Microsoft hints at playing hardball to push Win10

On Sat, 16 Jun 2018 10:18:43 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

I've never been a fan of using one programs for newsgroups & email
(and everything else).



Nor I. I use Agent for newsgroups and Outlook for e-mail. I want what
I consider to be the best in each category, and just because some
program is best as an e-mail client doesn't mean it's also best as a
newsreader (and vice-versa).


Perhaps because I started with Email over
here, rn over there, and the supposed advantages of the new Email All
In One Program weren't visible to me.


But I didn't. I started with one program, Outlook Express, for both.
But that didn't last long.

"pyotr filipivich" wrote

|
| I've never been a fan of using one programs for newsgroups & email
| (and everything else). Perhaps because I started with Email over
| here, rn over there, and the supposed advantages of the new Email All
| In One Program weren't visible to me.
| OTOH, maybe if I'd shifted twenty years ago, I'd only have one
| program to complain about.
|

I've always used OE. Some people like
all sorts of formatting and colorcoding for
newsgroups. I guess that's a leftover
habit from the days before threadview.

I prefer just plain text, with a thread view
of the discussion. OE does that just fine.
It also handles filters. And it's easy to back up.

There are only two reasons I consider moving
from OE.

1) I might move from XP someday.
2) It doesn't handle current encryption methods.

For friends I always set up TBird. But I don't
know anyone who uses newsgroups. I try to
encourage them, but people just don't get it.
Which seems ironic to me. As I recall, chat groups
on AOL were one of the first attractions of getting
an ISP and being online.

On Sat, 16 Jun 2018 07:37:05 +0200, Steve Hayes
wrote:

One of the reasons that I recommend that people try Pegasus is that
it's free, so that if you try it and don't like it you've lost
nothing.

One of the reasons I like it is that it does everything I need. It
does one thing and does it well -- that's e-mail.

It doesn't work too well if you like sending or receiving e-mails with
everything in 18 point Comic Sans with lots of emoticons and screech
makrks, but it works pretty well with plain text and does proper reply
quoting.

Everyone's situation is different, but for me I'd say that significantly
less than 1% of my email is plain text. I've been using Outlook since
the late 1990's, so I guess that's where I'll stay.

--

Char Jackson

"Char Jackson" wrote

| Everyone's situation is different, but for me I'd say that significantly
| less than 1% of my email is plain text. I've been using Outlook since
| the late 1990's, so I guess that's where I'll stay.
|

And you like it that way? Plain text is safer,
with better privacy. (Spyware web bugs from the
likes of Constant Contact won't work in plain text.
Though they also shouldn't work in an email client.
They're designed for use with web-based email
readers.)

Most of my email has HTML, too. But the vast
majority of that is actually "multi-part". The
email program will usually generate a plain text
version of HTML email. That's been the standard
ever since HTML email was invented, because at
that time many people didn't have HTML capability.
If you set your reader for plain text then that's
the version you'll see.

There's only one case I currently deal with where
email doesn't work in plain text. It's from an
assisted living center. The director is not experienced
with computers and usually sends his emails as
JPG files. He doesn't write anything. He just pastes
in a JPG. But even then it's not a problem for me.
I get the JPG as an attachment.

If you look at the actual code of your emails, or
try setting a plain text view, I think you'll find that
most, perhaps all, contain an undecorated version
of what you normally see.

Mayayana wrote:
"Char Jackson" wrote

| Everyone's situation is different, but for me I'd say that significantly
| less than 1% of my email is plain text. I've been using Outlook since
| the late 1990's, so I guess that's where I'll stay.

And you like it that way? Plain text is safer,
with better privacy. (Spyware web bugs from the
likes of Constant Contact won't work in plain text.
Though they also shouldn't work in an email client.
They're designed for use with web-based email
readers.)

Most of my email has HTML, too. But the vast
majority of that is actually "multi-part". The
email program will usually generate a plain text
version of HTML email. That's been the standard
ever since HTML email was invented, because at
that time many people didn't have HTML capability.
If you set your reader for plain text then that's
the version you'll see.

There's another reason for you not to switch from OE to Thunderbird,
unless you have to.

IIRC, in OE it's easy to configure OE in such a way that:

- You send in text/plain by default.

- For received email:

- It will render/show the text/plain part of a multipart/alternative
message. and you have the per-message option of rendering the
text/html part.

- It will render/show only the text of a text/html-only message.

- For replying to received email:

- You can use the format of the received message, i.e. reply in text
to a text-only message and in html if the message is (part) html.

Such a configuration is - AFAIK/AFAICT - not possible in Thunderbird.

TB will always render html and will use *your* default for replies,
not the format of the received message.

To add insult to injury, you can not see the Message Source without
opening - and hence rendering - the message. The only hack around this
is to 'Save As...' the message and then inspect it *outside* TB, i.e.
with Notepad or similar.

Did I put you off TB enough already!? :-)

"Frank Slootweg" wrote

| TB will always render html and will use *your* default for replies,
| not the format of the received message.
|
Thanks. I hadn't noticed that. I did notice
that at least it won't retrieve remote images.

| To add insult to injury, you can not see the Message Source without
| opening - and hence rendering - the message. The only hack around this
| is to 'Save As...' the message and then inspect it *outside* TB, i.e.
| with Notepad or similar.
|
I did notice that. I have to drag an email out onto the
desktop to see the source.

| Did I put you off TB enough already!? :-)

Well, I was already put off. The funky way it
imports OE folders.... the mixed up storage of
server settings... lots of little things that don't
work quite right. But it's still the best option
I've found.

On 17 Jun 2018 14:47:34 GMT, Frank Slootweg
wrote:

Mayayana wrote:
"Char Jackson" wrote

| Everyone's situation is different, but for me I'd say that significantly
| less than 1% of my email is plain text. I've been using Outlook since
| the late 1990's, so I guess that's where I'll stay.

And you like it that way?

Absolutely.

--

Char Jackson

Mayayana wrote:
"Frank Slootweg" wrote
[...]

| Did I put you off TB enough already!? :-)

Well, I was already put off. The funky way it
imports OE folders.... the mixed up storage of
server settings... lots of little things that don't
work quite right. But it's still the best option
I've found.

Indeed, also IMO it's the 'best' option. IOW: 'The best in a set of
flat tyres.'

Wolf K wrote:
On 2018-06-17 10:47, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Mayayana wrote:
"Char Jackson" wrote

| Everyone's situation is different, but for me I'd say that significantly
| less than 1% of my email is plain text. I've been using Outlook since
| the late 1990's, so I guess that's where I'll stay.

And you like it that way? Plain text is safer,
with better privacy. (Spyware web bugs from the
likes of Constant Contact won't work in plain text.
Though they also shouldn't work in an email client.
They're designed for use with web-based email
readers.)

Most of my email has HTML, too. But the vast
majority of that is actually "multi-part". The
email program will usually generate a plain text
version of HTML email. That's been the standard
ever since HTML email was invented, because at
that time many people didn't have HTML capability.
If you set your reader for plain text then that's
the version you'll see.

There's another reason for you not to switch from OE to Thunderbird,
unless you have to.

IIRC, in OE it's easy to configure OE in such a way that:

- You send in text/plain by default.
[snip the alleged OE advantages]

Just the same in Tbird.

Sorry, what do you mean?

Yes, TB can send in text/plain by default, but my point is you can't
do that *and* the other listed points, i.e. the points you snipped (with
'[snip the alleged OE advantages]').

So in TB, you've to constantly reconfigure settings, while in OE you
can use one constant sane/safe configuration.

FYI, I've been using OE/WM ever since OE came out. Three years ago, I
had to switch to TB (for email), because 8.1 doesn't have WM (and WLM is
broken by_design/beyond_repair).

Ken Blake on Sat, 16 Jun 2018 10:23:14 -0700
typed in alt.windows7.general the following:
On Sat, 16 Jun 2018 10:18:43 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

I've never been a fan of using one programs for newsgroups & email
(and everything else).



Nor I. I use Agent for newsgroups and Outlook for e-mail. I want what
I consider to be the best in each category, and just because some
program is best as an e-mail client doesn't mean it's also best as a
newsreader (and vice-versa).


Perhaps because I started with Email over
here, rn over there, and the supposed advantages of the new Email All
In One Program weren't visible to me.

But I didn't. I started with one program, Outlook Express, for both.
But that didn't last long.

"Back in my day" (Back in my day, "Color? We had color - amber or
green! Take your pick!" And we had to hand dial the connections. And
dirt was two dollars a pound when you could find it.) - I don't even
remember if Outlook was even around. I was using Unix shells over
dial up, so the options were mail and rn.
We did have windows, but it was an option, and not something which
booted up.



--
pyotr filipivich
Next month's Panel: Graft - Boon or blessing?

pyotr filipivich wrote:
Ken Blake on Sat, 16 Jun 2018 10:23:14 -0700
typed in alt.windows7.general the following:
On Sat, 16 Jun 2018 10:18:43 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

I've never been a fan of using one programs for newsgroups & email
(and everything else).

Nor I. I use Agent for newsgroups and Outlook for e-mail. I want what
I consider to be the best in each category, and just because some
program is best as an e-mail client doesn't mean it's also best as a
newsreader (and vice-versa).


Perhaps because I started with Email over
here, rn over there, and the supposed advantages of the new Email All
In One Program weren't visible to me.

But I didn't. I started with one program, Outlook Express, for both.
But that didn't last long.

"Back in my day" (Back in my day, "Color? We had color - amber or
green! Take your pick!" And we had to hand dial the connections. And
dirt was two dollars a pound when you could find it.) - I don't even
remember if Outlook was even around. I was using Unix shells over
dial up, so the options were mail and rn.
We did have windows, but it was an option, and not something which
booted up.

Unix!? 'Back in my day', I already used email [1] before Unix or even
the term 'email' existed!

Amber or green!? What's wrong with teletypes!? On-line!? What's wrong
with paper-tape!? 'dial the connections'!? What's wrong with worldwide
leased lines!?

Who's next to p*ss even farther!? :-)

[1] Very early 70s.

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote

| Or email clients set to automatically download remote images (which is
| the default setting for many - all that I've looked at).

I'm surprised. TBird doesn't. Nothing should.
Remote images are pretty much by definition
web bugs.

On the other hand, I don't do much commercial
online. No online banking, shopping, etc.

| My fairly old client can _render_ HTML, i. e. interpret _formatting_
| tags, and display (some) actually embedded images, but does not fetch
| online ones, or - I think - run any _code_; therefore it is _safe_ to
| view the HTML part. (I do have it set to read the plain part by default
| though.)
|

Probably. Maybe. That's what they all say before
the bug hits. A few years ago there was a JPG
attack that used a bug in gdiplus.dll. It can happen.
Or someone might come up with some kind of encoding
that tricks your email into executing a seeming JPG.
Text is safer and HTML is unnecessary.


| [Another point is that most clients these days (all but the one I use, I
| think), if they are doing images that are included in the email rather
| than link to online ones, can only handle them if the images are all at
| the end, with _links_ in the text where they want the image to appear;
| if they receive an email or news post with truly _embedded_ images, they
| break it, and present any text that comes _after_ the image(s) as if it
| were an attachment.]

What you describe is "truly embedded". Maybe you
mean a data URI with inline base-64 text? There isn't
any reason to need that. The standard is to create
a unique ID that links to a base-64 encoded image
at the end.

| A plain text message can include images - or rather, obviously, a
| non-HTML one can; I mean it doesn't have to be in HTML to include
| images.

It can include them as attachments, but not displayed.
Plain text means plain text. I can't even see ketchup red
comic sans on a bile yellow background. (I used to know
someone who sent here email like that.)
With attachments one can look at the email and
possibly the encoding before the image displays. Though
actually, these days I often look directly at the source
code of anything I'm not sure about, before letting it
preview.

Wolf K wrote:
On 2018-06-17 11:37, Frank Slootweg wrote:
[...]

Sorry, I Deleted that post (I tend to delete everything after
reading/responding).

Anyhow, the features you listed are, as I recall them, all available in
Tbird.

Eg, Edit Contact -"Prefers to receive messages formatted as..."

Thanks. I did see a similar thing under Tools - Options -
Composition - General - Configure text format behaviour - Send
Options..., but that's about recipient domains, not their email
addresses. Edit Contact is a much more natural place.

I do not need this feature now, but I might need it in the future, so
thanks.

Eg, Account Settings - Composition & Addressing - Compose messages in HTML

Yes, I know about this one. But OE has a 'Reply to messages using the
format in which they were sent' setting. That's a nice feature to have.

Eg, View messages a Plain text, Simple HTML or Original HTML

Thanks! That is one of the features I was (not :-)) looking for. Never
thought of looking for it in that menu, probably because of where it was
in OE/WM/WLM (Options... - 'Read' tab - V Read all messages in plain
text).

So, thanks again!

And so forth.

Anyhow, I don't "constantly reconfigure settings." I've set TB the way
I want it, and that's that. If people prefer HTML, well, they're outta
luck. But they'll still be reading my screeds in whatever default font
they've set. I sometimes toggle from Simple HTML to Original HTML, but
that's quite rare. In my experience, messages from i-devices with
in-line images sometimes require this. Full HTML doesn't add anything to
messages. It's just a waste of bandwidth.

The biggest single problem with email IMO is that with all the fonts and
text encodings available, there will always be funny characters
showing up when the sender's font/encoding settings are incompatible
with the recipient's settings. What we need is something like PDF for
email. You can always send PDF's of course, but PDFs are way too large
IMO. There has to be a way of creating lean'n'mean PDF type docs.

Yes, quite annoying.

Similarly we can't even use plain text indentation (with spaces),
tabs, etc., because the recipient probably has some weird proportional
font. So if I sent such a thing to LSWMBO, I must attach it as a .txt
file for her to be able to figure out what the heck it's all about! :-)

Why can't these people just use NetNews message format! :-)

Gruss,

Groetjes en nogmaals bedankt. (Greetings and thanks again.)

Frank Slootweg on 17 Jun 2018 16:03:46 GMT
typed in alt.windows7.general the following:
pyotr filipivich wrote:
Ken Blake on Sat, 16 Jun 2018 10:23:14 -0700
typed in alt.windows7.general the following:
On Sat, 16 Jun 2018 10:18:43 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

I've never been a fan of using one programs for newsgroups & email
(and everything else).

Nor I. I use Agent for newsgroups and Outlook for e-mail. I want what
I consider to be the best in each category, and just because some
program is best as an e-mail client doesn't mean it's also best as a
newsreader (and vice-versa).


Perhaps because I started with Email over
here, rn over there, and the supposed advantages of the new Email All
In One Program weren't visible to me.

But I didn't. I started with one program, Outlook Express, for both.
But that didn't last long.

"Back in my day" (Back in my day, "Color? We had color - amber or
green! Take your pick!" And we had to hand dial the connections. And
dirt was two dollars a pound when you could find it.) - I don't even
remember if Outlook was even around. I was using Unix shells over
dial up, so the options were mail and rn.
We did have windows, but it was an option, and not something which
booted up.

Unix!? 'Back in my day', I already used email [1] before Unix or even
the term 'email' existed!

And you had to stack the electrons by hand.

Amber or green!? What's wrong with teletypes!? On-line!? What's wrong
with paper-tape!? 'dial the connections'!? What's wrong with worldwide
leased lines!?

Who's next to p*ss even farther!? :-)

Bang addresses, and "You had transformers to step down the power?
Luxury! We used to have to have gran bite the wires in her teeth."

Ah, the good old days, they was rotten.

[1] Very early 70s.
--
pyotr filipivich
Next month's Panel: Graft - Boon or blessing?

In message , Mayayana
writes:
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote

| Or email clients set to automatically download remote images (which is
| the default setting for many - all that I've looked at).

I'm surprised. TBird doesn't. Nothing should.

I'm pleased to hear it; TB is my default choice when setting up a new
person, as it's to me the best compromise between {how I think a
news/mail client should work} and {widely enough used that there's a
_reasonable_ chance of finding someone to help with it} (and also {ISPs
and similar might have a page on how to set it to work with them}).

Remote images are pretty much by definition
web bugs.

I haven't done any analysis for a while, so you're probably right. Last
time I looked, some of the "images" - especially company letterheads and
the like - were remote images to reduce the load on the outgoing mail
server (total size of all emails sent).

On the other hand, I don't do much commercial
online. No online banking, shopping, etc.

I do some - ebay etc. - but I find that's almost entirely via the
browser anyway; the confirmation emails are usually usable in plain text
(though their formatting looks horrible).

| My fairly old client can _render_ HTML, i. e. interpret _formatting_
| tags, and display (some) actually embedded images, but does not fetch
| online ones, or - I think - run any _code_; therefore it is _safe_ to
| view the HTML part. (I do have it set to read the plain part by default
| though.)
|

Probably. Maybe. That's what they all say before
the bug hits. A few years ago there was a JPG
attack that used a bug in gdiplus.dll. It can happen.
Or someone might come up with some kind of encoding
that tricks your email into executing a seeming JPG.

I remember the JPG one. (Buffer overflow wasn't it?) Turnpike (and
IrfanView) don't use the vulnerable Microsoft libraries that that one
used, to display JPEGs.

Text is safer and HTML is unnecessary.

Definitely.

| [Another point is that most clients these days (all but the one I use, I
| think), if they are doing images that are included in the email rather
| than link to online ones, can only handle them if the images are all at
| the end, with _links_ in the text where they want the image to appear;
| if they receive an email or news post with truly _embedded_ images, they
| break it, and present any text that comes _after_ the image(s) as if it
| were an attachment.]

What you describe is "truly embedded". Maybe you
mean a data URI with inline base-64 text? There isn't
any reason to need that. The standard is to create
a unique ID that links to a base-64 encoded image
at the end.

I'm not sure what a URI is. What I mean is that, in order for the
recipient to _see_ this, there seem to be two ways of _encoding_ it:

some text
[image 1]
some more text
[image 2]
some final text

The way I mean by "truly embedded" sends it like this (no HTML required,
either):

some text
[image 1, encoded in MIME or UU]
some more text
[image 2, encoded]
some final text

but the way most clients seem to create is

some text
[pointer 1, often in the form cid:xxxxx]
some more text
[pointer 2]
some final text
[image 1, encoded] == these not _necessarily_ in the same
[image 2, encoded] == order as the pointers

_Most_ modern clients, if they receive an email of the "truly embedded"
format, will at best display up to and maybe including image 1, but will
present the "some more text", image 2, and the "some final text", as
just a list of attachments at the end (or wherever they normally present
a list of attachments).

| A plain text message can include images - or rather, obviously, a
| non-HTML one can; I mean it doesn't have to be in HTML to include
| images.

It can include them as attachments, but not displayed.
Plain text means plain text. I can't even see ketchup red

Well, I can send and receive emails of the truly embedded type,
_without_ involving any HTML. (In fact I don't think I can create them
_with_ HTML.)

comic sans on a bile yellow background. (I used to know
someone who sent here email like that.)

Yes, to me, plain text means that the text itself is plain - contains no
formatting other than that created by tabs and spaces. Not even "in a
unispaced font" - _no_ font. (A depressing number of clients allow the
user to specify a variable-spaced font for reading plain-text messages,
but that's a different problem.)

With attachments one can look at the email and
possibly the encoding before the image displays. Though
actually, these days I often look directly at the source
code of anything I'm not sure about, before letting it
preview.



Certainly the safest option. I tend to rely on the safety of IrfanView
which I have to use more and more often these days, as a lot of images
won't view in Turnpike's old image-viewer.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards.
- Søren Kierkegaard, Danish Philosopher