«

Can you imagine??? As an attachment???!
No, the Mozilla team has to re-start the project from scratch...
I don't know why several major open-source projects are so poor... Look at
Unix based OS... Regardless of security, they're just horrible...
Oh well, I prefer to pay to have quality.
V.


"Ed Mullen" <> escreveu na mensagem
news:88sgb.696307$Ho3.153638@sccrnsc03...
> Victor wrote:
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > Thanks for all your suggestions. Actually I'm still unable to do exactly
> > what I want. I can only change few things with the template. I want
almost
> > my home page to be the template. Do you get me?
> > I want to be able to edit the template with Dreamweaver, or at least to
edit
> > the source code...
> > Also, I want to set up my Mozilla as my Outlook Express that way: Each
time
> > I compose a new message or reply, I want to use the default template,
that
> > of my company...
> > I guess I'm asking for too many things..
> >
> > V.
>
> If you need to send something that complex make it in Dreamweaver and
> attach it as an html file.
>
> --
> Ed Mullen - Mozilla Champion
> http://edmullen.net
> http://edmullen.net/moz.html
>

Den 07-10-2003 13:52, skrev Victor:

> Can you imagine??? As an attachment???!
What would be the problem? A HTML attachment is showed inline with the
message, which would be blank, leaving all the space to the attachment.

> No, the Mozilla team has to re-start the project from scratch...
Are you willing to fund that?

> I don't know why several major open-source projects are so poor... Look at
> Unix based OS... Regardless of security, they're just horrible...
In what way? Stability, userfriendlyness, security or what?

> Oh well, I prefer to pay to have quality.
So which version of Linux do you use?

[...]

--
Mvh / Regards
Morten K. Hansen http://hansen-winkel.dk/
Replying by mail? Change 'spam' to my first name.

Victor wrote:
> Can you imagine??? As an attachment???!
> No, the Mozilla team has to re-start the project from scratch...
> I don't know why several major open-source projects are so poor... Look at
> Unix based OS... Regardless of security, they're just horrible...
> Oh well, I prefer to pay to have quality.
> V.
>
>

Yes, I can imagine it quite readily. It might not be your preference
but it works quite nicely. There are, however, considerations in every
possible way of doing it.

I regularly receive commercial HTML emails from PC World Magazine,
Hilton, Marriott, Amazon, and many others that are heavily laden with
images and HTML formatting. However, for security reasons I have remote
images disabled in email and newsgroups so much of the "pizzaz" you seem
to be desiring is not displayed. I'd be able to selectively decide if I
want to view the content and do so simply by turning on "View
attachments inline." Alternatively, I could simply right click the
attachment and click "Open" to view it in a browser window. Or even
save it to disk for later review. Of course, to work, all of these
require that you either include all the images in the email (eating up
potentially significant amounts of bandwidth and drive space at the
user's end) or make sure that every link is an absolute one pointing to
an available web resource. And the user has to be online for that to
work. So, if you're going to do that, why not create the page in the
tool of your choice and just email a nicely formatted html email with a
link pointing to the page on the Web?

After doing a little experimentation my conclusion is that the best way
to handle this is to create the content, put it on a server, and just
email a Web link. Which is the way a fair amount of commercial
information comes to me such as online bills, bank statements, and some
newsletters.

I'm not saying that the functionality you want is not reasonable to ask
for. Nor am I trying to convince you to do things in any particular
manner. I'm simply exploring some of the issues that occured to me. And
also that that there are a host of considerations attendant to the
discussion, not simply the dismissive Mozilla has "... to start over
from scratch."

By the way, you can copy and paste any HTML code into a Mozilla HTML
email message by using Insert - HTML. If you save the template and
reopen it for reuse you won't be able to edit the code within the mail
client. However, you can save the template as an HTML file and edit in
Composer or Dreamweaver or whatever program you like. Then copy the
code, open the template in the email client, delete rendundant content
visually, then insert the revised HTML. Granted, not as easy as you
want it but, then, an email client isn't meant to be a page composer.
Maybe the answer is to write to Macromedia and ask them to include an
email client in Dreamweaver.

--
Ed Mullen - Mozilla Champion
http://edmullen.net
http://edmullen.net/moz.html

Where do forest rangers go to get away from it all?

Victor, emails are emails, usually you should just send plain text, with no
attachements but pics, maybe. Try outlook express, and all the fonts in
there, maybe even better, some smilies too. Just hope ur customers don't get
afraid. I always thinked, good policy is to stay away from Html, but, u r
one of a kind, hehe.
Jarmo


"Victor" <> kirjoitti viestissä
news:blqe89$f5l4c$...
> I don't know why after all these years, the Mozilla email program won't
> allow user define as in Outlook Express default font face, size, color,
> etc... to write new messages. Same for templates. You can't use Mozilla
for
> business purpose: Can you imagine sending plain-text emails to customers?!
> If you want to send HTML email with a logo on top, you have to start
edition
> from scratch. Too bad, and what a waste of time...
> Don't tell me this is for securiy purpose, this wouldn't make sense...
>
>

Guido Jurock wrote:

> Victor wrote:
>
>
>>Right it's a matter of taste. When I receive plain text email, it
>>looks so "newcomer" or "cheap" for me...
>
>
> Tasta indeed. When I receive HTML-mails i have to think of the term
> "newbie".
>
> guido
>
I'm not bashing anyone here, but I get that exact same feeling when I
receive OE HTML-formatted emails with a big pretty background, special
fonts, and weird margins. Why inflate the message 200KB if a 500byte
message will do the same?

Of course, actual business related newsletters I receive (thinking dell,
HP, and amazon here) are usually much more tasteful

--
Albert
Mozilla Champion

Download Mozilla Suite: http://www.mozilla.org/releases/
Mozilla Firebird: http://www.mozilla.org/products/firebird/

Albert Ren wrote:

> Guido Jurock wrote:
>
>> Victor wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Right it's a matter of taste. When I receive plain text email, it
>>> looks so "newcomer" or "cheap" for me...
>>
>>
>>
>> Tasta indeed. When I receive HTML-mails i have to think of the term
>> "newbie".
>>
>> guido
>>
> I'm not bashing anyone here, but I get that exact same feeling when I
> receive OE HTML-formatted emails with a big pretty background, special
> fonts, and weird margins. Why inflate the message 200KB if a 500byte
> message will do the same?
>
> Of course, actual business related newsletters I receive (thinking dell,
> HP, and amazon here) are usually much more tasteful
>
i have to agree that HTML email isn't my favorite - I'm on dailup, and
when an email takes that much longer it ruins my day. Well, maybe it
doesn't ruin my day, but the outcome/wait-time aren't proportional to
make it good.

jake

www.proximityfactor.com