formatting whatsoever.
>
> I've run into text being italized, bolded and the font color being
> changed.

Don't use plain-text-formatting characters.

This is /italic/, this is *bold*, this is _underlined_. And the light grey
color *at the end of a message* will be after a sig delimiter, by design.

As to the speed, I doubt that these textual formatting has anything
whatsoever to do with slow speed. I'd look instead for HTML parts and
included or embedded images.

--
Following a "sig delimter", which is two hyphens and a space.
This text should be _grey_. It's a signature.

[Wolf K.]

On 2016-01-17 12:08, Richard Alan wrote:
> How can I disable all formatting (italics, bold, color) of plain text messages?
>
> thx.

You can't, see Richard Alan's post.

You can turn off formatting in HTML, though.

For incoming:
Menu tool bar > View > Message body as > Plain text.

But HTML messages will be displayed twice, first as plain text, then as
HTML code. Images and other binaries may not be displayed at all, or as
blocks of miscellaneous characters (seems to depend on how the binaries
are attached by the sending program).

For outgoing:
Menu tool bar > Tools > Account Settings > Composition and Addressing >
uncheck Compose in HTML format

Also check out Global Composing Preferences.

And avoid plain-text formatting characters, as described by Richard Alan.

Be prepared for surprises.

Have a good day,

--
Best,
Wolf K.
kirkwood40.blogspot.ca

[»Q«]

In
<news:mailman.1064.1453049864....@lists.mozilla.org>,

Fred <not-...@no-spam-please.com> wrote:

> I use plain text emails in instances where I specifically do not want
> any formatting whatsoever.
>
> I've run into text being italized, bolded

That's the result of Thunderbird by default interpreting pseudo-markup
in plain text: asterisks for *bold*, slashes for /italics/,
underscores for _underlining_. You can disable Thunderbird's
interpretation by setting mail.display_struct to 'false'.

> and the font color being changed.
>

> The latter has been most annoying lately. For some reason, the ending
> parts of messages are being displayed in a light grey font foreground
> color, while the beginning of the message is the usual black
> foreground color.

That sounds like Thunderbird's default display for signatures. It's
possible to change it to the same colors you use for the bodies of
messages -- see <http://kb.mozillazine.org/Signature_display_color>.

[Gian Maria Calzolari]

On 17/01/2016 19:42, »Q« wrote:

In <news:mailman.1064.1453049864....@lists.mozilla.org>, Fred <not-...@no-spam-please.com> wrote:

I use plain text emails in instances where I specifically do not want
any formatting whatsoever.

I've run into text being italized, bolded 

That's the result of Thunderbird by default interpreting pseudo-markup
in plain text:  asterisks for *bold*, slashes for /italics/,
underscores for _underlining_.  You can disable Thunderbird's
interpretation by setting mail.display_struct to 'false'.  

Give a look to https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/thunderbird/addon/quote-colors/ You have to modify the xpi to run on current version but it works and has a GUI for those options!

[»Q«]

In
<news:mailman.1103.1453129916....@lists.mozilla.org>,
Fred <not-...@no-spam-please.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 11:42:32 -0600, »Q« <box...@gmx.net> wrote:

> >That sounds like Thunderbird's default display for signatures. It's
> >possible to change it to the same colors you use for the bodies of
> >messages -- see
> ><http://kb.mozillazine.org/Signature_display_color>.
>

> Thanks, I'll give that a try. But even if I make the signatures the
> same color, Thunderbird would still be [slowly] scanning for the
> start of signatures, correct?

I don't know of any way to prevent it from looking for signature
delimiters, but I don't think that should be the cause of any noticeable
slowness. The only other thing I know of to stop some of Thunderbird's
processing for display of plain text mails is to set
mail.quoted_graphical to 'false' -- that will make Thunderbird show the
'>' quote indicators present in the mail itself instead of turning
them into colored bars. I don't think that will have much impact on
speed either, though, and I'm sorry I don't know how to help with that.

[Richard Alan]

Fred wrote:

> Richard Alan <ra...@nospam.org> wrote:
>>Fred wrote:
>>> I use plain text emails in instances where I specifically do not want
>>> any formatting whatsoever.
>>>
>>> I've run into text being italized, bolded and the font color being
>>> changed.
>>
>>Don't use plain-text-formatting characters.
>

> If only it were that easy.
>
> The plain-text messages are generated by computers, and pathnames seem
> to trigger italics, etc.

Yes, pathnames and URLs contain slashes, which are used for italics. Any
pair of the formatting characters on the same line will produce the
"format."

>>As to the speed, I doubt that these textual formatting has anything
>>whatsoever to do with slow speed. I'd look instead for HTML parts and
>>included or embedded images.
>

> There is none of HTML parts or embedded images. The messages are plain
> text. No multi-part MIME or anything else. Just plain ASCII text.

Since you are complaining about "speed", let me say that these ASCII
formatting characters and the processing aren't going to affect speed of
display at all.

You said to »Q«, "Thanks, I'll give that a try. But even if I make the

signatures the same color, Thunderbird would still be [slowly] scanning

for the start of signatures, correct?" The answer is yes, but the time
necessary is probably measured in picoseconds. "[slowly]" does not apply.

I think you are looking for a solution to the wrong problem.

What is the *overall size* of your mailfile?

[»Q«]

In
<news:mailman.1108.1453133030....@lists.mozilla.org>,
Fred <not-...@no-spam-please.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 10:11:21 -0500, Fred <not-...@no-spam-please.com>

> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 11:42:32 -0600, »Q« <box...@gmx.net> wrote:

> >>That sounds like Thunderbird's default display for signatures. It's
> >>possible to change it to the same colors you use for the bodies of
> >>messages -- see
> >><http://kb.mozillazine.org/Signature_display_color>.

> OK, I created a chrome directory in the Profiles directory. In the
> chrome directory, I create a file: userChrome.css
^^^^^^
> I'm still seeing light grey signatures. Did I create the file
> incorrectly?

You should create userContent.css for this, not userChrome.css

Also, userContent.css shouldn't have the xul namespace. It's been so
long I can't remember whether userContent.css needs the namespace
specified; if it doesn't work without that, try

@namespace url(http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml);

[WaltS48]

On 01/18/2016 11:03 AM, Fred wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 10:11:21 -0500, Fred <not-...@no-spam-please.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 11:42:32 -0600, »Q« <box...@gmx.net> wrote:
>>

>> Thanks, I'll give that a try. But even if I make the signatures the same
>> color, Thunderbird would still be [slowly] scanning for the start of
>> signatures, correct?
>

> OK, I created a chrome directory in the Profiles directory. In the chrome
> directory, I create a file: userChrome.css
>

> The contents of that file are:
>
> /*
> * Edit this file and copy it as userChrome.css into your
> * profile-directory/chrome/
> */
>
> /*
> * This file can be used to customize the look of Mozilla's user interface
> * You should consider using !important on rules which you want to
> * override default settings.
> */
>
> /*
> * Do not remove the @namespace line -- it's required for correct
> functioning
> */
> @namespace
> url("http://www.mozilla.org/keymaster/gatekeeper/there.is.only.xul"); /*
> set default namespace to XUL */
>
>
>
> /*
> * Change display color of text and links in signature
> */
> ..moz-txt-sig, .moz-signature {
> color: black !important;
> }
> ..moz-txt-sig > a, .moz-signature > a {
> color: blue !important;
> }
>
>
>
>
>
> Note that none of the lines wraps in the file.
>
> I closed Thunderbird and then restarted it.

>
> I'm still seeing light grey signatures. Did I create the file incorrectly?
>

> thx

UserContent.css - MozillaZine Knowledge Base -
<http://kb.mozillazine.org/UserContent.css>

--
Linux Mint 17.3 "Rosa" | KDE 4.14.2 | Thunderbird 45.0a2 (Earlybird)
Go Bucs! Go Pens! Go Sabres! Go Pitt! Go Steelers!
[Visit Pittsburgh]<http://www.visitpittsburgh.com/>
[Coexist · Understanding Across Divides]<https://www.coexist.org/>

[Richard Alan]

Fred wrote:

> Richard Alan <ra...@nospam.org> wrote:

> [snip]

>>I think you are looking for a solution to the wrong problem.
>>
>>What is the *overall size* of your mailfile?
>
>>I think you are looking for a solution to the wrong problem.
>

> The main solution I am looking for is unformatted, readable email.

Strange, the ascii formatting has never made me think the mail was any
less readable. Maybe it's a "learned" thing.

> Hence my desire to get rid of the light grey.

The signature, following "-- ". Didn't someone in this thread advise you
how to change the color of the signature?

> The speed aspect was more of a by-product thing.
>
> To your question, though. None of the files in the email directory is
> larger than 1 MB, except the trash file which is 10MB. A large trash
> file should not effect the loading of a message to read, correct?

Okay, that's good and certainly won't affect speed.

--
Signature goes here. Signatures are not part of the message and are meant
to be ignored, so grey is fine.

[»Q«]

In
<news:mailman.1148.1453140389....@lists.mozilla.org>,
Fred <not-...@no-spam-please.com> wrote:

> I changed the name, and tried again (after closing and re-opening
> Thunderbird).
>
> Still no joy. The signature and below remains light grey, with and
> without the above namespace line.
> Here's the userContent.css file:
>
>
> @namespace url(http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml);

> /*
> * Change display color of text and links in signature
> */
> ..moz-txt-sig, .moz-signature {
> color: black !important;
> }
> ..moz-txt-sig > a, .moz-signature > a {
> color: blue !important;
> }

> I saw some things about opacity in google. Is that thing now with
> signatures?

I think so. There's a bit of CSS at the mozillazine page I linked
above that's supposed to handle it.

The userContent.css you posted has superfluous dots, but I think that's
the result of a Thunderbird posting bug, not something that's actually
in your file. Just in case, make sure it has ".moz-txt-sig", not
"..moz-txt-sig".

[WaltS48]

On 01/18/2016 04:11 PM, Fred wrote:

On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 12:46:01 -0500, WaltS48 <thali...@REMOVEaim.com>
wrote:

); /*
set default namespace to XUL */



/*
  * Change display color of text and links in signature
  */
...moz-txt-sig, .moz-signature {
   color: black !important;
}
...moz-txt-sig > a, .moz-signature > a {
   color: blue !important;
}





Note that none of the lines wraps in the file.

I closed Thunderbird and then restarted it.

I'm still seeing light grey signatures.  Did I create the file incorrectly?

thx

UserContent.css - MozillaZine Knowledge Base - 
<http://kb.mozillazine.org/UserContent.css>

thx for the reference.

Or you could just ask all your correspondents to use HTML for the signature. :)

--
Linux Mint 17.3 "Rosa" | KDE 4.14.2 | Thunderbird 44.0b1 (Beta) Go Bucs! Go Pens! Go Sabres! Go Pitt! [Visit Pittsburgh] [Coexist · Understanding Across Divides]

[Richard Alan]

Fred wrote:

> btw, the problem is not the signature itself, but when there's a random
> "--" at the beginning of a line in a message, or when someone does
> something like copy the dmesg below the signature so as not to clutter
> up the message body with it. The dmesg would then appear in the light
> grey font.

--A random pair of dashes at the beginning of a line will not turn the
content into a signature *unless* it is _only_ followed by a space and a
newline.

-- This is not a signature.

--
This is a signature.

[»Q«]

In
<news:mailman.1226.1453210498....@lists.mozilla.org>,
Fred <not-...@no-spam-please.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 14:02:40 -0600, »Q« <box...@gmx.net> wrote:

> >> >> >> see
> >> >> >> <http://kb.mozillazine.org/Signature_display_color>.

> >> I saw some things about opacity in google. Is that thing now with
> >> signatures?
> >
> > I think so. There's a bit of CSS at the mozillazine page I linked
> > above that's supposed to handle it.

> So it is beginning to look like an opacity issue that needs to be
> solved.

I still think you're right and I still think what you need is on that
page.