Re: [wlug] Mailing list etiquette (was Re: Sudo)
I have to say here that I use thunderbird, which seems to like sending in HTML and plain by default, and will reply to HTML in HTML and plain by default. This isn't my preferred choice!
Ditto. I've even set the plain text option hard in my prefs file, it just refuses. :( Any Thunderbird gurus out there that know how to fix this? I've followed the instructions at:
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Thunderbird_:_FAQs_:_Using_Plain_Text
Not only is there the plain vs html text emails, there is also the way in which you post. NZOSS tries to use a post at the bottom of each email, making the thread logical to read, snipping where needed if the thread becomes too long. This is probmatic for those that use Outlook, for example, since outlook will post to the top of the email.. I have a link to mailing list etiquette, but cant find it atm. Mike
Not only is there the plain vs html text emails, there is also the way in which you post. NZOSS tries to use a post at the bottom of each email, making the thread logical to read, snipping where needed if the
Michael Honeyfield wrote: thread becomes too long.
This is probmatic for those that use Outlook, for example, since outlook will post to the top of the email..
I have a link to mailing list etiquette, but cant find it atm.
Oh no, don't start the top vs bottom posts flame war! *runs for the hills*. ;) To address Bnonn (nhrn): Plain text is not just "old skool". It's the only way you can be sure that what you send is what other people read. People spend ages making their emails look "pretty", and are horribly dismayed when you show them screenshots of their mangled mail being read in different mail clients. I know, I did this to prove a point! :) Text only please. It's not really up for debate. I'm willing to overlook "my mailer is a bit screwed, please don't shoot me" (I have to, mine just was!), but it's well established that you just don't do that when posting to lists. We don't mind if you're not pretty with us, Bnonn. ;) G.
Hi Greig. I wasn't intending to debate the issue or be contrary, and as I said, I'm happy to send in plaintext. I was just rather curious as to why it was such an issue for people given the age and ubiquitousness of HTML. Greig McGill wrote:
Not only is there the plain vs html text emails, there is also the way in which you post. NZOSS tries to use a post at the bottom of each email, making the thread logical to read, snipping where needed if the
Michael Honeyfield wrote: thread becomes too long.
This is probmatic for those that use Outlook, for example, since outlook will post to the top of the email..
I have a link to mailing list etiquette, but cant find it atm.
Oh no, don't start the top vs bottom posts flame war! *runs for the hills*. ;)
To address Bnonn (nhrn): Plain text is not just "old skool". It's the only way you can be sure that what you send is what other people read.
People spend ages making their emails look "pretty", and are horribly dismayed when you show them screenshots of their mangled mail being read in different mail clients. I know, I did this to prove a point! :)
Text only please. It's not really up for debate. I'm willing to overlook "my mailer is a bit screwed, please don't shoot me" (I have to, mine just was!), but it's well established that you just don't do that when posting to lists. We don't mind if you're not pretty with us, Bnonn. ;)
G.
_______________________________________________ wlug mailing list | wlug(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Unsubscribe: http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/wlug
Bnonn wrote:
Hi Greig. I wasn't intending to debate the issue or be contrary, and as I said, I'm happy to send in plaintext. I was just rather curious as to why it was such an issue for people given the age and ubiquitousness of HTML.
As opposed to the age and ubiquitousnouss of plain text? I'd suggest people have been commmunicating in a written form without the aid of markup for, ooh, several thousand years. .... :)
Touche... Daniel Lawson wrote:
Bnonn wrote:
Hi Greig. I wasn't intending to debate the issue or be contrary, and as I said, I'm happy to send in plaintext. I was just rather curious as to why it was such an issue for people given the age and ubiquitousness of HTML.
As opposed to the age and ubiquitousnouss of plain text? I'd suggest people have been commmunicating in a written form without the aid of markup for, ooh, several thousand years.
....
:)
_______________________________________________ wlug mailing list | wlug(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Unsubscribe: http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/wlug
At 12:02 5/04/2005, Daniel Lawson wrote:
Bnonn wrote:
Hi Greig. I wasn't intending to debate the issue or be contrary, and as I said, I'm happy to send in plaintext. I was just rather curious as to why it was such an issue for people given the age and ubiquitousness of HTML.
As opposed to the age and ubiquitousnouss of plain text? I'd suggest people have been commmunicating in a written form without the aid of markup for, ooh, several thousand years.
How then would you categorise different colour pens / paints and calligraphy?
As opposed to the age and ubiquitousnouss of plain text? I'd suggest people have been commmunicating in a written form without the aid of markup for, ooh, several thousand years.
How then would you categorise different colour pens / paints and calligraphy?
Hahaha. Fundamentally different to markup, in that it's not up to the viewer to render it appropriately.
Daniel Lawson wrote:
As opposed to the age and ubiquitousnouss of plain text? I'd suggest people have been commmunicating in a written form without the aid of markup for, ooh, several thousand years.
How then would you categorise different colour pens / paints and calligraphy?
Hahaha. Fundamentally different to markup, in that it's not up to the viewer to render it appropriately.
Hrm, I obviously should be configuring my email client to send application/pdf...
David Hallett wrote:
At 12:02 5/04/2005, Daniel Lawson wrote:
Bnonn wrote:
Hi Greig. I wasn't intending to debate the issue or be contrary, and as I said, I'm happy to send in plaintext. I was just rather curious as to why it was such an issue for people given the age and ubiquitousness of HTML.
As opposed to the age and ubiquitousnouss of plain text? I'd suggest people have been commmunicating in a written form without the aid of markup for, ooh, several thousand years.
How then would you categorise different colour pens / paints and calligraphy?
Yeah, but prior to the Mid 1970's, what came from the whole world into the respective living rooms was in Black and White :)
<everyone posted loads of crap> Basically my issue with HTML email is not a technical one but a social one. The intent of a webpage (in my opinion, feel free to not agree) is to convey rich media, filled with images and tables and formatting and that kind of crap. A web page is trying to show off. An email however, is a message from one person to another. There's no reason that you can't write plain text emails and not convey everything you want. Perhaps you want a diagram but that's what attachments are for. My personal view of email analagous to ICQ/MSN messenger/etc. Do you think people should be allowed to send HTML messages via MSN? I'd hope not. If so then why emails?
On 5 Apr 2005 at 13:52, Orion Edwards wrote:
<everyone posted loads of crap>
Basically my issue with HTML email is not a technical one but a social one. The intent of a webpage (in my opinion, feel free to not agree) is to convey rich media, filled with images and tables and formatting and that kind of crap. A web page is trying to show off.
To some web designers perhaps.
An email however, is a message from one person to another. There's no reason that you can't write plain text emails and not convey everything you want. Perhaps you want a diagram but that's what attachments are for. My personal view of email analagous to ICQ/MSN messenger/etc. Do you think people should be allowed to send HTML messages via MSN? I'd hope not. If so then why emails?
I would argue that a web page (in fact anything containing semantic symbols) is a message from one person to another. Some people may use that to show off at the expense of direct communication; others may prefer their web designs to communicate rather than visually/aurally amaze.
participants (9)
-
Bnonn -
Daniel Lawson -
David Hallett -
Greig McGill -
Lindsay Druett -
Mark Grimshaw -
Michael Honeyfield -
Orion Edwards -
Perry Lorier