[vcf-midatlantic] Off Topic: Confirmed fix for your messages being in an attachment

Tony Bogan tony.bogan at vcfed.org
Thu Jul 1 09:56:50 UTC 2021

Doug, I got what you were saying. You neither said nor implied that you wanted HTML email to “liven up the emails” or to add additional formatting. It was clearly to avoid what is most certainly an annoying circumstance with all the mime attachments and a detrimental one with the loss of data as you mentioned (something I was not aware of as I have not gone back to look at emails other than those saved in my own inbox or folders I use to organize archived emails)


Sent from my iPhone

> On Jul 1, 2021, at 3:39 AM, Douglas Crawford via vcf-midatlantic <vcf-midatlantic at lists.vcfed.org> wrote:
>> On 7/1/2021 12:04 AM, Dave McGuire via vcf-midatlantic wrote:
>>> On 6/30/21 11:40 PM, Douglas Crawford via vcf-midatlantic wrote:
>>> I only recommended it so that theoretically it would end the attachment
>>> generation that plagues about half of messages sent on this list.. not
>>> that we would start sending flowery HTML stuff.
>>> I guess that's the problem with HTML for ya'll? It encourages too
>>> much formatting?  Or is it bulky?  I don't need it, certainly we
>>> don't need it functionally, but I don't understand what the huge
>>> prob is with it, educate me.
>>   There are philosophical issues with sending frequently tens or
>> hundreds of kilobytes when a few hundred bytes will do.  That doesn't
>> matter as much as it used to, but it still matters to some people for
>> real (i.e. financial) reasons.  There ARE still metered network
>> connections.  I myself am not on one, but I know a great many people who
>> are, and smartphones nearly always are.
>>   Next, HTML is for web pages.  Email is not web pages, it is a textual
>> communications medium.  The fact that uneducated developers who don't
>> know any better added HTML capability in some email clients does not
>> automatically mean it's a good idea.  At least in Thunderbird (which I
>> use) that drivel can be turned off.  All of this crap started when the
>> floodgates of nontechnical people opened up onto the Internet, and they
>> seemed to think that anything is really just fine as long as they found
>> it in a drop-down menu.  Otherwise, why would it be there, right?  That
>> fallacious logic assumes that the developers of the email program knew
>> what they were doing.
>>   But most importantly for me, *I* choose the text size, text color,
>> background color, etc that works best FOR ME to read email on all of the
>> devices on which I do that.  People are not welcome to attempt to
>> override that.  What they send is really their business...and whether or
>> not I bit-bucket their flowery purple fonts is mine.  That crap is
>> distracting and it's a waste of time, and I'm not a person with a lot of
>> time to waste.
>>   Next, honestly, who has so much free time as to think playing around
>> with "stylizing" their textual communications is a reasonable use of
>> their time?
>>> In the mean time, I've changed my setting to plain text, I figure
>>> most will follow suit.
>>   Hopefully.
>>   Ok, off my high horse, I'm getting back to firmware now.
>>              -Dave
> OK, merits of HTML in email or mail messaging facilities can
> discussed in another thread if anyone is interested.
> Thanks for the explanation.
> But HTML formatting wasn't my intent anyway in my suggestion
> that HTML be handled by mailman. Ya'll assumed that.
> My goal was to eliminate the attachments which we NOW know
> are created by emails send in HTML *mode* .
> I imagine that no one has enjoyed frequently opening a message only to find that you have to open another message to see what the poster had to say. Has this not been a colossal waste of everyones time?
> Worse I just learned today (and this was the LAST STRAW)
> that every message that everyone has sent in HTML *mode*,  where the text body became an attachment, has been lost in history because the mailman digest strip these attachments off.  Its all gone.
> Years and years of messages.
> All due to misunderstanding of this facility.
> My suggestion that mailman be changed to allow
> HTML had to do with ACCEPTING it and not creating an attachment.
> Not to encourage people to bring web formatting to our communications.
> What might this mean? It might mean reasonably stripping the plain text
> from the HTML transmission and putting it in the body.  Doesn't seem
> like too much to ask.   But I realize our admins don't necessarily
> have time to make this happen.
> So, I tried a workaround and had success.
> Only it requires senders to change the mode of their transmissions to mailman, to send in plain text *MODE* only.
> Slight problem is that we have apprise new people to change
> their settings for mailman.
> If mailman could just allow HTML and just convert, so much the better.

More information about the vcf-midatlantic mailing list