Empty Trash

William Westfall

6 Nov 2004 6 Nov '04

21:33

Does anyone know in what system notification event source I can find the trash bin... I wish to have it play a sound when I empty it. Thanks in advance! W.G. Westfall Made with___________________________________________ Linux 2.6.8-24.3-default i686 athlon i386GNU/Linux (SuSE 9.2)

Attachments:

attachment.htm (text/html — 818 bytes)
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature — 189 bytes)

Show replies by date

Ken Schneider

6 Nov 6 Nov

22:15

New subject: [SLE] Empty Trash

On Sat, 2004-11-06 at 16:33, William Westfall wrote:

...

Does anyone know in what system notification event source I can find the trash bin... I wish to have it play a sound when I empty it.

Thanks in advance!

W.G. Westfall

Made with___________________________________________ Linux 2.6.8-24.3-default i686 athlon i386GNU/Linux (SuSE 9.2)

Please -do not- send HTML email to the list. It is not tolerated well on this list. There isn't one for the trash bin. -- Ken Schneider UNIX since 1989 SuSE since 1998 * Only reply to the list please*

steve-ss

23:16

New subject: [SLE] Empty Trash

...

Please -do not- send HTML email to the list. It is not tolerated well on this list.

Why not?

ti＠amb.org

23:33

New subject: [SLE] Empty Trash

steve-ss writes:

...

...
Please -do not- send HTML email to the list. It is not tolerated well on this list.

Why not?

Many of us prefer to use simple text-based mail clients. Having a bunch of HTML tags embedded in the email is a major annoyance and makes the mail virtually unreadable. There is really no good reason why HTML should be used. Plain ASCII text is compatible with all mail clients and that should be what's used for mailing lists. -Ti -- Ti Kan http://www.amb.org/ti Vorsprung durch Technik

Anders Johansson

23:39

New subject: [SLE] Empty Trash

On Sunday, 7 November 2004 00.33, Ti Kan wrote:

...

steve-ss writes:

...
...
Please -do not- send HTML email to the list. It is not tolerated well on this list.

Why not?

Many of us prefer to use simple text-based mail clients. Having a bunch of HTML tags embedded in the email is a major annoyance and makes the mail virtually unreadable. There is really no good reason why HTML should be used.

Plain ASCII text is compatible with all mail clients and that should be what's used for mailing lists.

The mail was multipart and had one plain text section and one HTML. Perhaps your mailer doesn't support MIME standards?! I never saw the HTML, as kmail nicely showed me the plain text section of the mail

Jake

23:55

New subject: [SLE] Empty Trash

On Saturday 06 November 2004 23:39, Anders Johansson wrote:

...

The mail was multipart and had one plain text section and one HTML. Perhaps your mailer doesn't support MIME standards?! I never saw the HTML, as kmail nicely showed me the plain text section of the mail

Same here. Elm showing it's age perhaps Ti...

ti＠amb.org

7 Nov 7 Nov

00:01

New subject: [SLE] Empty Trash

Jake writes:

...

On Saturday 06 November 2004 23:39, Anders Johansson wrote:

...
The mail was multipart and had one plain text section and one HTML. Perhaps your mailer doesn't support MIME standards?! I never saw the HTML, as kmail nicely showed me the plain text section of the mail

Same here. Elm showing it's age perhaps Ti...

I have elm configured to spawn metamail which then invokes lynx for HTML mail, so it works fine. However the general comment still holds true: there is no good reason to send HTML mail to a mailing list like this. -Ti -- Ti Kan http://www.amb.org/ti Vorsprung durch Technik

Leendert Meyer

00:18

New subject: [SLE] Empty Trash

On Sunday 07 November 2004 01:01, Ti Kan wrote:

...

Jake writes:

...
On Saturday 06 November 2004 23:39, Anders Johansson wrote:

...
The mail was multipart and had one plain text section and one HTML. Perhaps your mailer doesn't support MIME standards?! I never saw the HTML, as kmail nicely showed me the plain text section of the mail

Same here. Elm showing it's age perhaps Ti...

I have elm configured to spawn metamail which then invokes lynx for HTML mail, so it works fine. However the general comment still holds true: there is no good reason to send HTML mail to a mailing list like this.

I tend to agree with you: html adds no extra info to a mail, other than changeing the signal/noise ratio in an unfavorable way (although my mail client kmail did not show any html at all, became aware by the replies in this thread). The (strongly) preferred way of posting in mailinglists and newsgroups is usually text-only. Cheers, Leen

Randall R Schulz

01:24

New subject: [SLE] Empty Trash

Leen, On Saturday 06 November 2004 16:18, Leendert Meyer wrote:

...

....

I tend to agree with you: html adds no extra info to a mail, other than changeing the signal/noise ratio in an unfavorable way (although my mail client kmail did not show any html at all, became aware by the replies in this thread).

I wonder... Do you speak in a monotone? Do facial expressions play no role in your verbal communication? Do your hands remain at rest while you speak? In short, is the sum total of the information you convey when you speak contained in the words themselves? I think not. This bias against styled text in email is absurd. It should be possible to exercise typographic control when communicating in written form. (If you look at the rendered content of the post that started this round of the HTML mail debate, you'll see that the author simply added a modicum of typographic flair. Hardly something over which to be upset.)

...

The (strongly) preferred way of posting in mailinglists and newsgroups is usually text-only.

Preferred by a dictatorial "some," I'd say. Arguments about "bandwidth" are irrelevant. The Internet has vastly much more capacity than is used, and there's miles and miles of dark optical cable that can simply be turned on when the demand presents itself. And I'm aware of those who pay by the (kilo- or mega-) byte, but really, that's a separate problem. There is no objective reason to prohibit or even discourage mark-up in email and on Usenet.

...

Cheers,

Leen

Randall Schulz

tony

01:39

New subject: [SLE] Empty Trash

On Nov 6, 2004, at 5:24 PM, Randall R Schulz wrote: <snip>

...

There is no objective reason to prohibit or even discourage mark-up in email and on Usenet.

Is it not true that, at least on a Windows box, an html message is a favorite vehicle for script kiddies to send viruses?

Randall R Schulz

01:55

New subject: [SLE] Empty Trash

Tony, On Saturday 06 November 2004 17:39, tony wrote:

...

On Nov 6, 2004, at 5:24 PM, Randall R Schulz wrote:

<snip>

...
There is no objective reason to prohibit or even discourage mark-up in email and on Usenet.

Is it not true that, at least on a Windows box, an html message is a favorite vehicle for script kiddies to send viruses?

Perhaps, though I don't know what that has to do with people who choose good operating systems, or at least good email software. I didn't say that recipients should run embedded executable content, just that styled text should be allowed. Randy

Patrick Shanahan

02:05

New subject: [SLE] Empty Trash

* Randall R Schulz [11-06-04 20:58]:

...

Tony,

On Saturday 06 November 2004 17:39, tony wrote:

...
On Nov 6, 2004, at 5:24 PM, Randall R Schulz wrote:

<snip>

...
There is no objective reason to prohibit or even discourage mark-up in email and on Usenet.

Is it not true that, at least on a Windows box, an html message is a favorite vehicle for script kiddies to send viruses?

Perhaps, though I don't know what that has to do with people who choose good operating systems, or at least good email software.

I didn't say that recipients should run embedded executable content, just that styled text should be allowed.

note: quote is full for example. styled text is allowed. Notice the '<snip>' above and every-once-in-a- while, someone will provide a smiley/frowney or words enclosed in asterisks or underlines, double quotes, single quotes and occasionally will shout (considered bad form). html, rtf, .... are not. -- Patrick Shanahan Registered Linux User #207535 http://wahoo.no-ip.org @ http://counter.li.org HOG # US1244711 Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/photos

Carl Hartung

20:05

New subject: [SLE] Empty Trash

On Sat, 2004-11-06 at 20:39, tony wrote: <snip>

...

Is it not true that, at least on a Windows box, an html message is a favorite vehicle for script kiddies to send viruses?

You've got that right, my friend! Cha-ching! Touch-down! Debate over! So... what's the next topic, guys? I'll buy the next round... 8-)

Randall R Schulz

8 Nov 8 Nov

18:18

New subject: [SLE] Empty Trash

Carl, On Sunday 07 November 2004 12:05, Carl Hartung wrote:

...

On Sat, 2004-11-06 at 20:39, tony wrote: <snip>

...
Is it not true that, at least on a Windows box, an html message is a favorite vehicle for script kiddies to send viruses?

You've got that right, my friend! Cha-ching! Touch-down! Debate over!

So you're willing to roll over because Microsoft wrote and deployed a hideously unsecure mail client? The debate may be over, but it would seem that you believe that Outlook's behavior should dictate what a bunch of Linux users do. What kind of attitude is that for people who want an alternative to Microsoft? The least you folks could do is be honest about your objections to styled text in email. Microsoft's ineptitude just doesn't cut it as a reason.

...

So... what's the next topic, guys? I'll buy the next round...

8-)

Randall Schulz

Carl Hartung

22:42

New subject: [SLE] Empty Trash

On Mon, 2004-11-08 at 13:18, Randall R Schulz wrote: Hi Randall, <snip>

...

The debate may be over, but it would seem that you believe that Outlook's behavior should dictate what a bunch of Linux users do. What kind of attitude is that for people who want an alternative to Microsoft?

It isn't Outlook's behavior I worry about, it's some of the clueless web surfers behind the keyboard that use it. ;-) You know the type... "Viruses?... Firewall? <blank stare>"

...

The least you folks could do is be honest about your objections to styled text in email. Microsoft's ineptitude just doesn't cut it as a reason.

Actually, I just became accustomed to bland text when my i286 w/ 1MB RAM and a 5 lb. 5MB HD was hot stuff for a home pc. The 1,200 baud modem was an expensive upgrade then, IIRC. :-) [circa SCO Xenix Sys. V for i286, Windows 1.0, Borland's Sidekick, SuperCalc, dBaseIII, etc.] The unintentional result is that I only use stylized text in business documents and web content. I've just never really been attracted to utilizing that capability in my e-mail/usenet/messaging clients. I've gotta plead mediocrity, this time, not prejudice. - Carl

James Knott

21:13

New subject: [SLE] Empty Trash

Carl Hartung wrote:

...

I'll buy the next round...

8-)

A pint o' Guinnness please. ;-)

Carl Hartung

22:47

New subject: [SLE] Empty Trash

On Mon, 2004-11-08 at 16:13, James Knott wrote:

...

A pint o' Guinnness please. ;-)

Enjoy! - Carl

Mike McMullin

01:35

New subject: [SLE] Empty Trash

On Sat, 2004-11-06 at 19:39, tony wrote:

...

On Nov 6, 2004, at 5:24 PM, Randall R Schulz wrote:

<snip>

...
There is no objective reason to prohibit or even discourage mark-up in email and on Usenet.

Is it not true that, at least on a Windows box, an html message is a favorite vehicle for script kiddies to send viruses?

And in spam messages it can confirm valid e-mail addresses.

cwsiv

22:48

New subject: [SLE] Empty Trash

On Sat, 2004-11-06 at 17:39, tony wrote:

...

On Nov 6, 2004, at 5:24 PM, Randall R Schulz wrote:

<snip>

...
There is no objective reason to prohibit or even discourage mark-up in email and on Usenet.

Is it not true that, at least on a Windows box, an html message is a favorite vehicle for script kiddies to send viruses?

Yes. Therefore if we are in the habit of lecturing windows users not ready to join us about security its behoves us not to be hypocritical. If we tell them to avoid text mail for security and privacy reasons then we should do the same. Should the windows user ask why text its a chance to teach them. -- ----------=====<<<<<CWSIV>>>>>=====---------- | \ /|\ || |\ / |~~\ /~~\ /~~| //~~\ | \ / | \ || | X |__/| || |( `--. |__ | | \| \_/ / \ | \ \__/ \__| \\__/ ----------===<<>>===----------

Tony Alfrey

23:49

New subject: [SLE] Empty Trash

On Nov 8, 2004, at 2:48 PM, cwsiv wrote:

...

On Sat, 2004-11-06 at 17:39, tony wrote:

...
On Nov 6, 2004, at 5:24 PM, Randall R Schulz wrote:

<snip>

...
There is no objective reason to prohibit or even discourage mark-up in email and on Usenet.

Is it not true that, at least on a Windows box, an html message is a favorite vehicle for script kiddies to send viruses?

Yes. Therefore if we are in the habit of lecturing windows users not ready to join us about security its behoves us not to be hypocritical. If we tell them to avoid text mail for security and privacy reasons then we should do the same.

Should the windows user ask why text its a chance to teach them.

That's been my approach with my windoze-only wife, who has sometimes e-mailed me with html. She did not even know that her mail client was sending html, did not know what plain text was, did not know that there was a preference, did not know there was a possible issue one way or the other.

Leendert Meyer

7 Nov 7 Nov

01:47

New subject: [SLE] Empty Trash

On Sunday 07 November 2004 02:24, Randall R Schulz wrote:

...

Leen,

On Saturday 06 November 2004 16:18, Leendert Meyer wrote:

...
....

I tend to agree with you: html adds no extra info to a mail, other than changeing the signal/noise ratio in an unfavorable way (although my mail client kmail did not show any html at all, became aware by the replies in this thread).

I wonder... Do you speak in a monotone? Do facial expressions play no role in your verbal communication? Do your hands remain at rest while you speak? In short, is the sum total of the information you convey when you speak contained in the words themselves? I think not.

Hmm, seems a movie recording would be more to your liking. ;)

...

This bias against styled text in email is absurd. It should be possible to exercise typographic control when communicating in written form.

Smileys will do just fine.

...

...
The (strongly) preferred way of posting in mailinglists and newsgroups is usually text-only.

Preferred by a dictatorial "some," I'd say.

Sorry, I should have said: The (strongly) preferred way of posting in this mailinglist is text-only.

...

There is no objective reason to prohibit or even discourage mark-up in email and on Usenet.

Let me just refer to Patrick's posting in this thread. Cheers, Leen

Patrick Shanahan

01:57

New subject: [SLE] Empty Trash

* Randall R Schulz [11-06-04 20:29]: ...

...

There is no objective reason to prohibit or even discourage mark-up in email and on Usenet.

Except, perhaps, in *this* forum where it is against list policy. Reason enough. -- Patrick Shanahan Registered Linux User #207535 http://wahoo.no-ip.org @ http://counter.li.org HOG # US1244711 Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/photos

Randall R Schulz

02:05

New subject: [SLE] Empty Trash

On Saturday 06 November 2004 17:57, Patrick Shanahan wrote:

...

* Randall R Schulz [11-06-04 20:29]: ...

...
There is no objective reason to prohibit or even discourage mark-up in email and on Usenet.

Except, perhaps, in *this* forum where it is against list policy. Reason enough.

"Irrational reason" is an oxymoron. RRS

Patrick Shanahan

02:28

New subject: [SLE] Empty Trash

* Randall R Schulz [11-06-04 21:10]:

...

On Saturday 06 November 2004 17:57, Patrick Shanahan wrote:

...
* Randall R Schulz [11-06-04 20:29]: ...

...
There is no objective reason to prohibit or even discourage mark-up in email and on Usenet.

Except, perhaps, in *this* forum where it is against list policy. Reason enough.

"Irrational reason" is an oxymoron.

As many consider the 'Reply-To:' policy, but it still exists and *was* put in place by the people/company who kindly provide the list. Does this mean that they are 'Irrational'? I would say 'Not'. I would say that they are within their *rights* to dictate rules for the privilege to participate in a forum they provide. -- Patrick Shanahan Registered Linux User #207535 http://wahoo.no-ip.org @ http://counter.li.org HOG # US1244711 Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/photos

Randall R Schulz

02:57

New subject: [SLE] Empty Trash

Patrick, On Saturday 06 November 2004 18:28, Patrick Shanahan wrote:

...

* Randall R Schulz [11-06-04 21:10]:

...
On Saturday 06 November 2004 17:57, Patrick Shanahan wrote:

...
* Randall R Schulz [11-06-04 20:29]: ...

...
There is no objective reason to prohibit or even discourage mark-up in email and on Usenet.

Except, perhaps, in *this* forum where it is against list policy. Reason enough.

"Irrational reason" is an oxymoron.

As many consider the 'Reply-To:' policy, but it still exists and *was* put in place by the people/company who kindly provide the list. Does this mean that they are 'Irrational'?

The reply-to treatment is in accord with published standards. There are no standards that prohibit mark-up in email. In fact, there are standards to accommodate it.

...

I would say 'Not'. I would say that they are within their *rights* to dictate rules for the privilege to participate in a forum they provide.

I see where you're going. You're going to stage a revolt in support of reason! Let us know when you've got your list server set up so we can subscribe. I'm with you!

...

-- Patrick Shanahan

If you're the bland sort who needs no emphasis of any sort in your words, you needn't use it. Those of us who want to convey modulations of significance and other nuance should be able to do so using classic typographic means instead of ridiculous half-measures such as /italics/ _underscore_ and ;-) wink-wink emoticons. Randall Schulz

Ken Schneider

04:20

New subject: [SLE] Empty Trash

On Sat, 2004-11-06 at 21:05, Randall R Schulz wrote:

...

On Saturday 06 November 2004 17:57, Patrick Shanahan wrote:

...
* Randall R Schulz [11-06-04 20:29]: ...

...
There is no objective reason to prohibit or even discourage mark-up in email and on Usenet.

Except, perhaps, in *this* forum where it is against list policy. Reason enough.

"Irrational reason" is an oxymoron.

Since it -is- list policy and you disagree with it you are free to start your own list under your own rules. -- Ken Schneider UNIX since 1989 SuSE since 1998 * Only reply to the list please*

Randall R Schulz

04:53

New subject: [SLE] Empty Trash

On Saturday 06 November 2004 20:20, Ken Schneider wrote:

...

On Sat, 2004-11-06 at 21:05, Randall R Schulz wrote:

...
On Saturday 06 November 2004 17:57, Patrick Shanahan wrote:

...
* Randall R Schulz [11-06-04 20:29]: ...

...
There is no objective reason to prohibit or even discourage mark-up in email and on Usenet.

Except, perhaps, in *this* forum where it is against list policy. Reason enough.

"Irrational reason" is an oxymoron.

Since it -is- list policy and you disagree with it you are free to start your own list under your own rules.

I'll use Patrick's. What is the problem, anyway? I think mark-up should be allowed. There's no reason other than being backward to prohibit it. That's my position and I have no reason to change it. Why does that translate into jumping ship? Can I not have an opinion without it turning into a big protest movement?

...

-- Ken Schneider

RRS

C. Richard Matson

05:36

New subject: [SLE] Empty Trash

On Saturday 06 November 2004 8:20 pm, Ken Schneider wrote:

...

On Sat, 2004-11-06 at 21:05, Randall R Schulz wrote:

...
On Saturday 06 November 2004 17:57, Patrick Shanahan wrote:

...

Since it -is- list policy and you disagree with it you are free to start your own list under your own rules.

Or get off this list. There is nothing wrong with respecting the rules of this list. The list is for our convenience and the rules are for the convenience of the whole list. Rich -- Rich Matson Reno, Nv. USA

Carl Hartung

19:57

New subject: [SLE] Empty Trash

On Sat, 2004-11-06 at 21:05, Randall R Schulz wrote:

...

On Saturday 06 November 2004 17:57, Patrick Shanahan wrote:

...
* Randall R Schulz [11-06-04 20:29]: ...

...
There is no objective reason to prohibit or even discourage mark-up in email and on Usenet.

Except, perhaps, in *this* forum where it is against list policy. Reason enough.

"Irrational reason" is an oxymoron.

Ok, "explanation enough" should suffice. Haven't we all had enough trouble with browsers based on different flavors & standards? Can you imagine having to wrestle with that in our e-mail clients, too? Next thing ya know, we'll end up e-mailing pdf's around -- NOT! :-) Anyway, I didn't think the original e-mail was problematic. I didn't make the same mistake myself, apparently, because I just happen (out of habit) to prefer using text-based clients. Thanks for the heads-up, Patrick. - Carl

plain

05:53

New subject: [SLE] Empty Trash

Yo Randal, (it is Randal, correct?) which part of "these are the list rules" don't you get? enough already... this is a very nice list, excellent help for very many people, so please, play by the rules or move on... thanks, d. On Saturday 06 November 2004 15:24, Randall R Schulz wrote:

...

Leen,

On Saturday 06 November 2004 16:18, Leendert Meyer wrote:

...
....

I tend to agree with you: html adds no extra info to a mail, other than changeing the signal/noise ratio in an unfavorable way (although my mail client kmail did not show any html at all, became aware by the replies in this thread).

I wonder... Do you speak in a monotone? Do facial expressions play no role in your verbal communication? Do your hands remain at rest while you speak? In short, is the sum total of the information you convey when you speak contained in the words themselves? I think not.

This bias against styled text in email is absurd. It should be possible to exercise typographic control when communicating in written form.

(If you look at the rendered content of the post that started this round of the HTML mail debate, you'll see that the author simply added a modicum of typographic flair. Hardly something over which to be upset.)

...
The (strongly) preferred way of posting in mailinglists and newsgroups is usually text-only.

Preferred by a dictatorial "some," I'd say.

Arguments about "bandwidth" are irrelevant. The Internet has vastly much more capacity than is used, and there's miles and miles of dark optical cable that can simply be turned on when the demand presents itself.

And I'm aware of those who pay by the (kilo- or mega-) byte, but really, that's a separate problem.

There is no objective reason to prohibit or even discourage mark-up in email and on Usenet.

...
Cheers,

Leen

Randall Schulz

Randall R Schulz

15:41

New subject: [SLE] Empty Trash

Plai, It is "Plai," right? On Saturday 06 November 2004 21:53, plain wrote:

...

Yo Randal, (it is Randal, correct?) which part of "these are the list rules" don't you get? enough already... this is a very nice list, excellent help for very many people, so please, play by the rules or move on... thanks, d.

I never once said or suggested that I intended to violate the rules. I merely advocated my position when the topic arose. Randall Schulz

peter Nikolic

09:33

New subject: [SLE] Empty Trash

On Sunday 07 Nov 2004 01:24, Randall R Schulz wrote:

...

Leen,

On Saturday 06 November 2004 16:18, Leendert Meyer wrote:

...
....

I tend to agree with you: html adds no extra info to a mail, other than changeing the signal/noise ratio in an unfavorable way (although my mail client kmail did not show any html at all, became aware by the replies in this thread).

I wonder... Do you speak in a monotone? Do facial expressions play no role in your verbal communication? Do your hands remain at rest while you speak? In short, is the sum total of the information you convey when you speak contained in the words themselves? I think not.

This bias against styled text in email is absurd. It should be possible to exercise typographic control when communicating in written form.

(If you look at the rendered content of the post that started this round of the HTML mail debate, you'll see that the author simply added a modicum of typographic flair. Hardly something over which to be upset.)

...
The (strongly) preferred way of posting in mailinglists and newsgroups is usually text-only.

Preferred by a dictatorial "some," I'd say.

Arguments about "bandwidth" are irrelevant. The Internet has vastly much more capacity than is used, and there's miles and miles of dark optical cable that can simply be turned on when the demand presents itself.

And I'm aware of those who pay by the (kilo- or mega-) byte, but really, that's a separate problem.

There is no objective reason to prohibit or even discourage mark-up in email and on Usenet.

...
Cheers,

Leen

Randall Schulz

Waht is this love affair people seem to have with html email if it was not for that bunch of idiots in redmond starting it we would not have this problem keep html for the web space mail and news plain text only then we get no rubbish content and gibberish where not wanted. If you want my opinion it should be banned by the server then we would not have the problem full stop . Pete . -- Linux user No: 256242 Machine No: 139931 G6NJR Pete also MSA registered "Quinton 11" A Linux Only area Happy bug hunting M$ clan, The time is here to FORGET that M$ Corp ever existed the world does not NEED M$ Corp the world has NO USE for M$ Corp it is time to END M$ Corp , Play time is over folks time for action approaches at an alarming pace the death knell for M$ Copr has been sounded . Termination time is around the corner ..

Constant Brouerius van Nidek

11:13

New subject: [SLE] Empty Trash

On Sunday 07 November 2004 16:33, peter Nikolic wrote:

...

On Sunday 07 Nov 2004 01:24, Randall R Schulz wrote:

...
Leen,

...
....

I tend to agree with you: html adds no extra info to a mail, other than changeing the signal/noise ratio in an unfavorable (If you look at the rendered content of the post that started

On Saturday 06 November 2004 16:18, Leendert Meyer wrote: this round of the HTML mail debate, you'll see that the author simply added a modicum of typographic flair. Hardly something over which to be upset.)

...
The (strongly) preferred way of posting in mailinglists and newsgroups is usually text-only.

Preferred by a dictatorial "some," I'd say.

Arguments about "bandwidth" are irrelevant. The Internet has vastly much more capacity than is used, and there's miles and miles of dark optical cable that can simply be turned on when the demand presents itself.

And I'm aware of those who pay by the (kilo- or mega-) byte, but really, that's a separate problem.

There is no objective reason to prohibit or even discourage mark-up in email and on Usenet.

Waht is this love affair people seem to have with html email if it was not for that bunch of idiots in redmond starting it we would not have this problem keep html for the web space mail and news plain text only then we get no rubbish content and gibberish where not wanted.

If you want my opinion it should be banned by the server then we would not have the problem full stop .

I am one of those at the end of a piece of barbed or other wire which they call telephone line here. With a dialup of low quality the extra of the unnecessary html (200% extra bites) html is a nuisance. I am able to regular download the Suse list but if more list members would use html I would have to stop receiving the list.

Randall R Schulz

15:43

New subject: [SLE] Empty Trash

On Sunday 07 November 2004 03:13, Constant Brouerius van Nidek wrote:

...

...

I am one of those at the end of a piece of barbed or other wire which they call telephone line here. With a dialup of low quality the extra of the unnecessary html (200% extra bites) html is a nuisance. I am able to regular download the Suse list but if more list members would use html I would have to stop receiving the list.

Ah, the hypocrisy. Complaining about data rate and volume, and failing to trim irrelevant quoted material. Randall Schulz

Randall R Schulz

15:46

New subject: [SLE] Empty Trash

On Sunday 07 November 2004 01:33, peter Nikolic wrote:

...

...

Waht is this love affair people seem to have with html email if it was not for that bunch of idiots in redmond starting it we would not have this problem keep html for the web space mail and news plain text only then we get no rubbish content and gibberish where not wanted.

"Love affair?" Please. Styled text is long-standing part of human textual communication. All of the Internet, including email and Usenet, should support and allow it. And it has nothing to do with any actions by Microsoft. There are internet standard supporting styled mail. Microsoft may have contributed to the antipathy against it by turning email into a medium for transmitting malware, but that's a far cry from simple styled text, which is all I really advocate.

...

If you want my opinion it should be banned by the server then we would not have the problem full stop .

I don't, really. Randall Schulz

peter Nikolic

8 Nov 8 Nov

13:54

New subject: [SLE] Empty Trash

On Sunday 07 Nov 2004 15:46, Randall R Schulz wrote:

...

On Sunday 07 November 2004 01:33, peter Nikolic wrote:

...
...

Waht is this love affair people seem to have with html email if it was not for that bunch of idiots in redmond starting it we would not have this problem keep html for the web space mail and news plain text only then we get no rubbish content and gibberish where not wanted.

"Love affair?" Please. Styled text is long-standing part of human textual communication. All of the Internet, including email and Usenet, should support and allow it.

And it has nothing to do with any actions by Microsoft. There are internet standard supporting styled mail. Microsoft may have contributed to the antipathy against it by turning email into a medium for transmitting malware, but that's a far cry from simple styled text, which is all I really advocate.

...
If you want my opinion it should be banned by the server then we would not have the problem full stop .

I don't, really.

well your getting it any how .. If you want my opinion it should be banned by the server then we would not have the problem full stop .

...

Randall Schulz

-- A Linux Only area Happy bug hunting M$ clan, The time is here to FORGET that M$ Corp ever existed the world does not NEED M$ Corp the world has NO USE for M$ Corp it is time to END M$ Corp , Play time is over folks time for action approaches at an alarming pace the death knell for M$ Copr has been sounded . Termination time is around the corner ..

Carlos E. R.

7 Nov 7 Nov

23:33

New subject: [SLE] Empty Trash

The Saturday 2004-11-06 at 17:24 -0800, Randall R Schulz wrote:

...

Arguments about "bandwidth" are irrelevant. The Internet has vastly much more capacity than is used, and there's miles and miles of dark optical cable that can simply be turned on when the demand presents itself.

Then perhaps you¡d be happy to suply me with an all optical link from my home to the telco? I have only seen copper on my block. I have to use a modem and a telephone, and i have to pay each single minute of the connection, plus the full first minute in advance. And html, although might be nice, makes every email thrice as big. Check this: -rw-r--r-- 1 cer users 288 2004-11-08 00:20 p1 -rw-r--r-- 1 cer users 818 2004-11-08 00:20 p2 p1 is the text part of the OP, p2 is the html part. See the difference? -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson

Randall R Schulz

8 Nov 8 Nov

16:39

New subject: [SLE] Empty Trash

Carlos, On Sunday 07 November 2004 15:33, Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

The Saturday 2004-11-06 at 17:24 -0800, Randall R Schulz wrote:

...
Arguments about "bandwidth" are irrelevant. The Internet has vastly much more capacity than is used, and there's miles and miles of dark optical cable that can simply be turned on when the demand presents itself.

Then perhaps you¡d be happy to suply me with an all optical link from my home to the telco? I have only seen copper on my block. I have to use a modem and a telephone, and i have to pay each single minute of the connection, plus the full first minute in advance.

I was not referring to the last mile. To my knowledge, no consumer optical links are commercial available, at leat not in the States. I'm referring to over-capacity in the so-called Internet backbone.

...

And html, although might be nice, makes every email thrice as big. Check this:

No offense, Carlos, but that's nonsense. If I want to italicize something, say the word "italicize" it will add seven bytes. The same if I want to use bold or underline. This is 2004, and the fact that some people want to cling to antiquated mail client software should not be a reason to hold everyone back. The point being there's no reason for multi-part postings with a plain text part when there's a styled part.

...

-rw-r--r-- 1 cer users 288 2004-11-08 00:20 p1 -rw-r--r-- 1 cer users 818 2004-11-08 00:20 p2

p1 is the text part of the OP, p2 is the html part. See the difference?

Here are the unabridged headers from your post (the one to which I'm replying) as they reach me: -==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==- Return-Path: Received: from b.mx.sonic.net (eth0.b.mx.sonic.net [209.204.159.4]) by eth0.b.lds.sonic.net (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iA8Ab6Vt011056 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 2004 02:37:06 -0800 Received: from lists.suse.com (lists.suse.de [195.135.221.131]) by b.mx.sonic.net (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id iA8AaxaQ009599 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 2004 02:37:05 -0800 Received: (qmail 31806 invoked by alias); 8 Nov 2004 10:36:56 -0000 Mailing-List: contact suse-linux-e-help@suse.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: mailto:suse-linux-e-help@suse.com list-unsubscribe: mailto:suse-linux-e-unsubscribe-rschulz=sonic.net@suse.com list-post: mailto:suse-linux-e@suse.com X-MIME-Notice: attachments may have been removed from this message X-Mailinglist: suse-linux-e X-Message-Number-for-archive: 214568 Delivered-To: mailing list suse-linux-e@suse.com Received: (qmail 31781 invoked from network); 8 Nov 2004 10:36:55 -0000 Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 00:33:42 +0100 (CET) From: "Carlos E. R." X-X-Sender: cer@nimrodel.valinor To: SLE In-Reply-To: <200411061724.37336.rschulz@sonic.net> Message-ID: References: <20041107000112.30CD613924@smtp.amb.org> <200411070118.57006.leen.meyer@home.nl> <200411061724.37336.rschulz@sonic.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at scanhost.suse.de Subject: Re: [SLE] Empty Trash X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.0 (2004-09-13) on a.spam X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.3 required=5.0 tests=DATE_IN_PAST_06_12, FORGED_RCVD_HELO autolearn=disabled version=3.0.0 X-Spam-Level: Status: R X-Status: NC X-KMail-EncryptionState: X-KMail-SignatureState: X-KMail-MDN-Sent: -==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==- That's over 2000 bytes of overhead for each message! Adding a little styled text isn't going to make anyone go broke if they can already afford to subscribe to SuSE-Linux-E. And again, I'm advocating styled text only, not full-blown HTML mail, though I find that quite useful at times, too. I'll only view such mail from known and trusted senders, of course.

...

-- Cheers, Carlos Robinson

Honestly, I don't understand all the opposition to styled text in email, but I've made my case and will not press it further. Randall Schulz

Carlos E. R.

9 Nov 9 Nov

00:36

New subject: [SLE] Empty Trash

The Monday 2004-11-08 at 08:39 -0800, Randall R Schulz wrote:

...

...
Then perhaps you¡d be happy to suply me with an all optical link from my home to the telco? I have only seen copper on my block. I have to use a modem and a telephone, and i have to pay each single minute of the connection, plus the full first minute in advance.

I was not referring to the last mile. To my knowledge, no consumer optical links are commercial available, at leat not in the States. I'm referring to over-capacity in the so-called Internet backbone.

I don't care much about the backbone, I do care about the last mile, because that it is my bottleneck ;-)

...

...
p1 is the text part of the OP, p2 is the html part. See the difference?

Here are the unabridged headers from your post (the one to which I'm replying) as they reach me:

I know that, you do not need to post them. Notice that some of those headers were added by your own machine, by the way.

...

That's over 2000 bytes of overhead for each message! Adding a little styled text isn't going to make anyone go broke if they can already afford to subscribe to SuSE-Linux-E.

The headers can not be avoided. The important thing that I was pointing out is the size factor between both methods. The html part is about twice as big, and that one was a small email. After one or two top postings, it soon gets over 20 Kbytes. And, you should not forget that there are many people - me, for example - using plain text programs. Pine can show some html, but not all. Some X clients do not handle html well, or not at all. Even if we are on the 21th century, that is a fact. Thus, the list is designed for the minimun common denominator.

...

And again, I'm advocating styled text only, not full-blown HTML mail, though I find that quite useful at times, too. I'll only view such mail from known and trusted senders, of course.

But I only complain about html mail, not styled mail - however, I have never seen such a thing. And the original poster used html. Hey, you just said "I'll only view such mail from known and trusted senders". What about the list? Do you trust everybody on it? Because the issue here is using html on the list.

...

Honestly, I don't understand all the opposition to styled text in email, but I've made my case and will not press it further.

¡But it doesn't exist! I wouldn't care much about the ability to say "this is bold" or whatever... In fact, perhaps I would like it. But there is no such standard, I think; for example, Pine knows nothing of such "styled text". There is only html, and to be polite it means sending both plain text and html, the second one been twice as big. A small mail is not much, but some reach 60Kbytes. I know, I get a few newsletters and such every day. It is not only "font style" they use, but boxes, charts, logos, and who knows what. 60Kb for a page or two. :-/ -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson

Randall R Schulz

02:22

New subject: [SLE] Empty Trash

Carlos, On Monday 08 November 2004 16:36, Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

The Monday 2004-11-08 at 08:39 -0800, Randall R Schulz wrote:

...
...
Then perhaps you¡d be happy to suply me with an all optical link from my home to the telco? I have only seen copper on my block. I have to use a modem and a telephone, and i have to pay each single minute of the connection, plus the full first minute in advance.

I was not referring to the last mile. To my knowledge, no consumer optical links are commercial available, at leat not in the States. I'm referring to over-capacity in the so-called Internet backbone.

I don't care much about the backbone, I do care about the last mile, because that it is my bottleneck ;-)

Really? The quantity of data received on the SuSE-Linux-E list is a significant proportion of your link's capacity? You must be on one damn slow link!

...

...
...
p1 is the text part of the OP, p2 is the html part. See the difference?

Here are the unabridged headers from your post (the one to which I'm replying) as they reach me:

I know that, you do not need to post them. Notice that some of those headers were added by your own machine, by the way.

OK. I guess it's "only" 1700+ bytes...

...

...
That's over 2000 bytes of overhead for each message! Adding a little styled text isn't going to make anyone go broke if they can already afford to subscribe to SuSE-Linux-E.

The headers can not be avoided.

Yes, but that's part of the point. Complaints about "bandwidth" must be evaluated in the context of the total amount of data that must be transmitted to convey a message from the list server to one of its subscribers.

...

The important thing that I was pointing out is the size factor between both methods. The html part is about twice as big, and that one was a small email. After one or two top postings, it soon gets over 20 Kbytes.

Again, keep things separate. Bad posting style is not a technology problem, it's a user problem. Many subscribers seem quite resistant to putting thought into properly editing their posts. And again, if we'd simply expect users to use modern software, multipart messages that add a plain-text counterpart to a styled message would be unnecessary.

...

And, you should not forget that there are many people - me, for example - using plain text programs. Pine can show some html, but not all. Some X clients do not handle html well, or not at all. Even if we are on the 21th century, that is a fact.

That's another part of the point. Using antiquated software is _not_ a reason to resist using a richer medium of communication. Not when it's supported by bona fide standards.

...

Thus, the list is designed for the minimun common denominator.

Which is silly, but nonetheless is a value judgement on the part of the list administrator. We should keep in mind, too, that with a change in proprietorship for SuSE as a whole, all these things are potentially subject to change. Perhaps Novell is more enlightened than the old SuSE folks. After all, isn't Germany part of "Old Europe?" (Sorry, I couldn't resist... I hate Bush at least as much as any fundie hates the devil, by the way.)

...

...
And again, I'm advocating styled text only, not full-blown HTML mail, though I find that quite useful at times, too. I'll only view such mail from known and trusted senders, of course.

But I only complain about html mail, not styled mail - however, I have never seen such a thing. And the original poster used html.

Barely. But still the point applies. Electronic mail is simply one means of communication. If HTML, with its embedded style, layout and images, is a useful medium for communication--and I think we all agree it is--then why should it be excluded from electronic mail? Face it, there is _no_ valid reason not to. Just a lot of emotional crap that is, apparently, a hangover from the early days of the internet when there was no Web. It's just atavistic to reject a rich communication medium. Think about it. Every objection we hear is either unsubstantiated or blatantly emotional, or both. "There's no way in freakin' hell that I'll ever let an HTML message anywhere near _my_ in-box!!!!!"

...

Hey, you just said "I'll only view such mail from known and trusted senders". What about the list? Do you trust everybody on it? Because the issue here is using html on the list.

Is it? My issue is styled text, not HTML.

...

...
Honestly, I don't understand all the opposition to styled text in email, but I've made my case and will not press it further.

Hmm.... I guess I'm a liar. I just couldn't resist!

...

¡But it doesn't exist! I wouldn't care much about the ability to say "this is bold" or whatever... In fact, perhaps I would like it. But there is no such standard, I think; for example, Pine knows nothing of such "styled text". There is only html, and to be polite it means sending both plain text and html, the second one been twice as big. A small mail is not much, but some reach 60Kbytes. I know, I get a few newsletters and such every day. It is not only "font style" they use, but boxes, charts, logos, and who knows what. 60Kb for a page or two. :-/

(I wish English used the '¡') What doesn't exist? You're simply wrong, you know. There most certainly is such a standard. Do you think I'd go on like this over a fantasy / hallucination? http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1896.html>. http://mango.human.cornell.edu/kens/etf.html> is a nice explanatory page. I guess I was just spoiled by Eudora. It has long had support for RFC 1523 and successors. Short of it's lack of threading, it's definitely the best email client I've ever used. KMail is good, but it's not quite as nice as Eudora...

...

-- Cheers, Carlos Robinson

Randall Schulz

Carlos E. R.

10 Nov 10 Nov

00:08

New subject: [SLE] Empty Trash

The Monday 2004-11-08 at 18:22 -0800, Randall R Schulz wrote:

...

...
I don't care much about the backbone, I do care about the last mile, because that it is my bottleneck ;-)

Really? The quantity of data received on the SuSE-Linux-E list is a significant proportion of your link's capacity? You must be on one damn slow link!

Yes, it is. It can cope, of course, but if everybody in this list were using html, my ISP inbox would fill up easily: some have 3 Mb, some 25Mb. I could not take a few days out, because it would fill up quite soon. A quick calculation is below.

...

...
I know that, you do not need to post them. Notice that some of those headers were added by your own machine, by the way.

OK. I guess it's "only" 1700+ bytes...

But it doesn't go up. About 80% of the list is over 3000 bytes, 10% is over 5Kb, and only a few are over 20Kb. Those 20Kb, minus 2 is 18. Plus 200% for the html part, thats 36. Total 36+18+2=56Kb (meaning around 10 second for each to download). Those of 5Kb would increase to about 11Kb. For example, last Monday I got 298 emails from this list alone: assuming 4Kb each, thats around 1.2 Mbytes; including a html part, it would increase to 2.4Mb per day. That means that it would fill up in 3 or 4 days for the average 10 Mbytes account - with this list alone.

...

...
And, you should not forget that there are many people - me, for example - using plain text programs. Pine can show some html, but not all. Some X clients do not handle html well, or not at all. Even if we are on the 21th century, that is a fact.

That's another part of the point. Using antiquated software is _not_ a reason to resist using a richer medium of communication. Not when it's supported by bona fide standards.

Yes, it is. It would force us to use certain kind of email clients.

...

...
Thus, the list is designed for the minimun common denominator.

Which is silly, but nonetheless is a value judgement on the part of the list administrator. We should keep in mind, too, that with a change in proprietorship for SuSE as a whole, all these things are potentially subject to change. Perhaps Novell is more enlightened than the old SuSE folks. After all, isn't Germany part of "Old Europe?" (Sorry, I couldn't resist... I hate Bush at least as much as any fundie hates the devil, by the way.)

Then it would be the time to quit the list and SuSE :-|

...

...
...
And again, I'm advocating styled text only, not full-blown HTML mail, though I find that quite useful at times, too. I'll only view such mail from known and trusted senders, of course.

But I only complain about html mail, not styled mail - however, I have never seen such a thing. And the original poster used html.

Barely. But still the point applies. Electronic mail is simply one means of communication. If HTML, with its embedded style, layout and images, is a useful medium for communication--and I think we all agree it is--then why should it be excluded from electronic mail?

Not from electronic mail, but from this list. That's what we are complaining about. There is no real need for it, there are technical reasons against it, and so are the rules of this list. I simply don't care, here, about what other lists do, or other users do with their private email.

...

...
Hey, you just said "I'll only view such mail from known and trusted senders". What about the list? Do you trust everybody on it? Because the issue here is using html on the list.

Is it? My issue is styled text, not HTML.

But ours is html in the list. The original poster email used html.

...

...
¡But it doesn't exist! I wouldn't care much about the ability to say "this is bold" or whatever... In fact, perhaps I would like it. But there is no such standard, I think; for example, Pine knows nothing of such "styled text". There is only html, and to be polite it means sending both plain text and html, the second one been twice as big. A small mail is not much, but some reach 60Kbytes. I know, I get a few newsletters and such every day. It is not only "font style" they use, but boxes, charts, logos, and who knows what. 60Kb for a page or two. :-/

(I wish English used the '¡')

Oops! O:-) Writing in both languages means that they will get mixed now and then. Yes, I also think the opening mark is clearer, but... it is not my language, my opinion is not important :-)

...

What doesn't exist? You're simply wrong, you know. There most certainly is such a standard. Do you think I'd go on like this over a fantasy / hallucination? http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1896.html>. http://mango.human.cornell.edu/kens/etf.html> is a nice explanatory page.

/usr/share/doc/rfc/rfc1896.txt.gz is nearer to me ;-) Ok, it does. What programs support it, in Linux?

...

I guess I was just spoiled by Eudora. It has long had support for RFC 1523 and successors. Short of it's lack of threading, it's definitely the best email client I've ever used. KMail is good, but it's not quite as nice as Eudora...

I think I have received emails from Eudora clients, and they were a pain to read in more than one email client. I don't know what is the situation now. -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson

Randall R Schulz

00:54

New subject: [SLE] Empty Trash

Carlos, On Tuesday 09 November 2004 16:08, Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

The Monday 2004-11-08 at 18:22 -0800, Randall R Schulz wrote:

...
...
I don't care much about the backbone, I do care about the last mile, because that it is my bottleneck ;-)

Really? The quantity of data received on the SuSE-Linux-E list is a significant proportion of your link's capacity? You must be on one damn slow link!

Yes, it is. It can cope, of course, but if everybody in this list were using html, my ISP inbox would fill up easily: some have 3 Mb, some 25Mb. I could not take a few days out, because it would fill up quite soon.

Well, people with such stingy ISPs can hardly afford to be on this list if they're not going to retrieve their mail rather frequently, it seems.

...

A quick calculation is below.

...
...
I know that, you do not need to post them. Notice that some of those headers were added by your own machine, by the way.

OK. I guess it's "only" 1700+ bytes...

But it doesn't go up.

Again, that's the point. An empty message would be that big. The percentage of growth for using styled text must take that fixed baseline into account.

...

About 80% of the list is over 3000 bytes, 10% is over 5Kb, and only a few are over 20Kb. Those 20Kb, minus 2 is 18. Plus 200% for the html part, thats 36. Total 36+18+2=56Kb (meaning around 10 second for each to download). Those of 5Kb would increase to about 11Kb.

That is ridiculous. Markup is only bigger where there are markup elements specified. It is by no means a uniform percentage larger and it's certainly not twice as large unless there are style variations throughout the message. That does not reflect any kind of ordinary usage pattern. And again, sending multipart with a plain text counterpart would not be required if people would use modern software. It's this atavistic contingent that's holding sway against a modern form of written communication in this (and many other) forums.

...

For example, last Monday I got 298 emails from this list alone: assuming 4Kb each, thats around 1.2 Mbytes; including a html part, it would increase to 2.4Mb per day. That means that it would fill up in 3 or 4 days for the average 10 Mbytes account - with this list alone.

You're assuming that every post would be styled. That's an entirely unreasonable assumption. Unless, of course, you think all the people who claim to have no need to use stylistic variation in their posts are lying and as soon as you open the door to styled mail you'll get nothing but styled mail from them and that, furthermore, that each posting will be laden with style mark-up.

...

...
...
And, you should not forget that there are many people - me, for example - using plain text programs. Pine can show some html, but not all. Some X clients do not handle html well, or not at all. Even if we are on the 21th century, that is a fact.

That's another part of the point. Using antiquated software is _not_ a reason to resist using a richer medium of communication. Not when it's supported by bona fide standards.

Yes, it is.

No. It's not. Clinging to old software just does not justify resistance to progress. If if were, we'd have no Web, programmers would be writing in BAL assembler and computers would do nothing but billing and bookkeeping and computing ballistics tables.

...

It would force us to use certain kind of email clients.

It would preclude certain antiquated ones. That's all.

...

...
...
Thus, the list is designed for the minimun common denominator.

Which is silly, but nonetheless is a value judgement on the part of the list administrator. We should keep in mind, too, that with a change in proprietorship for SuSE as a whole, all these things are potentially subject to change. Perhaps Novell is more enlightened than the old SuSE folks. After all, isn't Germany part of "Old Europe?" (Sorry, I couldn't resist... I hate Bush at least as much as any fundie hates the devil, by the way.)

Then it would be the time to quit the list and SuSE :-|

Right. It's your way or the highway.

...

...
... Electronic mail is simply one means of communication. If HTML, with its embedded style, layout and images, is a useful medium for communication--and I think we all agree it is--then why should it be excluded from electronic mail?

Not from electronic mail, but from this list. That's what we are complaining about. There is no real need for it, there are technical reasons against it, and so are the rules of this list.

The stated technical reasons are vacuous. I obey the rules, but they are foolish rules. And do you think I'm trying to get the rules of this list changed? I'm not. I'm trying to get people to realize that there is no valid objection to doing it in general. Do you expect 5, 10, 25 years from now that bulletin boards and mailing lists should still be nothing but plain text? At what point will you admit that you're operating at the equivalent of the telegraph and accept something more modern?

...

...

...
...
¡But it doesn't exist! I wouldn't care much about the ability to say "this is bold" or whatever... In fact, perhaps I would like it. But there is no such standard, I think; for example, Pine knows nothing of such "styled text". There is only html, and to be polite it means sending both plain text and html, the second one been twice as big. A small mail is not much, but some reach 60Kbytes. I know, I get a few newsletters and such every day. It is not only "font style" they use, but boxes, charts, logos, and who knows what. 60Kb for a page or two. :-/

...

...
What doesn't exist? You're simply wrong, you know. There most certainly is such a standard. Do you think I'd go on like this over a fantasy / hallucination? http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1896.html>. http://mango.human.cornell.edu/kens/etf.html> is a nice explanatory page.

/usr/share/doc/rfc/rfc1896.txt.gz is nearer to me ;-)

Wow. 62+ MB of compressed RFC text.

...

Ok, it does. What programs support it, in Linux?

I don't know. The KMail developers are clearly in the atavistic contingent as far as anything but plain-text email is concerned (I've read bits of the developer lists).

...

...

-- Cheers, Carlos Robinson

Randall Schulz

Philipp Thomas

8 Nov 8 Nov

08:09

New subject: [SLE] Empty Trash

Randall R Schulz [Sat, 6 Nov 2004 17:24:37 -0800]:

...

This bias against styled text in email is absurd.

How much use are facial expressions or hand gestures when talking on the phone?

...

It should be possible to exercise typographic control when communicating in written form.

Well, we could debate this, but most of the time text and html part will be identical and so you only double the volume of the mail without any added information.

...

Preferred by a dictatorial "some," I'd say.

Make that "most" and you'll be on the right track.

...

There is no objective reason to prohibit or even discourage mark-up in email and on Usenet.

The extra mark-up doesn't add *anything* substantial to the mail and you will always have to add a text part as otherwise some people (like me) can't read the mail. So will nearly double the transferred volume without adding anything substantial. Philipp

Synthetic Cartoonz

7 Nov 7 Nov

01:19

New subject: [SLE] Empty Trash

On Saturday 06 November 2004 18:55, Jake wrote:

...

On Saturday 06 November 2004 23:39, Anders Johansson wrote:

...
The mail was multipart and had one plain text section and one HTML. Perhaps your mailer doesn't support MIME standards?! I never saw the HTML, as kmail nicely showed me the plain text section of the mail

Same here. Elm showing it's age perhaps Ti...

I didn't even get the HTML here. I just got the text. Normally KMail shows the multipart mime types of a message, but there was nothing there other than text.

Ken Schneider

01:25

New subject: [SLE] Empty Trash

On Sat, 2004-11-06 at 20:19, Synthetic Cartoonz wrote:

...

On Saturday 06 November 2004 18:55, Jake wrote:

...
On Saturday 06 November 2004 23:39, Anders Johansson wrote:

...
The mail was multipart and had one plain text section and one HTML. Perhaps your mailer doesn't support MIME standards?! I never saw the HTML, as kmail nicely showed me the plain text section of the mail

Same here. Elm showing it's age perhaps Ti...

I didn't even get the HTML here. I just got the text. Normally KMail shows the multipart mime types of a message, but there was nothing there other than text.

If you had looked at the email source you would have found the html tags in place. This list still has many people on metered dial up and html email adds to their cost. Also with the volume of mail on this list it would add greatly to the net traffic and it also against list policy. -- Ken Schneider UNIX since 1989 SuSE since 1998 * Only reply to the list please*

ti＠amb.org

6 Nov 6 Nov

23:57

New subject: [SLE] Empty Trash

Anders Johansson writes:

...

On Sunday, 7 November 2004 00.33, Ti Kan wrote:

...
steve-ss writes:

...
...
Please -do not- send HTML email to the list. It is not tolerated well on this list.

Why not?

Many of us prefer to use simple text-based mail clients. Having a bunch of HTML tags embedded in the email is a major annoyance and makes the mail virtually unreadable. There is really no good reason why HTML should be used.

Plain ASCII text is compatible with all mail clients and that should be what's used for mailing lists.

The mail was multipart and had one plain text section and one HTML. Perhaps your mailer doesn't support MIME standards?! I never saw the HTML, as kmail nicely showed me the plain text section of the mail

My mail client supports MIME. I don't know which message the original poster was complaining about, but I was just commenting on HTML mail in general. -Ti -- Ti Kan http://www.amb.org/ti Vorsprung durch Technik

Jake

23:59

New subject: [SLE] Empty Trash

On Saturday 06 November 2004 23:57, Ti Kan wrote:

...

My mail client supports MIME. I don't know which message the original poster was complaining about, but I was just commenting on HTML mail in general.

About which you are correct, of course.

peter Nikolic

7 Nov 7 Nov

09:28

New subject: [SLE] Empty Trash

On Saturday 06 Nov 2004 23:33, Ti Kan wrote:

...

steve-ss writes:

...
...
Please -do not- send HTML email to the list. It is not tolerated well on this list.

Why not?

Many of us prefer to use simple text-based mail clients. Having a bunch of HTML tags embedded in the email is a major annoyance and makes the mail virtually unreadable. There is really no good reason why HTML should be used.

Plain ASCII text is compatible with all mail clients and that should be what's used for mailing lists.

-Ti -- Ti Kan http://www.amb.org/ti Vorsprung durch Technik too true

html mails should be canned at source .. Pete . -- Linux user No: 256242 Machine No: 139931 G6NJR Pete also MSA registered "Quinton 11" A Linux Only area Happy bug hunting M$ clan, The time is here to FORGET that M$ Corp ever existed the world does not NEED M$ Corp the world has NO USE for M$ Corp it is time to END M$ Corp , Play time is over folks time for action approaches at an alarming pace the death knell for M$ Copr has been sounded . Termination time is around the corner ..

Patrick Shanahan

00:27

New subject: [SLE] Empty Trash

* steve-ss [11-06-04 18:22]:

...

...
Please -do not- send HTML email to the list. It is not tolerated well on this list.

Why not?

look at the four lines at the bottom of every posting in this forum: For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com and from that email: From: suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Q4. Can I send attachments to the list? A4. The short answer is 'no'. We may strip attachments that contain something other than plain text and bounce email that only contains attachments. Likewise, HTML email is *strongly* discouraged and may be blocked as well. HTML mail is against the list policy. -- Patrick Shanahan Registered Linux User #207535 http://wahoo.no-ip.org @ http://counter.li.org HOG # US1244711 Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/photos

Mike McMullin

8 Nov 8 Nov

01:10

New subject: [SLE] Empty Trash

On Sat, 2004-11-06 at 17:16, steve-ss wrote:

...

...
Please -do not- send HTML email to the list. It is not tolerated well on this list.

Why not?

It's a waste of bandwidth for one, for another I have me e-mail client set to not do the html in e-mails, so stuff gets lost to the bit bucket.

Graham Smith

15:56

New subject: [SLE] Empty Trash

On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 12:10, Mike McMullin wrote:

...

On Sat, 2004-11-06 at 17:16, steve-ss wrote:

...
...
Please -do not- send HTML email to the list. It is not tolerated well on this list.

Why not?

It's a waste of bandwidth for one, for another I have me e-mail client set to not do the html in e-mails, so stuff gets lost to the bit bucket.

All HTML mail I receive goes directly to /dev/null so I don't have to look at the crap as I consider it as spam. -- Regards, Graham Smith ---------------------------------------------------------

Carl Hartung

7 Nov 7 Nov

19:37

New subject: [SLE] Empty Trash

What a great looking signature! Looks like I'd better get ready to back up my 9.0 :-) Congratulations! - Carl On Sat, 2004-11-06 at 16:33, William Westfall wrote:

...

Does anyone know in what system notification event source I can find the trash bin... I wish to have it play a sound when I empty it.

Thanks in advance!

W.G. Westfall

Made with___________________________________________ Linux 2.6.8-24.3-default i686 athlon i386GNU/Linux (SuSE 9.2)

peter Nikolic

8 Nov 8 Nov

10:26

New subject: [SLE] Empty Trash

On Sunday 07 Nov 2004 19:37, Carl Hartung wrote:

...

What a great looking signature! Looks like I'd better get ready to back up my 9.0 :-) Congratulations! - Carl

On Sat, 2004-11-06 at 16:33, William Westfall wrote:

...
Does anyone know in what system notification event source I can find the trash bin... I wish to have it play a sound when I empty it.

Thanks in advance!

W.G. Westfall

Made with___________________________________________ Linux 2.6.8-24.3-default i686 athlon i386GNU/Linux (SuSE 9.2)

time i think to instigate a total block on html in email and bounce them back to sender for correction .. HTML is for web pages not emails .. Pete. -- Linux user No: 256242 Machine No: 139931 G6NJR Pete also MSA registered "Quinton 11" A Linux Only area Happy bug hunting M$ clan, The time is here to FORGET that M$ Corp ever existed the world does not NEED M$ Corp the world has NO USE for M$ Corp it is time to END M$ Corp , Play time is over folks time for action approaches at an alarming pace the death knell for M$ Copr has been sounded . Termination time is around the corner ..

7108

Age (days ago)

7112

Last active (days ago)

List overview

Download

52 comments

23 participants

participants (23)

Anders Johansson
C. Richard Matson
Carl Hartung
Carlos E. R.
Constant Brouerius van Nidek
cwsiv
Graham Smith
Jake
James Knott
Ken Schneider
Leendert Meyer
Mike McMullin
Patrick Shanahan
peter Nikolic
Philipp Thomas
plain
Randall R Schulz
steve-ss
Synthetic Cartoonz
ti＠amb.org
tony
Tony Alfrey
William Westfall