Hi All, Can I please remind everyone that Alug is supposed to be a plain text mailing list only, I do approve the odd html post here and there to keep communication up but it's getting more and more frequent. Can people please check their mail client is set to only send plain text to this mailing list. Also, sending attachments to this list will result in them being rejected (mostly). If you do have a large file or log then consider putting it on some web hosting somewhere and providing a link or using a pastebin instead. Thanks Adam -- New signature required, suggestions on a post card please.
I hear you Adam however I am on many mailing lists and some do allow HTML/Rich text and attachments etc and so it does get rather confusing turn HTML off and on, and remembering which lists allow attachments and which don't so I apologise in advance for my guaranteed blunders to come! -- Regards, James. http://www.jamesbensley.co.cc/ There are 10 kinds of people in the world; Those who understand Vigesimal, and 9 others...
On 04/06/10 14:00, James Bensley wrote:
I hear you Adam however I am on many mailing lists and some do allow HTML/Rich text and attachments etc and so it does get rather confusing turn HTML off and on, and remembering which lists allow attachments and which don't so I apologise in advance for my guaranteed blunders to come!
I'm using Thunderbird here - I appreciate that some people have to post from Blackberries, iPhones and like - and that allows me to configure HTML or plain text per email address. That's why this address uses the alug suffix so that I can set such a thing. It only takes for me to remember to actually use that account instead of another one I have set but you can put that down to brain fade and not Thunderbird. -- __ __| |_ __ __ .----------------------------------------------. / _/ _` \ V V / | mailto:cdw_alug@the-walker-household.co.uk | \__\__,_|\_/\_/ |______________________________________________|
On 04/06/10 14:14, Chris Walker wrote:
On 04/06/10 14:00, James Bensley wrote:
I hear you Adam however I am on many mailing lists and some do allow HTML/Rich text and attachments etc and so it does get rather confusing turn HTML off and on, and remembering which lists allow attachments and which don't so I apologise in advance for my guaranteed blunders to come!
I'm using Thunderbird here - I appreciate that some people have to post from Blackberries, iPhones and like - and that allows me to configure HTML or plain text per email address. That's why this address uses the alug suffix so that I can set such a thing. It only takes for me to remember to actually use that account instead of another one I have set but you can put that down to brain fade and not Thunderbird.
Or why use html in the first place ?
On 4 June 2010 14:31, Wayne Stallwood <ALUGlist@digimatic.co.uk> wrote:
Or why use html in the first place ?
Because it allows you to present text and parts of conversation, questions, responses etc clearly and allows you to make key points more visible etc. Ultimately I don't mind using plain text but HTML is often advantageous. However, in this "mordern day and age", I would of thought that within a couple of years (max?) all lists could be HTML and there would be no need to use plain text? (Purely based on the advances in mobile computing, the price of data transfers coming down etc). </don's flame proof vest> -- Regards, James. http://www.jamesbensley.co.cc/ There are 10 kinds of people in the world; Those who understand Vigesimal, and 9 others...
On 04/06/10 15:01, James Bensley wrote:
On 4 June 2010 14:31, Wayne Stallwood<ALUGlist@digimatic.co.uk> wrote:
Or why use html in the first place ?
Because it allows you to present text and parts of conversation, questions, responses etc clearly and allows you to make key points more visible etc.
My main gripe (apart from obvious abuse some of which has been worked around by not downloading images automatically etc) is given email is a communication medium not a presentation one why should a message enforce layout etc on the client ? I think it is perfectly possible to lay out a message in a way that is clear without resorting to colour etc. Also HTML will render differently depending on the rendering engine used by the client, so increased use on things like smartphones means increased chances your message won't be rendered the way you intended anyway.
Ultimately I don't mind using plain text but HTML is often advantageous. However, in this "mordern day and age", I would of thought that within a couple of years (max?) all lists could be HTML and there would be no need to use plain text? (Purely based on the advances in mobile computing, the price of data transfers coming down etc).
You say that but given the amount of people that now read email on smartphones the price of data has actually for some people gone up a bit. Both in terms of available bandwidth and cost. Not forgetting that the list bandwidth is provided for free by a generous member at their own cost who I am sure wouldn't appreciate the bandwidth utilisation most likely more than doubling for this "free" service. If we allowed html email on the list then aside from the bandwidth cost we would also have less readability as every message could have different formatting..fancy backgrounds...highlighted text or hopeless fonts and if the messages don't include a plain text part then we also have issues with the list archive. Don't get me wrong...HTML email has its place and I have no problem with people using it for person to person communication if they feel the features are important. But I see no value that it adds to this list.
I've never seen anyone show what earth-shattering advantages HTML brings to mailing lists, and since almost all of the features that HTML email provides can be provided by simply including a URL to something else, they can scarcely be said to outweigh the possibility that some users of the list might be annoyed or inconvenienced because their mail client/screen reader or whatever can only read "normal" e-mail. There are all sorts of things one can attach to an email which would make it "richer", but which require parsing/unmunging/opening outside a mail client - heck, Blender email would probably be loads of fun, as might Flash or Silverlight email if you liked that sort of thing, but you still wouldn't expect everyone else to be thrilled at receiving it. In the end, I'm glad this is a text-only mailing list, and I'd be happy if we could stick with the convention of sending proper email (or in my case *trying* to send proper email using the gmail web interface). It's a *good* convention that makes sense. Marcus
James Bensley wrote:
On 4 June 2010 14:31, Wayne Stallwood <ALUGlist@digimatic.co.uk> wrote:
Or why use html in the first place ?
Because it allows you to present text and parts of conversation, questions, responses etc clearly and allows you to make key points more visible etc.
So does the proper use of language. Authors have been using the method for millennia.
Ultimately I don't mind using plain text but HTML is often advantageous.
Not when received here, it isn't: HTML is turned off at all times.
However, in this "mordern day and age", I would of
of?
thought that within a couple of years (max?) all lists could be HTML and there would be no need to use plain text? (Purely based on the advances in mobile computing, the price of data transfers coming down etc).
</don's flame proof vest>
As well you might. It doesn't really have anything to do with price: it's all to do with a common standard, and while M$ did try to hijack the internet when they discovered that it *WAS* going to come to something, that's no reason for all users to follow the HTML-in-posts non-compliance like so many sheep. And that's not just my preference for 'the good old days': HTML is so insecure. -- Tony Anson www.girolle.co.uk/
On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 21:46:30 +0100 Anthony Anson <tony.anson@girolle.co.uk> allegedly wrote:
However, in this "mordern day and age", I would of
of?
thought that within a couple of years (max?) all lists could be HTML
Modern written interpretation of phonetic form of older colloquial contraction of "would have" to "would've". Sadly common. Mick --------------------------------------------------------------------- The text file for RFC 854 contains exactly 854 lines. Do you think there is any cosmic significance in this? Douglas E Comer - Internetworking with TCP/IP Volume 1 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc854.txt ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Damn! Done it again innit! Sorry about the T/bird reply service, Mick. mick wrote:
On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 21:46:30 +0100 Anthony Anson <tony.anson@girolle.co.uk> allegedly wrote:
However, in this "mordern day and age", I would of of?
thought that within a couple of years (max?) all lists could be HTML
Modern written interpretation of phonetic form of older colloquial contraction of "would have" to "would've". Sadly common.
Yes - sorry - couldn't resist... <smacks own wrist> -- Tony Anson www.girolle.co.uk/
On 04 Jun 21:46, Anthony Anson wrote:
As well you might. It doesn't really have anything to do with price: it's all to do with a common standard, and while M$ did try to hijack the internet when they discovered that it *WAS* going to come to something, that's no reason for all users to follow the HTML-in-posts non-compliance like so many sheep.
Bing bing bing bing... HTML e-mail wasn't an MSism... for once not their fault in the beginning... MS used RTF (well, more or less) for "Rich" e-mail at the beginning, IIRC then it was Netscape that added HTML e-mail support, which caught on, and then MS switched to that too. Also, technically, HTML posts aren't non-compliant, they perfectly fit in to a mime encoded e-mail. Done correctly they fit RFCs perfectly. (I would point out at this point that I *personally* don't like HTML e-mail, and that it's a waste of time/effort/money to send, gives no advantages to either end, and just wastes bandwidth) Cheers, -- Brett Parker
Brett Parker wrote:
On 04 Jun 21:46, Anthony Anson wrote:
As well you might. It doesn't really have anything to do with price: it's all to do with a common standard, and while M$ did try to hijack the internet when they discovered that it *WAS* going to come to something, that's no reason for all users to follow the HTML-in-posts non-compliance like so many sheep.
Bing bing bing bing... HTML e-mail wasn't an MSism... for once not their fault in the beginning... MS used RTF (well, more or less) for "Rich" e-mail at the beginning, IIRC then it was Netscape that added HTML e-mail support, which caught on, and then MS switched to that too.
Also, technically, HTML posts aren't non-compliant, they perfectly fit in to a mime encoded e-mail. Done correctly they fit RFCs perfectly.
(I would point out at this point that I *personally* don't like HTML e-mail, and that it's a waste of time/effort/money to send, gives no advantages to either end, and just wastes bandwidth)
Cheers,
I sit corrected. Having been using Zetnet's in-house mail and newshandling software (ZIMACS) since I was using Mosaic as a browser, I never investigated Netscape's mail/news interface. Sequence went: Mosaic; Netscape from coverdisc; Firebird, Opera; Firefox. -- Tony Anson www.girolle.co.uk/
Wayne Stallwood wrote:
Or why use html in the first place ?
'Swhat I was thinking. I just don't use HTML in mail (or usenet) - period. I was brought up in the True Religion that mail is a plain text medium with optional attachments hanging off it. Even Thunderbird *ALLOWS* slightly non-standard wossnames, though. -- Tony Anson www.girolle.co.uk/
On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 02:00:05PM +0100, James Bensley wrote:
I hear you Adam however I am on many mailing lists and some do allow HTML/Rich text and attachments etc and so it does get rather confusing turn HTML off and on, and remembering which lists allow attachments and which don't so I apologise in advance for my guaranteed blunders to come!
It's not a big deal on here, I do allow *small* html mail with text parts through on a fairly regular basis but it's generally not a good idea as it makes work for the moderators and will slow your mail down as it will only get moderated when someone can be bothered (which may be days). Thankfully the alug policy has been pretty clear as "no html" for, erm, ever? The mail this morning wasn't sent because of anyone in particular as the reminder has been needed for a while, although I was prompted to actually send it due to a rather large attachment that got held for moderation earlier today which did get rejected. Thanks Adam -- New signature required, suggestions on a post card please.
On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 02:00:05PM +0100, James Bensley wrote:
I hear you Adam however I am on many mailing lists and some do allow HTML/Rich text and attachments etc and so it does get rather confusing turn HTML off and on, and remembering which lists allow attachments and which don't so I apologise in advance for my guaranteed blunders to come!
Why can't you simply leave it turned off for all lists? -- Chris Green
On 04 Jun 12:22, Adam Bower wrote:
Hi All,
Can I please remind everyone that Alug is supposed to be a plain text mailing list only, I do approve the odd html post here and there to keep communication up but it's getting more and more frequent. Can people please check their mail client is set to only send plain text to this mailing list.
Also, sending attachments to this list will result in them being rejected (mostly). If you do have a large file or log then consider putting it on some web hosting somewhere and providing a link or using a pastebin instead.
<?xml version="1.0"?> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en"> <head> <title>I has an e-mail</title> <style> body.stupidhtmlemail p { color: black; background: black; font-size: 1px; } </style> </head> <body class="stupidhtmlemail"> <p>Here is some text that you wouldn't be able to read. Isn't it great.</p> <p style="font-size: 44pt; color: white;">HAHAHAHA</p> </body> </html> Erm, OK - so, actually, a lot of the stuff in that *doesn't* work for HTML e-mail, at all, For a start, none of the renderers use *anything* other than the contents *between* the body tags, so, if there are lots of styles in use, guess what, you have to do *all* style on the element itself, that is in no way going to be nice if you've got a lot of customised headings, etc. Also, makes linking external stylesheets impossible. So, looking through that snippet, the entirely important bit could be much better expressed as plain text as: HAHAHAHA Or if you want it a bit bolder, *HAHAHAHA*. So, that's a simple example, but then, a lot of stuff that hits this list should be, when it starts getting to needing style/screenshots/configfiles to diagnose something, it's nearly always better to put those parts up elsewhere, and then link to them. I use mutt as my MUA, though, so it's set to fire HTML mails through w3m, which means I still only see plain text (well, actually, it doesn't do that automagically, because I haven't set it up to, I go to the attachment view and hit enter on the HTML part which fires up w3m at it). For headings, it's simple to just underline them ================================================ Like that, see... And if it's not the same level heading... Subheadings are fun too ----------------------- :) (On the other hand, I even write the content for my blog/website as ReST, I live a lot of time in a terminal window, and I like my monospace font...) </ramblyness> -- Brett Parker
On Fri, 2010-06-04 at 16:27 +0100, Brett Parker wrote:
For headings, it's simple to just underline them ================================================
Like that, see... And if it's not the same level heading...
Subheadings are fun too -----------------------
What you are doing above is specifying exactly how the text is to be laid out and relying on the mail client not to join the two lines together of otherwise re-format them. Elsewhere people have been saying plain text is better because e-mail should be about content rather than presentation. The fact is there are "document concepts" that anyone who writes more than trivial documents, of which e-mail is a kind, expects to be able to use. These include things like: * paragraphs (as opposed to lines) * headings * block-quotes * lists (ordered and unordered) * emphasis People often use these concepts in plain text e-mail as I have done above with a list and as Brett has done with his headings in the message I quoted but the plain text only conveys that context by a crude attempt at affecting the presentation of the text to match a style of presentation normally associated with that document concept. In HTML there are tags that correspond directly to those document concepts so had I written the above list in HTML I would have used the <ul> and <li> tags and the mail client would know it was a list and could then do whatever it wishes to present that as a list. If I was designing a poster I would be concerned about which fonts and colours were being used and extactly how everything is laid out. In an e-mail I don't care about any of those things, I just want what I have written to be easily readable by the person who receives it and, if there is some structure to what I have written, that this is also discernible to the reader. So it seems to me that HTML of itself is not the evil, rather it is programs used to compose e-mail then tempt people into working with concepts such as font families, point sizes, colour, bold and italic rather than the document concepts I mention above. To answer Antony, lawyers have for years been writing in such as way as the particular sequence of words is unambiguous even without being able to immediately see the structure of the document but then they don't usually get plain English awards.
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 01:04:27AM +0100, Steve Fosdick wrote:
On Fri, 2010-06-04 at 16:27 +0100, Brett Parker wrote:
For headings, it's simple to just underline them ================================================
Like that, see... And if it's not the same level heading...
Subheadings are fun too -----------------------
What you are doing above is specifying exactly how the text is to be laid out and relying on the mail client not to join the two lines together of otherwise re-format them.
What's above is reStructuredText in my books. -- Chris Green
On 14-Jun-10 20:38:52, Chris G wrote:
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 01:04:27AM +0100, Steve Fosdick wrote:
On Fri, 2010-06-04 at 16:27 +0100, Brett Parker wrote:
For headings, it's simple to just underline them ================================================
Like that, see... And if it's not the same level heading...
Subheadings are fun too -----------------------
What you are doing above is specifying exactly how the text is to be laid out and relying on the mail client not to join the two lines together of otherwise re-format them.
What's above is reStructuredText in my books. -- Chris Green
And, while one is at it, there's a lot to be said for hoping that the other end will read with fixed-width font. 1: A road sign near Farnborough (Hampshire): +------------------+ | | | /\ | | AIR SHOW || | | || | | | +------------------+ 2: A Signpost in Cambridge (on Trumpington Street): +-------------------\ | TOILETS \ | P Long Stay / +-------------------/ Ted. -------------------------------------------------------------------- E-Mail: (Ted Harding) <Ted.Harding@manchester.ac.uk> Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 094 0861 Date: 14-Jun-10 Time: 22:08:49 ------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------
On 14 Jun 21:38, Chris G wrote:
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 01:04:27AM +0100, Steve Fosdick wrote:
On Fri, 2010-06-04 at 16:27 +0100, Brett Parker wrote:
For headings, it's simple to just underline them ================================================
Like that, see... And if it's not the same level heading...
Subheadings are fun too -----------------------
What you are doing above is specifying exactly how the text is to be laid out and relying on the mail client not to join the two lines together of otherwise re-format them.
What's above is reStructuredText in my books.
That do be because it mostly was, I tend to write most text based medium in it, and I use rss2maildir to convert HTML rss feeds in to something approaching ReST to read in my mailclient of choice (mutt). My website is mostly ReST (all the blog posts are, makes writing them a lot quicker and easier IME). And, linking is almost logical in ReST :) -- Brett Parker
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 10:47:46AM +0100, Brett Parker wrote:
On 14 Jun 21:38, Chris G wrote:
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 01:04:27AM +0100, Steve Fosdick wrote:
On Fri, 2010-06-04 at 16:27 +0100, Brett Parker wrote:
For headings, it's simple to just underline them ================================================
Like that, see... And if it's not the same level heading...
Subheadings are fun too -----------------------
What you are doing above is specifying exactly how the text is to be laid out and relying on the mail client not to join the two lines together of otherwise re-format them.
What's above is reStructuredText in my books.
That do be because it mostly was, I tend to write most text based medium in it, and I use rss2maildir to convert HTML rss feeds in to something approaching ReST to read in my mailclient of choice (mutt). My website is mostly ReST (all the blog posts are, makes writing them a lot quicker and easier IME). And, linking is almost logical in ReST :)
Much like me, I really like reStructuredText and use it for creating and maintaining things as much as I possibly can. It's a pity that there aren't any really mainstream Wikis that use it as their 'native' markup. I know there are several that have reStructuredText plugins but that adds an extra 'layer' which spoils it somehow for me. I've created my own 'almost a Wiki' which uses reStructuredText to create web pages where I keep my own notes etc. about everything from how my computers are configured to garden machinery maintenance records and it works pretty well. The only major weakness I find with reStructuredText is that creating tables is either limited (the simple format) or difficult to do (the full format). -- Chris Green
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 12:22:37 +0100 From: adam@thebowery.co.uk To: main@lists.alug.org.uk Subject: [ALUG] Using the Alug mailing list - Attachments and html
Hi All,
Can I please remind everyone that Alug is supposed to be a plain text mailing list only, I do approve the odd html post here and there to keep communication up but it's getting more and more frequent. Can people please check their mail client is set to only send plain text to this mailing list.
Adam I guess I'm one of the people you are pointing the finger at. I can take, the only problem is that I am using the web interface for hotmail and cannot find the setting to send as plain text. If anyone else who knows then please tell me. There is nowt on the help pages, nor can I find it in any of the options. I use this email for other things, and from quite a few machines, so I will not and/or cannot add one mail program on every machine I use for this account. I'm sorry if there is a lot of emails which cause you a problem. I can just drop off the list if this is OK??? Keith _________________________________________________________________ The New Busy think 9 to 5 is a cute idea. Combine multiple calendars with Hotmail. http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multicalendar&ocid=PID28...
On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 08:23:38PM +0000, keithjamieson@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
I guess I'm one of the people you are pointing the finger at. I can take, the only problem is that I am using the web interface for hotmail and cannot find the setting to send as plain text. If anyone else who knows then please tell me. There is nowt on the help pages, nor can I find it in any of the options. I use this email for other things, and from quite a few machines, so I will not and/or cannot add one mail program on every machine I use for this account.
I just created a hotmail account to check, if I click "new message" it gives me a screen where along the top it says : Send | save draft | attach | spell check | rich text | If I select that rich text drop down it gives me the option for plain text. Thanks Adam -- New signature required, suggestions on a post card please.
Adam Thanks. It was there, but hidden. I was on RTF not html format, so I guess that gives the list errors too. Keith ----------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 23:30:52 +0100 From: adam@thebowery.co.uk To: main@lists.alug.org.uk Subject: Re: [ALUG] Using the Alug mailing list - Attachments and html
On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 08:23:38PM +0000, keithjamieson@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
I guess I'm one of the people you are pointing the finger at. I can take, the only problem is that I am using the web interface for hotmail and cannot find the setting to send as plain text. If anyone else who knows then please tell me. There is nowt on the help pages, nor can I find it in any of the options. I use this email for other things, and from quite a few machines, so I will not and/or cannot add one mail program on every machine I use for this account.
I just created a hotmail account to check, if I click "new message" it gives me a screen where along the top it says :
Send | save draft | attach | spell check | rich text |
If I select that rich text drop down it gives me the option for plain text.
Thanks Adam -- New signature required, suggestions on a post card please.
_______________________________________________ main@lists.alug.org.uk http://www.alug.org.uk/ http://lists.alug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/main Unsubscribe? See message headers or the web site above!
The New Busy is not the too busy. Combine all your e-mail accounts with Hotmail. http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multiaccount&ocid=PID283...
participants (12)
-
Adam Bower -
Anthony Anson -
Brett Parker -
Chris G -
Chris Walker -
James Bensley -
keithjamieson＠hotmail.co.uk -
Marcus Harris -
mick -
Steve Fosdick -
Ted.Harding＠manchester.ac.uk -
Wayne Stallwood