On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 01:00:40PM +0000, mike wilson wrote: > John Francis wrote: > > >On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 11:30:00AM +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > >>>From: John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > >>>Well, if you *will* use web browsers as mail clients ... > >> > >>Agreed. I have to set the one at work to accept html mail, as many of > >>the dipsticks who are supposed to be running the place think it's good to > >>send 15Kb messages to ask simple questions. > > > > > >I won't do that for my primary mail program. Well, it *accepts* > >html mail, but it displays it as text, complete with all the tags. > >That means it's all but impossible to understand what is being said. > >As a result, those questions don't get answered. > > > >Occasionally I fire up an alternative mail program (usually when > >there is an attachment I really want to extract, or somesuch). > >I then go back and review any outstanding malformed messages. > > Pretty much the same for me, at home. At work, with the power mad (they > think that "being in charge of" means "have power over" rather than "be > responsible for") little masturbators in "management" positions, it is > easier to leave it in HTML mode and not have to explain for the > umpteenth time to their walnut-sized brains (which I suspect _are_ > located in their nether regions) that they are abusing a system. > > mike > feeling better now but I might do that again for fun.....
I find that replying to them from a text-only email program, keeping the entire mess of HTML, etc., as quoted text (using a ">" as a quote character to further mess up their TAG parser) quite often does the trick.
