Robert Jones wrote:
On Thursday 12 June 2003 08:12 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Message: 5
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 09:01:52 -0400
From: Hal Burgiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: html mail
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 01:58:07PM +0200, Seba
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 09:01:52 -0400, Hal Burgiss wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 01:58:07PM +0200, Sebastiaan Mangoentinojo
> wrote:
> > :( My apologies for sending html mail. I wasn't paying attention
> > using someone else's computer.
>
> Perfectl
On Thursday 12 June 2003 08:12 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 09:01:52 -0400
> From: Hal Burgiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: html mail
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 12, 200
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 01:58:07PM +0200, Sebastiaan Mangoentinojo
wrote:
> :( My apologies for sending html mail. I wasn't paying attention
> using someone else's computer.
Perfectly alright. /dev/null is nowhere near full :/
--
Hal Burgiss
--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 25-Oct-2002/11:52 -0500, Bret Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Fri, 2002-10-25 at 10:32, Francisco Neira wrote:
>>
>> Hmm, interesting. I had no idea what those hyphens were intended for...
>>
> be neither since evolution does not do anything
On Fri, 2002-10-25 at 11:06, Anthony E. Greene wrote:
> At the time when it was first used, there probably was a reason for the
> trailing space. At this point it's one of those informal Internet
> standards, just like the reply quote ">".
It's somewhat documented.
>From RFC 2646:
4.3. Usenet S
On Fri, 2002-10-25 at 10:32, Francisco Neira wrote:
> Anthony E. Greene wrote:
> > On 25-Oct-2002/03:04 -0500, Vidiot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>I've never had a problem with "--". Every program that I know that's looked
> >>at it hasn't complained about a space. Doesn't make any sense f
Anthony E. Greene wrote:
On 25-Oct-2002/03:04 -0500, Vidiot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've never had a problem with "--". Every program that I know that's looked
at it hasn't complained about a space. Doesn't make any sense for it to
be there.
At the time when it was first used, there prob
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 25-Oct-2002/03:04 -0500, Vidiot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>I've never had a problem with "--". Every program that I know that's looked
>at it hasn't complained about a space. Doesn't make any sense for it to
>be there.
At the time when it was
On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 03:10:40AM -0500, Vidiot wrote:
> I take it back, there is a space at the end. I never do it manually, elm
> always adds it. I've never noticed before.
Good to know that there *are* mail programs that make wise decisions... ;-)
Cheerio,
Thomas
--
http://www.netmeister
On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 09:11:46AM +0200, Ernest E Vogelsinger wrote:
> At 09:07 25.10.2002, Thomas Ribbrock said:
> >So now you only have to fix your signature delimiter: It's "-- " (note the
> >space!) on a line of its own, not just "--"... ;-)
> [snip]
>
>
>At 09:07 25.10.2002, Thomas Ribbrock said:
>[snip]
>>On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 07:48:11PM +0200, Ernest E Vogelsinger wrote:
>>[...]
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>
>>So now you only have to fix your signature delimiter: It's "-- " (note the
>>space!) on a line of its o
>On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 07:48:11PM +0200, Ernest E Vogelsinger wrote:
>[...]
>>
>>
>> --
>>>O Ernest E. Vogelsinger/~\ The ASCII
>>(\)ICQ #13394035\ / Ribbon Campaign
>> ^ X Against
>>
At 09:07 25.10.2002, Thomas Ribbrock said:
[snip]
>On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 07:48:11PM +0200, Ernest E Vogelsinger wrote:
>[...]
>>
>>
>> --
>
>So now you only have to fix your signature delimiter: It's "-- " (note the
>space!) on a line of its own, not just
On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 07:48:11PM +0200, Ernest E Vogelsinger wrote:
[...]
>
>
> --
>>O Ernest E. Vogelsinger/~\ The ASCII
>(\)ICQ #13394035\ / Ribbon Campaign
> ^ X Against
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 24-Oct-2002/16:56 -0500, Vidiot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>I used to do that, but the few HTML-only messages that I want to read are
>>not completely rendered by character mode browsers. Instead, I configured
>>my GUI browser as the text/html view
On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 04:56:16PM -0500, Vidiot wrote:
> >I used to do that, but the few HTML-only messages that I want to read are
> >not completely rendered by character mode browsers. Instead, I configured
> >my GUI browser as the text/html viewer.
> >Tony
>
> During the week day, I read my ma
>I used to do that, but the few HTML-only messages that I want to read are
>not completely rendered by character mode browsers. Instead, I configured
>my GUI browser as the text/html viewer.
>Tony
During the week day, I read my mail from work, via a telnet connection.
No X available.
MB
--
e-mai
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 24-Oct-2002/12:11 -0700, Daniel Goldin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On (10/24/02 11:58), Vidiot wrote:
>>
>> How does mutt handle html only e-mail. How does mutt handle replying to
>> combo plaintext/html e-mail?
>
>You need to put some stuff in yo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 24-Oct-2002/11:58 -0500, Vidiot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I believe that the message needed to go out, as it does every now and
>then because new users are joining the fold all the time. Not using
>anyone's name probably would have been better.
>You need to put some stuff in your mailcap file and in your
>.muttrc. If you're interested I could send you my settings. Replying
>works as though you're replying to text, if you set things up right.
Yes please.
Thanks.
MB
--
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] It is God's job to forgive bin Laden
David Wheeler is a self-professed Linux newbie, attempting to install
Redhat for the first time. Singling him out--however gently--seems to
me a bigger breach of etiquette than sending email in html form. Not
the kind of welcome one would hope to get from an open-source
community.
If you use a goo
>David Wheeler is a self-professed Linux newbie, attempting to install
>Redhat for the first time. Singling him out--however gently--seems to
>me a bigger breach of etiquette than sending email in html form. Not
>the kind of welcome one would hope to get from an open-source community.
I believe th
At 19:25 24.10.2002, Francisco Neira said:
[snip]
>What about using this ribbon? :-D
[snip]
...adopted...
--
>O Ernest E. Vogelsinger/~\ The ASCII
(\)ICQ #13394035
On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 09:27:31AM -0700, Daniel Goldin wrote:
> David Wheeler is a self-professed Linux newbie, attempting to install
> Redhat for the first time. Singling him out--however gently--seems to
> me a bigger breach of etiquette than sending email in html form. Not
> the kind of welcome
What about using this ribbon? :-D
--
Francisco Neira B. /~\ The ASCII
Administrador de Red\ / Ribbon Campaign
Defensoria del PuebloX Against
Lima, Peru, -05:00 UTC / \ H
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> On (10/23/02 16:25), mark wrote:
> > Folks,
> >
> >I'll bring it up again. *Please* consider that, esp. in the
> >Unix/Linux
> > world there are a *whole* lot less people who want html mail. We
> > don't *care* what nifty font you're writi
how
to use it now!
Regards
Dave
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:redhat-list-admin@;redhat.com]
On Behalf Of Daniel Goldin
Sent: 24 October 2002 17:28
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: html mail
David Wheeler is a self-professed Linux newbie, attempting to install
On (10/24/02 13:53), [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 09:27:31AM -0700, Daniel Goldin wrote:
> > David Wheeler is a self-professed Linux newbie, attempting to install
> > Redhat for the first time. Singling him out--however gently--seems to
> > me a bigger breach of etiquette than
On (10/24/02 11:58), Vidiot wrote:
>
> >If you use a good old Linux mailer like mutt and w3m to process html
> >mail and procmail to sort mailing lists instead of using a digest--it
> >all comes out looking like vanilla text. Since I switched to mutt, I
> >no longer seethe with irritation over htm
On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 04:25:46PM -0500, mark wrote:
[...]
> Just so y'all have a clue what I'm talking about, I took a post from the
> current digest (and I am *not* picking on you, Dave Wheeler, it's just that
> your post was what was in front of me when I got irritated), and I've mangled
> t
Folks,
I'll bring it up again. *Please* consider that, esp. in the Unix/Linux
world there are a *whole* lot less people who want html mail. We don't *care*
what nifty font you're writing in, we don't *care* about your
wowser-stationary/wallpaper.
On top of that, this is a mailing list. A l
Hi Tim,
Tim Kehres wrote:
> These "rules" (netiquette pertaining to HTML postings) have been around
> since almost before time began (at least in reference to modern email
> usage). At the time they made a lot sense. In terms of current usage, not
> as much, IMHO. When sending content that ca
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07-Oct-2002/06:26 +0800, Tim Kehres <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Wow - people still use elm! :-) Anyway, there is a simple solution to
>this - use either POP3 and/or IMAP4 capable clients. SSL is supported on
>top of both protocols.
I use mutt.
> I thought this list was to discuss the redhat distro,
> not some sort of holy war. Gee, the real slashdot
> effect is everywhere now I guess.
You're right - let's take this discussion off list, OK?
Best Regards,
-- Tim
--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subje
I thought this list was to discuss the redhat distro,
not some sort of holy war. Gee, the real slashdot
effect is everywhere now I guess.
Filtering will do I guess.
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
http://faith.y
> >The majority of email clients today however are HTML aware, and the
> >percentage of people using such HTML-aware clients is only increasing.
The
> >reasons are simple - it is easier to read (typically), and more
information
> >can be conveyed effectively. Other lists that I'm subscribed to h
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 03:14:01AM +0800, Tim Kehres wrote:
> > These "rules" (netiquette pertaining to HTML postings) have been around
> > since almost before time began (at least in reference to modern email
> > usage). At the time they made a lot sense. In terms of current usage,
not
> > a
> I disagree. If everyone used HTML mail just for things like screenshots
> or where an image was essential, then maybe it would be workable.
> However, most people use HTML mail to create a fancy border or
> background, or to hideously misuse fonts, in most cases communicating
> nothing useful a
>The majority of email clients today however are HTML aware, and the
>percentage of people using such HTML-aware clients is only increasing. The
>reasons are simple - it is easier to read (typically), and more information
>can be conveyed effectively. Other lists that I'm subscribed to have mad
On Sun, 2002-10-06 at 15:14, Tim Kehres wrote:
> The majority of email clients today however are HTML aware, and the
> percentage of people using such HTML-aware clients is only increasing. The
> reasons are simple - it is easier to read (typically), and more information
> can be conveyed effecti
On Sun, 6 Oct 2002, Hal Burgiss wrote:
> I wonder what percentage of those had viruses or other bad things
> happen as a result of this brain dead tendency. Text based mail is a
> great, free AV tool (for those saddled with MS software).
Pine all the way! What I love is the amount of email going
On Sun, Oct 06, 2002 at 03:37:00PM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Tim Kehres wrote:
>
> > The majority of email clients today however are HTML aware, and the
> > percentage of people using such HTML-aware clients is only increasing.
>
> 9x% of the world uses Microsoft softw
On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 03:14:01AM +0800, Tim Kehres wrote:
> These "rules" (netiquette pertaining to HTML postings) have been around
> since almost before time began (at least in reference to modern email
> usage). At the time they made a lot sense. In terms of current usage, not
> as much, IM
On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Tim Kehres wrote:
> The majority of email clients today however are HTML aware, and the
> percentage of people using such HTML-aware clients is only increasing.
9x% of the world uses Microsoft software. This does not make it
a good thing.
rday
--
redhat-list mailing li
Tim Kehres wrote:
> These "rules" (netiquette pertaining to HTML postings) have been around
> since almost before time began (at least in reference to modern email
> usage). At the time they made a lot sense. In terms of current usage, not
> as much, IMHO. When sending content that can be sent
These "rules" (netiquette pertaining to HTML postings) have been around
since almost before time began (at least in reference to modern email
usage). At the time they made a lot sense. In terms of current usage, not
as much, IMHO. When sending content that can be sent either way, it's
always a
47 matches
Mail list logo
