HTML-only email messages on the mailing list (was Python 2 vs python 3 debate)
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 12:01 PM, James Knott <james.knott@rogers.com> wrote:
On 12/16/2014 11:57 AM, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
Please no HTML crap. Major demangling done by hand below:
Some mail lists automagically block HTML messages. Could that not be done on this one?
Mailman does have a way of moderate all HTML messages. But there are a couple of reasons this might be a bad idea: 1) Some smartphone email applications don't allow to send messages as plain text. 2) We would have to help people configure their email clients to send plain text emails. If your solution to #2 is they can just Google it, you could also Google how to read HTML email in your email client.
On 12/16/2014 12:45 PM, Myles Braithwaite wrote:
If your solution to #2 is they can just Google it, you could also Google how to read HTML email in your email client.
I don't have a problem reading HTML email and often send it. However, for this and other lists, I have my address list configured to allow plain text only. My understanding of the reasons for not using HTML are bandwidth & storage, though this might not be so critical these days and security. It's hard to put hazards in plain text.
On 12/16/2014 12:45 PM, Myles Braithwaite wrote:
If your solution to #2 is they can just Google it, you could also Google how to read HTML email in your email client.
Apologies, I forgot to force it to plain text. I am on a blackberry Z10 that I despise and it don't allow me to default to plain text which is my wish. I have to flip it every time I am writing a mail. I will make certain not to overlook it again William
On 2014-12-16 5:49 PM, James Knott wrote:
On 12/16/2014 12:45 PM, Myles Braithwaite wrote:
If your solution to #2 is they can just Google it, you could also Google how to read HTML email in your email client.
I don't have a problem reading HTML email and often send it. However, for this and other lists, I have my address list configured to allow plain text only.
My understanding of the reasons for not using HTML are it looks like garbage.
FTFY! Cheers, Jamon
On 12/16/2014 03:15 PM, Jamon Camisso wrote:
On 2014-12-16 5:49 PM, James Knott wrote:
If your solution to #2 is they can just Google it, you could also Google how to read HTML email in your email client. I don't have a problem reading HTML email and often send it. However, for this and other lists, I have my address list configured to allow
On 12/16/2014 12:45 PM, Myles Braithwaite wrote: plain text only.
My understanding of the reasons for not using HTML are it looks like garbage. FTFY!
Hmmm... Looks like someone has been tampering with my email to make it look as though I said something I didn't.
On Tue 16 Dec 2014 15:58 -0500, James Knott wrote:
On 12/16/2014 03:15 PM, Jamon Camisso wrote:
On 2014-12-16 5:49 PM, James Knott wrote:
If your solution to #2 is they can just Google it, you could also Google how to read HTML email in your email client. I don't have a problem reading HTML email and often send it. However, for this and other lists, I have my address list configured to allow
On 12/16/2014 12:45 PM, Myles Braithwaite wrote: plain text only.
My understanding of the reasons for not using HTML are it looks like garbage. FTFY!
Hmmm... Looks like someone has been trolling with my email to make it look as though I sang something I didn't. lolol
It's hackers.
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 12:45:17PM -0500, Myles Braithwaite wrote:
Mailman does have a way of moderate all HTML messages.
But there are a couple of reasons this might be a bad idea:
1) Some smartphone email applications don't allow to send messages as plain text.
Then don't use those to send messages to a mailing list.
2) We would have to help people configure their email clients to send plain text emails.
Rather that, than unusable emails.
If your solution to #2 is they can just Google it, you could also Google how to read HTML email in your email client.
It can't. At least not in a way that I can reply to cleanly in plain text. So unless people don't expect replies to their email, they better not send them in html in the first place. So you may as well just block them and let the user know why it was blocked. -- Len Sorensen
On 16 December 2014 at 14:39, Lennart Sorensen <lsorense@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
Then don't use those to send messages to a mailing list.
There may be no other option. Also, many clients hide or fudge the status. For instance, Gmail is currently claiming that it's going to send this as plain text with no extraneous quoting. Will it do this? I won't know until I send it.
It can't. At least not in a way that I can reply to cleanly in plain text.
For all its faults, Mozilla Thunderbird can quote HTML to plain text quite well. But I'm sure there are many ways to mess up a reply to a plain text message by quoting in the standard way. That which passes for plain text is a minefield of assumptions (Your English Must Only Have 26 Characters, and Criminally Limited Punctuation) leading to naïve "markup free" limited solutions like Markdown.
So unless people don't expect replies to their email, they better not send them in html in the first place.
Unfortunately, if you're going to block replies based on e-mail format, you'll get a dwindling number of participants in the mailing list. And nothing kills off user groups like lack of participation. cheers, Stewart
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 03:49:09PM -0500, Stewart Russell wrote:
There may be no other option. Also, many clients hide or fudge the status. For instance, Gmail is currently claiming that it's going to send this as plain text with no extraneous quoting. Will it do this? I won't know until I send it.
For all its faults, Mozilla Thunderbird can quote HTML to plain text quite well. But I'm sure there are many ways to mess up a reply to a plain text message by quoting in the standard way. That which passes for plain text is a minefield of assumptions (Your English Must Only Have 26 Characters, and Criminally Limited Punctuation) leading to naïve "markup free" limited solutions like Markdown.
It also for the longest time would not actually put '>' on the lines of the plain text if you asked it to send both html and plain text versions. Not sure that bug has ever been fixed. And it is hardly a useful email client when you do email over ssh. I use mutt and edit with vim.
Unfortunately, if you're going to block replies based on e-mail format, you'll get a dwindling number of participants in the mailing list. And nothing kills off user groups like lack of participation.
I will happily ignore html messages and not reply to them. -- Len Sorensen
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014, 3:55 PM Lennart Sorensen <lsorense@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 03:49:09PM -0500, Stewart Russell wrote:
There may be no other option. Also, many clients hide or fudge the status. For instance, Gmail is currently claiming that it's going to send this as plain text with no extraneous quoting. Will it do this? I won't know until I send it.
For all its faults, Mozilla Thunderbird can quote HTML to plain text quite well. But I'm sure there are many ways to mess up a reply to a plain text message by quoting in the standard way. That which passes for plain text is a minefield of assumptions (Your English Must Only Have 26 Characters, and Criminally Limited Punctuation) leading to naïve "markup free" limited solutions like Markdown.
It also for the longest time would not actually put '>' on the lines of the plain text if you asked it to send both html and plain text versions. Not sure that bug has ever been fixed.
And it is hardly a useful email client when you do email over ssh. I use mutt and edit with vim.
Unfortunately, if you're going to block replies based on e-mail format, you'll get a dwindling number of participants in the mailing list. And nothing kills off user groups like lack of participation.
I will happily ignore html messages and not reply to them.
-- Len Sorensen
--- GTALUG Talk Mailing List - talk@gtalug.org http://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk
For me it has always been a very simple logical request. There is no benefit at all to using HTML in this list, and there are tons and tons of drawbacks to using it. GMail and now even Inbox seem to always default to plain text for me anyway, at least AFAICT.
On Dec 16, 2014 3:55 PM, "Lennart Sorensen" <lsorense@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
It also for the longest time would not actually put '>' on the lines of the plain text
That one's fixed, though there's a lot not to like still in Thunderbird. Like its weird text-size bump in some rich text modes. Or it not understanding that CSS from embedded replies doesn't need spell-checked. Thunderbird development is stalled, so the best I can hope for is that they don't add any new bugs.
I use mutt and edit with vim.
My sincerest condolences ;-) Stewart
On Tue 16 Dec 2014 14:39 -0500, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
2) We would have to help people configure their email clients to send plain text emails.
Rather that, than unusable emails.
If your solution to #2 is they can just Google it, you could also Google how to read HTML email in your email client.
It can't. At least not in a way that I can reply to cleanly in plain text.
So unless people don't expect replies to their email, they better not send them in html in the first place. So you may as well just block them and let the user know why it was blocked.
Get a better mail client or configure it properly. I only check my email in a terminal and don't really have problems reading or replying to HTML mail. Yes, I do prefer text, but realize there are a lot of mailing lists that only send HTML and clients/devices that make it difficult for the user to write plain text mail. It's much easier to configure your client properly than to get everyone to stop using HTML email (which will never happen).
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014, 3:58 PM Loui Chang <louipc.ist@gmail.com> wrote: On Tue 16 Dec 2014 14:39 -0500, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
2) We would have to help people configure their email clients to send plain text emails.
Rather that, than unusable emails.
If your solution to #2 is they can just Google it, you could also Google how to read HTML email in your email client.
It can't. At least not in a way that I can reply to cleanly in plain text.
So unless people don't expect replies to their email, they better not send them in html in the first place. So you may as well just block them and let the user know why it was blocked.
Get a better mail client or configure it properly. I only check my email in a terminal and don't really have problems reading or replying to HTML mail. Yes, I do prefer text, but realize there are a lot of mailing lists that only send HTML and clients/devices that make it difficult for the user to write plain text mail. It's much easier to configure your client properly than to get everyone to stop using HTML email (which will never happen). --- GTALUG Talk Mailing List - talk@ <talk@gtalug.org>gtalug.org <talk@gtalug.org> http:// <http://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk>gtalug.org <http://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk>/mailman/ <http://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk>listinfo <http://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk>/talk <http://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk> Well if you apply such all or nothing thinking, you can dismiss almost any standard or rule. Why bother if not everyone will obey? Of course not everyone will obey every rule but they are still useful and this one is very reasonable to ask.
On Tue 16 Dec 2014 21:21 +0000, Thomas Milne wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014, 3:58 PM Loui Chang <louipc.ist@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue 16 Dec 2014 14:39 -0500, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
2) We would have to help people configure their email clients to send plain text emails.
Rather that, than unusable emails.
If your solution to #2 is they can just Google it, you could also Google how to read HTML email in your email client.
It can't. At least not in a way that I can reply to cleanly in plain text.
So unless people don't expect replies to their email, they better not send them in html in the first place. So you may as well just block them and let the user know why it was blocked.
Get a better mail client or configure it properly. I only check my email in a terminal and don't really have problems reading or replying to HTML mail.
Yes, I do prefer text, but realize there are a lot of mailing lists that only send HTML and clients/devices that make it difficult for the user to write plain text mail.
It's much easier to configure your client properly than to get everyone to stop using HTML email (which will never happen).
--- GTALUG Talk Mailing List - talk@ <talk@gtalug.org>gtalug.org <talk@gtalug.org> http:// <http://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk>gtalug.org <http://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk>/mailman/ <http://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk>listinfo <http://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk>/talk <http://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk>
Well if you apply such all or nothing thinking, you can dismiss almost any standard or rule. Why bother if not everyone will obey? Of course not everyone will obey every rule but they are still useful and this one is very reasonable to ask.
Well, because there will always be people doing stupid things like sending html mails, not quoting replies properly, not stripping footers/signatures, and such. You do you best to help educate people but don't cut them off lock-stock-and-barrel unless they show a real sign of stubborn ignorance. Then there's the fact that I have better things to do than to educate the world. Fighting the grave injustices of html email is just not that important to me. I have other priorities in life.
On 14-12-16 04:21 PM, Thomas Milne wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014, 3:58 PM Loui Chang <louipc.ist@gmail.com <mailto:louipc.ist@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Tue 16 Dec 2014 14:39 -0500, Lennart Sorensen wrote: > > 2) We would have to help people configure their email clients to send > > plain text emails. > > Rather that, than unusable emails. > > > If your solution to #2 is they can just Google it, you could also > > Google how to read HTML email in your email client. > > It can't. At least not in a way that I can reply to cleanly in plain > text. > > So unless people don't expect replies to their email, they better not > send them in html in the first place. So you may as well just block > them and let the user know why it was blocked.
Get a better mail client or configure it properly. I only check my email in a terminal and don't really have problems reading or replying to HTML mail.
Yes, I do prefer text, but realize there are a lot of mailing lists that only send HTML and clients/devices that make it difficult for the user to write plain text mail.
It's much easier to configure your client properly than to get everyone to stop using HTML email (which will never happen).
--- GTALUG Talk Mailing List - talk@ <mailto:talk@gtalug.org>gtalug.org <mailto:talk@gtalug.org> http:// <http://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk>gtalug.org <http://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk>/mailman/ <http://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk>listinfo <http://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk>/talk <http://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk>
Well if you apply such all or nothing thinking, you can dismiss almost any standard or rule. Why bother if not everyone will obey? Of course not everyone will obey every rule but they are still useful and this one is very reasonable to ask.
Thomas... you realize that both the emails you sent to the list on the subject of not using HTML email... were HTML emails... right? I'm not sure if that was intentional satire... :) (No, Gmail is not sending plain text email.)
On 2014-12-16 11:47 PM, Blaise Alleyne wrote:
(No, Gmail is not sending plain text email.)
I think that's more the problem. Gmail sometimes shows an indicator that it's using plain text, but then sends it with an HTML version anyway. It being Google, there are no reliable user settings we can control. I still occasionally use a system that transmits and receives using 5-bit Baudot, but I don't recommend it. The slightest bit of noise can shift you out of alphabetical characters into others. Plus, it has no case. cheers, Stewart
On Wed, 2014-12-17 at 08:25 -0500, Stewart C. Russell wrote:
On 2014-12-16 11:47 PM, Blaise Alleyne wrote:
(No, Gmail is not sending plain text email.)
I think that's more the problem. Gmail sometimes shows an indicator that it's using plain text, but then sends it with an HTML version anyway. It being Google, there are no reliable user settings we can control.
I still occasionally use a system that transmits and receives using 5-bit Baudot, but I don't recommend it. The slightest bit of noise can shift you out of alphabetical characters into others. Plus, it has no case.
Same with ASCII though, really. It has upper and lower, but there is no Business Case for it. Mel.
On 12/17/2014 08:25 AM, Stewart C. Russell wrote:
On 2014-12-16 11:47 PM, Blaise Alleyne wrote:
(No, Gmail is not sending plain text email.) I think that's more the problem. Gmail sometimes shows an indicator that it's using plain text, but then sends it with an HTML version anyway. It being Google, there are no reliable user settings we can control.
I still occasionally use a system that transmits and receives using 5-bit Baudot, but I don't recommend it. The slightest bit of noise can shift you out of alphabetical characters into others. Plus, it has no case.
cheers, Stewart
Baudot??? I haven't seen that in decades!
On Dec 17, 2014 9:57 AM, "James Knott" <james.knott@rogers.com> wrote:
Baudot??? I haven't seen that in decades!
It still lives on - in an admitted niche - in amateur radio teletype digital modes. Because RTTY uses a very simple FSK coding scheme, it survives amplification from nonlinear amplifiers quite well. It means you get teeth-rattlingly loud signals blasting in from stations worldwide. Usually all over your carefully crafted low power signal ... grar. Stewart
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 11:47 PM, Blaise Alleyne <email+libre@blaise.ca> wrote:
On 14-12-16 04:21 PM, Thomas Milne wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014, 3:58 PM Loui Chang <louipc.ist@gmail.com <mailto:louipc.ist@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Tue 16 Dec 2014 14:39 -0500, Lennart Sorensen wrote: > > 2) We would have to help people configure their email clients to send > > plain text emails. > > Rather that, than unusable emails. > > > If your solution to #2 is they can just Google it, you could also > > Google how to read HTML email in your email client. > > It can't. At least not in a way that I can reply to cleanly in plain > text. > > So unless people don't expect replies to their email, they better not > send them in html in the first place. So you may as well just block > them and let the user know why it was blocked.
Get a better mail client or configure it properly. I only check my email in a terminal and don't really have problems reading or replying to HTML mail.
Yes, I do prefer text, but realize there are a lot of mailing lists that only send HTML and clients/devices that make it difficult for the user to write plain text mail.
It's much easier to configure your client properly than to get everyone to stop using HTML email (which will never happen).
--- GTALUG Talk Mailing List - talk@ <mailto:talk@gtalug.org>gtalug.org <mailto:talk@gtalug.org> http:// <http://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk>gtalug.org <http://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk>/mailman/ <http://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk>listinfo <http://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk>/talk <http://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk>
Well if you apply such all or nothing thinking, you can dismiss almost any standard or rule. Why bother if not everyone will obey? Of course not everyone will obey every rule but they are still useful and this one is very reasonable to ask.
Thomas... you realize that both the emails you sent to the list on the subject of not using HTML email... were HTML emails... right?
I'm not sure if that was intentional satire... :)
(No, Gmail is not sending plain text email.)
OH HOW EMBARRASSING Anyway it's not GMail's fault it's mine. I've been using Inbox, the hip new thing from Google. I assumed since Lennart was not scolding me I was okay :-) -- Thomas Milne
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 10:18:19AM -0500, Thomas Milne wrote
I've been using Inbox, the hip new thing from Google. I assumed since Lennart was not scolding me I was okay :-)
Reminds me of a post on Slashdot about Google's development process, that was so good, I saved it locally... ======================================================================== Guy with piercings: Hey, look, I made it so when you, like, compose a new email this itty bitty box pops up! Girl with shaved head: Neato! But it's, like, taking up the whole page. That's so last decade. [clickety-clicketty-click] Person of transient gender with dreadlocks: Yay, now you can only see three words at a time. Minimalismo! GWSH: Better hide those scrollbars. They're so Windows XP! [1] POTGWD: But we'll need some way to scroll, with the window being so petite. GWSH: If you, like, move the mouse to the right quickly, that could mean "up" or something. GWP: Inside the box, or anywhere on the screen? GWSH & POTGWD: Anywhere on the screen, of course! All: Awesome! Chief UX Creative: That's what I like to hear. Let's all hop on our fixies, the whoppachoccacacamochos are on me! All: Totally awesome! [1] This is the earliest version any of them have heard of, let alone used. ======================================================================== -- Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>
On Dec 17, 2014 5:50 PM, "Walter Dnes" <waltdnes@waltdnes.org> wrote:
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 10:18:19AM -0500, Thomas Milne wrote
I've been using Inbox, the hip new thing from Google. I assumed since Lennart was not scolding me I was okay :-)
Reminds me of a post on Slashdot about Google's development process, that was so good, I saved it locally...
========================================================================
Guy with piercings: Hey, look, I made it so when you, like, compose a new email this itty bitty box pops up!
Girl with shaved head: Neato! But it's, like, taking up the whole page. That's so last decade.
[clickety-clicketty-click]
Person of transient gender with dreadlocks: Yay, now you can only see three words at a time. Minimalismo!
GWSH: Better hide those scrollbars. They're so Windows XP! [1]
POTGWD: But we'll need some way to scroll, with the window being so petite.
GWSH: If you, like, move the mouse to the right quickly, that could mean "up" or something.
GWP: Inside the box, or anywhere on the screen?
GWSH & POTGWD: Anywhere on the screen, of course!
All: Awesome!
Chief UX Creative: That's what I like to hear. Let's all hop on our fixies, the whoppachoccacacamochos are on me!
All: Totally awesome!
[1] This is the earliest version any of them have heard of, let alone used.
Is this meant to be funny? It seems like a pretty good effort at offending anyone who isn't an old conformist middle class douchebag.
If you don't get the humor please use your delete button! On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 5:05 PM, Thomas Milne <thomas.bruce.milne@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 17, 2014 5:50 PM, "Walter Dnes" <waltdnes@waltdnes.org> wrote:
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 10:18:19AM -0500, Thomas Milne wrote
I've been using Inbox, the hip new thing from Google. I assumed since Lennart was not scolding me I was okay :-)
Reminds me of a post on Slashdot about Google's development process, that was so good, I saved it locally...
========================================================================
Guy with piercings: Hey, look, I made it so when you, like, compose a new email this itty bitty box pops up!
Girl with shaved head: Neato! But it's, like, taking up the whole page. That's so last decade.
[clickety-clicketty-click]
Person of transient gender with dreadlocks: Yay, now you can only see three words at a time. Minimalismo!
GWSH: Better hide those scrollbars. They're so Windows XP! [1]
POTGWD: But we'll need some way to scroll, with the window being so petite.
GWSH: If you, like, move the mouse to the right quickly, that could mean "up" or something.
GWP: Inside the box, or anywhere on the screen?
GWSH & POTGWD: Anywhere on the screen, of course!
All: Awesome!
Chief UX Creative: That's what I like to hear. Let's all hop on our fixies, the whoppachoccacacamochos are on me!
All: Totally awesome!
[1] This is the earliest version any of them have heard of, let alone used.
Is this meant to be funny? It seems like a pretty good effort at offending anyone who isn't an old conformist middle class douchebag.
--- GTALUG Talk Mailing List - talk@gtalug.org http://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk
On Dec 17, 2014 7:58 PM, "o1bigtenor" <o1bigtenor@gmail.com> wrote:
If you don't get the humor please use your delete button!
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 5:05 PM, Thomas Milne <
Oh I get it. Weird "transient gender" people with shaved heads and piercings have stupid ideas about things. It's hilarious. thomas.bruce.milne@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 17, 2014 5:50 PM, "Walter Dnes" <waltdnes@waltdnes.org> wrote:
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 10:18:19AM -0500, Thomas Milne wrote
I've been using Inbox, the hip new thing from Google. I assumed since Lennart was not scolding me I was okay :-)
Reminds me of a post on Slashdot about Google's development process, that was so good, I saved it locally...
========================================================================
Guy with piercings: Hey, look, I made it so when you, like, compose a new email this itty bitty box pops up!
Girl with shaved head: Neato! But it's, like, taking up the whole page. That's so last decade.
[clickety-clicketty-click]
Person of transient gender with dreadlocks: Yay, now you can only see three words at a time. Minimalismo!
GWSH: Better hide those scrollbars. They're so Windows XP! [1]
POTGWD: But we'll need some way to scroll, with the window being so petite.
GWSH: If you, like, move the mouse to the right quickly, that could
mean
"up" or something.
GWP: Inside the box, or anywhere on the screen?
GWSH & POTGWD: Anywhere on the screen, of course!
All: Awesome!
Chief UX Creative: That's what I like to hear. Let's all hop on our fixies, the whoppachoccacacamochos are on me!
All: Totally awesome!
[1] This is the earliest version any of them have heard of, let alone used.
Is this meant to be funny? It seems like a pretty good effort at offending anyone who isn't an old conformist middle class douchebag.
--- GTALUG Talk Mailing List - talk@gtalug.org http://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk
--- GTALUG Talk Mailing List - talk@gtalug.org http://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk
If you don't get the humor please use your delete button!
GTALUG operates under a code of conduct. http://gtalug.org/about/code-of-conduct/ The code has some leeway it so that if certain kinds of comments or material appear, recognition and an apology are an absolutely perfect outcome (and this thread is a good example of that). If anyone has feedback on the code, let me know. I can always use more input. Proposed revisions are reviewed annually by the board. It's not good for the group if we ignore offensive comments. Mike
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 06:05:01PM -0500, Thomas Milne wrote
Is this meant to be funny? It seems like a pretty good effort at offending anyone who isn't an old conformist middle class douchebag.
I apologize to anyone who was offended. It was intended as a dig against Google's seemingly capricious imlementation and deprecation of their software. -- Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 10:18:19AM -0500, Thomas Milne wrote:
OH HOW EMBARRASSING
Anyway it's not GMail's fault it's mine.
I've been using Inbox, the hip new thing from Google. I assumed since Lennart was not scolding me I was okay :-)
You were sending both plain text and html, which means I get plain text version automatically and hence am entirely happy. The html version I don't look at doesn't bother me. It is html only email that sucks. -- Len Sorensen
participants (14)
-
Blaise Alleyne -
James Knott -
Jamon Camisso -
Lennart Sorensen -
Loui Chang -
Mel Wilson -
mike -
Myles Braithwaite -
o1bigtenor -
Stewart C. Russell -
Stewart Russell
-
Thomas Milne -
Walter Dnes -
William Muriithi