On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 05:24 PM, Jim Fisher wrote:

For those of us who read in plain text (I know I'm not the only one here), the all caps comes through but not the bold or the underlining.

As I have said, many times in the past, individual choices have consequences.

Given that a great deal of content comes through in formatting, and HTML e-mail has been common for several decades now, I am also not responsible for those who choose to strip it.

That's entirely your choice, but there are prices to be paid, and it's not any author's fault when their material is being converted to present in a way not originally composed.
?
--
Brian

? ?Some questions don't have answers, which is a terribly difficult lesson to learn.

? ? ? ? ? ?~ Katharine Graham

On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 05:24 PM, Jim Fisher wrote:

For those of us who read in plain text (I know I'm not the only one here), the all caps comes through but not the bold or the underlining.

As I have said, many times in the past, individual choices have consequences.

Yes, exactly. If, for example, someone decides to read their email using PINE because that's what they baby ducked on, that doesn't mean that the rest of us should be denied in-line attachments just because that MUA doesn't support that.

Best,

Glenn

[Political ad removed by Moderator]

And I have grown bone tired of being told about "the problems" of those who cling to antiquated software and methods of all sorts.? Those problems are entirely of their own making.

The phrase, "Do keep up," springs immediately to mind.? Almost to a person who won't, it's because they choose not to and for no other earthly reason.? That's your (the generic you) issue, and I refuse to make it mine.? Expecting anyone to conform to outdated styles and standards is not acceptable in the cyber world, particularly when it comes to:

1. Using HTML formatted e-mail.
2. Using threaded/conversation view, and expecting that a thread will be read through before responding.

It is well to remember that the entire universe, with one trifling exception, is composed of others.

???????? ~ John Andrew Holmes
--
Brian

? ?Some questions don't have answers, which is a terribly difficult lesson to learn.

? ? ? ? ? ?~ Katharine Graham

I wouldn't argue with any of that, but senders should be aware that formatting
which relies on HTML will not be seen by all their readers. Presumably it's
there because they want their readers to be aware of it?

I my opinion, HTML in emails wastes bandwidth and achieves little of benefit to
anyone, but my prime reason for avoiding it is because it can carry malware,
and no anti-virus software can ever be fully up to date with the latest
threats.

Jim

--
- My thoughts on freedom (needs updating)
- political snippets, especially economic policy
- misc. snippets, some political, some not
Forget Google! I search with which doesn't spy on you

On Sat, Jun 8, 2019 at 01:18 PM, Brian Vogel wrote:

Those problems are entirely of their own making.

Not entirely.? Not everyone can afford a new computer every few years just so they can run the software that demands an upgrade.? I use plain text, an old computer, and simple software.? It does what I need it to.? If someone can't explain things to me using those, then it's usually a case of them not really knowing what they're talking about.? 5 fonts and 13 colors don't help with the explanation .? Quite often it interferes.
--
Help: /static/help
GMF's Wiki: /g/GroupManagersForum/wiki
Search button at the top of Messages list
A few site FAQs: /static/pricing#frequently-asked-questions

On 6/8/2019 12:16, Jim Fisher wrote:

I my opinion, HTML in emails wastes bandwidth

This made sense back in the days of acoustic modems. It makes no sense now.

Best,

Glenn

That depends on what speed of internet connection you have. Some, especially at
busy times, are not much faster that the old dial-up (and some people may still
be forced to use that).

Jim

--
[political sig trimmed by moderator]
Forget Google! I search with which doesn't spy on you

@Glenn -- Couldn't agree more. I used to worry about this stuff, but now that bandwidth, storage, and compute cycles are so abundant, I no longer care. Top quote, bottom quote, use html, encrypt and decrypt to your heart's content. Passing back and forth a string of wordy html emails that starts at the beginning of time takes fewer resources than almost any amount of YouTubing.? It doesn't make a dent in the wealth of resources we enjoy today. It's the 21st century.

On the other hand, use plain ASCII if you like and hang to your familiar equipment. My only caution is security. Folks should realize that the old gear and software may feel more secure because cybercrime was not as prevalent in the past, but old equipment and software is usually quite easy to hack into. Sysadmins used to think it was a routine part of their job.
Best, Marv

On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 01:02 PM, Marv Waschke wrote:

now that bandwidth, storage, and compute cycles are so abundant

Maybe for you, but not for everyone.? It irritates me no end when people assume that everyone else has the advantages they do.

Duane
--
Help: /static/help
GMF's Wiki: /g/GroupManagersForum/wiki
Search button at the top of Messages list
A few site FAQs: /static/pricing#frequently-asked-questions

On Sat, Jun 8, 2019 at 08:49 PM, Jim Fisher wrote:

I my opinion, HTML in emails wastes bandwidth and achieves little of benefit to
anyone,

I have no idea about the relative bandwidth requirements of HTML v non - HTML, but I would certainly disagree with your assertion that it "achieves little of benefit to anyone".

I strongly suspect that its bandwidth demands are rather less than the gross over - quoting that is so prevalent in some groups.

Chris

All,

This thread seems to have outlived its usefulness, with little left but personal opinions, preferences, and postures.

There are a couple more sitting in pending which I'll approve following this message, but can we wrap this up, agree to disagree where necessary, and call it good?

I'm not actually locking this topic or declaring it "dead", yet, but if you are tempted to comment further please hesitate a moment and consider whether you're adding some new and useful information about the topic or not.

This isn't the first time this subject has come up, and I'm pretty sure it won't be the last - it has long been a perennial topic in Yahoo Groups and other email lists I've used.

Shal
--
Help: /static/help
More Help: /g/GroupManagersForum/wiki
Even More Help: Search button at the top of Messages list

On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 03:55 PM, Chris Jones wrote:

I strongly suspect that its [HTML formatted e-mail] bandwidth demands are rather less than the gross over - quoting that is so prevalent in some groups.

Bing, bing, bing, bing, bing!!? ? We have a winner!!? ? Your assertion is demonstrated repeatedly with one-line replies that have, literally, multiple pages of bottom quoted material that remains untrimmed (and if all of it happens to be HTML formatted, then all of what goes with that is dragged along, too).

If you haven't got the bandwidth to handle HTML e-mail then browsing a couple of web pages of any modern newspaper will be well-nigh impossible.? ?There are things that could accurately be called a strain on those with constrained bandwidth, but HTML e-mail would be thousands of items down from the very top of that list.
?
--
Brian

? ?Some questions don't have answers, which is a terribly difficult lesson to learn.

? ? ? ? ? ?~ Katharine Graham

Maybe for you, but not for everyone.? It irritates me no end when people assume that everyone else has the advantages they do.

Duane

It equally irritates me when people assume that the disadvantages they have are ones everyone else has and that the tail of the lowest common denominator should wag the dog.

Best,

Glenn
Who lives in a rural area with not the best internet, but I make do as I can.

On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 08:04 PM, Glenn Glazer wrote:

It equally irritates me when people assume that the disadvantages they have are ones everyone else has and that the tail of the lowest common denominator should wag the dog.

Amen, brother!!? ? One should presume what most people in most locations have.? ?Internet service through most of the world is, like anything supplied to a huge number of people, a normal distribution.? Assuming that the two tails of a normal distribution, those who have ultra high speed fiber optic internet service and those who have slow dial up, represent something that is within normal limits is inane.

One presumes to the median and one standard deviation to either side if you have any interest in what "most people" are dealing with, 68%, to be precise.? If one extends that to 1.5 standard deviations you're covering about over 90% of the total range of circumstances.

While I feel sorry for those who have to deal with dial-up or dial-up level speeds, they are not what anyone should be using as the target demographic for general practice, and haven't been for a very long time now.? ?If you treat those with the worst internet service as the ones who should be catered to then virtually everything most of the world has been doing with the worldwide web for decades now would not exist.? ?Sorry, but no.

--
Brian

? ?Some questions don't have answers, which is a terribly difficult lesson to learn.

? ? ? ? ? ?~ Katharine Graham

开云体育

Gentle GMF Members,

I'd have to strongly agree with the points made by DR Stinson in his post above, especially in that plain text allows one (i.e., me) to set the display to a font/size that is comfortable for me to read.

The other reason for choosing to set my group to plain text only is that, by using HTML/rich text, it can permit invisible, executable malware/applets to sneak in undetected. For that bit alone I reason that plain text is a very useful better-safe-than-sorry option.

Also, with one of my groups many of the members are in a 3rd world country where some of them have very slow Internet service with limited bandwidth which makes plain text (and no piggybacking) important to them to help minimize download time, especially when they are billed by the minute while they are online.

Just FWIW . . . .

Paul M.
CostaRicaLiving
/g/CostaRicaLiving
==

On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 01:10 AM, D R Stinson wrote:

HTML has one big drawback for me that plain text doesn't. Everybody who posts in HTML seems to have their own peculiar preferences for font size and style. Some posts come in huge, seemingly 12 point or larger,?while other posters on some groups seem to post in 4 or 6 point sans serif fonts. Plain text lets my email handler?display messages using the font size *I* prefer, rather than what someone else wants to use.

Virtually any modern e-mail client will allow the override of font choice and font size when reading, while retaining everything else.

I'd be giving anyone who used 4 of 6 point size of any font grief, as that's "small print" in every sense of the word.? As to larger point sizes, well, I can read any of them.

But my main point being that if one wants to override font and point size choices one does not care for, yet retain things like bold, italic, embedded links, etc., it's simple to do under most modern e-mail clients.

It's any owner's right to set a group to plain text, but all members should be made aware of that upon joining, as it wouldn't be the default expectation these days.? It also saves them doing any number of things they might normally do with regard to formatting as they then know it would be stripped.? I know how to go back to old-style indications for _underline_ and *italic* (or is that bold) and similar and would use those conventions if I know I'm going to be converted to plain text.

In this day and age HTML is the de facto standard, and any random user not explicitly informed otherwise has every reason to believe that HTML format is going to be used.
?
--
Brian

? ?Some questions don't have answers, which is a terribly difficult lesson to learn.

? ? ? ? ? ?~ Katharine Graham

I think those are a very good points, Paul.? I may follow your lead.

Peter

Paul,

The other reason for choosing to set my group to plain text only is that, by using HTML/rich text, it can permit invisible, executable malware/applets to sneak in undetected. For that bit alone I reason that plain text is a very useful better-safe-than-sorry option.

Back in the day, I've been known to claim that HTML is the devil's work. (That's intended as hyperbole, not to reference any religious ideas.)? Often on much the same grounds. Tracking images, sneaky scripts, and other abuses. My sig for the cause:

? /"\
? \ /? ASCII Ribbon Campaign
?? X?? Against HTML Mail
? / \

To be clear, I'm not against formatting; I sometimes prefer use italics, bold, inline images, and other capabilities that don't exist in plain text. I just wish the email standards had adopted a formatting markup that didn't come with all of HTML's baggage.

Fortunately, email user interfaces have become a lot more careful in their dealings with HTML content. One of the earliest defenses I encountered was not displaying remote images by default. This de-fanged spammers' popular technique for learning whether you opened the message or not. Next came not executing scripts, period. The rest has leveraged a lot of the work done to harden web browsers against HTML-based threats. It has been a long time since I've heard of any instance of malware spread by HTML in email (nasty surprises in attached files still exist, but going plain text doesn't protect you from that). Because of all this I've substantially softened my position on HTML in email.

As an aside, I'm a bit surprised that no one in this conversation mentioned the Normalize HTML Emails checkbox, in the Message Formatting section of a group's Settings page. It strips a lot of the things that many people find objectionable, while leaving the ability to emphasize text and include inline images. It might be a suitable compromise for many groups, rather than going all the way to Plain Text Only.

Shal

--
Help: /static/help
More Help: /g/GroupManagersForum/wiki
Even More Help: Search button at the top of Messages list

At the risk of prolonging an already too long thread, I'd like to underscore Shal's comment. The computing industry's attitude toward security has changed radically is the last decade or so. In much of my day in development, security was a luxury. Until the early 2000s, I don't think we ever got a pat on the back for making a consumer system more secure. What I did hear was: security degrades performance; support loves backdoors; customers hate to be bothered with security; never let security get in the way of a cool feature. I won't say that kind of thinking is gone, but now, at least, those statements are only made quietly in the corridor, not in meeting rooms. The consequence is that, as Shal points out for HTML, many things that were once hack-bait, are now much safer. Hacking is more prevalent and organized, but it has gotten much harder than the days when Telnet and knowing the commonly used passwords, ala Lisbeth Salander, could get you into anything..

Not keeping up denies you access to these increases in safety.

And it is not that hard to keep up. In my local community, I've helped seniors upgrade on very slim budgets. Refurbished computers that are tremendous improvements can be had for less than $100 with careful shopping. They can be obtained online or locally. My experience is that the best results have been through local shops that refurbish discarded computers and offer support. You can set up a quite capable system with free opensource software or community versions of proprietary software. Public libraries often provide free computing help.

Best, Marv