|
|
|
|
|
Posted by John Bledsoe on January 19, 2008, 6:58 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 16:24:30 -0500 (EST), Bill Horne wrote:
>
>***** Moderator's Note *****
>So, PLEASE don't use a Subject such as "Re: Telecom Digest". Also,
>PLEASE don't use Quoted-printable encoding _or_ html. The Digest is
>text-only.
>
>Bill Horne
>Temporary Moderator
Bill,
Mike and a number of people use Yahoo and Gmail as their only E-mail.
Often times, there is no "text only" option. When people like Mike
post, they may not have the option to change to ASCII text.
More and more people use web-based E-mail where HTML is the only
choice. The days of POP3/SMTP are unfortunately numbered. Even with
Usenet you tend to see more HTML in there.
Is there some sort of HTML removal tool you can use to strip the HTML
coding and return to ASCII text?
JB
***** Moderator's Note *****
JB,
AFAIK, HTML can be stripped, but quoted-printable can't. So long as a
message contains "Text/Plain" content, I'll do everything I can to
publish it.
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
|
 
| |
Posted by Scott Dorsey on January 24, 2008, 10:05 am
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
>
>Mike and a number of people use Yahoo and Gmail as their only E-mail.
>Often times, there is no "text only" option. When people like Mike
>post, they may not have the option to change to ASCII text.
This is not acceptable. There is no reason to put up with this trash.
If some mail services cannot conform to common standards, there is no reason
the REST of us should put up with it. There is no reason to accept HTML
mail. If people want to be able to communicate with the world, they should
learn to use the standards the rest of the world uses, or use a service
that does.
>More and more people use web-based E-mail where HTML is the only
>choice. The days of POP3/SMTP are unfortunately numbered. Even with
>Usenet you tend to see more HTML in there.
Not me. Like most better Usenet services, the provider I use runs cleanfeed
which discards all HTML postings. While HTML e-mail is unnecessary and silly,
HTML posts to Usenet are TOTALLY unacceptable and in violation of RFCs.
>Is there some sort of HTML removal tool you can use to strip the HTML
>coding and return to ASCII text?
There are several of them, and a number of mailing lists use them. They
often result in unreadable text, however. Just get users to send plaintext
and don't worry about it.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
|
|
Posted by John Mayson on January 28, 2008, 11:17 am
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
>>
>> Mike and a number of people use Yahoo and Gmail as their only E-mail.
>> Often times, there is no "text only" option. When people like Mike
>> post, they may not have the option to change to ASCII text.
>
> This is not acceptable. There is no reason to put up with this trash.
> If some mail services cannot conform to common standards, there is no reason
> the REST of us should put up with it. There is no reason to accept HTML
> mail. If people want to be able to communicate with the world, they should
> learn to use the standards the rest of the world uses, or use a service
> that does.
I can't speak for Yahoo, but GMail DOES in fact allow for plain text.
Furthermore since GMail works via POP3 and IMAP4 virtually every mail
client known to man can be used and most if not all of those can be set to
plain text.
I use GMail with the web interface, Apple Mail, Outlook 2003, and Pine and
all support plain text.
--
Austin, Texas, USA
|
|
Posted by Scott Dorsey on January 28, 2008, 11:28 am
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options >
>I can't speak for Yahoo, but GMail DOES in fact allow for plain text.
>Furthermore since GMail works via POP3 and IMAP4 virtually every mail
>client known to man can be used and most if not all of those can be set to
>plain text.
Yes, precisely. And there is no reason not to set them to do so. The
problem is that many people do not understand that it can be done, or
why it should be done.
>I use GMail with the web interface, Apple Mail, Outlook 2003, and Pine and
>all support plain text.
It is not in any way a technical problem or a lack of application
capabilities.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
|
|
Posted by Dave Close on January 30, 2008, 7:01 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
>I use GMail with the web interface, Apple Mail, Outlook 2003, and Pine and
>all support plain text.
Outlook can, in fact, be configured to send plain text mail. If you are
using Exchange, that is only possible for mail sent to non-"local"
addresses, but it does work. It can also be configured to show received
mail as plain text.
And, as someone else pointed out, sending mail as multipart/alternative
is an option. A problem arises when Outlook receives such a multipart
message. Instead of showing the plain text part of the multipart message,
Outlook insists on showing an HTML-to-text conversion of the HTML part.
The conversion is crappy and does not come close to the author's intent.
If you are reading this message as HTML, some software along the way has
converted it from the plain text I sent. I consider such conversion to
be immoral and a violation of my copyright. Nonetheless, I am aware that
such conversions are done by some systems. For example, if you are using
Yahoo! or Google Groups to read this, it may appear as HTML (not just
surrounded by an HTML frame). To me, that is fraudulent.
--
Dave Close, Compata, Costa Mesa CA +1 714 434 7359
dave@compata.com dhclose@alumni.caltech.edu
"No woman in my time will be Prime Minister." -- Margaret Thatcher, 1969
--
Dave Close, Compata, Costa Mesa CA "Politics is the business of getting
dave@compata.com, +1 714 434 7359 power and privilege without
dhclose@alumni.caltech.edu possessing merit." - P. J. O'Rourke
|
| Similar Threads | Posted | | Re: [Telecom] ASCII vs. HTML (was Re: 1+10D, was 11X and N11 Codes) | January 26, 2008, 9:39 am |
| [Telecom] HTML in posts | December 25, 2007, 10:00 am |
| Re: HTML newsletter (was Re: Telecom Update #561 (Cana | January 9, 2007, 10:23 am |
| ASCII / Baudot Article [telecom] | April 22, 2008, 5:36 pm |
| ASCII art at its finest | September 21, 2007, 4:25 pm |
| Followup to http://TELECOM_Digest_Online2005-1/1721.html Article | March 8, 2006, 3:27 am |
| Re: [Telecom] 1+10D, was 11X and N11 Codes | January 21, 2008, 7:40 am |
| [Telecom] Re: 1+10D, was 11X and N11 Codes | January 17, 2008, 4:24 pm |
| [TELECOM] Re: 1+10D, was 11X and N11 Codes | January 14, 2008, 9:09 pm |
| Re: [Telecom] 11X and N11 Codes (was 911 not universal) | November 29, 2007, 4:15 pm |
|
|
Home Cabling Guide
Finally, an instantly downloadable book that saves you thousands in home improvement dollars!
Enjoy living in 21st century technology-advanced home while increasing its selling value and competitive advantage
on the real estate market. Whether your cabling is for home office or high-tech
leisure, you can wire your home yourself or learn "wirish" to speak with your cabling contractors in their language!
Learn More
|
![[Telecom] ASCII vs. HTML (was Re: 1+10D, was 11X and N11 Codes)](/images/header.jpg)
NewsGroups 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML site map