FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 08-13-2011, 09:08 PM
Jordon Bedwell
 
Default

On 08/13/2011 04:03 PM, Tero Pesonen wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-08-13 at 21:55 +0100, Colin Law wrote:
>> On 13 August 2011 21:38, Tero Pesonen <mail@tpesonen.net> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 2011-08-13 at 20:58 +0100, Colin Law wrote:
>>>> On 13 August 2011 20:34, Jacob Mansfield <cyberjacob@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> please do not post to the list in HTML. especially if you use size 30 font.
>>>>> Jacob Mansfield
>>>>
>>>> @Jacob, was not your post in html? Two small fonts admittedly.
>>>
>>> That message had both plaintext and HTML parts. So it allows the reader
>>> to display it in the preferred format. Most email clients should allow
>>> you to select which part to display if both are present. At least the
>>> client should allow you to display HTML messages as converted to
>>> plaintext.
>>
>> Since one of the objections to html is that it consumes bandwidth then
>> sending both could be considered worse than just html. Unfortunately
>> gmail does not (as far as I can see) allow me to display the text
>> version when both are supplied.
>
> Webmails are rather poor mail readers. (they don't really excel at
> anything for that matter). I suggest you access your Gmail through an
> IMAP client. GMail allows that.

That's rather general and can be considered an assumption not fact.

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 08-13-2011, 09:20 PM
Tero Pesonen
 
Default

On Sat, 2011-08-13 at 16:08 -0500, Jordon Bedwell wrote:
> On 08/13/2011 04:03 PM, Tero Pesonen wrote:
> > On Sat, 2011-08-13 at 21:55 +0100, Colin Law wrote:
> >> On 13 August 2011 21:38, Tero Pesonen <mail@tpesonen.net> wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 2011-08-13 at 20:58 +0100, Colin Law wrote:
> >>>> On 13 August 2011 20:34, Jacob Mansfield <cyberjacob@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> please do not post to the list in HTML. especially if you use size 30 font.
> >>>>> Jacob Mansfield
> >>>>
> >>>> @Jacob, was not your post in html? Two small fonts admittedly.
> >>>
> >>> That message had both plaintext and HTML parts. So it allows the reader
> >>> to display it in the preferred format. Most email clients should allow
> >>> you to select which part to display if both are present. At least the
> >>> client should allow you to display HTML messages as converted to
> >>> plaintext.
> >>
> >> Since one of the objections to html is that it consumes bandwidth then
> >> sending both could be considered worse than just html. Unfortunately
> >> gmail does not (as far as I can see) allow me to display the text
> >> version when both are supplied.
> >
> > Webmails are rather poor mail readers. (they don't really excel at
> > anything for that matter). I suggest you access your Gmail through an
> > IMAP client. GMail allows that.
>
> That's rather general and can be considered an assumption not fact.

So, could you suggest a webmail that is not bad?



--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 08-13-2011, 09:23 PM
Jordon Bedwell
 
Default

On 08/13/2011 03:57 PM, Tero Pesonen wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-08-13 at 15:41 -0500, Jordon Bedwell wrote:
>> On 08/13/2011 03:38 PM, Tero Pesonen wrote:
>>> On Sat, 2011-08-13 at 20:58 +0100, Colin Law wrote:
>>>> On 13 August 2011 20:34, Jacob Mansfield <cyberjacob@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> please do not post to the list in HTML. especially if you use size 30 font.
>>>>> Jacob Mansfield
>>>> @Jacob, was not your post in html? Two small fonts admittedly.
>>> That message had both plaintext and HTML parts. So it allows the reader
>>> to display it in the preferred format. Most email clients should allow
>>> you to select which part to display if both are present. At least the
>>> client should allow you to display HTML messages as converted to
>>> plaintext.
>> The irony is getting thicker.
> Not really. It is much better that the client of a user who insists on
> using fancy formatting on their email is also, even if silently, sending
> a plaintext version with so that I need not see the HTML one. And it is
> also good that, in case such plaintext part was not provided, my mail
> client can try and make it look as if it had been formatted in plain
> text (with varying levels of success), so that I can reply to it in a
> meaningly manner.

Yes really, you defended a multi-part message which is worse then plain
HTML because it takes up more space than either one alone, it's both
combined so it's an absolute waste. The entire justification of sending
plain text is bandwidth restrictions... Instead of just choosing the
lesser evil (in this case plain HTML) you defend just flat out being
evil by sending both in the same email, which just makes it pointless to
even argue for plain text when you ignore the justifications for it. I
think they call that blind defence. You don't know why you're fighting
for it but damn are you fighting for it!

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 08-13-2011, 09:37 PM
Tero Pesonen
 
Default

On Sat, 2011-08-13 at 16:23 -0500, Jordon Bedwell wrote:
> On 08/13/2011 03:57 PM, Tero Pesonen wrote:
> > On Sat, 2011-08-13 at 15:41 -0500, Jordon Bedwell wrote:
> >> On 08/13/2011 03:38 PM, Tero Pesonen wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 2011-08-13 at 20:58 +0100, Colin Law wrote:
> >>>> On 13 August 2011 20:34, Jacob Mansfield <cyberjacob@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> please do not post to the list in HTML. especially if you use size 30 font.
> >>>>> Jacob Mansfield
> >>>> @Jacob, was not your post in html? Two small fonts admittedly.
> >>> That message had both plaintext and HTML parts. So it allows the reader
> >>> to display it in the preferred format. Most email clients should allow
> >>> you to select which part to display if both are present. At least the
> >>> client should allow you to display HTML messages as converted to
> >>> plaintext.
> >> The irony is getting thicker.
> > Not really. It is much better that the client of a user who insists on
> > using fancy formatting on their email is also, even if silently, sending
> > a plaintext version with so that I need not see the HTML one. And it is
> > also good that, in case such plaintext part was not provided, my mail
> > client can try and make it look as if it had been formatted in plain
> > text (with varying levels of success), so that I can reply to it in a
> > meaningly manner.
>
> Yes really, you defended a multi-part message which is worse then plain
> HTML because it takes up more space than either one alone, it's both
> combined so it's an absolute waste. The entire justification of sending
> plain text is bandwidth restrictions... Instead of just choosing the
> lesser evil (in this case plain HTML) you defend just flat out being
> evil by sending both in the same email,

In my experience, the plaintext part renders more accurately in all mail
clients I have used tcompared to the HTML part reformatted. I don't know
why it is like that, but that's jsut how it has been. If bandwith is an
issue, just refuse to accept HTML mail. It is that simple.

This list does not do that, so bandwith is not considered an issue here.
I also can't do that outside this list, since my contacts send HTML and
don't care whether I want that or not. I am not in the position to
dictate the format when receiving from them. So I much appreciate that
their software also adds a plaintext part with which I can work better
than a reformatted HTML mail.

My motives regarding favouring multipart messages are purely practical.

> which just makes it pointless to
> even argue for plain text when you ignore the justifications for it. I
> think they call that blind defence. You don't know why you're fighting
> for it but damn are you fighting for it!




--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 08-13-2011, 10:05 PM
Tero Pesonen
 
Default

On Sun, 2011-08-14 at 00:37 +0300, Tero Pesonen wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-08-13 at 16:23 -0500, Jordon Bedwell wrote:
> > Yes really, you defended a multi-part message which is worse then plain
> > HTML because it takes up more space than either one alone, it's both
> > combined so it's an absolute waste. The entire justification of sending
> > plain text is bandwidth restrictions...

You should then consider requesting people here to trim their replies
more carefully by removing unnecessary quoted text and the list
signature, as well as by ridding their messages of long personal
signatures which some people now see fit to apply to all outgoing list
mail. That would save quite a bit of bandwith and disk space at your
end.

Tero


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 08-13-2011, 10:11 PM
Jordon Bedwell
 
Default

On 08/13/2011 05:05 PM, Tero Pesonen wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-08-14 at 00:37 +0300, Tero Pesonen wrote:
>> On Sat, 2011-08-13 at 16:23 -0500, Jordon Bedwell wrote:
>>> Yes really, you defended a multi-part message which is worse then plain
>>> HTML because it takes up more space than either one alone, it's both
>>> combined so it's an absolute waste. The entire justification of sending
>>> plain text is bandwidth restrictions...
>
> You should then consider requesting people here to trim their replies
> more carefully by removing unnecessary quoted text and the list
> signature, as well as by ridding their messages of long personal
> signatures which some people now see fit to apply to all outgoing list
> mail. That would save quite a bit of bandwith and disk space at your
> end.

Who said anything about me specifically?

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 08-13-2011, 10:22 PM
Tero Pesonen
 
Default

On Sat, 2011-08-13 at 17:11 -0500, Jordon Bedwell wrote:
> On 08/13/2011 05:05 PM, Tero Pesonen wrote:
> > On Sun, 2011-08-14 at 00:37 +0300, Tero Pesonen wrote:
> >> On Sat, 2011-08-13 at 16:23 -0500, Jordon Bedwell wrote:
> >>> Yes really, you defended a multi-part message which is worse then plain
> >>> HTML because it takes up more space than either one alone, it's both
> >>> combined so it's an absolute waste. The entire justification of sending
> >>> plain text is bandwidth restrictions...
> >
> > You should then consider requesting people here to trim their replies
> > more carefully by removing unnecessary quoted text and the list
> > signature, as well as by ridding their messages of long personal
> > signatures which some people now see fit to apply to all outgoing list
> > mail. That would save quite a bit of bandwith and disk space at your
> > end.
>
> Who said anything about me specifically?

You said saving bandwith was the entire justification for plain text; it
is not the justification for me, as my earlier reply explained. Nor is
to other users whom I know to prefer plaintext. So in case yours was
meant to be a universal statement, let me opine that that no, bandwith
restrictions are not the only justified reason to send plaintext.

Tero Pesonen



--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 08-13-2011, 10:37 PM
Jordon Bedwell
 
Default

On 08/13/2011 05:22 PM, Tero Pesonen wrote:
> You said saving bandwith was the entire justification for plain text; it
> is not the justification for me, as my earlier reply explained. Nor is
> to other users whom I know to prefer plaintext. So in case yours was
> meant to be a universal statement, let me opine that that no, bandwith
> restrictions are not the only justified reason to send plaintext.

I can't tell if this is the straw man playing with fire or if this is
just plain trolling either way, just because I state it's the
justification means it's obviously about /only me/?

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 08-13-2011, 11:51 PM
Ric Moore
 
Default

On Sat, 2011-08-13 at 17:37 -0500, Jordon Bedwell wrote:
> On 08/13/2011 05:22 PM, Tero Pesonen wrote:
> > You said saving bandwith was the entire justification for plain text; it
> > is not the justification for me, as my earlier reply explained. Nor is
> > to other users whom I know to prefer plaintext. So in case yours was
> > meant to be a universal statement, let me opine that that no, bandwith
> > restrictions are not the only justified reason to send plaintext.
>
> I can't tell if this is the straw man playing with fire or if this is
> just plain trolling either way, just because I state it's the
> justification means it's obviously about /only me/?

Heh, you can't win, Jordon, when the subject line of this thread started
off empty. <chuckles> Tero, since Unix has been around since the dawn of
time, old geeks are used to using plain text and for eons bandwidth has
been a consideration. So, as this list notes on the sign-up page, plain
text is what is used here. So is bottom posting (or middle post) and
trim. So, it is what it is, the list preference. No pink unicorns with
sparklies allowed. Plus, a person can readily print out the summation
(FIXED!) of the back and forth email exchange to a resolution in a case,
for reference. On just about any printer, including a Teletype 33 or a
Qume.

Now you know, sin no more, you are absolved. And welcome to the list.

Ric


--
My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say:
"There are two Great Sins in the world...
..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity.
Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad.
Linux user# 44256


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 08-14-2011, 02:51 AM
Doug
 
Default

On 08/13/2011 07:51 PM, Ric Moore wrote:
/snip/

Heh, you can't win, Jordon, when the subject line of this thread started
off empty.<chuckles> Tero, since Unix has been around since the dawn of
time, old geeks are used to using plain text and for eons bandwidth has
been a consideration. So, as this list notes on the sign-up page, plain
text is what is used here. So is bottom posting (or middle post) and
trim. So, it is what it is, the list preference. No pink unicorns with
sparklies allowed. Plus, a person can readily print out the summation
(FIXED!) of the back and forth email exchange to a resolution in a case,
for reference. On just about any printer, including a Teletype 33 or a
Qume.

Now you know, sin no more, you are absolved. And welcome to the list.

Ric



You say that a person can readily print out a summation of the the email
exchange to a resolution of the problem. I am not aware of how this is
done,
and whether it is done for all of the Linux lists, or just for Ubuntu,
or what?

Please elaborate.
Thanx--doug

--
Blessed are the peacemakers...for they shall be shot at from both sides. --A. M. Greeley


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 07:16 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org