Backrounds in Eudora. - HTML is not bad!

Backrounds in Eudora. - HTML is not bad!

Post by gary » Sat, 01 Oct 2005 14:05:52


isn't this question an example of how some people actually like HTML email?

(see the thread below "using Eudora to send HTML newsletters)

personally I just don't understand why some people are so against them.

from a business view point, would you rather hand a customer a newsletter
that was printed from a typewriter, or a color brochure with photos
describing what you do?

it's not a sin to put a few pictures in your correspondence, or your logo on
the top of the email. it actually is useful and many people actually prefer
it. and using HTML, instead of attaching the graphics to the email, is
actually a courtesy so that the user doesn't have to receive attachments.
 
 
 

Backrounds in Eudora. - HTML is not bad!

Post by Steve Urba » Sun, 02 Oct 2005 00:06:25


2 simple reasons:
1)document (file size +) load time over slow dial-up
2)Spy/malware easy to embed with HTML tags.

 
 
 

Backrounds in Eudora. - HTML is not bad!

Post by Katrina Kn » Sun, 02 Oct 2005 04:25:59


There a re a number of reasons, not all of which apply all the time. They
include:

1. Many html messages are hard to read.

2. They take up much more space and bandwidth than plain text

3. HTML can be a security issue.

4. HTML can cause serious problems when sent to mailing lists



That's not a particularly good analogy. For one thing, when you hand
people a printed copy of something, you *know* how it will look when they
receive it - it will look the same to both you and the recipients. That is
not true for e-mail, and making the mistake of believing it to be true is
one thing that causes a lot of problems with html-laden messages. What
looks good to you can look horrible to other people who have their
computers set up differently than you do. With plain text messages, the
rececipients have total control over how the messages look and can choose
whatever looks good to them. With html, the sender often tries to impose
certain things on the recipient. That can have very bad results. If
someone handed me a printed brochure that looked the way many of the html
messages I receive look, I'd throw it away without reading it.

For a second thing, HTML vs plain text involves a lot more than just
pictures vs no pictures. It isn't uncommon for people and businesses to
refuse html mail due to concerns about potentially harmful code within the
html. Security is not a concern with printed matter.


A sin? Certainly not. An annoyance? Quite possibly. That really depends on
the situation. There are times when using html is very appropriate. There
are other times when it brings you no benefit while having disadvantages
to the recipient. The trick is to know which is which. If what you're
doing is actually sending a brochure including pictures of products that
the recipients have asked to receive, that probably is an appriopriate
time to use html. If what you are doing is sticking your logo in the
signature of every message you send out, no matter how many messages you
send to the same recipients, that's most likely an inappropriate choice.
In my opinion, people who say that all uses of html in messages are bad
are almost as wrong as people who say that using it all the time is good.
What you do really needs to be appropriate to the specific situation.

--
Katrina
 
 
 

Backrounds in Eudora. - HTML is not bad!

Post by Palle Jens » Wed, 05 Oct 2005 05:05:16

On 30 sep 2005, Katrina Knight wrote in
comp.mail.eudora.ms-windows:


In particular if you use Eudora! The HTML support is so pour that it
is strange that it is supported at all.


That is really a bad excuse. How many people are having problems
downloading 30KB of data nowadays? Or said in another way:
Because some people are using acustic modems somewhere in Bangladesh
with a $10/min billing, then I have to accept Plain text only?! Many
newsletters come with a choise between Plain text and HTML.
Personally I prefere HTML formatted newsletters, so I have to choose
the MS viewer to render in a decent way. If Eudora gave me an option
to use the internal viewer I wouldn't have to compromise on the
security.


Welcome to the real world. Taking a walk in the park is a security
issue. Eudora doesn't protect me against those problems. As I wrote
before I now use the MS viewer, because Eudora don't give me a real
option. No! Send to browser is not an option for me :-)


Filter away HTML tagged messages. No problems.


--
Palle Jensen

Eudora wishlist, Missing features, bugs..
http://www.yqcomputer.com/
 
 
 

Backrounds in Eudora. - HTML is not bad!

Post by Katrina Kn » Sun, 09 Oct 2005 01:40:46

alle Jensen < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > wrote:



Eudora supports html just fine. If you choose to turn off that support
(which is enabled by default), that's your choice, but if you make that
choice, complaining about it doesn't make a lot of sense.



Because it doesn't apply to you personally, that means that it doesn't
apply to anyone? That seems to be a rather self-centered attitude that
doesn't fit with what I've seen of your attitude in general, so maybe
aren't considering that that is what you're effectively saying here.

The fact of the matter is that there are plenty of people who don't have
nice, fast, unlimited broadband connections. There are plenty of people
who don't have the option to have them because they live where they aren't
offered. There are also a good number of people who can't even get
high-speed dialup. High-speed dialup requires a certain level of quality
in the phone lines and that just doesn't exist everywhere. I know a number
of people who get 20-30k connections despite having good 56k modems. And,
the fact that people in the US typically have unlimited local calling
doesn't mean the rest of the world has the same thing. People in other
countries often pay by the minute and/or by the call. Even if people
aren't paying more for it, many don't want to tie up their phone lines for
long periods to download mail.

Also, 30K is quite small when compared to the size of many html-filled
messages. And while one message that size isn't likely to bother anyone,
if you multiple the number of messages a person gets in a day by the size
of a typical html-filled message, that can add up to a fairly large size.



Are you running a good firewall and a good AV program? If so, the MS
viewer is not likely to be a problem.



I'm not following your logic here. The fact that it can be a threat is
very real. Are you saying that because there are other types of threats,
this one should be ignored? If you knew that muggers hung out in your
local park, would you walk there with no protection? Probably not, so why
do you object to people being concerned with the fact that html can be
used to attack?

For sys admins who are trying to keep their networks safe, blocking html
in messages is something that is sometimes a reasonable choice. It may not
be the ideal choice, but given the fact that many sys admins are working
with a limited budget and limited manpower, it is sometimes the best way
to accomplish the desired results. It is also sometimes done because the
people in charge don't have the experience to find a better way of dealing
with things. Not everyone who gets put into the position of having
to secure a network is actually a real sys admin with proper training for
the job.


What Eudora does and doesn't do really isn't the issue here. The issue is
why people object to receiving html in e-mail. In the overall scheme of
things, what Eudora does is fairly minor, given that the majority oif
e-mail users don't use Eudora.


Why not? If using the MS viewer bothers you, that would seem to be a good
alternative. As for Eudora not giving you an option, it does give you an
option - use the internal viewer which is intended to support a limited
amount of html or use the MS viewer which pretty much supports it all.
What you're asking for is the option to have your cake and eat it too. IF
the internal viewer supported all
 
 
 

Backrounds in Eudora. - HTML is not bad!

Post by Palle Jens » Sun, 09 Oct 2005 06:35:53

n 07 okt 2005, Katrina Knight wrote in
comp.mail.eudora.ms-windows:


1) I don't agree (Surprise!). All newsletters I receive via Eudora is
nothing close to what they should be (Internal viewer).

2) If Eudora was rendering HTML formats fine, then why give the
option to use MS viewer or "send to browser"?

As far as I have noticed, then Eudora only supports lowest level of
HTML. Underline, Bold, italic etc. Borders, tables and so on doesn't
work.


I want to have a choice! Thats it. What I meant was: I don't want to
be limited to raw text messages because somebody else wants that. If
people wants plain text, ascii or whatever thats fine. But saying
that new technologies are useless because some people can't use it is
simply nonsense to me.

I have heard the argument about size of E-mails a lot of times and it
makes no sense. People can choose not to have these mails. Fine. But
why should I pay the price?


I agree 100%. But tell me: Should we boycut the intire internet
because it moves away from plain text homepages? We can't slow down
developement because some has has bad opportunities. Or even better:
Because someone just hates HTML. I also wonder how these people use
the internet? The internet ARE HTML all over. Picture, Scrips...Or
even heavier stuff.


I just picked some of the HTML formatted newsletters I had in my
inbox. Thought it was representive. But again: If people don't want
the HTML newsletters, why on earth did they subscribe to them in the
first place? Freedom of choice is the keyword.


You hit the nail right on there. If the park was full of muggers I
would use my freedom of choice to choose another path through town.
You also told me that if I had a good firewall and AV software I
would be safe. I agree.

I just don't see why everyone hates HTML formatted E-mail, and why
others can have them because others don't like them.


You are really serious about this? Because someone can't handle new
technologies, then everybody else should suffer? I am sorry, but I
simply doesn't agree. I feel sorry for that poor compagny that can't
handle all this stuff. But if any serious company in my contry
filtered out HTML formatted E-mails then they might as well just go
back to snail mail again.


I am not 100% sure what you mean. But it should be clear what I mean:
Everybody should be able to do what they like. My opinion is also
that people that trying to fight HTML or formatting in general has
already lost the game. I don't mind that people objects. Not at all.
But they shouldn't judge others for having a more modern angle to
this issue.


I do like the idea of a safe E-mail client. My point is that the fact
that Eudora only supports VERY little HTML, makes one another use the
MS viewer... Then what's the point? My only wish is that Eudora could
support a little more formatting.


I certainly agree! I also see that you agree with me :-)

I send plain text only via Eudora, but have chosen to receive certain
newsletters in HTML. This seems to complie to your ideas.






--
Palle Jensen

Eudora wishlist, Missing features, bugs..
http://home19.inet.tele.dk/phj/eudora/
 
 
 

Backrounds in Eudora. - HTML is not bad!

Post by Katrina Kn » Tue, 11 Oct 2005 02:15:40

alle Jensen < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > wrote:



Those last two words are your problem. If you intentionally turn off the
features that give you what you want to have, complaining that you don't
have those features isn't correct.


"Eudora" and "the internal viewer" are not synonyms. The latter only
provides a subset of the capabilities of the former, and pretending that
the rest of the capabilities doesn't exist won't change the fact that they
do exist.


The option to use the MS viewer is there so that you *can* use it to
render html. The fact that it uses files that come with Windows doesn't
make it any less part of Eudora. Eudora makes use of an assortment of
shared Windows files whether or not you use the MS viewer. Most Windows
programs do because that's how Windows is designed to work.

"Send to browser" is there because there are times when a web browser is a
more appropriate tool to use for working with a message than an e-mail
program.



Again, you're confusing "internal viewer" with "Eudora".




But you don't want other people to have a choice? Just you? You do say
later that you think others should have a choice, so why are you arguing
against other people having a choice?



People can't choose not to receive what you send to them, at least not
easily and without knowing you're intending to send it. For example,
take the person who sent me a 6 MB screen shot of his problem last
weekend. I didn't know he was intending to send it, so I had no way of
easily choosing to not receive it. I didn't have to download it once I got
it (which I didn't) but I couldn't stop him from sending it.

What price are you paying? How does not sending html to people who don't
want it prevent you from getting it?




Huh? I don't see how that follows. For one thing, people choose to go to
web sites or not. People can't control what other people send to them via
e-mail. Personally, I do choose to not go to some websites that make
obnoxious use of html. More often, I just choose not to download the
images on the websites that use an excess of them for no necessary
purpose. Getting a bit more back to the point that is often made here
about making sure your recipients want to receive the html you are
sending, the same is true of websites. You do need to design them in such
a fashion that your intended target audience can reasonably make use of
them. In the US, you should also give consideration to whether you're
violating the Americans with Disabilities Act by making your company web
site inaccessible to people with disabilities. Not providing a version
that is accessible to blind people could potentially get you sued.


There are quite a few people who do very little web browsing. There are
also a lot of ways to use the internet that don't require using large
amounts of high bandwidth html. What you want to do, and what other people
have the ability to do don't necessarily have a lot of bearing on each
other.



Who's saying they did intentionally subscribe to HTML newsletters in the
first place? Newsletters aren't the only messages that contain html. And
in the case of newsletters, who's saying that there was any choice about
whether to get them in html or not? The ones that don't offer a choice are
the problematic ones, and there are loads of them that fall into that
category.


Everyone doesn't hate html e-mail and t
 
 
 

Backrounds in Eudora. - HTML is not bad!

Post by Jim Higgin » Tue, 11 Oct 2005 10:36:04

On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 17:15:40 GMT, Katrina Knight < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >




To the OP: For God's sake, right click the damn email containing the
newsletter and pass it to your browser for full rendering and quit
whining about problems you're causing yourself by not using the
Microsoft viewer with Eudora. Look at the TOOLS | OPTION | Viewing
Mail settings and check "Use Microsoft's Viewer." Bear in mind it is
a security risk, but no more so than using IE to view the message.
 
 
 

Backrounds in Eudora. - HTML is not bad!

Post by Katrina Kn » Wed, 12 Oct 2005 01:28:44


It is far less of a security risk than using IE.

--
Katrina