On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 09:46:08PM -0700, Diagonal Arg wrote:
>
> >>> On 11/7/19 10:44 pm, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> >>> Enough reasons to change mail provider.
> >>
> >> I agree, but every time I look around, I find only other mega corporate
> >> operators that offer realistic data storage limit
>>> On 11/7/19 10:44 pm, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
>>> Enough reasons to change mail provider.
>>
>> I agree, but every time I look around, I find only other mega corporate
>> operators that offer realistic data storage limits.
>
> I'd be interested in some suggestions, please
https://riseup.net/
On 11/7/19 10:44 pm, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
Enough reasons to change mail provider.
Good afternoon All
I agree, but every time I look around, I find only other mega corporate
operators that offer realistic data storage limits.
I'd be interested in some suggestions, please.
Keith B
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 07:57:33AM -, Curt wrote:
> On 2019-07-12, wrote:
> >
> >
> > I have the impression you're being blindsided by ideology there. To me,
>
> C’est l’hôpital qui se moque de la charité.
:-)
But still, *my* ideology is right and *yours* is wrong ;-P
Cheers
-- t
signat
On 2019-07-12, wrote:
>
>
> I have the impression you're being blindsided by ideology there. To me,
C’est l’hôpital qui se moque de la charité.
--
“We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.”
― Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere's Fan
On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 11:34:01AM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> tomas writes:
> > I think bigcorps love that, because they hate the decentralized nature
> > of mail.
>
> I don't think they care (except that they don't want one of their
> competitors in control).
Oh, they do. You can't easily mone
tomas writes:
> I think bigcorps love that, because they hate the decentralized nature
> of mail.
I don't think they care (except that they don't want one of their
competitors in control). Government hates it, of course. It would have
been easy to adopt anti-spam measures that would have made wh
On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 07:53:12AM -0400, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 10, 2019 10:33:58 PM Kenneth Parker wrote:
> > So now,
> > Google is running the Internet? Those Universe emails were DEFINITELY text
> > only!
>
> For quite a while -- they decide what goes in your (well, th
On Wednesday, July 10, 2019 10:33:58 PM Kenneth Parker wrote:
> So now,
> Google is running the Internet? Those Universe emails were DEFINITELY text
> only!
For quite a while -- they decide what goes in your (well, their) spam folder,
and, quite often, if someone else decides something is spam f
On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 10:33:58PM -0400, Kenneth Parker wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 12:52 PM Greg Wooledge wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 06:48:22PM +0200, mjonsson1...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="
> > http://schemas.microsoft.com/
On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 12:52 PM Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 06:48:22PM +0200, mjonsson1...@gmail.com wrote:
> > xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="
> http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml"; xmlns="
> http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40";> content="
On Mi, 10 iul 19, 09:25:02, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
>
> 4. html viewers are known for being exploitable in many and
>surprising ways.
Thanks, forgot about that one.
A recent example:
https://efail.de/
In the 'Responsible Disclosure' section there is nice coloured table
with popular clients
On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 09:31:13AM +0300, Reco wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 10:35:33AM +0900, John Crawley wrote:
> > On Thunderbird the OP was perfectly readable, and I had no idea it
> > wasn't plain text till I checked the source.
>
> It was readable in my mutt too. Still does not make it r
On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 07:21:39AM +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Mi, 10 iul 19, 10:35:33, John Crawley wrote:
> > On 2019-07-10 01:52, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > >
> > > Please post only text, not HTML. If your email agent *cannot* do plain
> > > text alone, at least configure it to send both p
On Wed, 10 Jul 2019 07:21:39 +0300
Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> 2. Some (many?) of us are reading messages on text-only clients.
>
>This may be for objective or subjective reasons, but it's probably
>quite common here.
>
>Sure, there are ways to display html content, but see 1.
>
> 3.
Hi.
On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 10:35:33AM +0900, John Crawley wrote:
> On 2019-07-10 01:52, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 06:48:22PM +0200, mjonsson1...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word"
> > > xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/o
On Mi, 10 iul 19, 10:35:33, John Crawley wrote:
> On 2019-07-10 01:52, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> >
> > Please post only text, not HTML. If your email agent *cannot* do plain
> > text alone, at least configure it to send both plain text and HTML. Or,
> > y'know, get a better email agent.
> >
> Of c
On 2019-07-10 01:52, Greg Wooledge wrote:
On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 06:48:22PM +0200, mjonsson1...@gmail.com wrote:
http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml"; xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40";>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 06:48:22PM +0200, mjonsson1...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word"
>
> Please post only text, not HTML. If your email agent *cannot* do plain
> text alone, at least con
On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 06:48:22PM +0200, mjonsson1...@gmail.com wrote:
> xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word"
> xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml";
> xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40";> content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
20 matches
Mail list logo
