Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   Firefox (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f20-firefox.html)
-   -   HTLM or Text messages (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t8949-htlm-or-text-messages.html)

William W. Plummer 07-09-2004 01:34 PM

HTLM or Text messages
 
I frequently get a message asking about what format I want to send in.
I think I'm happy with "HTML or text" based on what the receiver
wants. Is there a way to say this will always be my answer to the
question? Where do you set defaults? Thanks.

Count 07-09-2004 01:41 PM

Re: HTLM or Text messages
 
On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 13:34:41 GMT, "William W. Plummer"
<William.Plummer@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

>I frequently get a message asking about what format I want to send in.
> I think I'm happy with "HTML or text" based on what the receiver
>wants. Is there a way to say this will always be my answer to the
>question? Where do you set defaults? Thanks.


Edit/Preferences/Mail&Newsgroups/Send Format ...

This gives you 4 choices of what to make your default.
--
Count

Moz Champion 07-10-2004 06:02 PM

Re: HTLM or Text messages
 
Count wrote:

> On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 13:34:41 GMT, "William W. Plummer"
> <William.Plummer@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
>
>>I frequently get a message asking about what format I want to send in.
>> I think I'm happy with "HTML or text" based on what the receiver
>>wants. Is there a way to say this will always be my answer to the
>>question? Where do you set defaults? Thanks.

>
>
> Edit/Preferences/Mail&Newsgroups/Send Format ...
>
> This gives you 4 choices of what to make your default.


You shouldnt send both, it more than doubles the size of the message with no benefit.

You should choose whether you send HTML or plain text, according to the wishes of the receiver (if they havent indicated they WANT HTML, then dont send them any)

You can get rid of the question altogether, by using the plain text editor for most mail and newsgroups, you wouldnt be asked at all. Only use the HTML editor for messages where you actually plan to use and send HTML, and once again, only to those you know want such.

I have some of my accounts set up to send HTML, and leave the option to 'ask me', so I get questioned as to whether or not I really want to send HTML. Depending on the person/group I am sending to, I choose Send HTML or Send Plain Text, but never both.

--
Mozilla Champion
UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org
Mozilla Champions - http://mozillachampions.mozdev.org
Mozilla Manual - http://mozmanual.mozdev.org/

William W. Plummer 07-10-2004 06:07 PM

Re: HTLM or Text messages
 
Moz Champion wrote:

> Count wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 13:34:41 GMT, "William W. Plummer"
>> <William.Plummer@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I frequently get a message asking about what format I want to send
>>> in. I think I'm happy with "HTML or text" based on what the receiver
>>> wants. Is there a way to say this will always be my answer to the
>>> question? Where do you set defaults? Thanks.

>>
>>
>>
>> Edit/Preferences/Mail&Newsgroups/Send Format ...
>>
>> This gives you 4 choices of what to make your default.

>
>
> You shouldnt send both, it more than doubles the size of the message
> with no benefit.
>
> You should choose whether you send HTML or plain text, according to the
> wishes of the receiver (if they havent indicated they WANT HTML, then
> dont send them any)
>
> You can get rid of the question altogether, by using the plain text
> editor for most mail and newsgroups, you wouldnt be asked at all. Only
> use the HTML editor for messages where you actually plan to use and send
> HTML, and once again, only to those you know want such.
>
> I have some of my accounts set up to send HTML, and leave the option to
> 'ask me', so I get questioned as to whether or not I really want to send
> HTML. Depending on the person/group I am sending to, I choose Send HTML
> or Send Plain Text, but never both.
>

It's time to move on. I was sending plain text back in the '70s. If I
have to pick one, it will be HTML. Hopefully readers will move up to
a more capable reader.

Michael C. 07-10-2004 07:44 PM

Re: HTLM or Text messages
 
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 18:07:05 GMT,
William W. Plummer <William.Plummer@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> Moz Champion wrote:
>
> > I have some of my accounts set up to send HTML, and leave the option to
> > 'ask me', so I get questioned as to whether or not I really want to send
> > HTML. Depending on the person/group I am sending to, I choose Send HTML
> > or Send Plain Text, but never both.
> >

> It's time to move on. I was sending plain text back in the '70s. If I
> have to pick one, it will be HTML. Hopefully readers will move up to
> a more capable reader.


You miss the point. HTML email is not an advance, it is a liability.

Sending the same message in HTML uses several times the bandwidth. It
also may contain exploits, violate privacy if it load images, etc.
There are even email clients that don't render it, as you acknowledged.

While I imagine there is a case to made for HTML emails, I have no clue
what it is. A more capable email client is more exploitable as well.

Some may prefer HTML, but you won't alienate them with text, you will
however alienate those that prefer text by sending HTML.

YMMV,

Michael C.
--
mcsuper5@usol.com http://mcsuper5.freeshell.org/

If ignorance is bliss, why aren't there more happy people in the world?

Moz Champion 07-12-2004 08:11 AM

Re: HTLM or Text messages
 
Michael C. wrote:

> On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 18:07:05 GMT,
> William W. Plummer <William.Plummer@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
>> Moz Champion wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I have some of my accounts set up to send HTML, and leave the option to
>>>'ask me', so I get questioned as to whether or not I really want to send
>>>HTML. Depending on the person/group I am sending to, I choose Send HTML
>>>or Send Plain Text, but never both.
>>>

>>
>> It's time to move on. I was sending plain text back in the '70s. If I
>> have to pick one, it will be HTML. Hopefully readers will move up to
>> a more capable reader.

>
>
> You miss the point. HTML email is not an advance, it is a liability.
>
> Sending the same message in HTML uses several times the bandwidth. It
> also may contain exploits, violate privacy if it load images, etc.
> There are even email clients that don't render it, as you acknowledged.
>
> While I imagine there is a case to made for HTML emails, I have no clue
> what it is. A more capable email client is more exploitable as well.
>
> Some may prefer HTML, but you won't alienate them with text, you will
> however alienate those that prefer text by sending HTML.
>
> YMMV,
>
> Michael C.



Since over 60% of Internet users still use 2800 baud modems or less, and over 50% of users still pay for usage over XX minutes per month, the attitude that its time to move on is selfish indeed. Simply because YOU enjoy a high speed connection and unlimited time doesnt mean everyone does.

Just because YOU enjoy a mail server with vast storage, doesnt mean everyone else does. Just because YOU enjoy the freedom to leave your computer on and check mail frequently doesnt mean everyone else can.

There is a case for HTML mail, but ONLY between users who want to use it. And obviously, those users wont be using a 28000 baud (or less) modem, or paying for connection time.

The point Michael C makes about HTML being a liability is quite valid as well. Simply because YOU dont mind loading images from unknown servers doesnt mean everyone else does. Simply because YOU dont mind getting pornographic images in your mail doesnt mean everyone does. Simply because YOU dont mind risking your computer to javascript exploits doesnt mean everyone else does.

HTML mail is fine, between people who WANT to have it. But it simply doesnt have much benefit to people who dont.

--
Mozilla Champion
UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org
Mozilla Champions - http://mozillachampions.mozdev.org
Mozilla Manual - http://mozmanual.mozdev.org/

PLONK 07-12-2004 08:47 AM

Re: HTLM or Text messages
 
Moz Champion wrote:
> Michael C. wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 18:07:05 GMT,
>> William W. Plummer <William.Plummer@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> Moz Champion wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I have some of my accounts set up to send HTML, and leave the option
>>>> to 'ask me', so I get questioned as to whether or not I really want
>>>> to send HTML. Depending on the person/group I am sending to, I
>>>> choose Send HTML or Send Plain Text, but never both.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's time to move on. I was sending plain text back in the '70s. If
>>> I have to pick one, it will be HTML. Hopefully readers will move
>>> up to a more capable reader.

>>
>>
>>
>> You miss the point. HTML email is not an advance, it is a liability.
>>
>> Sending the same message in HTML uses several times the bandwidth. It
>> also may contain exploits, violate privacy if it load images, etc.
>> There are even email clients that don't render it, as you acknowledged.
>>
>> While I imagine there is a case to made for HTML emails, I have no clue
>> what it is. A more capable email client is more exploitable as well.
>>
>> Some may prefer HTML, but you won't alienate them with text, you will
>> however alienate those that prefer text by sending HTML.
>>
>> YMMV,
>>
>> Michael C.

>
>
>
> Since over 60% of Internet users still use 2800 baud modems or less, and
> over 50% of users still pay for usage over XX minutes per month, the
> attitude that its time to move on is selfish indeed. Simply because YOU
> enjoy a high speed connection and unlimited time doesnt mean everyone does.
>
> Just because YOU enjoy a mail server with vast storage, doesnt mean
> everyone else does. Just because YOU enjoy the freedom to leave your
> computer on and check mail frequently doesnt mean everyone else can.
>
> There is a case for HTML mail, but ONLY between users who want to use
> it. And obviously, those users wont be using a 28000 baud (or less)
> modem, or paying for connection time.
>
> The point Michael C makes about HTML being a liability is quite valid as
> well. Simply because YOU dont mind loading images from unknown servers
> doesnt mean everyone else does. Simply because YOU dont mind getting
> pornographic images in your mail doesnt mean everyone does. Simply
> because YOU dont mind risking your computer to javascript exploits
> doesnt mean everyone else does.
>
> HTML mail is fine, between people who WANT to have it. But it simply
> doesnt have much benefit to people who dont.
>


just cause you are living in the stoneage doesn't mean those of us in
the civilized world have to.

--
Yard and Garden Handyman Services

Moz Champion 07-12-2004 10:29 AM

Re: HTLM or Text messages
 
PLONK wrote:

> Moz Champion wrote:
>
>> Michael C. wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 18:07:05 GMT,
>>> William W. Plummer <William.Plummer@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Moz Champion wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I have some of my accounts set up to send HTML, and leave the
>>>>> option to 'ask me', so I get questioned as to whether or not I
>>>>> really want to send HTML. Depending on the person/group I am
>>>>> sending to, I choose Send HTML or Send Plain Text, but never both.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's time to move on. I was sending plain text back in the '70s.
>>>> If I have to pick one, it will be HTML. Hopefully readers will
>>>> move up to a more capable reader.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You miss the point. HTML email is not an advance, it is a liability.
>>>
>>> Sending the same message in HTML uses several times the bandwidth. It
>>> also may contain exploits, violate privacy if it load images, etc.
>>> There are even email clients that don't render it, as you acknowledged.
>>>
>>> While I imagine there is a case to made for HTML emails, I have no clue
>>> what it is. A more capable email client is more exploitable as well.
>>>
>>> Some may prefer HTML, but you won't alienate them with text, you will
>>> however alienate those that prefer text by sending HTML.
>>>
>>> YMMV,
>>>
>>> Michael C.

>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Since over 60% of Internet users still use 2800 baud modems or less,
>> and over 50% of users still pay for usage over XX minutes per month,
>> the attitude that its time to move on is selfish indeed. Simply
>> because YOU enjoy a high speed connection and unlimited time doesnt
>> mean everyone does.
>>
>> Just because YOU enjoy a mail server with vast storage, doesnt mean
>> everyone else does. Just because YOU enjoy the freedom to leave your
>> computer on and check mail frequently doesnt mean everyone else can.
>>
>> There is a case for HTML mail, but ONLY between users who want to use
>> it. And obviously, those users wont be using a 28000 baud (or less)
>> modem, or paying for connection time.
>>
>> The point Michael C makes about HTML being a liability is quite valid
>> as well. Simply because YOU dont mind loading images from unknown
>> servers doesnt mean everyone else does. Simply because YOU dont mind
>> getting pornographic images in your mail doesnt mean everyone does.
>> Simply because YOU dont mind risking your computer to javascript
>> exploits doesnt mean everyone else does.
>>
>> HTML mail is fine, between people who WANT to have it. But it simply
>> doesnt have much benefit to people who dont.
>>

>
> just cause you are living in the stoneage doesn't mean those of us in
> the civilized world have to.
>


I didnt say I was, I regularly use HTML mail (and newsgroups as well). I participate in several HTML newsgroups as well.

But the fact is, all those people WANT to have it. There are millions of people on the internet who dont WANT it.

So what YOU are saying, is that because YOU can, everybody should. Just because YOU have unlimited bandwidth, then everyone should? You going to help them pay for it? Just because YOU have unlimited internet access, everyone should? You gong to buy it for them?

I never said DONT use HTML, I simply said use it only for those who want it.
Do you demand that everyone you know have a computer and get on the internet just so you can send them email? After all, sending email is (in your words) the 'civilized' way of doing things.

Do you have a cell phone? If no, then why not? Its 'civilized" and modern.
Do you have a cell phone that can send and receive pictures (images)? Why not, that would be the 'civilized' and modern way of doing things.
Does your cell phone charge by the minute? Then you would LOVE everyone to send you pictures all day long, just so YOU can enjoy them (whether or not you want to) and PAY for all those minutes you are connected.

Do you insist everyone you know have a computer? Do you buy them one just so they can be civilized and modern like you? Or do you refuse to converse or relate to anyone who is so 'stoneage' as to not even HAVE a computer?

75% of the over 300 million people on the internet, log in on average once or twice a week to check email. Most of them have a mailbox of 10mb or less. Considering that an html mail can easily exceed 2mb or even 5mb, I guess they are going to have to change simply because YOU want to send HTML.

Its not about 'civilized' or 'stoneage' its about what people WANT. You want HTML in mail, then you are free to get it.
If you dont want a newspaper delivered to your door, you dont get one. Would you like it if because its considered 'civilized' you would be forced to get one and PAY for it?


Flying in aircraft is a civilized and modern way to travel. Yet over 92% of the worlds population has never ridden in an aircraft. And even then, amongst those who have the financial resources to travel in aircraft there are those who dont because of fear or other reasons. You going to ban trains simply because they are stoneage?

Simply because YOU can do it and want it, does not mean that everyone does.
You may like ice cream, does that mean everyone else MUST eat it too?
You may like watching Star Trek (Enterprise) on TV, does that mean everyone else must like it too? You going to buy them a TV so they are not living in the stoneage?
--
Mozilla Champion
UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org
Mozilla Champions - http://mozillachampions.mozdev.org
Mozilla Manual - http://mozmanual.mozdev.org/

.BRIAN. 07-12-2004 10:49 AM

Re: HTLM or Text messages
 
On 7/12/2004 04:47 AM, PLONK wrote:
> Moz Champion wrote:
>
>> Michael C. wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 18:07:05 GMT,
>>> William W. Plummer <William.Plummer@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Moz Champion wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I have some of my accounts set up to send HTML, and leave the
>>>>> option to 'ask me', so I get questioned as to whether or not I
>>>>> really want to send HTML. Depending on the person/group I am
>>>>> sending to, I choose Send HTML or Send Plain Text, but never both.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's time to move on. I was sending plain text back in the '70s.
>>>> If I have to pick one, it will be HTML. Hopefully readers will
>>>> move up to a more capable reader.
>>>
>>> You miss the point. HTML email is not an advance, it is a liability.
>>>
>>> Sending the same message in HTML uses several times the bandwidth. It
>>> also may contain exploits, violate privacy if it load images, etc.
>>> There are even email clients that don't render it, as you acknowledged.
>>>
>>> While I imagine there is a case to made for HTML emails, I have no clue
>>> what it is. A more capable email client is more exploitable as well.
>>>
>>> Some may prefer HTML, but you won't alienate them with text, you will
>>> however alienate those that prefer text by sending HTML.
>>>
>>> YMMV,
>>>
>>> Michael C.

>>
>> Since over 60% of Internet users still use 2800 baud modems or less,
>> and over 50% of users still pay for usage over XX minutes per month,
>> the attitude that its time to move on is selfish indeed. Simply
>> because YOU enjoy a high speed connection and unlimited time doesnt
>> mean everyone does.
>>
>> Just because YOU enjoy a mail server with vast storage, doesnt mean
>> everyone else does. Just because YOU enjoy the freedom to leave your
>> computer on and check mail frequently doesnt mean everyone else can.
>>
>> There is a case for HTML mail, but ONLY between users who want to use
>> it. And obviously, those users wont be using a 28000 baud (or less)
>> modem, or paying for connection time.
>>
>> The point Michael C makes about HTML being a liability is quite valid
>> as well. Simply because YOU dont mind loading images from unknown
>> servers doesnt mean everyone else does. Simply because YOU dont mind
>> getting pornographic images in your mail doesnt mean everyone does.
>> Simply because YOU dont mind risking your computer to javascript
>> exploits doesnt mean everyone else does.
>>
>> HTML mail is fine, between people who WANT to have it. But it simply
>> doesnt have much benefit to people who dont.
>>

>
> just cause you are living in the stoneage doesn't mean those of us in
> the civilized world have to.
>


They had computers in the Stone Age huh? I'm sure you don't have the
latest and greatest connection. Big deal, you have a little bitty cable
connection... whoopee.

I think you are missing the main point here. There are a lot of people
in this world who choose to not receive HTML email because it's a
privacy/security issue. If you enjoy getting spam, then continue using
HTML email. Most of the time all that spam with the pretty HTML and its
images verify you have a valid email address. A lot of other people do
not, and so they turn off HTML. I personally have TB set to "Display
Message Body As >> Plain Text", so I will never see it if someone sends
me an HTML _only_ message. And that is fine with me, at least I'm not
downloading and verifying _my_ email address by downloading from a
spammer's server.

Are your emails that boring or stupid? Is that why you need to make
them "pretty" with HTML? Personally I do not need different fonts and
colors, or anything else you can do with HTML, to understand someone's
thoughts in email.

--
Brian

.BRIAN. 07-12-2004 10:57 AM

Re: HTLM or Text messages
 
On 7/10/2004 02:07 PM, William W. Plummer wrote:

> Moz Champion wrote:
>
>> Count wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 13:34:41 GMT, "William W. Plummer"
>>> <William.Plummer@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I frequently get a message asking about what format I want to send
>>>> in. I think I'm happy with "HTML or text" based on what the receiver
>>>> wants. Is there a way to say this will always be my answer to the
>>>> question? Where do you set defaults? Thanks.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Edit/Preferences/Mail&Newsgroups/Send Format ...
>>>
>>> This gives you 4 choices of what to make your default.

>>
>>
>>
>> You shouldnt send both, it more than doubles the size of the message
>> with no benefit.
>>
>> You should choose whether you send HTML or plain text, according to
>> the wishes of the receiver (if they havent indicated they WANT HTML,
>> then dont send them any)
>>
>> You can get rid of the question altogether, by using the plain text
>> editor for most mail and newsgroups, you wouldnt be asked at all. Only
>> use the HTML editor for messages where you actually plan to use and
>> send HTML, and once again, only to those you know want such.
>>
>> I have some of my accounts set up to send HTML, and leave the option
>> to 'ask me', so I get questioned as to whether or not I really want to
>> send HTML. Depending on the person/group I am sending to, I choose
>> Send HTML or Send Plain Text, but never both.
>>

> It's time to move on. I was sending plain text back in the '70s. If I
> have to pick one, it will be HTML. Hopefully readers will move up to
> a more capable reader.


Be sure to send a virus or exploit in your HTML too.

It's not *your* choice to make, it's the receiving end that chooses
whether or not to receive HTML email. Many people have HTML turned off
because of all the vulnerabilities they read about. Send HTML only and
you are wasting your time because they will never see it.

What email client did you use prior to Mozilla? I'm willing to bet it
was OE. You didn't have a choice whether to send HTML or plain text
then. Why are you worried about it now? Just set it to send HTML *and*
plain text, and then the reader can choose which version they want to read.

--
Brian


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:56 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.