I would encourage that, but please don't just dump HTML messages, bounce them with the specific reason. That might improve the breed.
I looked at some of my emails to this mailing list, and I found the following HTML tags: a few standard tags at the front to establish that it was an HTML message, and to start the body. A BR tag at the end of each line in the body of the text, and some DIV tags where I skipped lines.
Then I looked at your email, this one where you complained that I was using HTML. I found the following HTML tags: a few standard tags at the front to establish that it was an HTML message, and to start the body. A BR tag at the end of each line in the body of the text. The only difference was that there were no DIV tags. However, there was still pretty much one tag for every line in the file.
In this forum, people apparently prefer > signs at the start of each line of quoted text. In fact, some people insist on that. You might not realize this, but those line divisions are achieved by using BR tags.
As far as I can see, roughly the same amount of HTML is generated in your emails as in my emails. I can make it exactly equal by not skipping any lines. Would you prefer that? Would it be easier for you if my answers were always in a solid block of text without any blank lines separating paragraphs?
Let me give that a test. Here is my answer repeated without the blank lines: I looked at some of my emails to this mailing list, and I found the following HTML tags: a few standard tags at the front to establish that it was an HTML message, and to start the body. A BR tag at the end of each line in the body of the text, and some DIV tags where I skipped lines. Then I looked at your email, this one where you complained that I was using HTML. I found the following HTML tags: a few standard tags at the front to establish that it was an HTML message, and to start the body. A BR tag at the end of each line in the body of the text. The only difference was that there were no DIV tags. However, there was still pretty much one tag for every line in the file. In this forum, people apparently prefer > signs at the start of each line of quoted text. In fact, some people insist on that. You might not realize this, but those line divisions are achieved by using BR tags. As far as I can see, roughly the same amount of HTML is generated in your emails as in my emails. I can make it exactly equal by not skipping any lines. Would you prefer that? Would it be easier for you if my answers were always in a solid block of text without any blank lines separating paragraphs?
Contestcen@aol.com wrote:
I looked at some of my emails to this mailing list, and I found the following HTML tags: a few standard tags at the front to establish that it was an HTML message, and to start the body. A BR tag at the end of each line in the body of the text, and some DIV tags where I skipped lines.
Then I looked at your email, this one where you complained that I was using HTML. I found the following HTML tags: a few standard tags at the front to establish that it was an HTML message, and to start the body. A BR tag at the end of each line in the body of the text. The only difference was that there were no DIV tags. However, there was still pretty much one tag for every line in the file.
Then your mailer mangles received messages as well, i.e. shows them as HTML though they're plain-text. It may be in AOL's agenda trying to turn all email to HTML, but it's still wrong and stupid. Please get rid of AOL and get a real mailer!
Now that the mailing list archives are back, you can see for yourself how the mails really look like (see "Unformatted/full headers"). E.g., that's your mail:
http://www.gnu-pascal.de/crystal/gpc/en/raw-mail12478.html
And that's a plain text mail:
http://www.gnu-pascal.de/crystal/gpc/en/raw-mail12479.html
Have you looked at the hints Emil gave you? Why not?
Frank
We had a problem on the mail server. I'm not sure if this mail was sent corrently, so I'm resending it. Sorry if you get it twice. If anyone else sent a mail to the list in the last few hours, please check the archives and resend if it's not there.
Contestcen@aol.com wrote:
I looked at some of my emails to this mailing list, and I found the following HTML tags: a few standard tags at the front to establish that it was an HTML message, and to start the body. A BR tag at the end of each line in the body of the text, and some DIV tags where I skipped lines.
Then I looked at your email, this one where you complained that I was using HTML. I found the following HTML tags: a few standard tags at the front to establish that it was an HTML message, and to start the body. A BR tag at the end of each line in the body of the text. The only difference was that there were no DIV tags. However, there was still pretty much one tag for every line in the file.
Then your mailer mangles received messages as well, i.e. shows them as HTML though they're plain-text. It may be in AOL's agenda trying to turn all email to HTML, but it's still wrong and stupid. Please get rid of AOL and get a real mailer!
Now that the mailing list archives are back, you can see for yourself how the mails really look like (see "Unformatted/full headers"). E.g., that's your mail:
http://www.gnu-pascal.de/crystal/gpc/en/raw-mail12478.html
And that's a plain text mail:
http://www.gnu-pascal.de/crystal/gpc/en/raw-mail12479.html
Have you looked at the hints Emil gave you? Why not?
Frank
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 Contestcen@aol.com wrote: [..]
As far as I can see, roughly the same amount of HTML is generated in your emails as in my emails.
wrong.
Am using Pine here. It converts html to plain text unless I select "display full headers", then it turns off the conversion. Examining the emails posted to this list dated July 21 & 22 the only html I could find was either yours or complaints about yours containing an excerpt of yours.
Suggestion: send an email to AOL tech support asking how to turn off the html.
Russ
Russ sent his response before I was finished with mine, but looks like mine is still useful, so I'm sending it.
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005, Contestcen@aol.com wrote:
I would encourage that, but please don't just dump HTML messages, bounce them with the specific reason. That might improve the breed.
I looked at some of my emails to this mailing list, and I found the following HTML tags: a few standard tags at the front to establish that it was an HTML message, and to start the body. A BR tag at the end of each line in the body of the text, and some DIV tags where I skipped lines.
Then I looked at your email, this one where you complained that I was using HTML. I found the following HTML tags: a few standard tags at the front to establish that it was an HTML message, and to start the body. A BR tag at the end of each line in the body of the text. The only difference was that there were no DIV tags. However, there was still pretty much one tag for every line in the file.
I checked Frank's response and his messages are indeed plain text. Yours appear to be sent in the form of two attachments: one plain text and the other HTML. This is now commonplace, but it does make things awkward if one is using a mailer that doesn't support MIME. Here is how Pine (what I use) shows the table of contents of your most recent message:
Parts/Attachments: 1 OK 43 lines Text 2 Shown ~53 lines Text ----------------------------------------
If I look at your message with headers exposed, I see your message as a non MIME-compliant mailer would and it isn't pretty. Here are portions:
Here is the beginning of the first attachment:
-------------------------------1122104170 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I would encourage that, but please don't just dump HTML messages, bounce them with the specific reason. That might improve the breed.
I looked at some of my emails to this mailing list, and I found the following HTML tags: a few standard tags at the front to establish that it was an HTML message, and to start the body. A BR tag at the end of each line in the body of the text, and some DIV tags where I skipped lines.
And here is the beginning of the second:
-------------------------------1122104170 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML><HEAD> <META charset=3DUS-ASCII http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; cha= rset=3DUS-ASCII"> <META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2668" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #fffff= f"> <DIV>> I would encourage that, but please don't just dump HTML messages,<= BR>> bounce them with the specific reason. That might improve the<B= R>> breed.<BR></DIV> <DIV> </DIV>
While the most commonly used mailers all support MIME, many people still use ones that don't (I used to until I started getting so many MIME messages I had to switch), which is why the GPC maintainers have the plain-text only rule. You might see if AOL tech support can help you figure out how to send plain text messages, but if they can't, that might be a good reason to either use your own e-mail client or switch providers. I've never used AOL, so I'm no help.
Back to lurking...
--------------------------| John L. Ries | Salford Systems | Phone: (619)543-8880 x107 | or (435)865-5723 | --------------------------|
with both plain text and HTML versions included, which is common. Don't know what AOL does with plain text messages, but it is likely that it makes some attempt at rendering them as HTML.
--------------------------| John L. Ries | Salford Systems | Phone: (619)543-8880 x107 | or (435)865-5723 | --------------------------|
In this forum, people apparently prefer > signs at the start of each line of quoted text. In fact, some people insist on that. You might not realize this, but those line divisions are achieved by using BR tags.
As far as I can see, roughly the same amount of HTML is generated in your emails as in my emails. I can make it exactly equal by not skipping any lines. Would you prefer that? Would it be easier for you if my answers were always in a solid block of text without any blank lines separating paragraphs?
Let me give that a test. Here is my answer repeated without the blank lines: I looked at some of my emails to this mailing list, and I found the following HTML tags: a few standard tags at the front to establish that it was an HTML message, and to start the body. A BR tag at the end of each line in the body of the text, and some DIV tags where I skipped lines. Then I looked at your email, this one where you complained that I was using HTML. I found the following HTML tags: a few standard tags at the front to establish that it was an HTML message, and to start the body. A BR tag at the end of each line in the body of the text. The only difference was that there were no DIV tags. However, there was still pretty much one tag for every line in the file. In this forum, people apparently prefer > signs at the start of each line of quoted text. In fact, some people insist on that. You might not realize this, but those line divisions are achieved by using BR tags. As far as I can see, roughly the same amount of HTML is generated in your emails as in my emails. I can make it exactly equal by not skipping any lines. Would you prefer that? Would it be easier for you if my answers were always in a solid block of text without any blank lines separating paragraphs?
John L. Ries wrote:
While the most commonly used mailers all support MIME, many people still use ones that don't (I used to until I started getting so many MIME messages I had to switch),
BTW, supporting MIME is not the same as HTML. My mail client supports MIME, e.g. for attachments, or encryption/signature as OpenPGP/MIME. It can extract the HTML part, and in principle I could read it with a browser. But I have no intention to do so. In most (>>99%) cases, HTML doesn't add anything useful that can't be expressed in plain text (the remaining few cases, e.g. discussion about a particular layout element of the web pages, though these should rather go to gpc-doc, could use an explicit HTML attachment, which is not the same as a multipart message, stating in the message why HTML is attached). Far more often, HTML causes problems or contains some kind of malware.
Frank
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005, Frank Heckenbach wrote:
John L. Ries wrote:
While the most commonly used mailers all support MIME, many people still use ones that don't (I used to until I started getting so many MIME messages I had to switch),
BTW, supporting MIME is not the same as HTML. My mail client supports MIME, e.g. for attachments, or encryption/signature as OpenPGP/MIME. It can extract the HTML part, and in principle I could read it with a browser. But I have no intention to do so. In most (>>99%) cases, HTML doesn't add anything useful that can't be expressed in plain text (the remaining few cases, e.g. discussion about a particular layout element of the web pages, though these should rather go to gpc-doc, could use an explicit HTML attachment, which is not the same as a multipart message, stating in the message why HTML is attached). Far more often, HTML causes problems or contains some kind of malware.
Frank
I stand corrected. The malware issue, of course, is one of the reasons why stupid e-mail clients are preferable to smart ones.
--------------------------| John L. Ries | Salford Systems | Phone: (619)543-8880 x107 | or (435)865-5723 | --------------------------|
Hi,
On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 03:36:10AM -0400, Contestcen@aol.com wrote:
Then I looked at your email, this one where you complained that I was using HTML. I found the following HTML tags: a few standard tags at the front to establish that it was an HTML message, and to start the body. A BR tag at the end of each line in the body of the text. The only difference was that there were no DIV tags. However, there was still pretty much one tag for every line in the file.
If you see HTML code in other people's e-mails, then this is something REALLY weird in your mail system - like "convert incoming mails on-the-fly into HTML format for pretty presentation".
There is NO HTML in my e-mails, and neither in anything written by other regulars.
My line endings are NOT terminated by <BR> tags, and there is no HTML tags at the start or end of my e-mails. Be assured. My e-mail client (mutt) or mail transport (sendmail) have no idea what HTML is, or how to create it.
gert
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 03:36:10AM -0400, Contestcen@aol.com wrote:
Then I looked at your email, this one where you complained that I was using HTML. I found the following HTML tags: a few standard tags at the front to establish that it was an HTML message, and to start the body. A BR tag at the end of each line in the body of the text. The only difference was that there were no DIV tags. However, there was still pretty much one tag for every line in the file.
If you see HTML code in other people's e-mails, then this is something REALLY weird in your mail system - like "convert incoming mails on-the-fly into HTML format for pretty presentation".
I've seen this with webmail systems before; there's nothing wrong with it, as long as there's some way to retrieve the raw message, but it can be misleading (what shows up in Page Source is definitely not what you started with). But now that this horse has definitely been beaten to death, I think we can go onto other things.
--------------------------| John L. Ries | Salford Systems | Phone: (619)543-8880 x107 | or (435)865-5723 | --------------------------|
On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 03:36:10AM -0400, Contestcen@aol.com wrote:
I would encourage that, but please don't just dump HTML messages, bounce them with the specific reason. That might improve the breed.
I looked at some of my emails to this mailing list, and I found the following HTML tags: a few standard tags at the front to establish that it was an HTML message, and to start the body. A BR tag at the end of each line in the body of the text, and some DIV tags where I skipped lines.
Then I looked at your email, this one where you complained that I was using HTML. I found the following HTML tags: a few standard tags at the front to establish that it was an HTML message, and to start the body. A BR tag at the end of each line in the body of the text. The only difference was that there were no DIV tags. However, there was still pretty much one tag for every line in the file.
Patent nonsense. Apparently, you mailer not only sends emails as HTML, but also converts incoming mails to HTML; in reality, there are no HTML tags in any mails on the list except yours.
Let's try it different way. Can your wonderful mailer at least handle binary attachments without messing them up? I've attached the raw text of your last mail, and the Chuck's mail you were replying to. Apart from differences in the "Received" fields in the header and such, everybody on the list gets the messages in this form. Now, save the attachments, and open them in a plain text editor. (You are apparently on Windows, thus text editor means Notepad, for example. _Not_ Word.) Can you see the difference?
Emil Jerabek
-
Contestcen＠aol.com -
Emil Jerabek -
Frank Heckenbach -
Gert Doering -
John L. Ries -
Russell Whitaker