Send Opera-users mailing list submissions to opera-users@opera.com   To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://list.opera.com/mailman/listinfo/opera-users or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to opera-users-request@opera.com   You can reach the person managing the list at opera-users-admin@opera.com   When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Opera-users digest..."     Today's Topics:   1. Re: Opera7 crushes down! (Axel Siebert) 2. Problems in receiving HTML emails (Melwyn Da'alimar) 3. Re: V7 problem that did not happen with V6.05 (Allan Smith) 4. Help 2 questions: Thanks, victory (hester reik) 5. Re: Problems in receiving HTML emails (Axel Siebert) 6. Mailto (Melwyn Da'alimar) 7. RE: Email formatting problem with M2 (Fred Bone) 8. Re: Problems in receiving HTML emails (Melwyn Da'alimar) 9. Strange behaviour in attachments (Melwyn Da'alimar) 10. Viewing attachments (Melwyn Da'alimar) 11. Re: Strange behaviour in attachments (Axel Siebert) 12. Re: Email formatting problem with M2 (Matthew Winn) 13. Re: Strange behaviour in attachments (Melwyn Da'alimar) 14. Spam in mailing lists ? (Melwyn Da'alimar) 15. Re: Strange behaviour in attachments (Axel Siebert) 16. Re: Email formatting problem with M2 (Paul Boizot) 17. Identify as (Melwyn Da'alimar) 18. Re: Email formatting problem with M2 (Andrew Gregory) 19. Re: Email formatting problem with M2 (Melwyn Da'alimar) 20. Re: Email formatting problem with M2 (Andrew Gregory) 21. Re: Email formatting problem with M2 (Melwyn Da'alimar) 22. Re: Identify as (Josef W. Segur) 23. Java Script Menu is Acting up in Opera (Frank Owen) 24. Re: Email formatting problem with M2 (Patrick Shanahan) 25. Re: Identify as (Melwyn Da'alimar) 26. Re: Email formatting problem with M2 (Melwyn Da'alimar) 27. Re: Java Script Menu is Acting up in Opera (Melwyn Da'alimar) 28. RE: Java Script Menu is Acting up in Opera (Frank Owen) 29. FAQ: query (Sue Sims) 30. RE: Email formatting problem with M2 (Tom Knight) 31. Browse mails (Melwyn Da'alimar) 32. Re[2]: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 (Andre Wichartz) 33. Re: Identify as (jonathan murphy) 34. Re: Java Script Menu is Acting up in Opera (jonathan murphy) 35. Re: Email formatting problem with M2 (Alan G Isaac) 36. Re: Re: Email formatting problem with M2 (Axel Siebert) 37. Re: Email formatting problem with M2 (Axel Siebert) 38. endlose Schleife (Suryanto Hendrawan) 39. endless loop (Suryanto Hendrawan) 40. Re: endless loop (Larry Washbrook) 41. Re[2]: [OU] endless loop (Andre Wichartz) 42. Re: Re[2]: [OU] endless loop (Axel Siebert) 43. email problem (Nicholas H. Kaps) 44. Re: Email formatting problem with M2 (Edward) 45. Re: email problem (Edward)   --__--__--   Message: 1 From: Axel Siebert To: opera-users@opera.com Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:04:46 +0100 Subject: Re: [OU] Opera7 crushes down! Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   24.02.03 11:52:16, Sir Jinx! wrote:   > But, today when I wanted to start it Opera crushes!!!!   Well, I suppose it crAshes. The executables are already compressed, so I don't think they could be crushed any further. SCNR :)   > "OPERA caused an invalid page fault in > module XMLPARSE.DLL at 0167:67e990f2..."   In such cases, we need a crash log, see: http://list.opera.com/pipermail/opera-users/2003-January/016619.html   Axel   --__--__--   Message: 2 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:06:16 +0100 To: opera-users@opera.com From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Subject: [OU] Problems in receiving HTML emails Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Hi,   I do not want to read emails in html. Is it true that preferred body mode set to 2 tells Opera to display mails in text, even if there is only an html version available ?   Moreover, when someone send me an html email with pictures included *in the body* of the message, I am unable to access those pictures. When I have set preffered body mode to 0, I had an error message saying something like : Warning, error while decoding the message. With preferred body mode to 1 I can see the mail in html without problem, and with preferred body mode set to 2 I have no error message but cannot access the pictures.   What I mean is that pictures appear in attachment access point, in the column, but not as attachment in the body of the message. Only way for me to view those pictures is to copy mail as raw text, then open a text editor, paste the text, save the message as a .eml file and read it with Outlook Express. Not very convenient...   Perhaps a way to directly right click on message then choose "save as .eml", or the html message beeing an attachment of the text one would be helpful.   Thanks :)   --__--__--   Message: 3 From: Allan Smith To: opera-users@opera.com Cc: Axel Siebert , freexone Subject: Re: [OU] V7 problem that did not happen with V6.05 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 11:20:24 +0000 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:38:37 +0100, Axel Siebert wrote:   > 24.02.03 21:24:26, Allan Smith wrote: >   >> I find that if I open Opera (7.01) by double clicking on an attachment to an >> e-mail in Agent (1.93) which I currently use e-mail a new copy of opera is >> opened (even if an existing copy is already open). This did not happen with >> v6.05 of Opera. >   > I don't know Agent, so this question might be dumb, but: Is it really > necessary to double-click, and there's no possibility that this might be > interpreted as opening twice?   Axel,   The double start was not something I thought of but as it turns out it does not appear to be the problem. Single click selects the attachment (shown in Agent in a box) and a double click launches it. Attachments may also be launched with from a right click menu on the attachment.   What appears to be the problem is the "current directory" (possibly a synonym for the "'start in directory' as modified since the application was launched") where Opera is running from. The existing open copy of v7.01 is used ONLY if the "current directory" is the same as Agent's own data directory. This deos not appear to be the case with v6.05. The parent process is not a factor, the presence or otherwide of a parameter to v7.01 is not a factor. The only thing I can find that affects it is the directory where v7.01 was started from.   How or why this is the case has me somewhat puzzled.   Regards, Allan Smith (Northwood, Middlesex, England)   --__--__--   Message: 4 To: opera From: hester reik Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 06:56:05 -0500 Subject: [OU] Help 2 questions: Thanks, victory Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Thank you, Jonathan for all your suggestions. I had most of the stuff checked that you suggested. And I already had things set to accept cookies. But the real victory is this...... I got the web technician at my investment account site I couldn't access to download and install Opera 7.01. He couldn't log into the site either :-) and is bumping the case up to the next person to see if they can configure their site in such a way that it is compatible with 7.01. (The interesting thing is.....it worked in 6.05, though I always had to log in 2x.) With the economy in the tank and things not looking good for the future (long or short term) perhaps they were scared of losing a client :-). (not likely). Sorry for the editorializing. hester   Perhaps your cookie settings? Are you set to accept all cookies? I'm just guessing.   Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/     --__--__--   Message: 5 From: Axel Siebert To: opera-users@opera.com Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:44:51 +0100 Subject: Re: [OU] Problems in receiving HTML emails Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   25.02.03 12:06:16, "Melwyn Da'alimar" wrote:   > Is it true that preferred body mode set to 2 tells Opera to display mails > in text, even if there is only an html version available ?   Mode 2 is planned to do that, but it's not yet implemented. For now, modes 2 and 0 are identical.   > Moreover, when someone send me an html email with pictures included *in the > body* of the message, I am unable to access those pictures. When I have set > preffered body mode to 0, I had an error message saying something like : > Warning, error while decoding the message. With preferred body mode to 1 I > can see the mail in html without problem, and with preferred body mode set > to 2 I have no error message but cannot access the pictures.   I suppose the pictures are declared as part of the HTML mail, so they are not identified as attachments. Could you upload the raw mail as a compressed text file so I can have a look at it?   Uploading instructions: http://list.opera.com/pipermail/opera-users/2003-January/016619.html   Axel --__--__--   Message: 6 To: opera-users@opera.com From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:01:59 +0100 Subject: [OU] Mailto Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Hi,   Why when I click on a mailto link in an application (not in a web page, but in an about box of an application) it launches outlook express instead of Opera M2 ?   Isnt it possible to setup Opera as default email client ?   Thanks :)   --__--__--   Message: 7 From: "Fred Bone" To: opera-users@opera.com Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:11:10 -0000 Subject: RE: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   On 25 Feb 2003 at 10:12, Tom Knight wrote:   [...] [not sure who wrote the next bit as the name wasn't there] > > It says a lot about the people I talk to but leaves me with a > > question: why is technical savvy tied > > to an aversion to html-ised messages? >   > Especially since it's part of a proposed standard (rfc 2557): > ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc2557.txt   But rfc2557 is about the relationship between parts of a message. It doesn't say anything about flavours of HTML in message bodies, beyond setting out conventions for the links.     --__--__--   Message: 8 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:21:49 +0100 To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Problems in receiving HTML emails From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Le Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:44:51 +0100, Axel Siebert me-at-axelsiebert.de |Opera Mailing List| a écrit:   > 25.02.03 12:06:16, "Melwyn Da'alimar" wrote: >   >> Is it true that preferred body mode set to 2 tells Opera to display >> mails in text, even if there is only an html version available ? >   > Mode 2 is planned to do that, but it's not yet implemented. For now, > modes > 2 and 0 are identical. >   They are really identical ? Strange then that I have the warning message when it is set as 0, and not when it is set as 2 :)   >> Moreover, when someone send me an html email with pictures included *in >> the body* of the message, I am unable to access those pictures. When I >> have set preffered body mode to 0, I had an error message saying >> something like : Warning, error while decoding the message. With >> preferred body mode to 1 I can see the mail in html without problem, and >> with preferred body mode set to 2 I have no error message but cannot >> access the pictures. >   > I suppose the pictures are declared as part of the HTML mail, so they are > not identified as attachments. Could you upload the raw mail as a > compressed text file so I can have a look at it? >   > Uploading instructions: > http://list.opera.com/pipermail/opera-users/2003-January/016619.html >   > Axel >   I am doing it with a test email I am writing to myself with outlook express, for privacy reasons... The name of archive is melwynmail2.zip. You can delete melwyn.zip and melwynmail.zip, as those are errors in transmission. I have used IE to FTP, as the command line doesnt seem to work...   Oh, there's no way to drag'n drop to opera to upload a file, as it is possible with IE ? Too bad :)   Thanks :)   --__--__--   Message: 9 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:36:59 +0100 To: opera-users@opera.com From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Subject: [OU] Strange behaviour in attachments Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Hi,   This question is about access point, attachment access point. There are documents, images, music, video, archives.   First, is it possible to add more than that ?   Second, I had a message with a .zip file attached, which appear in Documents access point and not archives one. How is this possible ?   Thanks :)   --__--__--   Message: 10 To: opera-users@opera.com From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:41:33 +0100 Subject: [OU] Viewing attachments Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Hi,   is there a way to view attachments of emails without Opera downloading them on hard drive ? As does Outlook Express I guess, so I havent to put it on my hardrive then delete it if I don't like it.   Don't know what does OE, but when I have an attachment, I just open it. If I don't like it, I delete the mail and the attachment is gone. With Opera, it downloads it in my download folder, then I have to delete it from this download folder if I dislike it.   Thanks...   --__--__--   Message: 11 From: Axel Siebert To: opera-users@opera.com Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:48:18 +0100 Subject: Re: [OU] Strange behaviour in attachments Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   25.02.03 13:36:59, "Melwyn Da'alimar" wrote:   > Second, I had a message with a .zip file attached, which appear in > Documents access point and not archives one. How is this possible ?   Wrong Content-Type? Again, raw mail please.   Axel --__--__--   Message: 12 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:59:25 +0000 From: Matthew Winn To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 10:12:43AM -0000, Tom Knight wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: opera-users-admin@opera.com > > Sent: 25 February 2003 09:46 > > On 25 Feb 2003 at 13:31, Andrew Gregory wrote: > > > However, I don't think *HTML* is the way to go. It's too big and > > > complicated. Only a tiny subset is needed:

, , , > > > , , and > > > (as a shorter alternative to

) at least, > > > maybe
    ,
      , > > >
    1. as well. Ignoring , such a marked-up message > > > would be easily > > > readable, even if a plain-text alternate version were not available.   This has often been suggested and I'd support a limited set of XHTML elements. (If we're going to have formatting in a message we might at least make it XHTML so it's easy to parse.) The problems with HTML mail as it is right now are:   (a) Tools for creating HTML mail bloat the message far beyond reason in their attempts to make the message look _exactly_ as it appeared on the sender's screen. If the sender asks for a bold word they should get word, not an immense block of formatting which tries to preserve their choice of colours, font face and size, line width, margins, and everything else which is appropriate only to them.   (b) That bloat means it's necessary to send a plain-text copy of the message so it can be read by those without HTML-aware clients, further increasing the message size.   (c) There's no restriction on the elements used, so client software must contain a built-in web browser instead of a simple formatter.   (d) There's no restriction on the elements used, so there are security risks associated with scripting and linked images.   (e) Displaying of a formatted message is at the mercy of each client's understanding of HTML. All web browsers are buggy, and there's no reason to expect that email clients would do any better.   (f) There are many versions of HTML but no agreement on which one to use.   (g) The world is full of halfwits who think that everyone else wants a demonstration of the full range of effects permitted by HTML.   An agreed set of limited formatting elements would be great. It would remove the bloated attempts to set every single display attribute on every part of the message. It would eliminate the security issues. It would create a standard for formatting to which all clients could conform. And it would deprive idiots of the ability to send me a message in flashing 72pt text in the hope that I'll think it must be worth reading. The only difficult parts are agreeing a set of elements and persuading Microsoft to support that set without adding its own extensions.   The text/enriched format (RFC1896) is the right idea (but I'd prefer shorter element names). In particular, I consider the design criteria at the start of RFC1896 to be essential.   > > I consider the message text to be more important than its > > appearance and messages, for me at least, > > are easier to read if they are uniformly formatted; > > monospaced font, a nice text size and quotes in > > different colours.   I sometimes need to send messages with a small amount of formatting. Just a few minutes ago I sent a long technical message with several sections and it would have been useful to be able to highlight the title of each section so the reader could scan through the document more efficiently.   > > why is technical savvy tied > > to an aversion to html-ised messages?   Because to judge by the sort of bloated and formatting-heavy HTML messages most fans of HTML mail send, the senders clearly have no knowledge about things like bandwidth or the fact that you can't guarantee that the recipient of a message will see things exactly as they were when sent. If someone spends two minutes writing a message and ten minutes tarting it up they obviously don't know much about mail.   > Especially since it's part of a proposed standard (rfc 2557): > ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc2557.txt   RFC2557 isn't about mail formatting. It's about encapsulating aggregate documents which consist of a root document and linked resources. In a web environment client software can use URLs to fetch linked resources but that's not possible when the whole lot is encapsulated in a single file or transaction, and it's that situation which RFC2557 addresses.   It's an ideal format to use when a browser is saving a web page and all its associated images. Isn't this what IE uses?   -- Matthew Winn (matthew@sheridan.co.uk)   --__--__--   Message: 13 To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Strange behaviour in attachments From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:11:24 +0100 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Le Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:48:18 +0100, Axel Siebert me-at-axelsiebert.de |Opera Mailing List| a écrit:   > 25.02.03 13:36:59, "Melwyn Da'alimar" wrote: > >> Second, I had a message with a .zip file attached, which appear in >> Documents access point and not archives one. How is this possible ? > > Wrong Content-Type? > Again, raw mail please. > > Axel > > Sorry, I cannot, as I havent kept this message. So the attachment access point do not use only file extension, but scan the file ?   --__--__--   Message: 14 To: opera-users@opera.com From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:13:17 +0100 Subject: [OU] Spam in mailing lists ? Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Hi,   Is there a risk the email address we use in a mailing list beeing used as spam ?   And about spam, as we cannot trust Opera Spam system, how can we remove spam from my messages, and spam management ?   Thanks :)   --__--__--   Message: 15 From: Axel Siebert To: opera-users@opera.com Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:23:19 +0100 Subject: Re: [OU] Strange behaviour in attachments Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   25.02.03 14:11:24, "Melwyn Da'alimar" wrote:   >>> Second, I had a message with a .zip file attached, which appear in >>> Documents access point and not archives one. How is this possible ? >> >> Wrong Content-Type? >> Again, raw mail please. >> > Sorry, I cannot, as I havent kept this message. So the attachment access > point do not use only file extension, but scan the file ?   No. An attachment has a header telling what it is, regardless of the file extension. File extensions are meaningless on the web, it's dang Internet Explorer who imposed the Windoze (in fact, DOS) concept of file extensions. So most likely the attachment header declared it as generic data or document or whatever.   Axel --__--__--   Message: 16 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:35:34 +0000 From: "Paul Boizot" To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Hi, I use plain text e-mail too, and don't like HTML e-mail - but as I wrote a few weeks back re another similar discussion, there are plenty of people out there who are never going to be tech-heads and there is no reason why they should be. If the ability is put in front of them to put pretty colours in and have visual creative fun, then some people will do just that and think nothing of it. (Not me, honest! Oh no, I wouldn't use a PC for fun!). They have different priorities.   Yes, if the tech-heads and geeks and sensible regulators can get together and agree and impose a system that permits reasonable formatting without huge bloated HTML e-mails, that is great. Then the non-techies will work with the more limited capabilities they have. But there is no need to slag off the non-tech people, who are being coerced and enticed by the million into using computers, for not knowing about bandwidth.   If there is anyone to slag off, it is whoever/however people get their intro to computing in the first place, if it does not give them the necessary info - and this is almost impossbile to thoroughly police - or the capitalists who will sell what anyone wants now, to make their money, irrespective of other "sensible" considerations.   Best Wishes, Paul   *********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********   On 25/02/03 at 12:59 Matthew Winn wrote:   >CUT   >> > I consider the message text to be more important than its >> > appearance and messages, for me at least, >> > are easier to read if they are uniformly formatted; >> > monospaced font, a nice text size and quotes in >> > different colours. > >CUT > >Because to judge by the sort of bloated and formatting-heavy HTML >messages most fans of HTML mail send, the senders clearly have no >knowledge about things like bandwidth or the fact that you can't >guarantee that the recipient of a message will see things exactly >as they were when sent. If someone spends two minutes writing a >message and ten minutes tarting it up they obviously don't know >much about mail. > >-- >Matthew Winn (matthew@sheridan.co.uk) >--     -------------------------   website; www.paulboizot.co.uk     --__--__--   Message: 17 To: opera-users@opera.com From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:55:20 +0100 Subject: [OU] Identify as Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Read on Opera forum :   > The most common cause of pages not working properly > is the fact that they are badly written; this is so > because they are blocking you either partly (by > filtering out code) or wholly (by saying "incompatible > browser") because you are running Opera. They do this > by scanning the "User-Agent" string that your browser > (Opera) supplies to the website. Regardless of your > "identify as" setting, this string always contains > the word "Opera".   Is this true ? I mean, I have been of a website blocking browsers other than IE and netscape, not because of their choice, but because the webmaster thought this website cannot be read using other browsers. I then identify myself as IE, and this site worked well with this setting...   So anyone can explain me how it works ?   Thanks :)   --__--__--   Message: 18 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:18:25 +0800 To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 From: Andrew Gregory Organization: Southern Cross Software Solutions Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 20:15:43 +1030, wrote:   > > On 25 Feb 2003 at 13:31, Andrew Gregory wrote: >> Only a tiny subset is needed:

      , , , , , and (as a >> shorter alternative to

      ) at least, maybe
        ,
          ,
        1. as >> well. > > Why ? It has to be the most misused tag on the web.   Well, I started up Wordpad on my Windows computer and looked at the toolbar, then listed the tags related to what I saw. I would consider Wordpad to be a minimal feature 'word processor'.   can be misused, of course, but I don't consider that a huge problem. I've seen plenty of plain text emails where the poster has abused their Caps Lock key (i.e. left it on), but I wouldn't consider the precence of a Cap Lock key a problem. It's all in how it's used.   > I consider the message text to be more important than its appearance   The message text *is* what's important, but it is also nice to apply a little extra formatting too.   > Personally I have found that the people who do send HTML mail are the > exact same people I don't want to read HTML mail from. I have received > emails with dark grey text on black, white text on huge backgrounds, one > letter -- one colour. Most of them are easier to read in the raw markup > than when they are correctly rendered.   Fair enough, but doesn't let you specify a background colour, just the foreground colour, size and typeface.   > why is technical savvy tied to an aversion to html-ised messages?   People start off ignorant of computer systems and the goings-on behind the scenes. 'Tech savvy' people often understand how things work, and the costs of doing those things in different ways. So, if someone doesn't understand how HTML email composing actually works, in their ignorance they consider it a 'zero cost'. Once someone learns HTML, and how email works, they understand what happens when they send an HTML email (i.e. duplicate plain text/marked up versions, extra characters for various tags, etc). They have also often seen the crap that popular software packages like MS Word call 'HTML email'.   I consider myself a 'tech savvy' person. I am opposed to HTML email, but not to marked up email. I really wish somebody would come up with an RFC or something before *HTML* email really gets out of hand (if it hasn't already). -- Andrew Gregory, Web:   --__--__--   Message: 19 To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:43:15 +0100 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Le Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:18:25 +0800, Andrew Gregory andrew-at- scsoftware.com.au |Opera Mailing List| a écrit:   >> Personally I have found that the people who do send HTML mail are the >> exact same people I don't want to read HTML mail from. I have received >> emails with dark grey text on black, white text on huge backgrounds, one >> letter -- one colour. Most of them are easier to read in the raw markup >> than when they are correctly rendered. > > Fair enough, but doesn't let you specify a background colour, just > the foreground colour, size and typeface. > Sure, but what about someone writing a text with a yellow font ? Unreadable with a white background. Even worse, what about white font with a white background ? :)   >> why is technical savvy tied to an aversion to html-ised messages? > > People start off ignorant of computer systems and the goings-on behind > the scenes. 'Tech savvy' people often understand how things work, and the > costs of doing those things in different ways. So, if someone doesn't > understand how HTML email composing actually works, in their ignorance > they consider it a 'zero cost'. Once someone learns HTML, and how email > works, they understand what happens when they send an HTML email (i.e. > duplicate plain text/marked up versions, extra characters for various > tags, etc). They have also often seen the crap that popular software > packages like MS Word call 'HTML email'. > > I consider myself a 'tech savvy' person. I am opposed to HTML email, but > not to marked up email. I really wish somebody would come up with an RFC > or something before *HTML* email really gets out of hand (if it hasn't > already). > Zero cost depends on the situation. For example, a friend of mine sending html emails is a zero cost for me, as I have adsl, it is my home mail, I do not pay for bandwith, and I do not receive thousands of messages a day. I don't care if somebody sends me html emails, it costs me nothing.   Sure, now that I use M2, I receive html in plain text, but html or text costs the same money for me... zero cost.   Now I understand some people prefer text email, I understand when you receive thousands of emails a day it can be an issue... But I'm sure even if you receive thousands of emails a day, only a few of them are html, isnt it ?   Thanks :)   --__--__--   Message: 20 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:43:28 +0800 To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 From: Andrew Gregory Organization: Southern Cross Software Solutions Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:51:24 +0100, Axel Siebert wrote:   > I know a lot of text-mode clients, and all of them are able to scroll > left/right. I have yet to see a client which simply dismisses everything > longer than 78 characters.   I will admit I don't use text-mode clients at all, and therefore cannot point the finger at an implementation that actually lost information, but I don't consider it impossible for someone to be that silly :-) Just when you think you've seen the most stupid things, somebody else comes along....   >> If you feel the same about email, and that everybody should be able to >> read your emails, you should be supporting the 78 character limit too. > > I do, very much so! I am an ardent follower of correct line wrapping, > that's why I even do it manually to make sure it's perfect. Generally > being a perfectionist, I was just bitching about your wording that it's > "impossible". > Surely lines longer than 78 characters must be avoided at all costs, by > citing the RFC I just wanted to stress that there is no *technical* > limitation which would make it truly impossible. It was really all about > the > word "impossible". Sorry if I created a misunderstanding there.   That's OK.   > Where did you get the impression that I didn't want limited line length? > I just said that it must be done better than M2 currently does.   Where you talked about a 1000 character/line limit - which is way beyond any screen I've seen and hence effectively an 'unlimited' line length.   > That's precisely why I want to see *while composing* where the mail > client will break the lines, as I can in M1.   Now, this would be useful, but only if it could be toggled on/off during composition.   > Yes, no algorithm is perfect. However, an attempt must be made so select > the best one, the one whose result is acceptable in most of the cases. > All I'm saying is that the current comb-quoting-introducing algorithm > certainly not the best. I'm not saying the converting-to-format-flowed- > by- > paragraph-concatenation-and-inserting-new-CRLFSPACEs-for-text-mode- > clients > algorithm makes no mistakes, but I have tested it on 6500 messages I > received > over the last year, and the number of messages where a concatenation took > place which really looked bad was exactly 2. The number of messages where > M2 would introduce horrible comb quoting was about 2300. So I guess it > would be > a very significant improvement.   These are very interesting statistics - and a very good argument for your algorithm over what currently happens.   -- Andrew Gregory, Web:   --__--__--   Message: 21 To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:31:51 +0100 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Le Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:43:28 +0800, Andrew Gregory andrew-at- scsoftware.com.au |Opera Mailing List| a écrit:   > On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:51:24 +0100, Axel Siebert > wrote: > >> I know a lot of text-mode clients, and all of them are able to scroll >> left/right. I have yet to see a client which simply dismisses everything >> longer than 78 characters. > > I will admit I don't use text-mode clients at all, and therefore cannot > point the finger at an implementation that actually lost information, but > I don't consider it impossible for someone to be that silly :-) Just when > you think you've seen the most stupid things, somebody else comes > along.... > My father is using a text mode client... And he is not silly hehe :) He cannot do anything else. He's working in a university, as a math teacher, and they are using unix (or linux) systems. He hasnt a computer but a workstation, and the only client he can use is a unix, text client.   I hate text client :) It seems when we are talking about GUI, it seems linux users hate them... perhaps using text mode software make them more elitist :)   --__--__--   Message: 22 From: "Josef W. Segur" To: opera-users@opera.com Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:38:43 -0500 Subject: Re: [OU] Identify as Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   On 25 Feb 03, at 14:55, Melwyn wrote:   > Read on Opera forum : > > > The most common cause of pages not working properly > > is the fact that they are badly written; this is so > > because they are blocking you either partly (by > > filtering out code) or wholly (by saying "incompatible > > browser") because you are running Opera. They do this > > by scanning the "User-Agent" string that your browser > > (Opera) supplies to the website. Regardless of your > > "identify as" setting, this string always contains > > the word "Opera". > > Is this true ? I mean, I have been of a website blocking browsers other > than IE and netscape, not because of their choice, but because the > webmaster thought this website cannot be read using other browsers. I then > identify myself as IE, and this site worked well with this setting... > > So anyone can explain me how it works ?   shows how the Useragent strings are formatted.   The User-Agent header is sent with every URL request, so the server can decide what to return based on that.   The other technique site authors often use is to 'sniff' the browser using JavaScript. The useragent string can be checked from the script, or some other navigator object data. Opera changes the navigator.appName and navigator.appVersion data depending on which ID is chosen. is one example of a good sniffer. You can see what data Opera supplies for each ID by reloading.   -- Joe   --__--__--   Message: 23 From: "Frank Owen" To: Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 08:51:56 -0700 Subject: [OU] Java Script Menu is Acting up in Opera Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   This is a multi-part message in MIME format.   ------=_NextPart_000_008E_01C2DCAB.269FA430 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable   I have a Java Script menu that pulls in and out via a MouseOver. I also = have the links set to change colors on MouseOver. In IE, the script = works great. In opera, it will pull the menu out, and push it back in = fine as long as I do not use the "MouseOver" for the links. I have put = a example on my website.   http://www.wosnetworks.com/opera/maino.htm   Thank you for your help!!   Frank ------=_NextPart_000_008E_01C2DCAB.269FA430 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable  
          I have a Java Script menu that pulls in = and out via=20 a MouseOver.  I also have the links set to change colors on=20 MouseOver.  In IE, the script works great.  In opera, it will = pull the=20 menu out, and push it back in fine as long as I do not use the = "MouseOver" for=20 the links.  I have put a example on my website.
           
          http://www.wosnetwork= s.com/opera/maino.htm
           
          Thank you for your help!!
           
          Frank
            ------=_NextPart_000_008E_01C2DCAB.269FA430--     --__--__--   Message: 24 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:53:05 -0500 From: Patrick Shanahan To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   * Melwyn Da'alimar [02-25-03 10:34]: ... chop ... chop .... > My father is using a text mode client... And he is not silly hehe :) He > cannot do anything else. He's working in a university, as a math teacher, > and they are using unix (or linux) systems. He hasnt a computer but a > workstation, and the only client he can use is a unix, text client. > > I hate text client :) It seems when we are talking about GUI, it seems > linux users hate them... perhaps using text mode software make them more > elitist :)   You are searching. Most (of the elder) also dislike the mouse. The cli allows exacting control and a speed that you wouldn't believe. But, knowledge is also necessary.   You find the same with the elder x86 users, also. Dos allowed control and speed. Many things are still *much_better* accomplished from the dos cli than from winedohs. -- Patrick Shanahan Please avoid TOFU and trim >quotes< http://wahoo.no-ip.org Registered Linux User #207535 icq#173753138 @ http://counter.li.org   --__--__--   Message: 25 To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Identify as From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 17:02:52 +0100 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Le Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:38:43 -0500, Josef W. Segur jsegur-at-westelcom.com |Opera Mailing List| a écrit:   > The other technique site authors often use is to 'sniff' the browser > using JavaScript. The useragent string can be checked from the script, > or some other navigator object data. Opera changes the navigator.appName > and navigator.appVersion data depending on which ID > is chosen. > is one example of a good sniffer. You can see what data Opera supplies > for each ID by reloading. > Oh so it means that if the website is only checking navigator.appname, it will work if the site is designed for IE and we are identifying as IE, but that the web site can go further, and know what browser we are "really" using ? :)   --__--__--   Message: 26 To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 17:07:40 +0100 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Le Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:53:05 -0500, Patrick Shanahan paka-at-myrealbox.com |Opera Mailing List| a écrit:   > * Melwyn Da'alimar [02-25-03 10:34]: > ... chop ... chop .... >> My father is using a text mode client... And he is not silly hehe :) He >> cannot do anything else. He's working in a university, as a math >> teacher, and they are using unix (or linux) systems. He hasnt a computer >> but a workstation, and the only client he can use is a unix, text >> client. >> >> I hate text client :) It seems when we are talking about GUI, it seems >> linux users hate them... perhaps using text mode software make them more >> elitist :) > > You are searching. Most (of the elder) also dislike the mouse. The > cli allows exacting control and a speed that you wouldn't believe. But, > knowledge is also necessary. > > You find the same with the elder x86 users, also. Dos allowed control > and speed. Many things are still *much_better* accomplished from the > dos cli than from winedohs. > Perhaps, but I hate to have to memorize hundreds of hotkeys :) In Opera I remember the 'K' to mark as read, and I do all other actions with the mouse. A friend of mine has hundred of hotkeys and can handle them, I simply cannot. You can be sure that with a text client I will often hit F1 to read what hotkey to use. My father doesn't do this because he hates the mouse, but just because the technician setup the unix system like that, and he cannot change this. There is also a note saying it is forbidden to install third party softwares :)   --__--__--   Message: 27 To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Java Script Menu is Acting up in Opera From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 17:10:08 +0100 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Le Tue, 25 Feb 2003 08:51:56 -0700, Frank Owen franko-at-utsonline.net |Opera Mailing List| a écrit:   > I have a Java Script menu that pulls in and out via a MouseOver. I also > have the links set to change colors on MouseOver. In IE, the script > works great. In opera, it will pull the menu out, and push it back in > fine as long as I do not use the "MouseOver" for the links. I have put a > example on my website. > > http://www.wosnetworks.com/opera/maino.htm > > Thank you for your help!! > > Frank > I have no menu at all in the webpage you gave as an example... I'm using Opera 7.   --__--__--   Message: 28 From: "Frank Owen" To: Subject: RE: [OU] Java Script Menu is Acting up in Opera Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:19:51 -0700 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   This is a multi-part message in MIME format.   ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C2DCAF.0CD30A20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable   The menu is located on the left hand side. It pulls out when you move = over the blue shaded box next to the edge of the browser window. I will = download opera 7 and see if it is there. Thanks! --Frank   -----Original Message-----   From: opera-users-admin@opera.com [mailto:opera-users-admin@opera.com]On   Behalf Of Melwyn Da'alimar   Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 9:10 AM   To: opera-users@opera.com   Subject: Re: [OU] Java Script Menu is Acting up in Opera Le Tue, 25 Feb 2003 08:51:56 -0700, Frank Owen franko-at-utsonline.net=20   |Opera Mailing List| a =E9crit:   > I have a Java Script menu that pulls in and out via a MouseOver. I = also=20 > have the links set to change colors on MouseOver. In IE, the script=20   > works great. In opera, it will pull the menu out, and push it back in=20   > fine as long as I do not use the "MouseOver" for the links. I have put = a=20   > example on my website.   >   > http://www.wosnetworks.com/opera/maino.htm   >   > Thank you for your help!!   >   > Frank   >   I have no menu at all in the webpage you gave as an example... I'm using =     Opera 7.   --=20   Opera-users: http://list.opera.com/mailman/listinfo/opera-users   More lists: http://list.opera.com/mailman/listinfo/   Unsubscribe: mailto:opera-users-request@opera.com?subject=3Dunsubscribe   ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C2DCAF.0CD30A20 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable  

          The menu is located on the left hand side.  It pulls out when = you move=20 over the blue shaded box next to the edge of the browser window.  I = will=20 download opera 7 and see if it is there.  Thanks!

           

          --Frank

          -----Original Message-----

          From: opera-users-admin@opera.com = [mailto:opera-users-admin@opera.com]On

          Behalf Of Melwyn Da'alimar

          Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 9:10 AM

          To: opera-users@opera.com

          Subject: Re: [OU] Java Script Menu is Acting up in Opera

           

          Le Tue, 25 Feb 2003 08:51:56 -0700, Frank Owen = franko-at-utsonline.net

          |Opera Mailing List| <bof2hatpew0t@sneakemail.com> a = =E9crit:

          > I have a Java Script menu that pulls in and out via a MouseOver. = I also=20

           

          > have the links set to change colors on MouseOver. In IE, the = script

          > works great. In opera, it will pull the menu out, and push it = back in=20

          > fine as long as I do not use the "MouseOver" for the links. I = have put a=20

          > example on my website.

          >

          > http://www.wosnetworks.com/opera/maino.htm

          >

          > Thank you for your help!!

          >

          > Frank

          >

          I have no menu at all in the webpage you gave as an example... I'm = using

          Opera 7.

          --

          Opera-users: http://list.opera.com/mailman/listinfo/opera-users

          More lists: http://list.opera.com/mailman/listinfo/

          Unsubscribe:=20 mailto:opera-users-request@opera.com?subject=3Dunsubscribe

            ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C2DCAF.0CD30A20--     --__--__--   Message: 29 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 11:34:59 -0500 To: "opera-users@opera.com" From: Sue Sims Subject: [OU] FAQ: query Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Part of my new job description is to develop a series of FAQs for the Opera newsgroups and mailing lists, so...I'm starting with you :-)   There are a few ways to approach the issue of FAQs, and I've chosen to leave it up to the members how to develop the FAQs. I expect to include some administrivia (like detailed instructions on how to unsubscribe, since some list members don't understand that all it takes is to click on the link included in each and every mailing to the list). Other than administrivia, what specific questions would you like to include? Please include the *answers*, as well. I expect to use the eventual FAQ as proof of concept in developing the other FAQs for the newsgroups. You will receive credit in the FAQ for your answers (unless you request anonymity).   All discussion should take place on the list, preferably in a thread which includes FAQ in the subject. Why, you ask? Because I'm most interested in this being a community effort, and the only way to do that is to open the process up to the *community*. Those not interested in participating should be able to filter out all messages which contain FAQ in the subject.   Thanks for your help.   Sue     --__--__--   Message: 30 From: "Tom Knight" To: Subject: RE: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 17:07:03 -0000 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com         > > Especially since it's part of a proposed standard (rfc 2557): > > ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc2557.txt > > RFC2557 isn't about mail formatting. It's about > encapsulating aggregate > documents which consist of a root document and linked resources. In a > web environment client software can use URLs to fetch linked resources > but that's not possible when the whole lot is encapsulated in a single > file or transaction, and it's that situation which RFC2557 addresses.     I'm afraid this does extend to use of html mail. Looking at section 9, "Examples" shows this:   9.1 Example of a HTML body without included linked objects   The first example is the simplest form of an HTML email message. This message does not contain an aggregate HTML object, but simply a message with a single HTML body part. This body part contains a URI but the messages does not contain the resource referenced by that URI. To retrieve the resource referenced by the URI the receiving client would need either IP access to the Internet, or an electronic mail web gateway.   From: foo1@bar.net To: foo2@bar.net Subject: A simple example Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit  

          Acute accent

          The following two lines look have the same screen rendering:

          E with acute accent becomes É.
          E with acute accent becomes É.

          Try clicking here.

            Horrid but true.   It's interesting to note section 11 "Security Considerations". where it mentions some of the faults people (rightly) find with html mail, including:   11.1 Security considerations not related to caching   It is possible for a message sender to misrepresent the source of a multipart/related body part to a message recipient by labeling it with a Content-Location URI that references another resource. Therefore, message recipients should only interpret Content-Location URIs as labeling a body part for the resolution of references from body parts in the same multipart/related message structure, and not as the source of a resource, unless this can be verified by other means.   URIs, especially File URIs, if used without change in a message, may inadvertently reveal information that was not intended to be revealed outside a particular security context. Message senders should take care when constructing messages containing the new header fields, defined in this standard, that they are not revealing information outside of any security contexts to which they belong.   Some resource servers hide passwords and tickets (access tokens to information which should not be reveled to others) and other sensitive information in non-visible fields or URIs within a text/html resource. If such a text/html resource is forwarded in an email message, this sensitive information may be inadvertently revealed to others.   Since HTML documents can either directly contain executable content (i.e., JavaScript) or indirectly reference executable content (The "INSERT" specification, Java). It is exceedingly dangerous for a receiving User Agent to execute content received in a mail message without careful attention to restrictions on the capabilities of that executable content.   HTML-formatted messages can be used to investigate user behaviour, for example to break anonymity, in ways which invade the privacy of individuals. If you send a message with a inline link to an object which is not itself included in the message, the recipients mailer or browser may request that object through HTTP. The HTTP transaction will then reveal who is reading the message. Example: A person who wants to find out who is behind an anonymous user identity, or from which workstation a user is reading his mail, can do this by sending a message with an inline link and then observe from where this link is used to request the object.     --__--__--   Message: 31 To: opera-users@opera.com From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:41:22 +0100 Subject: [OU] Browse mails Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Hi,   is it possible to tell Opera to browse all our mails to add people in our active contact list, and to remove people from this list who are not used anymore ?   Thanks   --__--__--   Message: 32 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:51:27 +0100 From: Andre Wichartz To: Andrew Gregory Subject: Re[2]: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Hello Andrew,   On Tuesday, February 25, 2003, 22:18:25 +0800 GMT (which was 15:18 local time), Andrew Gregory wrote:   AG> On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 20:15:43 +1030, wrote:   >> Why ? It has to be the most misused tag on the web.   AG> Well, I started up Wordpad on my Windows computer and looked at the AG> toolbar, then listed the tags related to what I saw. I would consider AG> Wordpad to be a minimal feature 'word processor'.   But not everything that is possible with wordpad is suitable for email. The nice thing about plain text is that I can decide in which way my emails are presented. I decide which font of which size and which foreground and background colours are used. The bad thing about html mail (besides the bandwith issues) is that it takes this freedom away from me. I am forced to look at a message in the layout the sender liked the most. Well, maybe I don't like it at all. Or even worse: Maybe my eyes are not as good and I therefore prefer a larger font. But now I am forced to look at that small font I can barely read.   AG> can be misused, of course, but I don't consider that a huge problem. AG> I've seen plenty of plain text emails where the poster has abused their AG> Caps Lock key (i.e. left it on), but I wouldn't consider the precence of a AG> Cap Lock key a problem. It's all in how it's used.   Yes. But I just don't see a good use for . I have a reason why I want to view mails in my favourite font. Why should the sender force a different one upon me? I can understand that sometime it's desireable to make a word bold or underlined to emphasize it. But is not needed here.     -- Cheers, Andre   "1. If it's green or it wiggles, it's biology. 2. If it stinks, it's chemistry. 3. If it doesn't work, it's physics." --__--__--   Message: 33 To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Identify as From: jonathan murphy Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:19:05 -0000 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:55:20 +0100, Melwyn Da'alimar wrote:   > Read on Opera forum : >> Regardless of your >> "identify as" setting, this string always contains >> the word "Opera". > > Is this true ?   Yes, that last statement is true.   I mean, I have been of a website blocking browsers other > than IE and netscape, not because of their choice, but because the > webmaster thought this website cannot be read using other browsers. > I then identify myself as IE, and this site worked well with this > setting...   If you set to ID as IE, Opera sends the IE user agent string followeed by the word Opera. Most sites which have casual browser detection just look for "MSIE" or "Netscape" and setting the ID is sufficient to get round them. The presence of the word Opera allows web authors who do actually know what they're doing to realise that you aren't really IE and present you with a page tuned for Opera by looking at the user agent string in more detail. The majority of sites don't do this.   -- Jonathan Murphy   --__--__--   Message: 34 To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Java Script Menu is Acting up in Opera From: jonathan murphy Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:30:47 -0000 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:19:51 -0700, Frank Owen wrote:   > The menu is located on the left hand side. It pulls out when you move > over the blue shaded box next to the edge of the browser window. I will > download opera 7 and see if it is there. Thanks! >   if (document.all) document.write(the menu is in here.............. (not sure why this needs to be written in JS?)   This adds up to "if the user has MSIE, write the menu! document.all is MS proprietary, not part of JavaScript. The menu will not appear in anything other than IE. Later on there's some document.layers stuff (Netscape 4 only). You need to read a more recent JavaScript tutorial, perhaps.   -- Jonathan Murphy   --__--__--   Message: 35 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:24:17 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) From: Alan G Isaac To: opera-users@opera.com organization: American University Subject: [OU] Re: Email formatting problem with M2 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   > On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 22:32:56 -0500, Patrick Shanahan > wrote: >> Email is *plain* ascii text, not 'marked-up' by html, >> css, or any other method.   On Tue, Andrew Gregory wrote: > I mostly agree with this, but I also recognise that the > computing world largely left text-only systems behind > about ten years ago. Email is probably the most-used form > of communication on the Internet and I think it is past > time *someone* brought it into the graphical present. Note > that I would strongly oppose anything that would prevent > text-only people from reading or otherwise using email. I > think the existing method of attaching a marked-up email > to a plain text version is the best way of doing this. > However, I don't think *HTML* is the way to go. It's too > big and complicated. Only a tiny subset is needed:

          , > , , , , and (as a shorter alternative > to

          ) at least, maybe
            ,
              ,
            1. as well. > Ignoring , such a marked-up message would be easily > readable, even if a plain-text alternate version were not > available.   Ignoring that the proposal is in part to implement deprecated HTML, it seems that

              = eol, eol text = *text* text = _text_ text = "text" and less reliably text = TEXT   IMHO we need a damn good reason to abandon this. If you just want to change the display of the marked up text, pick an email client that supports "Trivial Markup" (e.g., Mahogany).   > Nevertheless, the only way is forward, and email *must* > change.   I really do not see why. Unless you mean that it inevitably will change, which is probably true.   > It would be better if someone came up with an RFC > for simple markup, otherwise (if it isn't already too > late) MS and their HTML monsters will dictate what emails > of the future will be.   To find out, look at your spam. But your point is well taken.   Cheers, Alan Isaac   --__--__--   Message: 36 From: Axel Siebert To: opera-users@opera.com Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:34:45 +0100 Subject: Re: [OU] Re: Email formatting problem with M2 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   25.02.03 21:24:17, Alan G Isaac wrote:   > Ignoring that the proposal is in part to implement > deprecated HTML, it seems that >

              = eol, eol > text = *text* > text = _text_ > text = "text" > and less reliably > text = TEXT > > IMHO we need a damn good reason to abandon this.   So true, just a little correction: The usual practice, at least on Usenet, is   text = /text/ text = *text* text = TEXT   Axel   --__--__--   Message: 37 From: Axel Siebert To: opera-users@opera.com Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:33:37 +0100 Subject: Re: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   25.02.03 15:43:15, "Melwyn Da'alimar" wrote:   >For example, a friend of mine sending html emails is a zero cost for me, as >I have adsl, it is my home mail, I do not pay for bandwith   Oh, but you do!! You just don't notice it because you pay a fixed amount. But if everybody would use available bandwidth reasonably, all ISPs would need less powerful servers, less thick lines, less fat storage, so they could offer much cheaper flatrates. You are already paying for HTML mail, rest assured.   Axel   --__--__--   Message: 38 From: "Suryanto Hendrawan" To: Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 23:13:48 +0100 Subject: [OU] endlose Schleife Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Hi,   als ich die Seite http://www.wetter.de offnete, bekam ich eine endlose Schleife. Hat jemand auch dieses merkwuerdige Verhalten, oder liegt es nur in meinem Rechner. Ich benutze Opera 7.01 auf Windows XP Pro.   Schoenen Abend Suryanto Hendrawan     --__--__--   Message: 39 From: "Suryanto Hendrawan" To: Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 23:22:46 +0100 Subject: [OU] endless loop Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Hi again,   sorry for the last mail, have forgotten to write it in english. also, als i try to open http://www.wetter.de , i have received an endless loop. have anybody the same problem? any idea, how to solve it? I use opera 7.01 in Windows XP Pro.   Thanks Suryanto Hendrawan --__--__--   Message: 40 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:08:50 -0800 From: Larry Washbrook Subject: Re: [OU] endless loop To: opera-users@opera.com Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   I'm using Opera 7.01 with Windows XP Pro and have no difficulty accessing the site. I don't know where your problem is.   On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 23:22:46 +0100, Suryanto Hendrawan wrote:   > Hi again, > > sorry for the last mail, have forgotten to write it in english. also, > als i try to open http://www.wetter.de , i have received an endless loop. > have anybody the same problem? any idea, how to solve it? > I use opera 7.01 in Windows XP Pro. > > Thanks > Suryanto Hendrawan > > --     --__--__--   Message: 41 Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 00:19:11 +0100 From: Andre Wichartz To: Larry Washbrook Subject: Re[2]: [OU] endless loop Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Hello Larry,   On Wednesday, February 26, 2003, 15:08:50 -0800 GMT (which was 00:08 local time), Larry Washbrook wrote:   LW> On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 23:22:46 +0100, Suryanto Hendrawan LW> wrote:   >> sorry for the last mail, have forgotten to write it in english. also, >> als i try to open http://www.wetter.de , i have received an endless loop. >> have anybody the same problem? any idea, how to solve it? >> I use opera 7.01 in Windows XP Pro.   LW> I'm using Opera 7.01 with Windows XP Pro and have no difficulty LW> accessing the site. I don't know where your problem is.   It was the same for me. Normally I have Opera id as IE. So I loaded the page a second time, this time id-ing as Opera and there it is: a endless loop.   So your answer is to id as IE. Then the site works.     -- Cheers, Andre   "The government of the people, by the people, for t     --__--__--   Message: 42 From: Axel Siebert To: opera-users@opera.com Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 00:31:46 +0100 Subject: Re: Re[2]: [OU] endless loop Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   26.02.03 00:19:11, Andre Wichartz wrote:   >>> sorry for the last mail, have forgotten to write it in english. also, >>> als i try to open http://www.wetter.de , i have received an endless loop. >>> have anybody the same problem? any idea, how to solve it? >>> I use opera 7.01 in Windows XP Pro.   > It was the same for me. Normally I have Opera id as IE. So I loaded the > page a second time, this time id-ing as Opera and there it is: a endless > loop. > > So your answer is to id as IE. Then the site works.   No. The answer is to reload the page. If you visit it for the first time, it will work. If it is drawn from the cache on the next visit, it loops. The reason is some FUBAR JavaSpit designed to make sure you don't circumvent the frameset. Try hitting the stop/reload button a few times while it loops, eventually this will force a reload, which will finish loading.   Axel --__--__--   Message: 43 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:07:03 -0800 To: opera-users@opera.com From: "Nicholas H. Kaps" Organization: Perspectives Subject: [OU] email problem Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   I recently am having a problem with my email. Part of my email is not downloaded from my isp.   A box appears that says "Generic Error" Inside the box is the following statement.   "nkaps@garlic.com Opera tried to retrieve message 1(UIDL CL%#!odC"!e#:!!6&H"!) from the POP3 server, but failed to store it on your machine."   Has anyone else had a similiar problem or any ideas as to what happened?? -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/   --__--__--   Message: 44 To: opera-users@opera.com, opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 From: Edward Organization: Retired Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:19:46 -0500 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   I am not sure what you all are talking about. But what I want is to just type a message and sent it. I am too old to fool with BS notations. I am not a programer and do not want to be. If what you are talking about does not require other than just typing the message. Disregard my comments. Edward     On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:31:22 +0800, Andrew Gregory wrote:   > In response to my previous message... > > On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 22:32:56 -0500, Patrick Shanahan > wrote: > >> Email is *plain* ascii text, not 'marked-up' by html, css, or any other >> method. > > I mostly agree with this, but I also recognise that the computing world > largely left text-only systems behind about ten years ago. Email is > probably the most-used form of communication on the Internet and I think > it is past time *someone* brought it into the graphical present. Note > that I would strongly oppose anything that would prevent text-only people > from reading or otherwise using email. I think the existing method of > attaching a marked-up email to a plain text version is the best way of > doing this. However, I don't think *HTML* is the way to go. It's too big > and complicated. Only a tiny subset is needed:

              , , , , > , and (as a shorter alternative to

              ) at least, > maybe
                ,
                  ,
                1. as well. Ignoring , such a marked-up message > would be easily readable, even if a plain-text alternate version were not > available. > >> Unformatted things are only ugly if your email-client is not capable of >> presenting them properly. > > My points were that plain text only messages make this difficult, if not > impossible. Too much formatting information is lost in the conversion to > plain text. > >> To follow your line of reasoning (which I partially agree), nothing but >> plain ascii text email should exist. I use a text-mode client which, >> of itself, is only capable of presenting plain ascii text. > > No, email should *always* be accessible to people no matter the > capabilities of their client, but I think it is wrong for the now tiny > minority of people who can *only* handle plain text to hold back the vast > majority of people using graphical system from being able to add a little > formatting (bold, underline, italic, colour, fonts) to their messages. > >> I do reformat quoted text to <72 chars, trim quotes and do not TOFU as >> a courtesy to the reader. This was at one time the norm for the >> internet community, but since the proliferation of internet >> participants (just after the inception of aol), courtesy and adherance >> to 'norms' has sadly become a *laugh*. > > I had to look up what TOFU meant, and I agree (although I haven't > religously followed those guidelines). It is true that now that a much > higher proportion of the population are on the 'net, the average > capability/courtesy has dropped accordingly. A sad reflection on the > society we live in. When I was at uni for several years, my only 'net > access was via a 19200 baud VT102 terminal emulator, so I know what it > was like and what we have to remain compatible with. > > Nevertheless, the only way is forward, and email *must* change. It would > be better if someone came up with an RFC for simple markup, otherwise (if > it isn't already too late) MS and their HTML monsters will dictate what > emails of the future will be. -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/     --__--__--   Message: 45 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:53:49 -0500 To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] email problem From: Edward Organization: Retired Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Yes I had the same pop up error message. I reloaded Opera7.1 and it went away for awhile. Now it is back. I asked about this on a forum but noone knew what to do. I do not know what this message is telling me other than Opera is having a problem. With what? Edward   On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:07:03 -0800, Nicholas H. Kaps wrote:   > I recently am having a problem with my email. Part of my email is not > downloaded from my isp. > > A box appears that says "Generic Error" > Inside the box is the following statement. > > "nkaps@garlic.com > Opera tried to retrieve message 1(UIDL CL%#!odC"!e#:!!6&H"!) from the > POP3 server, but failed to store it on your machine." > > Has anyone else had a similiar problem or any ideas as to what happened?? -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ --__--__--   -- Opera-users mailing list Opera-users@opera.com http://list.opera.com/mailman/listinfo/opera-users     End of Opera-users DigestSend Opera-users mailing list submissions to opera-users@opera.com   To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://list.opera.com/mailman/listinfo/opera-users or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to opera-users-request@opera.com   You can reach the person managing the list at opera-users-admin@opera.com   When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Opera-users digest..."     Today's Topics:   1. Re: Opera7 crushes down! (Axel Siebert) 2. Problems in receiving HTML emails (Melwyn Da'alimar) 3. Re: V7 problem that did not happen with V6.05 (Allan Smith) 4. Help 2 questions: Thanks, victory (hester reik) 5. Re: Problems in receiving HTML emails (Axel Siebert) 6. Mailto (Melwyn Da'alimar) 7. RE: Email formatting problem with M2 (Fred Bone) 8. Re: Problems in receiving HTML emails (Melwyn Da'alimar) 9. Strange behaviour in attachments (Melwyn Da'alimar) 10. Viewing attachments (Melwyn Da'alimar) 11. Re: Strange behaviour in attachments (Axel Siebert) 12. Re: Email formatting problem with M2 (Matthew Winn) 13. Re: Strange behaviour in attachments (Melwyn Da'alimar) 14. Spam in mailing lists ? (Melwyn Da'alimar) 15. Re: Strange behaviour in attachments (Axel Siebert) 16. Re: Email formatting problem with M2 (Paul Boizot) 17. Identify as (Melwyn Da'alimar) 18. Re: Email formatting problem with M2 (Andrew Gregory) 19. Re: Email formatting problem with M2 (Melwyn Da'alimar) 20. Re: Email formatting problem with M2 (Andrew Gregory) 21. Re: Email formatting problem with M2 (Melwyn Da'alimar) 22. Re: Identify as (Josef W. Segur) 23. Java Script Menu is Acting up in Opera (Frank Owen) 24. Re: Email formatting problem with M2 (Patrick Shanahan) 25. Re: Identify as (Melwyn Da'alimar) 26. Re: Email formatting problem with M2 (Melwyn Da'alimar) 27. Re: Java Script Menu is Acting up in Opera (Melwyn Da'alimar) 28. RE: Java Script Menu is Acting up in Opera (Frank Owen) 29. FAQ: query (Sue Sims) 30. RE: Email formatting problem with M2 (Tom Knight) 31. Browse mails (Melwyn Da'alimar) 32. Re[2]: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 (Andre Wichartz) 33. Re: Identify as (jonathan murphy) 34. Re: Java Script Menu is Acting up in Opera (jonathan murphy) 35. Re: Email formatting problem with M2 (Alan G Isaac) 36. Re: Re: Email formatting problem with M2 (Axel Siebert) 37. Re: Email formatting problem with M2 (Axel Siebert) 38. endlose Schleife (Suryanto Hendrawan) 39. endless loop (Suryanto Hendrawan) 40. Re: endless loop (Larry Washbrook) 41. Re[2]: [OU] endless loop (Andre Wichartz) 42. Re: Re[2]: [OU] endless loop (Axel Siebert) 43. email problem (Nicholas H. Kaps) 44. Re: Email formatting problem with M2 (Edward) 45. Re: email problem (Edward)   --__--__--   Message: 1 From: Axel Siebert To: opera-users@opera.com Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:04:46 +0100 Subject: Re: [OU] Opera7 crushes down! Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   24.02.03 11:52:16, Sir Jinx! wrote:   > But, today when I wanted to start it Opera crushes!!!!   Well, I suppose it crAshes. The executables are already compressed, so I don't think they could be crushed any further. SCNR :)   > "OPERA caused an invalid page fault in > module XMLPARSE.DLL at 0167:67e990f2..."   In such cases, we need a crash log, see: http://list.opera.com/pipermail/opera-users/2003-January/016619.html   Axel         --__--__--   Message: 2 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:06:16 +0100 To: opera-users@opera.com From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Subject: [OU] Problems in receiving HTML emails Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Hi,   I do not want to read emails in html. Is it true that preferred body mode set to 2 tells Opera to display mails in text, even if there is only an html version available ?   Moreover, when someone send me an html email with pictures included *in the body* of the message, I am unable to access those pictures. When I have set preffered body mode to 0, I had an error message saying something like : Warning, error while decoding the message. With preferred body mode to 1 I can see the mail in html without problem, and with preferred body mode set to 2 I have no error message but cannot access the pictures.   What I mean is that pictures appear in attachment access point, in the column, but not as attachment in the body of the message. Only way for me to view those pictures is to copy mail as raw text, then open a text editor, paste the text, save the message as a .eml file and read it with Outlook Express. Not very convenient...   Perhaps a way to directly right click on message then choose "save as .eml", or the html message beeing an attachment of the text one would be helpful.   Thanks :)   --__--__--   Message: 3 From: Allan Smith To: opera-users@opera.com Cc: Axel Siebert , freexone Subject: Re: [OU] V7 problem that did not happen with V6.05 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 11:20:24 +0000 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:38:37 +0100, Axel Siebert wrote:   > 24.02.03 21:24:26, Allan Smith wrote: >   >> I find that if I open Opera (7.01) by double clicking on an attachment to an >> e-mail in Agent (1.93) which I currently use e-mail a new copy of opera is >> opened (even if an existing copy is already open). This did not happen with >> v6.05 of Opera. >   > I don't know Agent, so this question might be dumb, but: Is it really > necessary to double-click, and there's no possibility that this might be > interpreted as opening twice?   Axel,   The double start was not something I thought of but as it turns out it does not appear to be the problem. Single click selects the attachment (shown in Agent in a box) and a double click launches it. Attachments may also be launched with from a right click menu on the attachment.   What appears to be the problem is the "current directory" (possibly a synonym for the "'start in directory' as modified since the application was launched") where Opera is running from. The existing open copy of v7.01 is used ONLY if the "current directory" is the same as Agent's own data directory. This deos not appear to be the case with v6.05. The parent process is not a factor, the presence or otherwide of a parameter to v7.01 is not a factor. The only thing I can find that affects it is the directory where v7.01 was started from.   How or why this is the case has me somewhat puzzled.   Regards, Allan Smith (Northwood, Middlesex, England)   --__--__--   Message: 4 To: opera From: hester reik Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 06:56:05 -0500 Subject: [OU] Help 2 questions: Thanks, victory Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Thank you, Jonathan for all your suggestions. I had most of the stuff checked that you suggested. And I already had things set to accept cookies. But the real victory is this...... I got the web technician at my investment account site I couldn't access to download and install Opera 7.01. He couldn't log into the site either :-) and is bumping the case up to the next person to see if they can configure their site in such a way that it is compatible with 7.01. (The interesting thing is.....it worked in 6.05, though I always had to log in 2x.) With the economy in the tank and things not looking good for the future (long or short term) perhaps they were scared of losing a client :-). (not likely). Sorry for the editorializing. hester   Perhaps your cookie settings? Are you set to accept all cookies? I'm just guessing.   Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/     --__--__--   Message: 5 From: Axel Siebert To: opera-users@opera.com Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:44:51 +0100 Subject: Re: [OU] Problems in receiving HTML emails Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   25.02.03 12:06:16, "Melwyn Da'alimar" wrote:   > Is it true that preferred body mode set to 2 tells Opera to display mails > in text, even if there is only an html version available ?   Mode 2 is planned to do that, but it's not yet implemented. For now, modes 2 and 0 are identical.   > Moreover, when someone send me an html email with pictures included *in the > body* of the message, I am unable to access those pictures. When I have set > preffered body mode to 0, I had an error message saying something like : > Warning, error while decoding the message. With preferred body mode to 1 I > can see the mail in html without problem, and with preferred body mode set > to 2 I have no error message but cannot access the pictures.   I suppose the pictures are declared as part of the HTML mail, so they are not identified as attachments. Could you upload the raw mail as a compressed text file so I can have a look at it?   Uploading instructions: http://list.opera.com/pipermail/opera-users/2003-January/016619.html   Axel       --__--__--   Message: 6 To: opera-users@opera.com From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:01:59 +0100 Subject: [OU] Mailto Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Hi,   Why when I click on a mailto link in an application (not in a web page, but in an about box of an application) it launches outlook express instead of Opera M2 ?   Isnt it possible to setup Opera as default email client ?   Thanks :)   --__--__--   Message: 7 From: "Fred Bone" To: opera-users@opera.com Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:11:10 -0000 Subject: RE: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   On 25 Feb 2003 at 10:12, Tom Knight wrote:   [...] [not sure who wrote the next bit as the name wasn't there] > > It says a lot about the people I talk to but leaves me with a > > question: why is technical savvy tied > > to an aversion to html-ised messages? >   > Especially since it's part of a proposed standard (rfc 2557): > ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc2557.txt   But rfc2557 is about the relationship between parts of a message. It doesn't say anything about flavours of HTML in message bodies, beyond setting out conventions for the links.     --__--__--   Message: 8 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:21:49 +0100 To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Problems in receiving HTML emails From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Le Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:44:51 +0100, Axel Siebert me-at-axelsiebert.de |Opera Mailing List| a écrit:   > 25.02.03 12:06:16, "Melwyn Da'alimar" wrote: >   >> Is it true that preferred body mode set to 2 tells Opera to display >> mails in text, even if there is only an html version available ? >   > Mode 2 is planned to do that, but it's not yet implemented. For now, > modes > 2 and 0 are identical. >   They are really identical ? Strange then that I have the warning message when it is set as 0, and not when it is set as 2 :)   >> Moreover, when someone send me an html email with pictures included *in >> the body* of the message, I am unable to access those pictures. When I >> have set preffered body mode to 0, I had an error message saying >> something like : Warning, error while decoding the message. With >> preferred body mode to 1 I can see the mail in html without problem, and >> with preferred body mode set to 2 I have no error message but cannot >> access the pictures. >   > I suppose the pictures are declared as part of the HTML mail, so they are > not identified as attachments. Could you upload the raw mail as a > compressed text file so I can have a look at it? >   > Uploading instructions: > http://list.opera.com/pipermail/opera-users/2003-January/016619.html >   > Axel >   I am doing it with a test email I am writing to myself with outlook express, for privacy reasons... The name of archive is melwynmail2.zip. You can delete melwyn.zip and melwynmail.zip, as those are errors in transmission. I have used IE to FTP, as the command line doesnt seem to work...   Oh, there's no way to drag'n drop to opera to upload a file, as it is possible with IE ? Too bad :)   Thanks :)   --__--__--   Message: 9 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:36:59 +0100 To: opera-users@opera.com From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Subject: [OU] Strange behaviour in attachments Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Hi,   This question is about access point, attachment access point. There are documents, images, music, video, archives.   First, is it possible to add more than that ?   Second, I had a message with a .zip file attached, which appear in Documents access point and not archives one. How is this possible ?   Thanks :)   --__--__--   Message: 10 To: opera-users@opera.com From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:41:33 +0100 Subject: [OU] Viewing attachments Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Hi,   is there a way to view attachments of emails without Opera downloading them on hard drive ? As does Outlook Express I guess, so I havent to put it on my hardrive then delete it if I don't like it.   Don't know what does OE, but when I have an attachment, I just open it. If I don't like it, I delete the mail and the attachment is gone. With Opera, it downloads it in my download folder, then I have to delete it from this download folder if I dislike it.   Thanks...   --__--__--   Message: 11 From: Axel Siebert To: opera-users@opera.com Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:48:18 +0100 Subject: Re: [OU] Strange behaviour in attachments Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   25.02.03 13:36:59, "Melwyn Da'alimar" wrote:   > Second, I had a message with a .zip file attached, which appear in > Documents access point and not archives one. How is this possible ?   Wrong Content-Type? Again, raw mail please.   Axel       --__--__--   Message: 12 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:59:25 +0000 From: Matthew Winn To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 10:12:43AM -0000, Tom Knight wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: opera-users-admin@opera.com > > Sent: 25 February 2003 09:46 > > On 25 Feb 2003 at 13:31, Andrew Gregory wrote: > > > However, I don't think *HTML* is the way to go. It's too big and > > > complicated. Only a tiny subset is needed:

                  , , , > > > , , and > > > (as a shorter alternative to

                  ) at least, > > > maybe
                    ,
                      , > > >
                    1. as well. Ignoring , such a marked-up message > > > would be easily > > > readable, even if a plain-text alternate version were not available.   This has often been suggested and I'd support a limited set of XHTML elements. (If we're going to have formatting in a message we might at least make it XHTML so it's easy to parse.) The problems with HTML mail as it is right now are:   (a) Tools for creating HTML mail bloat the message far beyond reason in their attempts to make the message look _exactly_ as it appeared on the sender's screen. If the sender asks for a bold word they should get word, not an immense block of formatting which tries to preserve their choice of colours, font face and size, line width, margins, and everything else which is appropriate only to them.   (b) That bloat means it's necessary to send a plain-text copy of the message so it can be read by those without HTML-aware clients, further increasing the message size.   (c) There's no restriction on the elements used, so client software must contain a built-in web browser instead of a simple formatter.   (d) There's no restriction on the elements used, so there are security risks associated with scripting and linked images.   (e) Displaying of a formatted message is at the mercy of each client's understanding of HTML. All web browsers are buggy, and there's no reason to expect that email clients would do any better.   (f) There are many versions of HTML but no agreement on which one to use.   (g) The world is full of halfwits who think that everyone else wants a demonstration of the full range of effects permitted by HTML.   An agreed set of limited formatting elements would be great. It would remove the bloated attempts to set every single display attribute on every part of the message. It would eliminate the security issues. It would create a standard for formatting to which all clients could conform. And it would deprive idiots of the ability to send me a message in flashing 72pt text in the hope that I'll think it must be worth reading. The only difficult parts are agreeing a set of elements and persuading Microsoft to support that set without adding its own extensions.   The text/enriched format (RFC1896) is the right idea (but I'd prefer shorter element names). In particular, I consider the design criteria at the start of RFC1896 to be essential.   > > I consider the message text to be more important than its > > appearance and messages, for me at least, > > are easier to read if they are uniformly formatted; > > monospaced font, a nice text size and quotes in > > different colours.   I sometimes need to send messages with a small amount of formatting. Just a few minutes ago I sent a long technical message with several sections and it would have been useful to be able to highlight the title of each section so the reader could scan through the document more efficiently.   > > why is technical savvy tied > > to an aversion to html-ised messages?   Because to judge by the sort of bloated and formatting-heavy HTML messages most fans of HTML mail send, the senders clearly have no knowledge about things like bandwidth or the fact that you can't guarantee that the recipient of a message will see things exactly as they were when sent. If someone spends two minutes writing a message and ten minutes tarting it up they obviously don't know much about mail.   > Especially since it's part of a proposed standard (rfc 2557): > ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc2557.txt   RFC2557 isn't about mail formatting. It's about encapsulating aggregate documents which consist of a root document and linked resources. In a web environment client software can use URLs to fetch linked resources but that's not possible when the whole lot is encapsulated in a single file or transaction, and it's that situation which RFC2557 addresses.   It's an ideal format to use when a browser is saving a web page and all its associated images. Isn't this what IE uses?   -- Matthew Winn (matthew@sheridan.co.uk)   --__--__--   Message: 13 To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Strange behaviour in attachments From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:11:24 +0100 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Le Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:48:18 +0100, Axel Siebert me-at-axelsiebert.de |Opera Mailing List| a écrit:   > 25.02.03 13:36:59, "Melwyn Da'alimar" wrote: > >> Second, I had a message with a .zip file attached, which appear in >> Documents access point and not archives one. How is this possible ? > > Wrong Content-Type? > Again, raw mail please. > > Axel > > Sorry, I cannot, as I havent kept this message. So the attachment access point do not use only file extension, but scan the file ?   --__--__--   Message: 14 To: opera-users@opera.com From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:13:17 +0100 Subject: [OU] Spam in mailing lists ? Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Hi,   Is there a risk the email address we use in a mailing list beeing used as spam ?   And about spam, as we cannot trust Opera Spam system, how can we remove spam from my messages, and spam management ?   Thanks :)   --__--__--   Message: 15 From: Axel Siebert To: opera-users@opera.com Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:23:19 +0100 Subject: Re: [OU] Strange behaviour in attachments Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   25.02.03 14:11:24, "Melwyn Da'alimar" wrote:   >>> Second, I had a message with a .zip file attached, which appear in >>> Documents access point and not archives one. How is this possible ? >> >> Wrong Content-Type? >> Again, raw mail please. >> > Sorry, I cannot, as I havent kept this message. So the attachment access > point do not use only file extension, but scan the file ?   No. An attachment has a header telling what it is, regardless of the file extension. File extensions are meaningless on the web, it's dang Internet Explorer who imposed the Windoze (in fact, DOS) concept of file extensions. So most likely the attachment header declared it as generic data or document or whatever.   Axel       --__--__--   Message: 16 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:35:34 +0000 From: "Paul Boizot" To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Hi, I use plain text e-mail too, and don't like HTML e-mail - but as I wrote a few weeks back re another similar discussion, there are plenty of people out there who are never going to be tech-heads and there is no reason why they should be. If the ability is put in front of them to put pretty colours in and have visual creative fun, then some people will do just that and think nothing of it. (Not me, honest! Oh no, I wouldn't use a PC for fun!). They have different priorities.   Yes, if the tech-heads and geeks and sensible regulators can get together and agree and impose a system that permits reasonable formatting without huge bloated HTML e-mails, that is great. Then the non-techies will work with the more limited capabilities they have. But there is no need to slag off the non-tech people, who are being coerced and enticed by the million into using computers, for not knowing about bandwidth.   If there is anyone to slag off, it is whoever/however people get their intro to computing in the first place, if it does not give them the necessary info - and this is almost impossbile to thoroughly police - or the capitalists who will sell what anyone wants now, to make their money, irrespective of other "sensible" considerations.   Best Wishes, Paul   *********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********   On 25/02/03 at 12:59 Matthew Winn wrote:   >CUT   >> > I consider the message text to be more important than its >> > appearance and messages, for me at least, >> > are easier to read if they are uniformly formatted; >> > monospaced font, a nice text size and quotes in >> > different colours. > >CUT > >Because to judge by the sort of bloated and formatting-heavy HTML >messages most fans of HTML mail send, the senders clearly have no >knowledge about things like bandwidth or the fact that you can't >guarantee that the recipient of a message will see things exactly >as they were when sent. If someone spends two minutes writing a >message and ten minutes tarting it up they obviously don't know >much about mail. > >-- >Matthew Winn (matthew@sheridan.co.uk) >--     -------------------------   website; www.paulboizot.co.uk     --__--__--   Message: 17 To: opera-users@opera.com From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:55:20 +0100 Subject: [OU] Identify as Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Read on Opera forum :   > The most common cause of pages not working properly > is the fact that they are badly written; this is so > because they are blocking you either partly (by > filtering out code) or wholly (by saying "incompatible > browser") because you are running Opera. They do this > by scanning the "User-Agent" string that your browser > (Opera) supplies to the website. Regardless of your > "identify as" setting, this string always contains > the word "Opera".   Is this true ? I mean, I have been of a website blocking browsers other than IE and netscape, not because of their choice, but because the webmaster thought this website cannot be read using other browsers. I then identify myself as IE, and this site worked well with this setting...   So anyone can explain me how it works ?   Thanks :)   --__--__--   Message: 18 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:18:25 +0800 To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 From: Andrew Gregory Organization: Southern Cross Software Solutions Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 20:15:43 +1030, wrote:   > > On 25 Feb 2003 at 13:31, Andrew Gregory wrote: >> Only a tiny subset is needed:

                      , , , , , and (as a >> shorter alternative to

                      ) at least, maybe
                        ,
                          ,
                        1. as >> well. > > Why ? It has to be the most misused tag on the web.   Well, I started up Wordpad on my Windows computer and looked at the toolbar, then listed the tags related to what I saw. I would consider Wordpad to be a minimal feature 'word processor'.   can be misused, of course, but I don't consider that a huge problem. I've seen plenty of plain text emails where the poster has abused their Caps Lock key (i.e. left it on), but I wouldn't consider the precence of a Cap Lock key a problem. It's all in how it's used.   > I consider the message text to be more important than its appearance   The message text *is* what's important, but it is also nice to apply a little extra formatting too.   > Personally I have found that the people who do send HTML mail are the > exact same people I don't want to read HTML mail from. I have received > emails with dark grey text on black, white text on huge backgrounds, one > letter -- one colour. Most of them are easier to read in the raw markup > than when they are correctly rendered.   Fair enough, but doesn't let you specify a background colour, just the foreground colour, size and typeface.   > why is technical savvy tied to an aversion to html-ised messages?   People start off ignorant of computer systems and the goings-on behind the scenes. 'Tech savvy' people often understand how things work, and the costs of doing those things in different ways. So, if someone doesn't understand how HTML email composing actually works, in their ignorance they consider it a 'zero cost'. Once someone learns HTML, and how email works, they understand what happens when they send an HTML email (i.e. duplicate plain text/marked up versions, extra characters for various tags, etc). They have also often seen the crap that popular software packages like MS Word call 'HTML email'.   I consider myself a 'tech savvy' person. I am opposed to HTML email, but not to marked up email. I really wish somebody would come up with an RFC or something before *HTML* email really gets out of hand (if it hasn't already). -- Andrew Gregory, Web:   --__--__--   Message: 19 To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:43:15 +0100 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Le Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:18:25 +0800, Andrew Gregory andrew-at- scsoftware.com.au |Opera Mailing List| a écrit:   >> Personally I have found that the people who do send HTML mail are the >> exact same people I don't want to read HTML mail from. I have received >> emails with dark grey text on black, white text on huge backgrounds, one >> letter -- one colour. Most of them are easier to read in the raw markup >> than when they are correctly rendered. > > Fair enough, but doesn't let you specify a background colour, just > the foreground colour, size and typeface. > Sure, but what about someone writing a text with a yellow font ? Unreadable with a white background. Even worse, what about white font with a white background ? :)   >> why is technical savvy tied to an aversion to html-ised messages? > > People start off ignorant of computer systems and the goings-on behind > the scenes. 'Tech savvy' people often understand how things work, and the > costs of doing those things in different ways. So, if someone doesn't > understand how HTML email composing actually works, in their ignorance > they consider it a 'zero cost'. Once someone learns HTML, and how email > works, they understand what happens when they send an HTML email (i.e. > duplicate plain text/marked up versions, extra characters for various > tags, etc). They have also often seen the crap that popular software > packages like MS Word call 'HTML email'. > > I consider myself a 'tech savvy' person. I am opposed to HTML email, but > not to marked up email. I really wish somebody would come up with an RFC > or something before *HTML* email really gets out of hand (if it hasn't > already). > Zero cost depends on the situation. For example, a friend of mine sending html emails is a zero cost for me, as I have adsl, it is my home mail, I do not pay for bandwith, and I do not receive thousands of messages a day. I don't care if somebody sends me html emails, it costs me nothing.   Sure, now that I use M2, I receive html in plain text, but html or text costs the same money for me... zero cost.   Now I understand some people prefer text email, I understand when you receive thousands of emails a day it can be an issue... But I'm sure even if you receive thousands of emails a day, only a few of them are html, isnt it ?   Thanks :)   --__--__--   Message: 20 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:43:28 +0800 To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 From: Andrew Gregory Organization: Southern Cross Software Solutions Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:51:24 +0100, Axel Siebert wrote:   > I know a lot of text-mode clients, and all of them are able to scroll > left/right. I have yet to see a client which simply dismisses everything > longer than 78 characters.   I will admit I don't use text-mode clients at all, and therefore cannot point the finger at an implementation that actually lost information, but I don't consider it impossible for someone to be that silly :-) Just when you think you've seen the most stupid things, somebody else comes along....   >> If you feel the same about email, and that everybody should be able to >> read your emails, you should be supporting the 78 character limit too. > > I do, very much so! I am an ardent follower of correct line wrapping, > that's why I even do it manually to make sure it's perfect. Generally > being a perfectionist, I was just bitching about your wording that it's > "impossible". > Surely lines longer than 78 characters must be avoided at all costs, by > citing the RFC I just wanted to stress that there is no *technical* > limitation which would make it truly impossible. It was really all about > the > word "impossible". Sorry if I created a misunderstanding there.   That's OK.   > Where did you get the impression that I didn't want limited line length? > I just said that it must be done better than M2 currently does.   Where you talked about a 1000 character/line limit - which is way beyond any screen I've seen and hence effectively an 'unlimited' line length.   > That's precisely why I want to see *while composing* where the mail > client will break the lines, as I can in M1.   Now, this would be useful, but only if it could be toggled on/off during composition.   > Yes, no algorithm is perfect. However, an attempt must be made so select > the best one, the one whose result is acceptable in most of the cases. > All I'm saying is that the current comb-quoting-introducing algorithm > certainly not the best. I'm not saying the converting-to-format-flowed- > by- > paragraph-concatenation-and-inserting-new-CRLFSPACEs-for-text-mode- > clients > algorithm makes no mistakes, but I have tested it on 6500 messages I > received > over the last year, and the number of messages where a concatenation took > place which really looked bad was exactly 2. The number of messages where > M2 would introduce horrible comb quoting was about 2300. So I guess it > would be > a very significant improvement.   These are very interesting statistics - and a very good argument for your algorithm over what currently happens.   -- Andrew Gregory, Web:   --__--__--   Message: 21 To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:31:51 +0100 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Le Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:43:28 +0800, Andrew Gregory andrew-at- scsoftware.com.au |Opera Mailing List| a écrit:   > On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:51:24 +0100, Axel Siebert > wrote: > >> I know a lot of text-mode clients, and all of them are able to scroll >> left/right. I have yet to see a client which simply dismisses everything >> longer than 78 characters. > > I will admit I don't use text-mode clients at all, and therefore cannot > point the finger at an implementation that actually lost information, but > I don't consider it impossible for someone to be that silly :-) Just when > you think you've seen the most stupid things, somebody else comes > along.... > My father is using a text mode client... And he is not silly hehe :) He cannot do anything else. He's working in a university, as a math teacher, and they are using unix (or linux) systems. He hasnt a computer but a workstation, and the only client he can use is a unix, text client.   I hate text client :) It seems when we are talking about GUI, it seems linux users hate them... perhaps using text mode software make them more elitist :)   --__--__--   Message: 22 From: "Josef W. Segur" To: opera-users@opera.com Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:38:43 -0500 Subject: Re: [OU] Identify as Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   On 25 Feb 03, at 14:55, Melwyn wrote:   > Read on Opera forum : > > > The most common cause of pages not working properly > > is the fact that they are badly written; this is so > > because they are blocking you either partly (by > > filtering out code) or wholly (by saying "incompatible > > browser") because you are running Opera. They do this > > by scanning the "User-Agent" string that your browser > > (Opera) supplies to the website. Regardless of your > > "identify as" setting, this string always contains > > the word "Opera". > > Is this true ? I mean, I have been of a website blocking browsers other > than IE and netscape, not because of their choice, but because the > webmaster thought this website cannot be read using other browsers. I then > identify myself as IE, and this site worked well with this setting... > > So anyone can explain me how it works ?   shows how the Useragent strings are formatted.   The User-Agent header is sent with every URL request, so the server can decide what to return based on that.   The other technique site authors often use is to 'sniff' the browser using JavaScript. The useragent string can be checked from the script, or some other navigator object data. Opera changes the navigator.appName and navigator.appVersion data depending on which ID is chosen. is one example of a good sniffer. You can see what data Opera supplies for each ID by reloading.   -- Joe   --__--__--   Message: 23 From: "Frank Owen" To: Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 08:51:56 -0700 Subject: [OU] Java Script Menu is Acting up in Opera Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   This is a multi-part message in MIME format.   ------=_NextPart_000_008E_01C2DCAB.269FA430 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable   I have a Java Script menu that pulls in and out via a MouseOver. I also = have the links set to change colors on MouseOver. In IE, the script = works great. In opera, it will pull the menu out, and push it back in = fine as long as I do not use the "MouseOver" for the links. I have put = a example on my website.   http://www.wosnetworks.com/opera/maino.htm   Thank you for your help!!   Frank ------=_NextPart_000_008E_01C2DCAB.269FA430 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable  
                          I have a Java Script menu that pulls in = and out via=20 a MouseOver.  I also have the links set to change colors on=20 MouseOver.  In IE, the script works great.  In opera, it will = pull the=20 menu out, and push it back in fine as long as I do not use the = "MouseOver" for=20 the links.  I have put a example on my website.
                           
                          http://www.wosnetwork= s.com/opera/maino.htm
                           
                          Thank you for your help!!
                           
                          Frank
                            ------=_NextPart_000_008E_01C2DCAB.269FA430--     --__--__--   Message: 24 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:53:05 -0500 From: Patrick Shanahan To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   * Melwyn Da'alimar [02-25-03 10:34]: ... chop ... chop .... > My father is using a text mode client... And he is not silly hehe :) He > cannot do anything else. He's working in a university, as a math teacher, > and they are using unix (or linux) systems. He hasnt a computer but a > workstation, and the only client he can use is a unix, text client. > > I hate text client :) It seems when we are talking about GUI, it seems > linux users hate them... perhaps using text mode software make them more > elitist :)   You are searching. Most (of the elder) also dislike the mouse. The cli allows exacting control and a speed that you wouldn't believe. But, knowledge is also necessary.   You find the same with the elder x86 users, also. Dos allowed control and speed. Many things are still *much_better* accomplished from the dos cli than from winedohs. -- Patrick Shanahan Please avoid TOFU and trim >quotes< http://wahoo.no-ip.org Registered Linux User #207535 icq#173753138 @ http://counter.li.org   --__--__--   Message: 25 To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Identify as From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 17:02:52 +0100 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Le Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:38:43 -0500, Josef W. Segur jsegur-at-westelcom.com |Opera Mailing List| a écrit:   > The other technique site authors often use is to 'sniff' the browser > using JavaScript. The useragent string can be checked from the script, > or some other navigator object data. Opera changes the navigator.appName > and navigator.appVersion data depending on which ID > is chosen. > is one example of a good sniffer. You can see what data Opera supplies > for each ID by reloading. > Oh so it means that if the website is only checking navigator.appname, it will work if the site is designed for IE and we are identifying as IE, but that the web site can go further, and know what browser we are "really" using ? :)   --__--__--   Message: 26 To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 17:07:40 +0100 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Le Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:53:05 -0500, Patrick Shanahan paka-at-myrealbox.com |Opera Mailing List| a écrit:   > * Melwyn Da'alimar [02-25-03 10:34]: > ... chop ... chop .... >> My father is using a text mode client... And he is not silly hehe :) He >> cannot do anything else. He's working in a university, as a math >> teacher, and they are using unix (or linux) systems. He hasnt a computer >> but a workstation, and the only client he can use is a unix, text >> client. >> >> I hate text client :) It seems when we are talking about GUI, it seems >> linux users hate them... perhaps using text mode software make them more >> elitist :) > > You are searching. Most (of the elder) also dislike the mouse. The > cli allows exacting control and a speed that you wouldn't believe. But, > knowledge is also necessary. > > You find the same with the elder x86 users, also. Dos allowed control > and speed. Many things are still *much_better* accomplished from the > dos cli than from winedohs. > Perhaps, but I hate to have to memorize hundreds of hotkeys :) In Opera I remember the 'K' to mark as read, and I do all other actions with the mouse. A friend of mine has hundred of hotkeys and can handle them, I simply cannot. You can be sure that with a text client I will often hit F1 to read what hotkey to use. My father doesn't do this because he hates the mouse, but just because the technician setup the unix system like that, and he cannot change this. There is also a note saying it is forbidden to install third party softwares :)   --__--__--   Message: 27 To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Java Script Menu is Acting up in Opera From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 17:10:08 +0100 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Le Tue, 25 Feb 2003 08:51:56 -0700, Frank Owen franko-at-utsonline.net |Opera Mailing List| a écrit:   > I have a Java Script menu that pulls in and out via a MouseOver. I also > have the links set to change colors on MouseOver. In IE, the script > works great. In opera, it will pull the menu out, and push it back in > fine as long as I do not use the "MouseOver" for the links. I have put a > example on my website. > > http://www.wosnetworks.com/opera/maino.htm > > Thank you for your help!! > > Frank > I have no menu at all in the webpage you gave as an example... I'm using Opera 7.   --__--__--   Message: 28 From: "Frank Owen" To: Subject: RE: [OU] Java Script Menu is Acting up in Opera Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:19:51 -0700 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   This is a multi-part message in MIME format.   ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C2DCAF.0CD30A20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable   The menu is located on the left hand side. It pulls out when you move = over the blue shaded box next to the edge of the browser window. I will = download opera 7 and see if it is there. Thanks!       --Frank   -----Original Message-----   From: opera-users-admin@opera.com [mailto:opera-users-admin@opera.com]On   Behalf Of Melwyn Da'alimar   Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 9:10 AM   To: opera-users@opera.com   Subject: Re: [OU] Java Script Menu is Acting up in Opera       Le Tue, 25 Feb 2003 08:51:56 -0700, Frank Owen franko-at-utsonline.net=20   |Opera Mailing List| a =E9crit:   > I have a Java Script menu that pulls in and out via a MouseOver. I = also=20       > have the links set to change colors on MouseOver. In IE, the script=20   > works great. In opera, it will pull the menu out, and push it back in=20   > fine as long as I do not use the "MouseOver" for the links. I have put = a=20   > example on my website.   >   > http://www.wosnetworks.com/opera/maino.htm   >   > Thank you for your help!!   >   > Frank   >   I have no menu at all in the webpage you gave as an example... I'm using =     Opera 7.   --=20   Opera-users: http://list.opera.com/mailman/listinfo/opera-users   More lists: http://list.opera.com/mailman/listinfo/   Unsubscribe: mailto:opera-users-request@opera.com?subject=3Dunsubscribe   ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C2DCAF.0CD30A20 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable  

                          The menu is located on the left hand side.  It pulls out when = you move=20 over the blue shaded box next to the edge of the browser window.  I = will=20 download opera 7 and see if it is there.  Thanks!

                           

                          --Frank

                          -----Original Message-----

                          From: opera-users-admin@opera.com = [mailto:opera-users-admin@opera.com]On

                          Behalf Of Melwyn Da'alimar

                          Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 9:10 AM

                          To: opera-users@opera.com

                          Subject: Re: [OU] Java Script Menu is Acting up in Opera

                           

                          Le Tue, 25 Feb 2003 08:51:56 -0700, Frank Owen = franko-at-utsonline.net

                          |Opera Mailing List| <bof2hatpew0t@sneakemail.com> a = =E9crit:

                          > I have a Java Script menu that pulls in and out via a MouseOver. = I also=20

                           

                          > have the links set to change colors on MouseOver. In IE, the = script

                          > works great. In opera, it will pull the menu out, and push it = back in=20

                          > fine as long as I do not use the "MouseOver" for the links. I = have put a=20

                          > example on my website.

                          >

                          > http://www.wosnetworks.com/opera/maino.htm

                          >

                          > Thank you for your help!!

                          >

                          > Frank

                          >

                          I have no menu at all in the webpage you gave as an example... I'm = using

                          Opera 7.

                          --

                          Opera-users: http://list.opera.com/mailman/listinfo/opera-users

                          More lists: http://list.opera.com/mailman/listinfo/

                          Unsubscribe:=20 mailto:opera-users-request@opera.com?subject=3Dunsubscribe

                            ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C2DCAF.0CD30A20--     --__--__--   Message: 29 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 11:34:59 -0500 To: "opera-users@opera.com" From: Sue Sims Subject: [OU] FAQ: query Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Part of my new job description is to develop a series of FAQs for the Opera newsgroups and mailing lists, so...I'm starting with you :-)   There are a few ways to approach the issue of FAQs, and I've chosen to leave it up to the members how to develop the FAQs. I expect to include some administrivia (like detailed instructions on how to unsubscribe, since some list members don't understand that all it takes is to click on the link included in each and every mailing to the list). Other than administrivia, what specific questions would you like to include? Please include the *answers*, as well. I expect to use the eventual FAQ as proof of concept in developing the other FAQs for the newsgroups. You will receive credit in the FAQ for your answers (unless you request anonymity).   All discussion should take place on the list, preferably in a thread which includes FAQ in the subject. Why, you ask? Because I'm most interested in this being a community effort, and the only way to do that is to open the process up to the *community*. Those not interested in participating should be able to filter out all messages which contain FAQ in the subject.   Thanks for your help.   Sue     --__--__--   Message: 30 From: "Tom Knight" To: Subject: RE: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 17:07:03 -0000 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com         > > Especially since it's part of a proposed standard (rfc 2557): > > ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc2557.txt > > RFC2557 isn't about mail formatting. It's about > encapsulating aggregate > documents which consist of a root document and linked resources. In a > web environment client software can use URLs to fetch linked resources > but that's not possible when the whole lot is encapsulated in a single > file or transaction, and it's that situation which RFC2557 addresses.     I'm afraid this does extend to use of html mail. Looking at section 9, "Examples" shows this:   9.1 Example of a HTML body without included linked objects   The first example is the simplest form of an HTML email message. This message does not contain an aggregate HTML object, but simply a message with a single HTML body part. This body part contains a URI but the messages does not contain the resource referenced by that URI. To retrieve the resource referenced by the URI the receiving client would need either IP access to the Internet, or an electronic mail web gateway.   From: foo1@bar.net To: foo2@bar.net Subject: A simple example Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit  

                          Acute accent

                          The following two lines look have the same screen rendering:

                          E with acute accent becomes É.
                          E with acute accent becomes É.

                          Try clicking here.

                            Horrid but true.   It's interesting to note section 11 "Security Considerations". where it mentions some of the faults people (rightly) find with html mail, including:   11.1 Security considerations not related to caching   It is possible for a message sender to misrepresent the source of a multipart/related body part to a message recipient by labeling it with a Content-Location URI that references another resource. Therefore, message recipients should only interpret Content-Location URIs as labeling a body part for the resolution of references from body parts in the same multipart/related message structure, and not as the source of a resource, unless this can be verified by other means.   URIs, especially File URIs, if used without change in a message, may inadvertently reveal information that was not intended to be revealed outside a particular security context. Message senders should take care when constructing messages containing the new header fields, defined in this standard, that they are not revealing information outside of any security contexts to which they belong.   Some resource servers hide passwords and tickets (access tokens to information which should not be reveled to others) and other sensitive information in non-visible fields or URIs within a text/html resource. If such a text/html resource is forwarded in an email message, this sensitive information may be inadvertently revealed to others.   Since HTML documents can either directly contain executable content (i.e., JavaScript) or indirectly reference executable content (The "INSERT" specification, Java). It is exceedingly dangerous for a receiving User Agent to execute content received in a mail message without careful attention to restrictions on the capabilities of that executable content.   HTML-formatted messages can be used to investigate user behaviour, for example to break anonymity, in ways which invade the privacy of individuals. If you send a message with a inline link to an object which is not itself included in the message, the recipients mailer or browser may request that object through HTTP. The HTTP transaction will then reveal who is reading the message. Example: A person who wants to find out who is behind an anonymous user identity, or from which workstation a user is reading his mail, can do this by sending a message with an inline link and then observe from where this link is used to request the object.     --__--__--   Message: 31 To: opera-users@opera.com From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:41:22 +0100 Subject: [OU] Browse mails Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Hi,   is it possible to tell Opera to browse all our mails to add people in our active contact list, and to remove people from this list who are not used anymore ?   Thanks   --__--__--   Message: 32 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:51:27 +0100 From: Andre Wichartz To: Andrew Gregory Subject: Re[2]: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Hello Andrew,   On Tuesday, February 25, 2003, 22:18:25 +0800 GMT (which was 15:18 local time), Andrew Gregory wrote:   AG> On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 20:15:43 +1030, wrote:   >> Why ? It has to be the most misused tag on the web.   AG> Well, I started up Wordpad on my Windows computer and looked at the AG> toolbar, then listed the tags related to what I saw. I would consider AG> Wordpad to be a minimal feature 'word processor'.   But not everything that is possible with wordpad is suitable for email. The nice thing about plain text is that I can decide in which way my emails are presented. I decide which font of which size and which foreground and background colours are used. The bad thing about html mail (besides the bandwith issues) is that it takes this freedom away from me. I am forced to look at a message in the layout the sender liked the most. Well, maybe I don't like it at all. Or even worse: Maybe my eyes are not as good and I therefore prefer a larger font. But now I am forced to look at that small font I can barely read.   AG> can be misused, of course, but I don't consider that a huge problem. AG> I've seen plenty of plain text emails where the poster has abused their AG> Caps Lock key (i.e. left it on), but I wouldn't consider the precence of a AG> Cap Lock key a problem. It's all in how it's used.   Yes. But I just don't see a good use for . I have a reason why I want to view mails in my favourite font. Why should the sender force a different one upon me? I can understand that sometime it's desireable to make a word bold or underlined to emphasize it. But is not needed here.     -- Cheers, Andre   "1. If it's green or it wiggles, it's biology. 2. If it stinks, it's chemistry. 3. If it doesn't work, it's physics."       --__--__--   Message: 33 To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Identify as From: jonathan murphy Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:19:05 -0000 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:55:20 +0100, Melwyn Da'alimar wrote:   > Read on Opera forum : >> Regardless of your >> "identify as" setting, this string always contains >> the word "Opera". > > Is this true ?   Yes, that last statement is true.   I mean, I have been of a website blocking browsers other > than IE and netscape, not because of their choice, but because the > webmaster thought this website cannot be read using other browsers. > I then identify myself as IE, and this site worked well with this > setting...   If you set to ID as IE, Opera sends the IE user agent string followeed by the word Opera. Most sites which have casual browser detection just look for "MSIE" or "Netscape" and setting the ID is sufficient to get round them. The presence of the word Opera allows web authors who do actually know what they're doing to realise that you aren't really IE and present you with a page tuned for Opera by looking at the user agent string in more detail. The majority of sites don't do this.   -- Jonathan Murphy   --__--__--   Message: 34 To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Java Script Menu is Acting up in Opera From: jonathan murphy Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:30:47 -0000 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:19:51 -0700, Frank Owen wrote:   > The menu is located on the left hand side. It pulls out when you move > over the blue shaded box next to the edge of the browser window. I will > download opera 7 and see if it is there. Thanks! >   if (document.all) document.write(the menu is in here.............. (not sure why this needs to be written in JS?)   This adds up to "if the user has MSIE, write the menu! document.all is MS proprietary, not part of JavaScript. The menu will not appear in anything other than IE. Later on there's some document.layers stuff (Netscape 4 only). You need to read a more recent JavaScript tutorial, perhaps.   -- Jonathan Murphy   --__--__--   Message: 35 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:24:17 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) From: Alan G Isaac To: opera-users@opera.com organization: American University Subject: [OU] Re: Email formatting problem with M2 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   > On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 22:32:56 -0500, Patrick Shanahan > wrote: >> Email is *plain* ascii text, not 'marked-up' by html, >> css, or any other method.   On Tue, Andrew Gregory wrote: > I mostly agree with this, but I also recognise that the > computing world largely left text-only systems behind > about ten years ago. Email is probably the most-used form > of communication on the Internet and I think it is past > time *someone* brought it into the graphical present. Note > that I would strongly oppose anything that would prevent > text-only people from reading or otherwise using email. I > think the existing method of attaching a marked-up email > to a plain text version is the best way of doing this. > However, I don't think *HTML* is the way to go. It's too > big and complicated. Only a tiny subset is needed:

                          , > , , , , and (as a shorter alternative > to

                          ) at least, maybe
                            ,
                              ,
                            1. as well. > Ignoring , such a marked-up message would be easily > readable, even if a plain-text alternate version were not > available.   Ignoring that the proposal is in part to implement deprecated HTML, it seems that

                              = eol, eol text = *text* text = _text_ text = "text" and less reliably text = TEXT   IMHO we need a damn good reason to abandon this. If you just want to change the display of the marked up text, pick an email client that supports "Trivial Markup" (e.g., Mahogany).   > Nevertheless, the only way is forward, and email *must* > change.   I really do not see why. Unless you mean that it inevitably will change, which is probably true.   > It would be better if someone came up with an RFC > for simple markup, otherwise (if it isn't already too > late) MS and their HTML monsters will dictate what emails > of the future will be.   To find out, look at your spam. But your point is well taken.   Cheers, Alan Isaac         --__--__--   Message: 36 From: Axel Siebert To: opera-users@opera.com Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:34:45 +0100 Subject: Re: [OU] Re: Email formatting problem with M2 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   25.02.03 21:24:17, Alan G Isaac wrote:   > Ignoring that the proposal is in part to implement > deprecated HTML, it seems that >

                              = eol, eol > text = *text* > text = _text_ > text = "text" > and less reliably > text = TEXT > > IMHO we need a damn good reason to abandon this.   So true, just a little correction: The usual practice, at least on Usenet, is   text = /text/ text = *text* text = TEXT   Axel   --__--__--   Message: 37 From: Axel Siebert To: opera-users@opera.com Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:33:37 +0100 Subject: Re: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   25.02.03 15:43:15, "Melwyn Da'alimar" wrote:   >For example, a friend of mine sending html emails is a zero cost for me, as >I have adsl, it is my home mail, I do not pay for bandwith   Oh, but you do!! You just don't notice it because you pay a fixed amount. But if everybody would use available bandwidth reasonably, all ISPs would need less powerful servers, less thick lines, less fat storage, so they could offer much cheaper flatrates. You are already paying for HTML mail, rest assured.   Axel   --__--__--   Message: 38 From: "Suryanto Hendrawan" To: Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 23:13:48 +0100 Subject: [OU] endlose Schleife Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Hi,   als ich die Seite http://www.wetter.de offnete, bekam ich eine endlose Schleife. Hat jemand auch dieses merkwuerdige Verhalten, oder liegt es nur in meinem Rechner. Ich benutze Opera 7.01 auf Windows XP Pro.   Schoenen Abend Suryanto Hendrawan     --__--__--   Message: 39 From: "Suryanto Hendrawan" To: Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 23:22:46 +0100 Subject: [OU] endless loop Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Hi again,   sorry for the last mail, have forgotten to write it in english. also, als i try to open http://www.wetter.de , i have received an endless loop. have anybody the same problem? any idea, how to solve it? I use opera 7.01 in Windows XP Pro.   Thanks Suryanto Hendrawan       --__--__--   Message: 40 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:08:50 -0800 From: Larry Washbrook Subject: Re: [OU] endless loop To: opera-users@opera.com Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   I'm using Opera 7.01 with Windows XP Pro and have no difficulty accessing the site. I don't know where your problem is.   On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 23:22:46 +0100, Suryanto Hendrawan wrote:   > Hi again, > > sorry for the last mail, have forgotten to write it in english. also, > als i try to open http://www.wetter.de , i have received an endless loop. > have anybody the same problem? any idea, how to solve it? > I use opera 7.01 in Windows XP Pro. > > Thanks > Suryanto Hendrawan > >       --     --__--__--   Message: 41 Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 00:19:11 +0100 From: Andre Wichartz To: Larry Washbrook Subject: Re[2]: [OU] endless loop Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Hello Larry,   On Wednesday, February 26, 2003, 15:08:50 -0800 GMT (which was 00:08 local time), Larry Washbrook wrote:   LW> On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 23:22:46 +0100, Suryanto Hendrawan LW> wrote:   >> sorry for the last mail, have forgotten to write it in english. also, >> als i try to open http://www.wetter.de , i have received an endless loop. >> have anybody the same problem? any idea, how to solve it? >> I use opera 7.01 in Windows XP Pro.   LW> I'm using Opera 7.01 with Windows XP Pro and have no difficulty LW> accessing the site. I don't know where your problem is.   It was the same for me. Normally I have Opera id as IE. So I loaded the page a second time, this time id-ing as Opera and there it is: a endless loop.   So your answer is to id as IE. Then the site works.     -- Cheers, Andre   "The government of the people, by the people, for t     --__--__--   Message: 42 From: Axel Siebert To: opera-users@opera.com Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 00:31:46 +0100 Subject: Re: Re[2]: [OU] endless loop Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   26.02.03 00:19:11, Andre Wichartz wrote:   >>> sorry for the last mail, have forgotten to write it in english. also, >>> als i try to open http://www.wetter.de , i have received an endless loop. >>> have anybody the same problem? any idea, how to solve it? >>> I use opera 7.01 in Windows XP Pro.   > It was the same for me. Normally I have Opera id as IE. So I loaded the > page a second time, this time id-ing as Opera and there it is: a endless > loop. > > So your answer is to id as IE. Then the site works.   No. The answer is to reload the page. If you visit it for the first time, it will work. If it is drawn from the cache on the next visit, it loops. The reason is some FUBAR JavaSpit designed to make sure you don't circumvent the frameset. Try hitting the stop/reload button a few times while it loops, eventually this will force a reload, which will finish loading.   Axel       --__--__--   Message: 43 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:07:03 -0800 To: opera-users@opera.com From: "Nicholas H. Kaps" Organization: Perspectives Subject: [OU] email problem Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   I recently am having a problem with my email. Part of my email is not downloaded from my isp.   A box appears that says "Generic Error" Inside the box is the following statement.   "nkaps@garlic.com Opera tried to retrieve message 1(UIDL CL%#!odC"!e#:!!6&H"!) from the POP3 server, but failed to store it on your machine."   Has anyone else had a similiar problem or any ideas as to what happened?? -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/   --__--__--   Message: 44 To: opera-users@opera.com, opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 From: Edward Organization: Retired Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:19:46 -0500 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   I am not sure what you all are talking about. But what I want is to just type a message and sent it. I am too old to fool with BS notations. I am not a programer and do not want to be. If what you are talking about does not require other than just typing the message. Disregard my comments. Edward     On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:31:22 +0800, Andrew Gregory wrote:   > In response to my previous message... > > On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 22:32:56 -0500, Patrick Shanahan > wrote: > >> Email is *plain* ascii text, not 'marked-up' by html, css, or any other >> method. > > I mostly agree with this, but I also recognise that the computing world > largely left text-only systems behind about ten years ago. Email is > probably the most-used form of communication on the Internet and I think > it is past time *someone* brought it into the graphical present. Note > that I would strongly oppose anything that would prevent text-only people > from reading or otherwise using email. I think the existing method of > attaching a marked-up email to a plain text version is the best way of > doing this. However, I don't think *HTML* is the way to go. It's too big > and complicated. Only a tiny subset is needed:

                              , , , , > , and (as a shorter alternative to

                              ) at least, > maybe
                                ,
                                  ,
                                1. as well. Ignoring , such a marked-up message > would be easily readable, even if a plain-text alternate version were not > available. > >> Unformatted things are only ugly if your email-client is not capable of >> presenting them properly. > > My points were that plain text only messages make this difficult, if not > impossible. Too much formatting information is lost in the conversion to > plain text. > >> To follow your line of reasoning (which I partially agree), nothing but >> plain ascii text email should exist. I use a text-mode client which, >> of itself, is only capable of presenting plain ascii text. > > No, email should *always* be accessible to people no matter the > capabilities of their client, but I think it is wrong for the now tiny > minority of people who can *only* handle plain text to hold back the vast > majority of people using graphical system from being able to add a little > formatting (bold, underline, italic, colour, fonts) to their messages. > >> I do reformat quoted text to <72 chars, trim quotes and do not TOFU as >> a courtesy to the reader. This was at one time the norm for the >> internet community, but since the proliferation of internet >> participants (just after the inception of aol), courtesy and adherance >> to 'norms' has sadly become a *laugh*. > > I had to look up what TOFU meant, and I agree (although I haven't > religously followed those guidelines). It is true that now that a much > higher proportion of the population are on the 'net, the average > capability/courtesy has dropped accordingly. A sad reflection on the > society we live in. When I was at uni for several years, my only 'net > access was via a 19200 baud VT102 terminal emulator, so I know what it > was like and what we have to remain compatible with. > > Nevertheless, the only way is forward, and email *must* change. It would > be better if someone came up with an RFC for simple markup, otherwise (if > it isn't already too late) MS and their HTML monsters will dictate what > emails of the future will be.       -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/     --__--__--   Message: 45 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:53:49 -0500 To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] email problem From: Edward Organization: Retired Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Yes I had the same pop up error message. I reloaded Opera7.1 and it went away for awhile. Now it is back. I asked about this on a forum but noone knew what to do. I do not know what this message is telling me other than Opera is having a problem. With what? Edward   On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:07:03 -0800, Nicholas H. Kaps wrote:   > I recently am having a problem with my email. Part of my email is not > downloaded from my isp. > > A box appears that says "Generic Error" > Inside the box is the following statement. > > "nkaps@garlic.com > Opera tried to retrieve message 1(UIDL CL%#!odC"!e#:!!6&H"!) from the > POP3 server, but failed to store it on your machine." > > Has anyone else had a similiar problem or any ideas as to what happened??       -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/       --__--__--   -- Opera-users mailing list Opera-users@opera.com http://list.opera.com/mailman/listinfo/opera-users     End of Opera-users DigestSend Opera-users mailing list submissions to opera-users@opera.com   To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://list.opera.com/mailman/listinfo/opera-users or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to opera-users-request@opera.com   You can reach the person managing the list at opera-users-admin@opera.com   When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Opera-users digest..."     Today's Topics:   1. Re: Opera7 crushes down! (Axel Siebert) 2. Problems in receiving HTML emails (Melwyn Da'alimar) 3. Re: V7 problem that did not happen with V6.05 (Allan Smith) 4. Help 2 questions: Thanks, victory (hester reik) 5. Re: Problems in receiving HTML emails (Axel Siebert) 6. Mailto (Melwyn Da'alimar) 7. RE: Email formatting problem with M2 (Fred Bone) 8. Re: Problems in receiving HTML emails (Melwyn Da'alimar) 9. Strange behaviour in attachments (Melwyn Da'alimar) 10. Viewing attachments (Melwyn Da'alimar) 11. Re: Strange behaviour in attachments (Axel Siebert) 12. Re: Email formatting problem with M2 (Matthew Winn) 13. Re: Strange behaviour in attachments (Melwyn Da'alimar) 14. Spam in mailing lists ? (Melwyn Da'alimar) 15. Re: Strange behaviour in attachments (Axel Siebert) 16. Re: Email formatting problem with M2 (Paul Boizot) 17. Identify as (Melwyn Da'alimar) 18. Re: Email formatting problem with M2 (Andrew Gregory) 19. Re: Email formatting problem with M2 (Melwyn Da'alimar) 20. Re: Email formatting problem with M2 (Andrew Gregory) 21. Re: Email formatting problem with M2 (Melwyn Da'alimar) 22. Re: Identify as (Josef W. Segur) 23. Java Script Menu is Acting up in Opera (Frank Owen) 24. Re: Email formatting problem with M2 (Patrick Shanahan) 25. Re: Identify as (Melwyn Da'alimar) 26. Re: Email formatting problem with M2 (Melwyn Da'alimar) 27. Re: Java Script Menu is Acting up in Opera (Melwyn Da'alimar) 28. RE: Java Script Menu is Acting up in Opera (Frank Owen) 29. FAQ: query (Sue Sims) 30. RE: Email formatting problem with M2 (Tom Knight) 31. Browse mails (Melwyn Da'alimar) 32. Re[2]: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 (Andre Wichartz) 33. Re: Identify as (jonathan murphy) 34. Re: Java Script Menu is Acting up in Opera (jonathan murphy) 35. Re: Email formatting problem with M2 (Alan G Isaac) 36. Re: Re: Email formatting problem with M2 (Axel Siebert) 37. Re: Email formatting problem with M2 (Axel Siebert) 38. endlose Schleife (Suryanto Hendrawan) 39. endless loop (Suryanto Hendrawan) 40. Re: endless loop (Larry Washbrook) 41. Re[2]: [OU] endless loop (Andre Wichartz) 42. Re: Re[2]: [OU] endless loop (Axel Siebert) 43. email problem (Nicholas H. Kaps) 44. Re: Email formatting problem with M2 (Edward) 45. Re: email problem (Edward)   --__--__--   Message: 1 From: Axel Siebert To: opera-users@opera.com Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:04:46 +0100 Subject: Re: [OU] Opera7 crushes down! Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   24.02.03 11:52:16, Sir Jinx! wrote:   > But, today when I wanted to start it Opera crushes!!!!   Well, I suppose it crAshes. The executables are already compressed, so I don't think they could be crushed any further. SCNR :)   > "OPERA caused an invalid page fault in > module XMLPARSE.DLL at 0167:67e990f2..."   In such cases, we need a crash log, see: http://list.opera.com/pipermail/opera-users/2003-January/016619.html   Axel         --__--__--   Message: 2 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:06:16 +0100 To: opera-users@opera.com From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Subject: [OU] Problems in receiving HTML emails Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Hi,   I do not want to read emails in html. Is it true that preferred body mode set to 2 tells Opera to display mails in text, even if there is only an html version available ?   Moreover, when someone send me an html email with pictures included *in the body* of the message, I am unable to access those pictures. When I have set preffered body mode to 0, I had an error message saying something like : Warning, error while decoding the message. With preferred body mode to 1 I can see the mail in html without problem, and with preferred body mode set to 2 I have no error message but cannot access the pictures.   What I mean is that pictures appear in attachment access point, in the column, but not as attachment in the body of the message. Only way for me to view those pictures is to copy mail as raw text, then open a text editor, paste the text, save the message as a .eml file and read it with Outlook Express. Not very convenient...   Perhaps a way to directly right click on message then choose "save as .eml", or the html message beeing an attachment of the text one would be helpful.   Thanks :)   --__--__--   Message: 3 From: Allan Smith To: opera-users@opera.com Cc: Axel Siebert , freexone Subject: Re: [OU] V7 problem that did not happen with V6.05 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 11:20:24 +0000 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:38:37 +0100, Axel Siebert wrote:   > 24.02.03 21:24:26, Allan Smith wrote: >   >> I find that if I open Opera (7.01) by double clicking on an attachment to an >> e-mail in Agent (1.93) which I currently use e-mail a new copy of opera is >> opened (even if an existing copy is already open). This did not happen with >> v6.05 of Opera. >   > I don't know Agent, so this question might be dumb, but: Is it really > necessary to double-click, and there's no possibility that this might be > interpreted as opening twice?   Axel,   The double start was not something I thought of but as it turns out it does not appear to be the problem. Single click selects the attachment (shown in Agent in a box) and a double click launches it. Attachments may also be launched with from a right click menu on the attachment.   What appears to be the problem is the "current directory" (possibly a synonym for the "'start in directory' as modified since the application was launched") where Opera is running from. The existing open copy of v7.01 is used ONLY if the "current directory" is the same as Agent's own data directory. This deos not appear to be the case with v6.05. The parent process is not a factor, the presence or otherwide of a parameter to v7.01 is not a factor. The only thing I can find that affects it is the directory where v7.01 was started from.   How or why this is the case has me somewhat puzzled.   Regards, Allan Smith (Northwood, Middlesex, England)   --__--__--   Message: 4 To: opera From: hester reik Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 06:56:05 -0500 Subject: [OU] Help 2 questions: Thanks, victory Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Thank you, Jonathan for all your suggestions. I had most of the stuff checked that you suggested. And I already had things set to accept cookies. But the real victory is this...... I got the web technician at my investment account site I couldn't access to download and install Opera 7.01. He couldn't log into the site either :-) and is bumping the case up to the next person to see if they can configure their site in such a way that it is compatible with 7.01. (The interesting thing is.....it worked in 6.05, though I always had to log in 2x.) With the economy in the tank and things not looking good for the future (long or short term) perhaps they were scared of losing a client :-). (not likely). Sorry for the editorializing. hester   Perhaps your cookie settings? Are you set to accept all cookies? I'm just guessing.   Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/     --__--__--   Message: 5 From: Axel Siebert To: opera-users@opera.com Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:44:51 +0100 Subject: Re: [OU] Problems in receiving HTML emails Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   25.02.03 12:06:16, "Melwyn Da'alimar" wrote:   > Is it true that preferred body mode set to 2 tells Opera to display mails > in text, even if there is only an html version available ?   Mode 2 is planned to do that, but it's not yet implemented. For now, modes 2 and 0 are identical.   > Moreover, when someone send me an html email with pictures included *in the > body* of the message, I am unable to access those pictures. When I have set > preffered body mode to 0, I had an error message saying something like : > Warning, error while decoding the message. With preferred body mode to 1 I > can see the mail in html without problem, and with preferred body mode set > to 2 I have no error message but cannot access the pictures.   I suppose the pictures are declared as part of the HTML mail, so they are not identified as attachments. Could you upload the raw mail as a compressed text file so I can have a look at it?   Uploading instructions: http://list.opera.com/pipermail/opera-users/2003-January/016619.html   Axel       --__--__--   Message: 6 To: opera-users@opera.com From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:01:59 +0100 Subject: [OU] Mailto Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Hi,   Why when I click on a mailto link in an application (not in a web page, but in an about box of an application) it launches outlook express instead of Opera M2 ?   Isnt it possible to setup Opera as default email client ?   Thanks :)   --__--__--   Message: 7 From: "Fred Bone" To: opera-users@opera.com Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:11:10 -0000 Subject: RE: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   On 25 Feb 2003 at 10:12, Tom Knight wrote:   [...] [not sure who wrote the next bit as the name wasn't there] > > It says a lot about the people I talk to but leaves me with a > > question: why is technical savvy tied > > to an aversion to html-ised messages? >   > Especially since it's part of a proposed standard (rfc 2557): > ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc2557.txt   But rfc2557 is about the relationship between parts of a message. It doesn't say anything about flavours of HTML in message bodies, beyond setting out conventions for the links.     --__--__--   Message: 8 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:21:49 +0100 To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Problems in receiving HTML emails From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Le Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:44:51 +0100, Axel Siebert me-at-axelsiebert.de |Opera Mailing List| a écrit:   > 25.02.03 12:06:16, "Melwyn Da'alimar" wrote: >   >> Is it true that preferred body mode set to 2 tells Opera to display >> mails in text, even if there is only an html version available ? >   > Mode 2 is planned to do that, but it's not yet implemented. For now, > modes > 2 and 0 are identical. >   They are really identical ? Strange then that I have the warning message when it is set as 0, and not when it is set as 2 :)   >> Moreover, when someone send me an html email with pictures included *in >> the body* of the message, I am unable to access those pictures. When I >> have set preffered body mode to 0, I had an error message saying >> something like : Warning, error while decoding the message. With >> preferred body mode to 1 I can see the mail in html without problem, and >> with preferred body mode set to 2 I have no error message but cannot >> access the pictures. >   > I suppose the pictures are declared as part of the HTML mail, so they are > not identified as attachments. Could you upload the raw mail as a > compressed text file so I can have a look at it? >   > Uploading instructions: > http://list.opera.com/pipermail/opera-users/2003-January/016619.html >   > Axel >   I am doing it with a test email I am writing to myself with outlook express, for privacy reasons... The name of archive is melwynmail2.zip. You can delete melwyn.zip and melwynmail.zip, as those are errors in transmission. I have used IE to FTP, as the command line doesnt seem to work...   Oh, there's no way to drag'n drop to opera to upload a file, as it is possible with IE ? Too bad :)   Thanks :)   --__--__--   Message: 9 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:36:59 +0100 To: opera-users@opera.com From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Subject: [OU] Strange behaviour in attachments Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Hi,   This question is about access point, attachment access point. There are documents, images, music, video, archives.   First, is it possible to add more than that ?   Second, I had a message with a .zip file attached, which appear in Documents access point and not archives one. How is this possible ?   Thanks :)   --__--__--   Message: 10 To: opera-users@opera.com From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:41:33 +0100 Subject: [OU] Viewing attachments Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Hi,   is there a way to view attachments of emails without Opera downloading them on hard drive ? As does Outlook Express I guess, so I havent to put it on my hardrive then delete it if I don't like it.   Don't know what does OE, but when I have an attachment, I just open it. If I don't like it, I delete the mail and the attachment is gone. With Opera, it downloads it in my download folder, then I have to delete it from this download folder if I dislike it.   Thanks...   --__--__--   Message: 11 From: Axel Siebert To: opera-users@opera.com Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:48:18 +0100 Subject: Re: [OU] Strange behaviour in attachments Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   25.02.03 13:36:59, "Melwyn Da'alimar" wrote:   > Second, I had a message with a .zip file attached, which appear in > Documents access point and not archives one. How is this possible ?   Wrong Content-Type? Again, raw mail please.   Axel       --__--__--   Message: 12 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:59:25 +0000 From: Matthew Winn To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 10:12:43AM -0000, Tom Knight wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: opera-users-admin@opera.com > > Sent: 25 February 2003 09:46 > > On 25 Feb 2003 at 13:31, Andrew Gregory wrote: > > > However, I don't think *HTML* is the way to go. It's too big and > > > complicated. Only a tiny subset is needed:

                                  , , , > > > , , and > > > (as a shorter alternative to

                                  ) at least, > > > maybe
                                    ,
                                      , > > >
                                    1. as well. Ignoring , such a marked-up message > > > would be easily > > > readable, even if a plain-text alternate version were not available.   This has often been suggested and I'd support a limited set of XHTML elements. (If we're going to have formatting in a message we might at least make it XHTML so it's easy to parse.) The problems with HTML mail as it is right now are:   (a) Tools for creating HTML mail bloat the message far beyond reason in their attempts to make the message look _exactly_ as it appeared on the sender's screen. If the sender asks for a bold word they should get word, not an immense block of formatting which tries to preserve their choice of colours, font face and size, line width, margins, and everything else which is appropriate only to them.   (b) That bloat means it's necessary to send a plain-text copy of the message so it can be read by those without HTML-aware clients, further increasing the message size.   (c) There's no restriction on the elements used, so client software must contain a built-in web browser instead of a simple formatter.   (d) There's no restriction on the elements used, so there are security risks associated with scripting and linked images.   (e) Displaying of a formatted message is at the mercy of each client's understanding of HTML. All web browsers are buggy, and there's no reason to expect that email clients would do any better.   (f) There are many versions of HTML but no agreement on which one to use.   (g) The world is full of halfwits who think that everyone else wants a demonstration of the full range of effects permitted by HTML.   An agreed set of limited formatting elements would be great. It would remove the bloated attempts to set every single display attribute on every part of the message. It would eliminate the security issues. It would create a standard for formatting to which all clients could conform. And it would deprive idiots of the ability to send me a message in flashing 72pt text in the hope that I'll think it must be worth reading. The only difficult parts are agreeing a set of elements and persuading Microsoft to support that set without adding its own extensions.   The text/enriched format (RFC1896) is the right idea (but I'd prefer shorter element names). In particular, I consider the design criteria at the start of RFC1896 to be essential.   > > I consider the message text to be more important than its > > appearance and messages, for me at least, > > are easier to read if they are uniformly formatted; > > monospaced font, a nice text size and quotes in > > different colours.   I sometimes need to send messages with a small amount of formatting. Just a few minutes ago I sent a long technical message with several sections and it would have been useful to be able to highlight the title of each section so the reader could scan through the document more efficiently.   > > why is technical savvy tied > > to an aversion to html-ised messages?   Because to judge by the sort of bloated and formatting-heavy HTML messages most fans of HTML mail send, the senders clearly have no knowledge about things like bandwidth or the fact that you can't guarantee that the recipient of a message will see things exactly as they were when sent. If someone spends two minutes writing a message and ten minutes tarting it up they obviously don't know much about mail.   > Especially since it's part of a proposed standard (rfc 2557): > ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc2557.txt   RFC2557 isn't about mail formatting. It's about encapsulating aggregate documents which consist of a root document and linked resources. In a web environment client software can use URLs to fetch linked resources but that's not possible when the whole lot is encapsulated in a single file or transaction, and it's that situation which RFC2557 addresses.   It's an ideal format to use when a browser is saving a web page and all its associated images. Isn't this what IE uses?   -- Matthew Winn (matthew@sheridan.co.uk)   --__--__--   Message: 13 To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Strange behaviour in attachments From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:11:24 +0100 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Le Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:48:18 +0100, Axel Siebert me-at-axelsiebert.de |Opera Mailing List| a écrit:   > 25.02.03 13:36:59, "Melwyn Da'alimar" wrote: > >> Second, I had a message with a .zip file attached, which appear in >> Documents access point and not archives one. How is this possible ? > > Wrong Content-Type? > Again, raw mail please. > > Axel > > Sorry, I cannot, as I havent kept this message. So the attachment access point do not use only file extension, but scan the file ?   --__--__--   Message: 14 To: opera-users@opera.com From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:13:17 +0100 Subject: [OU] Spam in mailing lists ? Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Hi,   Is there a risk the email address we use in a mailing list beeing used as spam ?   And about spam, as we cannot trust Opera Spam system, how can we remove spam from my messages, and spam management ?   Thanks :)   --__--__--   Message: 15 From: Axel Siebert To: opera-users@opera.com Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:23:19 +0100 Subject: Re: [OU] Strange behaviour in attachments Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   25.02.03 14:11:24, "Melwyn Da'alimar" wrote:   >>> Second, I had a message with a .zip file attached, which appear in >>> Documents access point and not archives one. How is this possible ? >> >> Wrong Content-Type? >> Again, raw mail please. >> > Sorry, I cannot, as I havent kept this message. So the attachment access > point do not use only file extension, but scan the file ?   No. An attachment has a header telling what it is, regardless of the file extension. File extensions are meaningless on the web, it's dang Internet Explorer who imposed the Windoze (in fact, DOS) concept of file extensions. So most likely the attachment header declared it as generic data or document or whatever.   Axel       --__--__--   Message: 16 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:35:34 +0000 From: "Paul Boizot" To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Hi, I use plain text e-mail too, and don't like HTML e-mail - but as I wrote a few weeks back re another similar discussion, there are plenty of people out there who are never going to be tech-heads and there is no reason why they should be. If the ability is put in front of them to put pretty colours in and have visual creative fun, then some people will do just that and think nothing of it. (Not me, honest! Oh no, I wouldn't use a PC for fun!). They have different priorities.   Yes, if the tech-heads and geeks and sensible regulators can get together and agree and impose a system that permits reasonable formatting without huge bloated HTML e-mails, that is great. Then the non-techies will work with the more limited capabilities they have. But there is no need to slag off the non-tech people, who are being coerced and enticed by the million into using computers, for not knowing about bandwidth.   If there is anyone to slag off, it is whoever/however people get their intro to computing in the first place, if it does not give them the necessary info - and this is almost impossbile to thoroughly police - or the capitalists who will sell what anyone wants now, to make their money, irrespective of other "sensible" considerations.   Best Wishes, Paul   *********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********   On 25/02/03 at 12:59 Matthew Winn wrote:   >CUT   >> > I consider the message text to be more important than its >> > appearance and messages, for me at least, >> > are easier to read if they are uniformly formatted; >> > monospaced font, a nice text size and quotes in >> > different colours. > >CUT > >Because to judge by the sort of bloated and formatting-heavy HTML >messages most fans of HTML mail send, the senders clearly have no >knowledge about things like bandwidth or the fact that you can't >guarantee that the recipient of a message will see things exactly >as they were when sent. If someone spends two minutes writing a >message and ten minutes tarting it up they obviously don't know >much about mail. > >-- >Matthew Winn (matthew@sheridan.co.uk) >--     -------------------------   website; www.paulboizot.co.uk     --__--__--   Message: 17 To: opera-users@opera.com From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:55:20 +0100 Subject: [OU] Identify as Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Read on Opera forum :   > The most common cause of pages not working properly > is the fact that they are badly written; this is so > because they are blocking you either partly (by > filtering out code) or wholly (by saying "incompatible > browser") because you are running Opera. They do this > by scanning the "User-Agent" string that your browser > (Opera) supplies to the website. Regardless of your > "identify as" setting, this string always contains > the word "Opera".   Is this true ? I mean, I have been of a website blocking browsers other than IE and netscape, not because of their choice, but because the webmaster thought this website cannot be read using other browsers. I then identify myself as IE, and this site worked well with this setting...   So anyone can explain me how it works ?   Thanks :)   --__--__--   Message: 18 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:18:25 +0800 To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 From: Andrew Gregory Organization: Southern Cross Software Solutions Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 20:15:43 +1030, wrote:   > > On 25 Feb 2003 at 13:31, Andrew Gregory wrote: >> Only a tiny subset is needed:

                                      , , , , , and (as a >> shorter alternative to

                                      ) at least, maybe
                                        ,
                                          ,
                                        1. as >> well. > > Why ? It has to be the most misused tag on the web.   Well, I started up Wordpad on my Windows computer and looked at the toolbar, then listed the tags related to what I saw. I would consider Wordpad to be a minimal feature 'word processor'.   can be misused, of course, but I don't consider that a huge problem. I've seen plenty of plain text emails where the poster has abused their Caps Lock key (i.e. left it on), but I wouldn't consider the precence of a Cap Lock key a problem. It's all in how it's used.   > I consider the message text to be more important than its appearance   The message text *is* what's important, but it is also nice to apply a little extra formatting too.   > Personally I have found that the people who do send HTML mail are the > exact same people I don't want to read HTML mail from. I have received > emails with dark grey text on black, white text on huge backgrounds, one > letter -- one colour. Most of them are easier to read in the raw markup > than when they are correctly rendered.   Fair enough, but doesn't let you specify a background colour, just the foreground colour, size and typeface.   > why is technical savvy tied to an aversion to html-ised messages?   People start off ignorant of computer systems and the goings-on behind the scenes. 'Tech savvy' people often understand how things work, and the costs of doing those things in different ways. So, if someone doesn't understand how HTML email composing actually works, in their ignorance they consider it a 'zero cost'. Once someone learns HTML, and how email works, they understand what happens when they send an HTML email (i.e. duplicate plain text/marked up versions, extra characters for various tags, etc). They have also often seen the crap that popular software packages like MS Word call 'HTML email'.   I consider myself a 'tech savvy' person. I am opposed to HTML email, but not to marked up email. I really wish somebody would come up with an RFC or something before *HTML* email really gets out of hand (if it hasn't already). -- Andrew Gregory, Web:   --__--__--   Message: 19 To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:43:15 +0100 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Le Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:18:25 +0800, Andrew Gregory andrew-at- scsoftware.com.au |Opera Mailing List| a écrit:   >> Personally I have found that the people who do send HTML mail are the >> exact same people I don't want to read HTML mail from. I have received >> emails with dark grey text on black, white text on huge backgrounds, one >> letter -- one colour. Most of them are easier to read in the raw markup >> than when they are correctly rendered. > > Fair enough, but doesn't let you specify a background colour, just > the foreground colour, size and typeface. > Sure, but what about someone writing a text with a yellow font ? Unreadable with a white background. Even worse, what about white font with a white background ? :)   >> why is technical savvy tied to an aversion to html-ised messages? > > People start off ignorant of computer systems and the goings-on behind > the scenes. 'Tech savvy' people often understand how things work, and the > costs of doing those things in different ways. So, if someone doesn't > understand how HTML email composing actually works, in their ignorance > they consider it a 'zero cost'. Once someone learns HTML, and how email > works, they understand what happens when they send an HTML email (i.e. > duplicate plain text/marked up versions, extra characters for various > tags, etc). They have also often seen the crap that popular software > packages like MS Word call 'HTML email'. > > I consider myself a 'tech savvy' person. I am opposed to HTML email, but > not to marked up email. I really wish somebody would come up with an RFC > or something before *HTML* email really gets out of hand (if it hasn't > already). > Zero cost depends on the situation. For example, a friend of mine sending html emails is a zero cost for me, as I have adsl, it is my home mail, I do not pay for bandwith, and I do not receive thousands of messages a day. I don't care if somebody sends me html emails, it costs me nothing.   Sure, now that I use M2, I receive html in plain text, but html or text costs the same money for me... zero cost.   Now I understand some people prefer text email, I understand when you receive thousands of emails a day it can be an issue... But I'm sure even if you receive thousands of emails a day, only a few of them are html, isnt it ?   Thanks :)   --__--__--   Message: 20 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:43:28 +0800 To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 From: Andrew Gregory Organization: Southern Cross Software Solutions Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:51:24 +0100, Axel Siebert wrote:   > I know a lot of text-mode clients, and all of them are able to scroll > left/right. I have yet to see a client which simply dismisses everything > longer than 78 characters.   I will admit I don't use text-mode clients at all, and therefore cannot point the finger at an implementation that actually lost information, but I don't consider it impossible for someone to be that silly :-) Just when you think you've seen the most stupid things, somebody else comes along....   >> If you feel the same about email, and that everybody should be able to >> read your emails, you should be supporting the 78 character limit too. > > I do, very much so! I am an ardent follower of correct line wrapping, > that's why I even do it manually to make sure it's perfect. Generally > being a perfectionist, I was just bitching about your wording that it's > "impossible". > Surely lines longer than 78 characters must be avoided at all costs, by > citing the RFC I just wanted to stress that there is no *technical* > limitation which would make it truly impossible. It was really all about > the > word "impossible". Sorry if I created a misunderstanding there.   That's OK.   > Where did you get the impression that I didn't want limited line length? > I just said that it must be done better than M2 currently does.   Where you talked about a 1000 character/line limit - which is way beyond any screen I've seen and hence effectively an 'unlimited' line length.   > That's precisely why I want to see *while composing* where the mail > client will break the lines, as I can in M1.   Now, this would be useful, but only if it could be toggled on/off during composition.   > Yes, no algorithm is perfect. However, an attempt must be made so select > the best one, the one whose result is acceptable in most of the cases. > All I'm saying is that the current comb-quoting-introducing algorithm > certainly not the best. I'm not saying the converting-to-format-flowed- > by- > paragraph-concatenation-and-inserting-new-CRLFSPACEs-for-text-mode- > clients > algorithm makes no mistakes, but I have tested it on 6500 messages I > received > over the last year, and the number of messages where a concatenation took > place which really looked bad was exactly 2. The number of messages where > M2 would introduce horrible comb quoting was about 2300. So I guess it > would be > a very significant improvement.   These are very interesting statistics - and a very good argument for your algorithm over what currently happens.   -- Andrew Gregory, Web:   --__--__--   Message: 21 To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:31:51 +0100 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Le Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:43:28 +0800, Andrew Gregory andrew-at- scsoftware.com.au |Opera Mailing List| a écrit:   > On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:51:24 +0100, Axel Siebert > wrote: > >> I know a lot of text-mode clients, and all of them are able to scroll >> left/right. I have yet to see a client which simply dismisses everything >> longer than 78 characters. > > I will admit I don't use text-mode clients at all, and therefore cannot > point the finger at an implementation that actually lost information, but > I don't consider it impossible for someone to be that silly :-) Just when > you think you've seen the most stupid things, somebody else comes > along.... > My father is using a text mode client... And he is not silly hehe :) He cannot do anything else. He's working in a university, as a math teacher, and they are using unix (or linux) systems. He hasnt a computer but a workstation, and the only client he can use is a unix, text client.   I hate text client :) It seems when we are talking about GUI, it seems linux users hate them... perhaps using text mode software make them more elitist :)   --__--__--   Message: 22 From: "Josef W. Segur" To: opera-users@opera.com Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:38:43 -0500 Subject: Re: [OU] Identify as Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   On 25 Feb 03, at 14:55, Melwyn wrote:   > Read on Opera forum : > > > The most common cause of pages not working properly > > is the fact that they are badly written; this is so > > because they are blocking you either partly (by > > filtering out code) or wholly (by saying "incompatible > > browser") because you are running Opera. They do this > > by scanning the "User-Agent" string that your browser > > (Opera) supplies to the website. Regardless of your > > "identify as" setting, this string always contains > > the word "Opera". > > Is this true ? I mean, I have been of a website blocking browsers other > than IE and netscape, not because of their choice, but because the > webmaster thought this website cannot be read using other browsers. I then > identify myself as IE, and this site worked well with this setting... > > So anyone can explain me how it works ?   shows how the Useragent strings are formatted.   The User-Agent header is sent with every URL request, so the server can decide what to return based on that.   The other technique site authors often use is to 'sniff' the browser using JavaScript. The useragent string can be checked from the script, or some other navigator object data. Opera changes the navigator.appName and navigator.appVersion data depending on which ID is chosen. is one example of a good sniffer. You can see what data Opera supplies for each ID by reloading.   -- Joe   --__--__--   Message: 23 From: "Frank Owen" To: Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 08:51:56 -0700 Subject: [OU] Java Script Menu is Acting up in Opera Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   This is a multi-part message in MIME format.   ------=_NextPart_000_008E_01C2DCAB.269FA430 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable   I have a Java Script menu that pulls in and out via a MouseOver. I also = have the links set to change colors on MouseOver. In IE, the script = works great. In opera, it will pull the menu out, and push it back in = fine as long as I do not use the "MouseOver" for the links. I have put = a example on my website.   http://www.wosnetworks.com/opera/maino.htm   Thank you for your help!!   Frank ------=_NextPart_000_008E_01C2DCAB.269FA430 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable  
                                          I have a Java Script menu that pulls in = and out via=20 a MouseOver.  I also have the links set to change colors on=20 MouseOver.  In IE, the script works great.  In opera, it will = pull the=20 menu out, and push it back in fine as long as I do not use the = "MouseOver" for=20 the links.  I have put a example on my website.
                                           
                                          http://www.wosnetwork= s.com/opera/maino.htm
                                           
                                          Thank you for your help!!
                                           
                                          Frank
                                            ------=_NextPart_000_008E_01C2DCAB.269FA430--     --__--__--   Message: 24 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:53:05 -0500 From: Patrick Shanahan To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   * Melwyn Da'alimar [02-25-03 10:34]: ... chop ... chop .... > My father is using a text mode client... And he is not silly hehe :) He > cannot do anything else. He's working in a university, as a math teacher, > and they are using unix (or linux) systems. He hasnt a computer but a > workstation, and the only client he can use is a unix, text client. > > I hate text client :) It seems when we are talking about GUI, it seems > linux users hate them... perhaps using text mode software make them more > elitist :)   You are searching. Most (of the elder) also dislike the mouse. The cli allows exacting control and a speed that you wouldn't believe. But, knowledge is also necessary.   You find the same with the elder x86 users, also. Dos allowed control and speed. Many things are still *much_better* accomplished from the dos cli than from winedohs. -- Patrick Shanahan Please avoid TOFU and trim >quotes< http://wahoo.no-ip.org Registered Linux User #207535 icq#173753138 @ http://counter.li.org   --__--__--   Message: 25 To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Identify as From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 17:02:52 +0100 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Le Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:38:43 -0500, Josef W. Segur jsegur-at-westelcom.com |Opera Mailing List| a écrit:   > The other technique site authors often use is to 'sniff' the browser > using JavaScript. The useragent string can be checked from the script, > or some other navigator object data. Opera changes the navigator.appName > and navigator.appVersion data depending on which ID > is chosen. > is one example of a good sniffer. You can see what data Opera supplies > for each ID by reloading. > Oh so it means that if the website is only checking navigator.appname, it will work if the site is designed for IE and we are identifying as IE, but that the web site can go further, and know what browser we are "really" using ? :)   --__--__--   Message: 26 To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 17:07:40 +0100 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Le Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:53:05 -0500, Patrick Shanahan paka-at-myrealbox.com |Opera Mailing List| a écrit:   > * Melwyn Da'alimar [02-25-03 10:34]: > ... chop ... chop .... >> My father is using a text mode client... And he is not silly hehe :) He >> cannot do anything else. He's working in a university, as a math >> teacher, and they are using unix (or linux) systems. He hasnt a computer >> but a workstation, and the only client he can use is a unix, text >> client. >> >> I hate text client :) It seems when we are talking about GUI, it seems >> linux users hate them... perhaps using text mode software make them more >> elitist :) > > You are searching. Most (of the elder) also dislike the mouse. The > cli allows exacting control and a speed that you wouldn't believe. But, > knowledge is also necessary. > > You find the same with the elder x86 users, also. Dos allowed control > and speed. Many things are still *much_better* accomplished from the > dos cli than from winedohs. > Perhaps, but I hate to have to memorize hundreds of hotkeys :) In Opera I remember the 'K' to mark as read, and I do all other actions with the mouse. A friend of mine has hundred of hotkeys and can handle them, I simply cannot. You can be sure that with a text client I will often hit F1 to read what hotkey to use. My father doesn't do this because he hates the mouse, but just because the technician setup the unix system like that, and he cannot change this. There is also a note saying it is forbidden to install third party softwares :)   --__--__--   Message: 27 To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Java Script Menu is Acting up in Opera From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 17:10:08 +0100 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Le Tue, 25 Feb 2003 08:51:56 -0700, Frank Owen franko-at-utsonline.net |Opera Mailing List| a écrit:   > I have a Java Script menu that pulls in and out via a MouseOver. I also > have the links set to change colors on MouseOver. In IE, the script > works great. In opera, it will pull the menu out, and push it back in > fine as long as I do not use the "MouseOver" for the links. I have put a > example on my website. > > http://www.wosnetworks.com/opera/maino.htm > > Thank you for your help!! > > Frank > I have no menu at all in the webpage you gave as an example... I'm using Opera 7.   --__--__--   Message: 28 From: "Frank Owen" To: Subject: RE: [OU] Java Script Menu is Acting up in Opera Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:19:51 -0700 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   This is a multi-part message in MIME format.   ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C2DCAF.0CD30A20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable   The menu is located on the left hand side. It pulls out when you move = over the blue shaded box next to the edge of the browser window. I will = download opera 7 and see if it is there. Thanks!       --Frank   -----Original Message-----   From: opera-users-admin@opera.com [mailto:opera-users-admin@opera.com]On   Behalf Of Melwyn Da'alimar   Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 9:10 AM   To: opera-users@opera.com   Subject: Re: [OU] Java Script Menu is Acting up in Opera       Le Tue, 25 Feb 2003 08:51:56 -0700, Frank Owen franko-at-utsonline.net=20   |Opera Mailing List| a =E9crit:   > I have a Java Script menu that pulls in and out via a MouseOver. I = also=20       > have the links set to change colors on MouseOver. In IE, the script=20   > works great. In opera, it will pull the menu out, and push it back in=20   > fine as long as I do not use the "MouseOver" for the links. I have put = a=20   > example on my website.   >   > http://www.wosnetworks.com/opera/maino.htm   >   > Thank you for your help!!   >   > Frank   >   I have no menu at all in the webpage you gave as an example... I'm using =     Opera 7.   --=20   Opera-users: http://list.opera.com/mailman/listinfo/opera-users   More lists: http://list.opera.com/mailman/listinfo/   Unsubscribe: mailto:opera-users-request@opera.com?subject=3Dunsubscribe   ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C2DCAF.0CD30A20 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable  

                                          The menu is located on the left hand side.  It pulls out when = you move=20 over the blue shaded box next to the edge of the browser window.  I = will=20 download opera 7 and see if it is there.  Thanks!

                                           

                                          --Frank

                                          -----Original Message-----

                                          From: opera-users-admin@opera.com = [mailto:opera-users-admin@opera.com]On

                                          Behalf Of Melwyn Da'alimar

                                          Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 9:10 AM

                                          To: opera-users@opera.com

                                          Subject: Re: [OU] Java Script Menu is Acting up in Opera

                                           

                                          Le Tue, 25 Feb 2003 08:51:56 -0700, Frank Owen = franko-at-utsonline.net

                                          |Opera Mailing List| <bof2hatpew0t@sneakemail.com> a = =E9crit:

                                          > I have a Java Script menu that pulls in and out via a MouseOver. = I also=20

                                           

                                          > have the links set to change colors on MouseOver. In IE, the = script

                                          > works great. In opera, it will pull the menu out, and push it = back in=20

                                          > fine as long as I do not use the "MouseOver" for the links. I = have put a=20

                                          > example on my website.

                                          >

                                          > http://www.wosnetworks.com/opera/maino.htm

                                          >

                                          > Thank you for your help!!

                                          >

                                          > Frank

                                          >

                                          I have no menu at all in the webpage you gave as an example... I'm = using

                                          Opera 7.

                                          --

                                          Opera-users: http://list.opera.com/mailman/listinfo/opera-users

                                          More lists: http://list.opera.com/mailman/listinfo/

                                          Unsubscribe:=20 mailto:opera-users-request@opera.com?subject=3Dunsubscribe

                                            ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C2DCAF.0CD30A20--     --__--__--   Message: 29 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 11:34:59 -0500 To: "opera-users@opera.com" From: Sue Sims Subject: [OU] FAQ: query Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Part of my new job description is to develop a series of FAQs for the Opera newsgroups and mailing lists, so...I'm starting with you :-)   There are a few ways to approach the issue of FAQs, and I've chosen to leave it up to the members how to develop the FAQs. I expect to include some administrivia (like detailed instructions on how to unsubscribe, since some list members don't understand that all it takes is to click on the link included in each and every mailing to the list). Other than administrivia, what specific questions would you like to include? Please include the *answers*, as well. I expect to use the eventual FAQ as proof of concept in developing the other FAQs for the newsgroups. You will receive credit in the FAQ for your answers (unless you request anonymity).   All discussion should take place on the list, preferably in a thread which includes FAQ in the subject. Why, you ask? Because I'm most interested in this being a community effort, and the only way to do that is to open the process up to the *community*. Those not interested in participating should be able to filter out all messages which contain FAQ in the subject.   Thanks for your help.   Sue     --__--__--   Message: 30 From: "Tom Knight" To: Subject: RE: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 17:07:03 -0000 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com         > > Especially since it's part of a proposed standard (rfc 2557): > > ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc2557.txt > > RFC2557 isn't about mail formatting. It's about > encapsulating aggregate > documents which consist of a root document and linked resources. In a > web environment client software can use URLs to fetch linked resources > but that's not possible when the whole lot is encapsulated in a single > file or transaction, and it's that situation which RFC2557 addresses.     I'm afraid this does extend to use of html mail. Looking at section 9, "Examples" shows this:   9.1 Example of a HTML body without included linked objects   The first example is the simplest form of an HTML email message. This message does not contain an aggregate HTML object, but simply a message with a single HTML body part. This body part contains a URI but the messages does not contain the resource referenced by that URI. To retrieve the resource referenced by the URI the receiving client would need either IP access to the Internet, or an electronic mail web gateway.   From: foo1@bar.net To: foo2@bar.net Subject: A simple example Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit  

                                          Acute accent

                                          The following two lines look have the same screen rendering:

                                          E with acute accent becomes É.
                                          E with acute accent becomes É.

                                          Try clicking here.

                                            Horrid but true.   It's interesting to note section 11 "Security Considerations". where it mentions some of the faults people (rightly) find with html mail, including:   11.1 Security considerations not related to caching   It is possible for a message sender to misrepresent the source of a multipart/related body part to a message recipient by labeling it with a Content-Location URI that references another resource. Therefore, message recipients should only interpret Content-Location URIs as labeling a body part for the resolution of references from body parts in the same multipart/related message structure, and not as the source of a resource, unless this can be verified by other means.   URIs, especially File URIs, if used without change in a message, may inadvertently reveal information that was not intended to be revealed outside a particular security context. Message senders should take care when constructing messages containing the new header fields, defined in this standard, that they are not revealing information outside of any security contexts to which they belong.   Some resource servers hide passwords and tickets (access tokens to information which should not be reveled to others) and other sensitive information in non-visible fields or URIs within a text/html resource. If such a text/html resource is forwarded in an email message, this sensitive information may be inadvertently revealed to others.   Since HTML documents can either directly contain executable content (i.e., JavaScript) or indirectly reference executable content (The "INSERT" specification, Java). It is exceedingly dangerous for a receiving User Agent to execute content received in a mail message without careful attention to restrictions on the capabilities of that executable content.   HTML-formatted messages can be used to investigate user behaviour, for example to break anonymity, in ways which invade the privacy of individuals. If you send a message with a inline link to an object which is not itself included in the message, the recipients mailer or browser may request that object through HTTP. The HTTP transaction will then reveal who is reading the message. Example: A person who wants to find out who is behind an anonymous user identity, or from which workstation a user is reading his mail, can do this by sending a message with an inline link and then observe from where this link is used to request the object.     --__--__--   Message: 31 To: opera-users@opera.com From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:41:22 +0100 Subject: [OU] Browse mails Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Hi,   is it possible to tell Opera to browse all our mails to add people in our active contact list, and to remove people from this list who are not used anymore ?   Thanks   --__--__--   Message: 32 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:51:27 +0100 From: Andre Wichartz To: Andrew Gregory Subject: Re[2]: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Hello Andrew,   On Tuesday, February 25, 2003, 22:18:25 +0800 GMT (which was 15:18 local time), Andrew Gregory wrote:   AG> On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 20:15:43 +1030, wrote:   >> Why ? It has to be the most misused tag on the web.   AG> Well, I started up Wordpad on my Windows computer and looked at the AG> toolbar, then listed the tags related to what I saw. I would consider AG> Wordpad to be a minimal feature 'word processor'.   But not everything that is possible with wordpad is suitable for email. The nice thing about plain text is that I can decide in which way my emails are presented. I decide which font of which size and which foreground and background colours are used. The bad thing about html mail (besides the bandwith issues) is that it takes this freedom away from me. I am forced to look at a message in the layout the sender liked the most. Well, maybe I don't like it at all. Or even worse: Maybe my eyes are not as good and I therefore prefer a larger font. But now I am forced to look at that small font I can barely read.   AG> can be misused, of course, but I don't consider that a huge problem. AG> I've seen plenty of plain text emails where the poster has abused their AG> Caps Lock key (i.e. left it on), but I wouldn't consider the precence of a AG> Cap Lock key a problem. It's all in how it's used.   Yes. But I just don't see a good use for . I have a reason why I want to view mails in my favourite font. Why should the sender force a different one upon me? I can understand that sometime it's desireable to make a word bold or underlined to emphasize it. But is not needed here.     -- Cheers, Andre   "1. If it's green or it wiggles, it's biology. 2. If it stinks, it's chemistry. 3. If it doesn't work, it's physics."       --__--__--   Message: 33 To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Identify as From: jonathan murphy Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:19:05 -0000 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:55:20 +0100, Melwyn Da'alimar wrote:   > Read on Opera forum : >> Regardless of your >> "identify as" setting, this string always contains >> the word "Opera". > > Is this true ?   Yes, that last statement is true.   I mean, I have been of a website blocking browsers other > than IE and netscape, not because of their choice, but because the > webmaster thought this website cannot be read using other browsers. > I then identify myself as IE, and this site worked well with this > setting...   If you set to ID as IE, Opera sends the IE user agent string followeed by the word Opera. Most sites which have casual browser detection just look for "MSIE" or "Netscape" and setting the ID is sufficient to get round them. The presence of the word Opera allows web authors who do actually know what they're doing to realise that you aren't really IE and present you with a page tuned for Opera by looking at the user agent string in more detail. The majority of sites don't do this.   -- Jonathan Murphy   --__--__--   Message: 34 To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Java Script Menu is Acting up in Opera From: jonathan murphy Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:30:47 -0000 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:19:51 -0700, Frank Owen wrote:   > The menu is located on the left hand side. It pulls out when you move > over the blue shaded box next to the edge of the browser window. I will > download opera 7 and see if it is there. Thanks! >   if (document.all) document.write(the menu is in here.............. (not sure why this needs to be written in JS?)   This adds up to "if the user has MSIE, write the menu! document.all is MS proprietary, not part of JavaScript. The menu will not appear in anything other than IE. Later on there's some document.layers stuff (Netscape 4 only). You need to read a more recent JavaScript tutorial, perhaps.   -- Jonathan Murphy   --__--__--   Message: 35 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:24:17 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) From: Alan G Isaac To: opera-users@opera.com organization: American University Subject: [OU] Re: Email formatting problem with M2 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   > On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 22:32:56 -0500, Patrick Shanahan > wrote: >> Email is *plain* ascii text, not 'marked-up' by html, >> css, or any other method.   On Tue, Andrew Gregory wrote: > I mostly agree with this, but I also recognise that the > computing world largely left text-only systems behind > about ten years ago. Email is probably the most-used form > of communication on the Internet and I think it is past > time *someone* brought it into the graphical present. Note > that I would strongly oppose anything that would prevent > text-only people from reading or otherwise using email. I > think the existing method of attaching a marked-up email > to a plain text version is the best way of doing this. > However, I don't think *HTML* is the way to go. It's too > big and complicated. Only a tiny subset is needed:

                                          , > , , , , and (as a shorter alternative > to

                                          ) at least, maybe
                                            ,
                                              ,
                                            1. as well. > Ignoring , such a marked-up message would be easily > readable, even if a plain-text alternate version were not > available.   Ignoring that the proposal is in part to implement deprecated HTML, it seems that

                                              = eol, eol text = *text* text = _text_ text = "text" and less reliably text = TEXT   IMHO we need a damn good reason to abandon this. If you just want to change the display of the marked up text, pick an email client that supports "Trivial Markup" (e.g., Mahogany).   > Nevertheless, the only way is forward, and email *must* > change.   I really do not see why. Unless you mean that it inevitably will change, which is probably true.   > It would be better if someone came up with an RFC > for simple markup, otherwise (if it isn't already too > late) MS and their HTML monsters will dictate what emails > of the future will be.   To find out, look at your spam. But your point is well taken.   Cheers, Alan Isaac         --__--__--   Message: 36 From: Axel Siebert To: opera-users@opera.com Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:34:45 +0100 Subject: Re: [OU] Re: Email formatting problem with M2 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   25.02.03 21:24:17, Alan G Isaac wrote:   > Ignoring that the proposal is in part to implement > deprecated HTML, it seems that >

                                              = eol, eol > text = *text* > text = _text_ > text = "text" > and less reliably > text = TEXT > > IMHO we need a damn good reason to abandon this.   So true, just a little correction: The usual practice, at least on Usenet, is   text = /text/ text = *text* text = TEXT   Axel   --__--__--   Message: 37 From: Axel Siebert To: opera-users@opera.com Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:33:37 +0100 Subject: Re: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   25.02.03 15:43:15, "Melwyn Da'alimar" wrote:   >For example, a friend of mine sending html emails is a zero cost for me, as >I have adsl, it is my home mail, I do not pay for bandwith   Oh, but you do!! You just don't notice it because you pay a fixed amount. But if everybody would use available bandwidth reasonably, all ISPs would need less powerful servers, less thick lines, less fat storage, so they could offer much cheaper flatrates. You are already paying for HTML mail, rest assured.   Axel   --__--__--   Message: 38 From: "Suryanto Hendrawan" To: Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 23:13:48 +0100 Subject: [OU] endlose Schleife Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Hi,   als ich die Seite http://www.wetter.de offnete, bekam ich eine endlose Schleife. Hat jemand auch dieses merkwuerdige Verhalten, oder liegt es nur in meinem Rechner. Ich benutze Opera 7.01 auf Windows XP Pro.   Schoenen Abend Suryanto Hendrawan     --__--__--   Message: 39 From: "Suryanto Hendrawan" To: Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 23:22:46 +0100 Subject: [OU] endless loop Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Hi again,   sorry for the last mail, have forgotten to write it in english. also, als i try to open http://www.wetter.de , i have received an endless loop. have anybody the same problem? any idea, how to solve it? I use opera 7.01 in Windows XP Pro.   Thanks Suryanto Hendrawan       --__--__--   Message: 40 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:08:50 -0800 From: Larry Washbrook Subject: Re: [OU] endless loop To: opera-users@opera.com Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   I'm using Opera 7.01 with Windows XP Pro and have no difficulty accessing the site. I don't know where your problem is.   On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 23:22:46 +0100, Suryanto Hendrawan wrote:   > Hi again, > > sorry for the last mail, have forgotten to write it in english. also, > als i try to open http://www.wetter.de , i have received an endless loop. > have anybody the same problem? any idea, how to solve it? > I use opera 7.01 in Windows XP Pro. > > Thanks > Suryanto Hendrawan > >       --     --__--__--   Message: 41 Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 00:19:11 +0100 From: Andre Wichartz To: Larry Washbrook Subject: Re[2]: [OU] endless loop Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Hello Larry,   On Wednesday, February 26, 2003, 15:08:50 -0800 GMT (which was 00:08 local time), Larry Washbrook wrote:   LW> On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 23:22:46 +0100, Suryanto Hendrawan LW> wrote:   >> sorry for the last mail, have forgotten to write it in english. also, >> als i try to open http://www.wetter.de , i have received an endless loop. >> have anybody the same problem? any idea, how to solve it? >> I use opera 7.01 in Windows XP Pro.   LW> I'm using Opera 7.01 with Windows XP Pro and have no difficulty LW> accessing the site. I don't know where your problem is.   It was the same for me. Normally I have Opera id as IE. So I loaded the page a second time, this time id-ing as Opera and there it is: a endless loop.   So your answer is to id as IE. Then the site works.     -- Cheers, Andre   "The government of the people, by the people, for t     --__--__--   Message: 42 From: Axel Siebert To: opera-users@opera.com Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 00:31:46 +0100 Subject: Re: Re[2]: [OU] endless loop Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   26.02.03 00:19:11, Andre Wichartz wrote:   >>> sorry for the last mail, have forgotten to write it in english. also, >>> als i try to open http://www.wetter.de , i have received an endless loop. >>> have anybody the same problem? any idea, how to solve it? >>> I use opera 7.01 in Windows XP Pro.   > It was the same for me. Normally I have Opera id as IE. So I loaded the > page a second time, this time id-ing as Opera and there it is: a endless > loop. > > So your answer is to id as IE. Then the site works.   No. The answer is to reload the page. If you visit it for the first time, it will work. If it is drawn from the cache on the next visit, it loops. The reason is some FUBAR JavaSpit designed to make sure you don't circumvent the frameset. Try hitting the stop/reload button a few times while it loops, eventually this will force a reload, which will finish loading.   Axel       --__--__--   Message: 43 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:07:03 -0800 To: opera-users@opera.com From: "Nicholas H. Kaps" Organization: Perspectives Subject: [OU] email problem Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   I recently am having a problem with my email. Part of my email is not downloaded from my isp.   A box appears that says "Generic Error" Inside the box is the following statement.   "nkaps@garlic.com Opera tried to retrieve message 1(UIDL CL%#!odC"!e#:!!6&H"!) from the POP3 server, but failed to store it on your machine."   Has anyone else had a similiar problem or any ideas as to what happened?? -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/   --__--__--   Message: 44 To: opera-users@opera.com, opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 From: Edward Organization: Retired Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:19:46 -0500 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   I am not sure what you all are talking about. But what I want is to just type a message and sent it. I am too old to fool with BS notations. I am not a programer and do not want to be. If what you are talking about does not require other than just typing the message. Disregard my comments. Edward     On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:31:22 +0800, Andrew Gregory wrote:   > In response to my previous message... > > On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 22:32:56 -0500, Patrick Shanahan > wrote: > >> Email is *plain* ascii text, not 'marked-up' by html, css, or any other >> method. > > I mostly agree with this, but I also recognise that the computing world > largely left text-only systems behind about ten years ago. Email is > probably the most-used form of communication on the Internet and I think > it is past time *someone* brought it into the graphical present. Note > that I would strongly oppose anything that would prevent text-only people > from reading or otherwise using email. I think the existing method of > attaching a marked-up email to a plain text version is the best way of > doing this. However, I don't think *HTML* is the way to go. It's too big > and complicated. Only a tiny subset is needed:

                                              , , , , > , and (as a shorter alternative to

                                              ) at least, > maybe
                                                ,
                                                  ,
                                                1. as well. Ignoring , such a marked-up message > would be easily readable, even if a plain-text alternate version were not > available. > >> Unformatted things are only ugly if your email-client is not capable of >> presenting them properly. > > My points were that plain text only messages make this difficult, if not > impossible. Too much formatting information is lost in the conversion to > plain text. > >> To follow your line of reasoning (which I partially agree), nothing but >> plain ascii text email should exist. I use a text-mode client which, >> of itself, is only capable of presenting plain ascii text. > > No, email should *always* be accessible to people no matter the > capabilities of their client, but I think it is wrong for the now tiny > minority of people who can *only* handle plain text to hold back the vast > majority of people using graphical system from being able to add a little > formatting (bold, underline, italic, colour, fonts) to their messages. > >> I do reformat quoted text to <72 chars, trim quotes and do not TOFU as >> a courtesy to the reader. This was at one time the norm for the >> internet community, but since the proliferation of internet >> participants (just after the inception of aol), courtesy and adherance >> to 'norms' has sadly become a *laugh*. > > I had to look up what TOFU meant, and I agree (although I haven't > religously followed those guidelines). It is true that now that a much > higher proportion of the population are on the 'net, the average > capability/courtesy has dropped accordingly. A sad reflection on the > society we live in. When I was at uni for several years, my only 'net > access was via a 19200 baud VT102 terminal emulator, so I know what it > was like and what we have to remain compatible with. > > Nevertheless, the only way is forward, and email *must* change. It would > be better if someone came up with an RFC for simple markup, otherwise (if > it isn't already too late) MS and their HTML monsters will dictate what > emails of the future will be.       -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/     --__--__--   Message: 45 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:53:49 -0500 To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] email problem From: Edward Organization: Retired Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Yes I had the same pop up error message. I reloaded Opera7.1 and it went away for awhile. Now it is back. I asked about this on a forum but noone knew what to do. I do not know what this message is telling me other than Opera is having a problem. With what? Edward   On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:07:03 -0800, Nicholas H. Kaps wrote:   > I recently am having a problem with my email. Part of my email is not > downloaded from my isp. > > A box appears that says "Generic Error" > Inside the box is the following statement. > > "nkaps@garlic.com > Opera tried to retrieve message 1(UIDL CL%#!odC"!e#:!!6&H"!) from the > POP3 server, but failed to store it on your machine." > > Has anyone else had a similiar problem or any ideas as to what happened??       -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/       --__--__--   -- Opera-users mailing list Opera-users@opera.com http://list.opera.com/mailman/listinfo/opera-users     End of Opera-users DigestSend Opera-users mailing list submissions to opera-users@opera.com   To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://list.opera.com/mailman/listinfo/opera-users or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to opera-users-request@opera.com   You can reach the person managing the list at opera-users-admin@opera.com   When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Opera-users digest..."     Today's Topics:   1. Re: Opera7 crushes down! (Axel Siebert) 2. Problems in receiving HTML emails (Melwyn Da'alimar) 3. Re: V7 problem that did not happen with V6.05 (Allan Smith) 4. Help 2 questions: Thanks, victory (hester reik) 5. Re: Problems in receiving HTML emails (Axel Siebert) 6. Mailto (Melwyn Da'alimar) 7. RE: Email formatting problem with M2 (Fred Bone) 8. Re: Problems in receiving HTML emails (Melwyn Da'alimar) 9. Strange behaviour in attachments (Melwyn Da'alimar) 10. Viewing attachments (Melwyn Da'alimar) 11. Re: Strange behaviour in attachments (Axel Siebert) 12. Re: Email formatting problem with M2 (Matthew Winn) 13. Re: Strange behaviour in attachments (Melwyn Da'alimar) 14. Spam in mailing lists ? (Melwyn Da'alimar) 15. Re: Strange behaviour in attachments (Axel Siebert) 16. Re: Email formatting problem with M2 (Paul Boizot) 17. Identify as (Melwyn Da'alimar) 18. Re: Email formatting problem with M2 (Andrew Gregory) 19. Re: Email formatting problem with M2 (Melwyn Da'alimar) 20. Re: Email formatting problem with M2 (Andrew Gregory) 21. Re: Email formatting problem with M2 (Melwyn Da'alimar) 22. Re: Identify as (Josef W. Segur) 23. Java Script Menu is Acting up in Opera (Frank Owen) 24. Re: Email formatting problem with M2 (Patrick Shanahan) 25. Re: Identify as (Melwyn Da'alimar) 26. Re: Email formatting problem with M2 (Melwyn Da'alimar) 27. Re: Java Script Menu is Acting up in Opera (Melwyn Da'alimar) 28. RE: Java Script Menu is Acting up in Opera (Frank Owen) 29. FAQ: query (Sue Sims) 30. RE: Email formatting problem with M2 (Tom Knight) 31. Browse mails (Melwyn Da'alimar) 32. Re[2]: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 (Andre Wichartz) 33. Re: Identify as (jonathan murphy) 34. Re: Java Script Menu is Acting up in Opera (jonathan murphy) 35. Re: Email formatting problem with M2 (Alan G Isaac) 36. Re: Re: Email formatting problem with M2 (Axel Siebert) 37. Re: Email formatting problem with M2 (Axel Siebert) 38. endlose Schleife (Suryanto Hendrawan) 39. endless loop (Suryanto Hendrawan) 40. Re: endless loop (Larry Washbrook) 41. Re[2]: [OU] endless loop (Andre Wichartz) 42. Re: Re[2]: [OU] endless loop (Axel Siebert) 43. email problem (Nicholas H. Kaps) 44. Re: Email formatting problem with M2 (Edward) 45. Re: email problem (Edward)   --__--__--   Message: 1 From: Axel Siebert To: opera-users@opera.com Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:04:46 +0100 Subject: Re: [OU] Opera7 crushes down! Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   24.02.03 11:52:16, Sir Jinx! wrote:   > But, today when I wanted to start it Opera crushes!!!!   Well, I suppose it crAshes. The executables are already compressed, so I don't think they could be crushed any further. SCNR :)   > "OPERA caused an invalid page fault in > module XMLPARSE.DLL at 0167:67e990f2..."   In such cases, we need a crash log, see: http://list.opera.com/pipermail/opera-users/2003-January/016619.html   Axel         --__--__--   Message: 2 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:06:16 +0100 To: opera-users@opera.com From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Subject: [OU] Problems in receiving HTML emails Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Hi,   I do not want to read emails in html. Is it true that preferred body mode set to 2 tells Opera to display mails in text, even if there is only an html version available ?   Moreover, when someone send me an html email with pictures included *in the body* of the message, I am unable to access those pictures. When I have set preffered body mode to 0, I had an error message saying something like : Warning, error while decoding the message. With preferred body mode to 1 I can see the mail in html without problem, and with preferred body mode set to 2 I have no error message but cannot access the pictures.   What I mean is that pictures appear in attachment access point, in the column, but not as attachment in the body of the message. Only way for me to view those pictures is to copy mail as raw text, then open a text editor, paste the text, save the message as a .eml file and read it with Outlook Express. Not very convenient...   Perhaps a way to directly right click on message then choose "save as .eml", or the html message beeing an attachment of the text one would be helpful.   Thanks :)   --__--__--   Message: 3 From: Allan Smith To: opera-users@opera.com Cc: Axel Siebert , freexone Subject: Re: [OU] V7 problem that did not happen with V6.05 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 11:20:24 +0000 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:38:37 +0100, Axel Siebert wrote:   > 24.02.03 21:24:26, Allan Smith wrote: >   >> I find that if I open Opera (7.01) by double clicking on an attachment to an >> e-mail in Agent (1.93) which I currently use e-mail a new copy of opera is >> opened (even if an existing copy is already open). This did not happen with >> v6.05 of Opera. >   > I don't know Agent, so this question might be dumb, but: Is it really > necessary to double-click, and there's no possibility that this might be > interpreted as opening twice?   Axel,   The double start was not something I thought of but as it turns out it does not appear to be the problem. Single click selects the attachment (shown in Agent in a box) and a double click launches it. Attachments may also be launched with from a right click menu on the attachment.   What appears to be the problem is the "current directory" (possibly a synonym for the "'start in directory' as modified since the application was launched") where Opera is running from. The existing open copy of v7.01 is used ONLY if the "current directory" is the same as Agent's own data directory. This deos not appear to be the case with v6.05. The parent process is not a factor, the presence or otherwide of a parameter to v7.01 is not a factor. The only thing I can find that affects it is the directory where v7.01 was started from.   How or why this is the case has me somewhat puzzled.   Regards, Allan Smith (Northwood, Middlesex, England)   --__--__--   Message: 4 To: opera From: hester reik Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 06:56:05 -0500 Subject: [OU] Help 2 questions: Thanks, victory Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Thank you, Jonathan for all your suggestions. I had most of the stuff checked that you suggested. And I already had things set to accept cookies. But the real victory is this...... I got the web technician at my investment account site I couldn't access to download and install Opera 7.01. He couldn't log into the site either :-) and is bumping the case up to the next person to see if they can configure their site in such a way that it is compatible with 7.01. (The interesting thing is.....it worked in 6.05, though I always had to log in 2x.) With the economy in the tank and things not looking good for the future (long or short term) perhaps they were scared of losing a client :-). (not likely). Sorry for the editorializing. hester   Perhaps your cookie settings? Are you set to accept all cookies? I'm just guessing.   Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/     --__--__--   Message: 5 From: Axel Siebert To: opera-users@opera.com Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:44:51 +0100 Subject: Re: [OU] Problems in receiving HTML emails Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   25.02.03 12:06:16, "Melwyn Da'alimar" wrote:   > Is it true that preferred body mode set to 2 tells Opera to display mails > in text, even if there is only an html version available ?   Mode 2 is planned to do that, but it's not yet implemented. For now, modes 2 and 0 are identical.   > Moreover, when someone send me an html email with pictures included *in the > body* of the message, I am unable to access those pictures. When I have set > preffered body mode to 0, I had an error message saying something like : > Warning, error while decoding the message. With preferred body mode to 1 I > can see the mail in html without problem, and with preferred body mode set > to 2 I have no error message but cannot access the pictures.   I suppose the pictures are declared as part of the HTML mail, so they are not identified as attachments. Could you upload the raw mail as a compressed text file so I can have a look at it?   Uploading instructions: http://list.opera.com/pipermail/opera-users/2003-January/016619.html   Axel       --__--__--   Message: 6 To: opera-users@opera.com From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:01:59 +0100 Subject: [OU] Mailto Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Hi,   Why when I click on a mailto link in an application (not in a web page, but in an about box of an application) it launches outlook express instead of Opera M2 ?   Isnt it possible to setup Opera as default email client ?   Thanks :)   --__--__--   Message: 7 From: "Fred Bone" To: opera-users@opera.com Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:11:10 -0000 Subject: RE: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   On 25 Feb 2003 at 10:12, Tom Knight wrote:   [...] [not sure who wrote the next bit as the name wasn't there] > > It says a lot about the people I talk to but leaves me with a > > question: why is technical savvy tied > > to an aversion to html-ised messages? >   > Especially since it's part of a proposed standard (rfc 2557): > ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc2557.txt   But rfc2557 is about the relationship between parts of a message. It doesn't say anything about flavours of HTML in message bodies, beyond setting out conventions for the links.     --__--__--   Message: 8 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:21:49 +0100 To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Problems in receiving HTML emails From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Le Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:44:51 +0100, Axel Siebert me-at-axelsiebert.de |Opera Mailing List| a écrit:   > 25.02.03 12:06:16, "Melwyn Da'alimar" wrote: >   >> Is it true that preferred body mode set to 2 tells Opera to display >> mails in text, even if there is only an html version available ? >   > Mode 2 is planned to do that, but it's not yet implemented. For now, > modes > 2 and 0 are identical. >   They are really identical ? Strange then that I have the warning message when it is set as 0, and not when it is set as 2 :)   >> Moreover, when someone send me an html email with pictures included *in >> the body* of the message, I am unable to access those pictures. When I >> have set preffered body mode to 0, I had an error message saying >> something like : Warning, error while decoding the message. With >> preferred body mode to 1 I can see the mail in html without problem, and >> with preferred body mode set to 2 I have no error message but cannot >> access the pictures. >   > I suppose the pictures are declared as part of the HTML mail, so they are > not identified as attachments. Could you upload the raw mail as a > compressed text file so I can have a look at it? >   > Uploading instructions: > http://list.opera.com/pipermail/opera-users/2003-January/016619.html >   > Axel >   I am doing it with a test email I am writing to myself with outlook express, for privacy reasons... The name of archive is melwynmail2.zip. You can delete melwyn.zip and melwynmail.zip, as those are errors in transmission. I have used IE to FTP, as the command line doesnt seem to work...   Oh, there's no way to drag'n drop to opera to upload a file, as it is possible with IE ? Too bad :)   Thanks :)   --__--__--   Message: 9 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:36:59 +0100 To: opera-users@opera.com From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Subject: [OU] Strange behaviour in attachments Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Hi,   This question is about access point, attachment access point. There are documents, images, music, video, archives.   First, is it possible to add more than that ?   Second, I had a message with a .zip file attached, which appear in Documents access point and not archives one. How is this possible ?   Thanks :)   --__--__--   Message: 10 To: opera-users@opera.com From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:41:33 +0100 Subject: [OU] Viewing attachments Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Hi,   is there a way to view attachments of emails without Opera downloading them on hard drive ? As does Outlook Express I guess, so I havent to put it on my hardrive then delete it if I don't like it.   Don't know what does OE, but when I have an attachment, I just open it. If I don't like it, I delete the mail and the attachment is gone. With Opera, it downloads it in my download folder, then I have to delete it from this download folder if I dislike it.   Thanks...   --__--__--   Message: 11 From: Axel Siebert To: opera-users@opera.com Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:48:18 +0100 Subject: Re: [OU] Strange behaviour in attachments Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   25.02.03 13:36:59, "Melwyn Da'alimar" wrote:   > Second, I had a message with a .zip file attached, which appear in > Documents access point and not archives one. How is this possible ?   Wrong Content-Type? Again, raw mail please.   Axel       --__--__--   Message: 12 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:59:25 +0000 From: Matthew Winn To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 10:12:43AM -0000, Tom Knight wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: opera-users-admin@opera.com > > Sent: 25 February 2003 09:46 > > On 25 Feb 2003 at 13:31, Andrew Gregory wrote: > > > However, I don't think *HTML* is the way to go. It's too big and > > > complicated. Only a tiny subset is needed:

                                                  , , , > > > , , and > > > (as a shorter alternative to

                                                  ) at least, > > > maybe
                                                    ,
                                                      , > > >
                                                    1. as well. Ignoring , such a marked-up message > > > would be easily > > > readable, even if a plain-text alternate version were not available.   This has often been suggested and I'd support a limited set of XHTML elements. (If we're going to have formatting in a message we might at least make it XHTML so it's easy to parse.) The problems with HTML mail as it is right now are:   (a) Tools for creating HTML mail bloat the message far beyond reason in their attempts to make the message look _exactly_ as it appeared on the sender's screen. If the sender asks for a bold word they should get word, not an immense block of formatting which tries to preserve their choice of colours, font face and size, line width, margins, and everything else which is appropriate only to them.   (b) That bloat means it's necessary to send a plain-text copy of the message so it can be read by those without HTML-aware clients, further increasing the message size.   (c) There's no restriction on the elements used, so client software must contain a built-in web browser instead of a simple formatter.   (d) There's no restriction on the elements used, so there are security risks associated with scripting and linked images.   (e) Displaying of a formatted message is at the mercy of each client's understanding of HTML. All web browsers are buggy, and there's no reason to expect that email clients would do any better.   (f) There are many versions of HTML but no agreement on which one to use.   (g) The world is full of halfwits who think that everyone else wants a demonstration of the full range of effects permitted by HTML.   An agreed set of limited formatting elements would be great. It would remove the bloated attempts to set every single display attribute on every part of the message. It would eliminate the security issues. It would create a standard for formatting to which all clients could conform. And it would deprive idiots of the ability to send me a message in flashing 72pt text in the hope that I'll think it must be worth reading. The only difficult parts are agreeing a set of elements and persuading Microsoft to support that set without adding its own extensions.   The text/enriched format (RFC1896) is the right idea (but I'd prefer shorter element names). In particular, I consider the design criteria at the start of RFC1896 to be essential.   > > I consider the message text to be more important than its > > appearance and messages, for me at least, > > are easier to read if they are uniformly formatted; > > monospaced font, a nice text size and quotes in > > different colours.   I sometimes need to send messages with a small amount of formatting. Just a few minutes ago I sent a long technical message with several sections and it would have been useful to be able to highlight the title of each section so the reader could scan through the document more efficiently.   > > why is technical savvy tied > > to an aversion to html-ised messages?   Because to judge by the sort of bloated and formatting-heavy HTML messages most fans of HTML mail send, the senders clearly have no knowledge about things like bandwidth or the fact that you can't guarantee that the recipient of a message will see things exactly as they were when sent. If someone spends two minutes writing a message and ten minutes tarting it up they obviously don't know much about mail.   > Especially since it's part of a proposed standard (rfc 2557): > ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc2557.txt   RFC2557 isn't about mail formatting. It's about encapsulating aggregate documents which consist of a root document and linked resources. In a web environment client software can use URLs to fetch linked resources but that's not possible when the whole lot is encapsulated in a single file or transaction, and it's that situation which RFC2557 addresses.   It's an ideal format to use when a browser is saving a web page and all its associated images. Isn't this what IE uses?   -- Matthew Winn (matthew@sheridan.co.uk)   --__--__--   Message: 13 To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Strange behaviour in attachments From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:11:24 +0100 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Le Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:48:18 +0100, Axel Siebert me-at-axelsiebert.de |Opera Mailing List| a écrit:   > 25.02.03 13:36:59, "Melwyn Da'alimar" wrote: > >> Second, I had a message with a .zip file attached, which appear in >> Documents access point and not archives one. How is this possible ? > > Wrong Content-Type? > Again, raw mail please. > > Axel > > Sorry, I cannot, as I havent kept this message. So the attachment access point do not use only file extension, but scan the file ?   --__--__--   Message: 14 To: opera-users@opera.com From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:13:17 +0100 Subject: [OU] Spam in mailing lists ? Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Hi,   Is there a risk the email address we use in a mailing list beeing used as spam ?   And about spam, as we cannot trust Opera Spam system, how can we remove spam from my messages, and spam management ?   Thanks :)   --__--__--   Message: 15 From: Axel Siebert To: opera-users@opera.com Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:23:19 +0100 Subject: Re: [OU] Strange behaviour in attachments Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   25.02.03 14:11:24, "Melwyn Da'alimar" wrote:   >>> Second, I had a message with a .zip file attached, which appear in >>> Documents access point and not archives one. How is this possible ? >> >> Wrong Content-Type? >> Again, raw mail please. >> > Sorry, I cannot, as I havent kept this message. So the attachment access > point do not use only file extension, but scan the file ?   No. An attachment has a header telling what it is, regardless of the file extension. File extensions are meaningless on the web, it's dang Internet Explorer who imposed the Windoze (in fact, DOS) concept of file extensions. So most likely the attachment header declared it as generic data or document or whatever.   Axel       --__--__--   Message: 16 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:35:34 +0000 From: "Paul Boizot" To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Hi, I use plain text e-mail too, and don't like HTML e-mail - but as I wrote a few weeks back re another similar discussion, there are plenty of people out there who are never going to be tech-heads and there is no reason why they should be. If the ability is put in front of them to put pretty colours in and have visual creative fun, then some people will do just that and think nothing of it. (Not me, honest! Oh no, I wouldn't use a PC for fun!). They have different priorities.   Yes, if the tech-heads and geeks and sensible regulators can get together and agree and impose a system that permits reasonable formatting without huge bloated HTML e-mails, that is great. Then the non-techies will work with the more limited capabilities they have. But there is no need to slag off the non-tech people, who are being coerced and enticed by the million into using computers, for not knowing about bandwidth.   If there is anyone to slag off, it is whoever/however people get their intro to computing in the first place, if it does not give them the necessary info - and this is almost impossbile to thoroughly police - or the capitalists who will sell what anyone wants now, to make their money, irrespective of other "sensible" considerations.   Best Wishes, Paul   *********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********   On 25/02/03 at 12:59 Matthew Winn wrote:   >CUT   >> > I consider the message text to be more important than its >> > appearance and messages, for me at least, >> > are easier to read if they are uniformly formatted; >> > monospaced font, a nice text size and quotes in >> > different colours. > >CUT > >Because to judge by the sort of bloated and formatting-heavy HTML >messages most fans of HTML mail send, the senders clearly have no >knowledge about things like bandwidth or the fact that you can't >guarantee that the recipient of a message will see things exactly >as they were when sent. If someone spends two minutes writing a >message and ten minutes tarting it up they obviously don't know >much about mail. > >-- >Matthew Winn (matthew@sheridan.co.uk) >--     -------------------------   website; www.paulboizot.co.uk     --__--__--   Message: 17 To: opera-users@opera.com From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:55:20 +0100 Subject: [OU] Identify as Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Read on Opera forum :   > The most common cause of pages not working properly > is the fact that they are badly written; this is so > because they are blocking you either partly (by > filtering out code) or wholly (by saying "incompatible > browser") because you are running Opera. They do this > by scanning the "User-Agent" string that your browser > (Opera) supplies to the website. Regardless of your > "identify as" setting, this string always contains > the word "Opera".   Is this true ? I mean, I have been of a website blocking browsers other than IE and netscape, not because of their choice, but because the webmaster thought this website cannot be read using other browsers. I then identify myself as IE, and this site worked well with this setting...   So anyone can explain me how it works ?   Thanks :)   --__--__--   Message: 18 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:18:25 +0800 To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 From: Andrew Gregory Organization: Southern Cross Software Solutions Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 20:15:43 +1030, wrote:   > > On 25 Feb 2003 at 13:31, Andrew Gregory wrote: >> Only a tiny subset is needed:

                                                      , , , , , and (as a >> shorter alternative to

                                                      ) at least, maybe
                                                        ,
                                                          ,
                                                        1. as >> well. > > Why ? It has to be the most misused tag on the web.   Well, I started up Wordpad on my Windows computer and looked at the toolbar, then listed the tags related to what I saw. I would consider Wordpad to be a minimal feature 'word processor'.   can be misused, of course, but I don't consider that a huge problem. I've seen plenty of plain text emails where the poster has abused their Caps Lock key (i.e. left it on), but I wouldn't consider the precence of a Cap Lock key a problem. It's all in how it's used.   > I consider the message text to be more important than its appearance   The message text *is* what's important, but it is also nice to apply a little extra formatting too.   > Personally I have found that the people who do send HTML mail are the > exact same people I don't want to read HTML mail from. I have received > emails with dark grey text on black, white text on huge backgrounds, one > letter -- one colour. Most of them are easier to read in the raw markup > than when they are correctly rendered.   Fair enough, but doesn't let you specify a background colour, just the foreground colour, size and typeface.   > why is technical savvy tied to an aversion to html-ised messages?   People start off ignorant of computer systems and the goings-on behind the scenes. 'Tech savvy' people often understand how things work, and the costs of doing those things in different ways. So, if someone doesn't understand how HTML email composing actually works, in their ignorance they consider it a 'zero cost'. Once someone learns HTML, and how email works, they understand what happens when they send an HTML email (i.e. duplicate plain text/marked up versions, extra characters for various tags, etc). They have also often seen the crap that popular software packages like MS Word call 'HTML email'.   I consider myself a 'tech savvy' person. I am opposed to HTML email, but not to marked up email. I really wish somebody would come up with an RFC or something before *HTML* email really gets out of hand (if it hasn't already). -- Andrew Gregory, Web:   --__--__--   Message: 19 To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:43:15 +0100 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Le Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:18:25 +0800, Andrew Gregory andrew-at- scsoftware.com.au |Opera Mailing List| a écrit:   >> Personally I have found that the people who do send HTML mail are the >> exact same people I don't want to read HTML mail from. I have received >> emails with dark grey text on black, white text on huge backgrounds, one >> letter -- one colour. Most of them are easier to read in the raw markup >> than when they are correctly rendered. > > Fair enough, but doesn't let you specify a background colour, just > the foreground colour, size and typeface. > Sure, but what about someone writing a text with a yellow font ? Unreadable with a white background. Even worse, what about white font with a white background ? :)   >> why is technical savvy tied to an aversion to html-ised messages? > > People start off ignorant of computer systems and the goings-on behind > the scenes. 'Tech savvy' people often understand how things work, and the > costs of doing those things in different ways. So, if someone doesn't > understand how HTML email composing actually works, in their ignorance > they consider it a 'zero cost'. Once someone learns HTML, and how email > works, they understand what happens when they send an HTML email (i.e. > duplicate plain text/marked up versions, extra characters for various > tags, etc). They have also often seen the crap that popular software > packages like MS Word call 'HTML email'. > > I consider myself a 'tech savvy' person. I am opposed to HTML email, but > not to marked up email. I really wish somebody would come up with an RFC > or something before *HTML* email really gets out of hand (if it hasn't > already). > Zero cost depends on the situation. For example, a friend of mine sending html emails is a zero cost for me, as I have adsl, it is my home mail, I do not pay for bandwith, and I do not receive thousands of messages a day. I don't care if somebody sends me html emails, it costs me nothing.   Sure, now that I use M2, I receive html in plain text, but html or text costs the same money for me... zero cost.   Now I understand some people prefer text email, I understand when you receive thousands of emails a day it can be an issue... But I'm sure even if you receive thousands of emails a day, only a few of them are html, isnt it ?   Thanks :)   --__--__--   Message: 20 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:43:28 +0800 To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 From: Andrew Gregory Organization: Southern Cross Software Solutions Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:51:24 +0100, Axel Siebert wrote:   > I know a lot of text-mode clients, and all of them are able to scroll > left/right. I have yet to see a client which simply dismisses everything > longer than 78 characters.   I will admit I don't use text-mode clients at all, and therefore cannot point the finger at an implementation that actually lost information, but I don't consider it impossible for someone to be that silly :-) Just when you think you've seen the most stupid things, somebody else comes along....   >> If you feel the same about email, and that everybody should be able to >> read your emails, you should be supporting the 78 character limit too. > > I do, very much so! I am an ardent follower of correct line wrapping, > that's why I even do it manually to make sure it's perfect. Generally > being a perfectionist, I was just bitching about your wording that it's > "impossible". > Surely lines longer than 78 characters must be avoided at all costs, by > citing the RFC I just wanted to stress that there is no *technical* > limitation which would make it truly impossible. It was really all about > the > word "impossible". Sorry if I created a misunderstanding there.   That's OK.   > Where did you get the impression that I didn't want limited line length? > I just said that it must be done better than M2 currently does.   Where you talked about a 1000 character/line limit - which is way beyond any screen I've seen and hence effectively an 'unlimited' line length.   > That's precisely why I want to see *while composing* where the mail > client will break the lines, as I can in M1.   Now, this would be useful, but only if it could be toggled on/off during composition.   > Yes, no algorithm is perfect. However, an attempt must be made so select > the best one, the one whose result is acceptable in most of the cases. > All I'm saying is that the current comb-quoting-introducing algorithm > certainly not the best. I'm not saying the converting-to-format-flowed- > by- > paragraph-concatenation-and-inserting-new-CRLFSPACEs-for-text-mode- > clients > algorithm makes no mistakes, but I have tested it on 6500 messages I > received > over the last year, and the number of messages where a concatenation took > place which really looked bad was exactly 2. The number of messages where > M2 would introduce horrible comb quoting was about 2300. So I guess it > would be > a very significant improvement.   These are very interesting statistics - and a very good argument for your algorithm over what currently happens.   -- Andrew Gregory, Web:   --__--__--   Message: 21 To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:31:51 +0100 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Le Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:43:28 +0800, Andrew Gregory andrew-at- scsoftware.com.au |Opera Mailing List| a écrit:   > On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:51:24 +0100, Axel Siebert > wrote: > >> I know a lot of text-mode clients, and all of them are able to scroll >> left/right. I have yet to see a client which simply dismisses everything >> longer than 78 characters. > > I will admit I don't use text-mode clients at all, and therefore cannot > point the finger at an implementation that actually lost information, but > I don't consider it impossible for someone to be that silly :-) Just when > you think you've seen the most stupid things, somebody else comes > along.... > My father is using a text mode client... And he is not silly hehe :) He cannot do anything else. He's working in a university, as a math teacher, and they are using unix (or linux) systems. He hasnt a computer but a workstation, and the only client he can use is a unix, text client.   I hate text client :) It seems when we are talking about GUI, it seems linux users hate them... perhaps using text mode software make them more elitist :)   --__--__--   Message: 22 From: "Josef W. Segur" To: opera-users@opera.com Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:38:43 -0500 Subject: Re: [OU] Identify as Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   On 25 Feb 03, at 14:55, Melwyn wrote:   > Read on Opera forum : > > > The most common cause of pages not working properly > > is the fact that they are badly written; this is so > > because they are blocking you either partly (by > > filtering out code) or wholly (by saying "incompatible > > browser") because you are running Opera. They do this > > by scanning the "User-Agent" string that your browser > > (Opera) supplies to the website. Regardless of your > > "identify as" setting, this string always contains > > the word "Opera". > > Is this true ? I mean, I have been of a website blocking browsers other > than IE and netscape, not because of their choice, but because the > webmaster thought this website cannot be read using other browsers. I then > identify myself as IE, and this site worked well with this setting... > > So anyone can explain me how it works ?   shows how the Useragent strings are formatted.   The User-Agent header is sent with every URL request, so the server can decide what to return based on that.   The other technique site authors often use is to 'sniff' the browser using JavaScript. The useragent string can be checked from the script, or some other navigator object data. Opera changes the navigator.appName and navigator.appVersion data depending on which ID is chosen. is one example of a good sniffer. You can see what data Opera supplies for each ID by reloading.   -- Joe   --__--__--   Message: 23 From: "Frank Owen" To: Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 08:51:56 -0700 Subject: [OU] Java Script Menu is Acting up in Opera Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   This is a multi-part message in MIME format.   ------=_NextPart_000_008E_01C2DCAB.269FA430 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable   I have a Java Script menu that pulls in and out via a MouseOver. I also = have the links set to change colors on MouseOver. In IE, the script = works great. In opera, it will pull the menu out, and push it back in = fine as long as I do not use the "MouseOver" for the links. I have put = a example on my website.   http://www.wosnetworks.com/opera/maino.htm   Thank you for your help!!   Frank ------=_NextPart_000_008E_01C2DCAB.269FA430 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable  
                                                          I have a Java Script menu that pulls in = and out via=20 a MouseOver.  I also have the links set to change colors on=20 MouseOver.  In IE, the script works great.  In opera, it will = pull the=20 menu out, and push it back in fine as long as I do not use the = "MouseOver" for=20 the links.  I have put a example on my website.
                                                           
                                                          http://www.wosnetwork= s.com/opera/maino.htm
                                                           
                                                          Thank you for your help!!
                                                           
                                                          Frank
                                                            ------=_NextPart_000_008E_01C2DCAB.269FA430--     --__--__--   Message: 24 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:53:05 -0500 From: Patrick Shanahan To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   * Melwyn Da'alimar [02-25-03 10:34]: ... chop ... chop .... > My father is using a text mode client... And he is not silly hehe :) He > cannot do anything else. He's working in a university, as a math teacher, > and they are using unix (or linux) systems. He hasnt a computer but a > workstation, and the only client he can use is a unix, text client. > > I hate text client :) It seems when we are talking about GUI, it seems > linux users hate them... perhaps using text mode software make them more > elitist :)   You are searching. Most (of the elder) also dislike the mouse. The cli allows exacting control and a speed that you wouldn't believe. But, knowledge is also necessary.   You find the same with the elder x86 users, also. Dos allowed control and speed. Many things are still *much_better* accomplished from the dos cli than from winedohs. -- Patrick Shanahan Please avoid TOFU and trim >quotes< http://wahoo.no-ip.org Registered Linux User #207535 icq#173753138 @ http://counter.li.org   --__--__--   Message: 25 To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Identify as From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 17:02:52 +0100 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Le Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:38:43 -0500, Josef W. Segur jsegur-at-westelcom.com |Opera Mailing List| a écrit:   > The other technique site authors often use is to 'sniff' the browser > using JavaScript. The useragent string can be checked from the script, > or some other navigator object data. Opera changes the navigator.appName > and navigator.appVersion data depending on which ID > is chosen. > is one example of a good sniffer. You can see what data Opera supplies > for each ID by reloading. > Oh so it means that if the website is only checking navigator.appname, it will work if the site is designed for IE and we are identifying as IE, but that the web site can go further, and know what browser we are "really" using ? :)   --__--__--   Message: 26 To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 17:07:40 +0100 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Le Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:53:05 -0500, Patrick Shanahan paka-at-myrealbox.com |Opera Mailing List| a écrit:   > * Melwyn Da'alimar [02-25-03 10:34]: > ... chop ... chop .... >> My father is using a text mode client... And he is not silly hehe :) He >> cannot do anything else. He's working in a university, as a math >> teacher, and they are using unix (or linux) systems. He hasnt a computer >> but a workstation, and the only client he can use is a unix, text >> client. >> >> I hate text client :) It seems when we are talking about GUI, it seems >> linux users hate them... perhaps using text mode software make them more >> elitist :) > > You are searching. Most (of the elder) also dislike the mouse. The > cli allows exacting control and a speed that you wouldn't believe. But, > knowledge is also necessary. > > You find the same with the elder x86 users, also. Dos allowed control > and speed. Many things are still *much_better* accomplished from the > dos cli than from winedohs. > Perhaps, but I hate to have to memorize hundreds of hotkeys :) In Opera I remember the 'K' to mark as read, and I do all other actions with the mouse. A friend of mine has hundred of hotkeys and can handle them, I simply cannot. You can be sure that with a text client I will often hit F1 to read what hotkey to use. My father doesn't do this because he hates the mouse, but just because the technician setup the unix system like that, and he cannot change this. There is also a note saying it is forbidden to install third party softwares :)   --__--__--   Message: 27 To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Java Script Menu is Acting up in Opera From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 17:10:08 +0100 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Le Tue, 25 Feb 2003 08:51:56 -0700, Frank Owen franko-at-utsonline.net |Opera Mailing List| a écrit:   > I have a Java Script menu that pulls in and out via a MouseOver. I also > have the links set to change colors on MouseOver. In IE, the script > works great. In opera, it will pull the menu out, and push it back in > fine as long as I do not use the "MouseOver" for the links. I have put a > example on my website. > > http://www.wosnetworks.com/opera/maino.htm > > Thank you for your help!! > > Frank > I have no menu at all in the webpage you gave as an example... I'm using Opera 7.   --__--__--   Message: 28 From: "Frank Owen" To: Subject: RE: [OU] Java Script Menu is Acting up in Opera Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:19:51 -0700 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   This is a multi-part message in MIME format.   ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C2DCAF.0CD30A20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable   The menu is located on the left hand side. It pulls out when you move = over the blue shaded box next to the edge of the browser window. I will = download opera 7 and see if it is there. Thanks!       --Frank   -----Original Message-----   From: opera-users-admin@opera.com [mailto:opera-users-admin@opera.com]On   Behalf Of Melwyn Da'alimar   Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 9:10 AM   To: opera-users@opera.com   Subject: Re: [OU] Java Script Menu is Acting up in Opera       Le Tue, 25 Feb 2003 08:51:56 -0700, Frank Owen franko-at-utsonline.net=20   |Opera Mailing List| a =E9crit:   > I have a Java Script menu that pulls in and out via a MouseOver. I = also=20       > have the links set to change colors on MouseOver. In IE, the script=20   > works great. In opera, it will pull the menu out, and push it back in=20   > fine as long as I do not use the "MouseOver" for the links. I have put = a=20   > example on my website.   >   > http://www.wosnetworks.com/opera/maino.htm   >   > Thank you for your help!!   >   > Frank   >   I have no menu at all in the webpage you gave as an example... I'm using =     Opera 7.   --=20   Opera-users: http://list.opera.com/mailman/listinfo/opera-users   More lists: http://list.opera.com/mailman/listinfo/   Unsubscribe: mailto:opera-users-request@opera.com?subject=3Dunsubscribe   ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C2DCAF.0CD30A20 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable  

                                                          The menu is located on the left hand side.  It pulls out when = you move=20 over the blue shaded box next to the edge of the browser window.  I = will=20 download opera 7 and see if it is there.  Thanks!

                                                           

                                                          --Frank

                                                          -----Original Message-----

                                                          From: opera-users-admin@opera.com = [mailto:opera-users-admin@opera.com]On

                                                          Behalf Of Melwyn Da'alimar

                                                          Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 9:10 AM

                                                          To: opera-users@opera.com

                                                          Subject: Re: [OU] Java Script Menu is Acting up in Opera

                                                           

                                                          Le Tue, 25 Feb 2003 08:51:56 -0700, Frank Owen = franko-at-utsonline.net

                                                          |Opera Mailing List| <bof2hatpew0t@sneakemail.com> a = =E9crit:

                                                          > I have a Java Script menu that pulls in and out via a MouseOver. = I also=20

                                                           

                                                          > have the links set to change colors on MouseOver. In IE, the = script

                                                          > works great. In opera, it will pull the menu out, and push it = back in=20

                                                          > fine as long as I do not use the "MouseOver" for the links. I = have put a=20

                                                          > example on my website.

                                                          >

                                                          > http://www.wosnetworks.com/opera/maino.htm

                                                          >

                                                          > Thank you for your help!!

                                                          >

                                                          > Frank

                                                          >

                                                          I have no menu at all in the webpage you gave as an example... I'm = using

                                                          Opera 7.

                                                          --

                                                          Opera-users: http://list.opera.com/mailman/listinfo/opera-users

                                                          More lists: http://list.opera.com/mailman/listinfo/

                                                          Unsubscribe:=20 mailto:opera-users-request@opera.com?subject=3Dunsubscribe

                                                            ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C2DCAF.0CD30A20--     --__--__--   Message: 29 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 11:34:59 -0500 To: "opera-users@opera.com" From: Sue Sims Subject: [OU] FAQ: query Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Part of my new job description is to develop a series of FAQs for the Opera newsgroups and mailing lists, so...I'm starting with you :-)   There are a few ways to approach the issue of FAQs, and I've chosen to leave it up to the members how to develop the FAQs. I expect to include some administrivia (like detailed instructions on how to unsubscribe, since some list members don't understand that all it takes is to click on the link included in each and every mailing to the list). Other than administrivia, what specific questions would you like to include? Please include the *answers*, as well. I expect to use the eventual FAQ as proof of concept in developing the other FAQs for the newsgroups. You will receive credit in the FAQ for your answers (unless you request anonymity).   All discussion should take place on the list, preferably in a thread which includes FAQ in the subject. Why, you ask? Because I'm most interested in this being a community effort, and the only way to do that is to open the process up to the *community*. Those not interested in participating should be able to filter out all messages which contain FAQ in the subject.   Thanks for your help.   Sue     --__--__--   Message: 30 From: "Tom Knight" To: Subject: RE: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 17:07:03 -0000 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com         > > Especially since it's part of a proposed standard (rfc 2557): > > ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc2557.txt > > RFC2557 isn't about mail formatting. It's about > encapsulating aggregate > documents which consist of a root document and linked resources. In a > web environment client software can use URLs to fetch linked resources > but that's not possible when the whole lot is encapsulated in a single > file or transaction, and it's that situation which RFC2557 addresses.     I'm afraid this does extend to use of html mail. Looking at section 9, "Examples" shows this:   9.1 Example of a HTML body without included linked objects   The first example is the simplest form of an HTML email message. This message does not contain an aggregate HTML object, but simply a message with a single HTML body part. This body part contains a URI but the messages does not contain the resource referenced by that URI. To retrieve the resource referenced by the URI the receiving client would need either IP access to the Internet, or an electronic mail web gateway.   From: foo1@bar.net To: foo2@bar.net Subject: A simple example Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit  

                                                          Acute accent

                                                          The following two lines look have the same screen rendering:

                                                          E with acute accent becomes É.
                                                          E with acute accent becomes É.

                                                          Try clicking here.

                                                            Horrid but true.   It's interesting to note section 11 "Security Considerations". where it mentions some of the faults people (rightly) find with html mail, including:   11.1 Security considerations not related to caching   It is possible for a message sender to misrepresent the source of a multipart/related body part to a message recipient by labeling it with a Content-Location URI that references another resource. Therefore, message recipients should only interpret Content-Location URIs as labeling a body part for the resolution of references from body parts in the same multipart/related message structure, and not as the source of a resource, unless this can be verified by other means.   URIs, especially File URIs, if used without change in a message, may inadvertently reveal information that was not intended to be revealed outside a particular security context. Message senders should take care when constructing messages containing the new header fields, defined in this standard, that they are not revealing information outside of any security contexts to which they belong.   Some resource servers hide passwords and tickets (access tokens to information which should not be reveled to others) and other sensitive information in non-visible fields or URIs within a text/html resource. If such a text/html resource is forwarded in an email message, this sensitive information may be inadvertently revealed to others.   Since HTML documents can either directly contain executable content (i.e., JavaScript) or indirectly reference executable content (The "INSERT" specification, Java). It is exceedingly dangerous for a receiving User Agent to execute content received in a mail message without careful attention to restrictions on the capabilities of that executable content.   HTML-formatted messages can be used to investigate user behaviour, for example to break anonymity, in ways which invade the privacy of individuals. If you send a message with a inline link to an object which is not itself included in the message, the recipients mailer or browser may request that object through HTTP. The HTTP transaction will then reveal who is reading the message. Example: A person who wants to find out who is behind an anonymous user identity, or from which workstation a user is reading his mail, can do this by sending a message with an inline link and then observe from where this link is used to request the object.     --__--__--   Message: 31 To: opera-users@opera.com From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:41:22 +0100 Subject: [OU] Browse mails Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Hi,   is it possible to tell Opera to browse all our mails to add people in our active contact list, and to remove people from this list who are not used anymore ?   Thanks   --__--__--   Message: 32 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:51:27 +0100 From: Andre Wichartz To: Andrew Gregory Subject: Re[2]: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Hello Andrew,   On Tuesday, February 25, 2003, 22:18:25 +0800 GMT (which was 15:18 local time), Andrew Gregory wrote:   AG> On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 20:15:43 +1030, wrote:   >> Why ? It has to be the most misused tag on the web.   AG> Well, I started up Wordpad on my Windows computer and looked at the AG> toolbar, then listed the tags related to what I saw. I would consider AG> Wordpad to be a minimal feature 'word processor'.   But not everything that is possible with wordpad is suitable for email. The nice thing about plain text is that I can decide in which way my emails are presented. I decide which font of which size and which foreground and background colours are used. The bad thing about html mail (besides the bandwith issues) is that it takes this freedom away from me. I am forced to look at a message in the layout the sender liked the most. Well, maybe I don't like it at all. Or even worse: Maybe my eyes are not as good and I therefore prefer a larger font. But now I am forced to look at that small font I can barely read.   AG> can be misused, of course, but I don't consider that a huge problem. AG> I've seen plenty of plain text emails where the poster has abused their AG> Caps Lock key (i.e. left it on), but I wouldn't consider the precence of a AG> Cap Lock key a problem. It's all in how it's used.   Yes. But I just don't see a good use for . I have a reason why I want to view mails in my favourite font. Why should the sender force a different one upon me? I can understand that sometime it's desireable to make a word bold or underlined to emphasize it. But is not needed here.     -- Cheers, Andre   "1. If it's green or it wiggles, it's biology. 2. If it stinks, it's chemistry. 3. If it doesn't work, it's physics."       --__--__--   Message: 33 To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Identify as From: jonathan murphy Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:19:05 -0000 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:55:20 +0100, Melwyn Da'alimar wrote:   > Read on Opera forum : >> Regardless of your >> "identify as" setting, this string always contains >> the word "Opera". > > Is this true ?   Yes, that last statement is true.   I mean, I have been of a website blocking browsers other > than IE and netscape, not because of their choice, but because the > webmaster thought this website cannot be read using other browsers. > I then identify myself as IE, and this site worked well with this > setting...   If you set to ID as IE, Opera sends the IE user agent string followeed by the word Opera. Most sites which have casual browser detection just look for "MSIE" or "Netscape" and setting the ID is sufficient to get round them. The presence of the word Opera allows web authors who do actually know what they're doing to realise that you aren't really IE and present you with a page tuned for Opera by looking at the user agent string in more detail. The majority of sites don't do this.   -- Jonathan Murphy   --__--__--   Message: 34 To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Java Script Menu is Acting up in Opera From: jonathan murphy Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:30:47 -0000 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:19:51 -0700, Frank Owen wrote:   > The menu is located on the left hand side. It pulls out when you move > over the blue shaded box next to the edge of the browser window. I will > download opera 7 and see if it is there. Thanks! >   if (document.all) document.write(the menu is in here.............. (not sure why this needs to be written in JS?)   This adds up to "if the user has MSIE, write the menu! document.all is MS proprietary, not part of JavaScript. The menu will not appear in anything other than IE. Later on there's some document.layers stuff (Netscape 4 only). You need to read a more recent JavaScript tutorial, perhaps.   -- Jonathan Murphy   --__--__--   Message: 35 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:24:17 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) From: Alan G Isaac To: opera-users@opera.com organization: American University Subject: [OU] Re: Email formatting problem with M2 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   > On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 22:32:56 -0500, Patrick Shanahan > wrote: >> Email is *plain* ascii text, not 'marked-up' by html, >> css, or any other method.   On Tue, Andrew Gregory wrote: > I mostly agree with this, but I also recognise that the > computing world largely left text-only systems behind > about ten years ago. Email is probably the most-used form > of communication on the Internet and I think it is past > time *someone* brought it into the graphical present. Note > that I would strongly oppose anything that would prevent > text-only people from reading or otherwise using email. I > think the existing method of attaching a marked-up email > to a plain text version is the best way of doing this. > However, I don't think *HTML* is the way to go. It's too > big and complicated. Only a tiny subset is needed:

                                                          , > , , , , and (as a shorter alternative > to

                                                          ) at least, maybe
                                                            ,
                                                              ,
                                                            1. as well. > Ignoring , such a marked-up message would be easily > readable, even if a plain-text alternate version were not > available.   Ignoring that the proposal is in part to implement deprecated HTML, it seems that

                                                              = eol, eol text = *text* text = _text_ text = "text" and less reliably text = TEXT   IMHO we need a damn good reason to abandon this. If you just want to change the display of the marked up text, pick an email client that supports "Trivial Markup" (e.g., Mahogany).   > Nevertheless, the only way is forward, and email *must* > change.   I really do not see why. Unless you mean that it inevitably will change, which is probably true.   > It would be better if someone came up with an RFC > for simple markup, otherwise (if it isn't already too > late) MS and their HTML monsters will dictate what emails > of the future will be.   To find out, look at your spam. But your point is well taken.   Cheers, Alan Isaac         --__--__--   Message: 36 From: Axel Siebert To: opera-users@opera.com Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:34:45 +0100 Subject: Re: [OU] Re: Email formatting problem with M2 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   25.02.03 21:24:17, Alan G Isaac wrote:   > Ignoring that the proposal is in part to implement > deprecated HTML, it seems that >

                                                              = eol, eol > text = *text* > text = _text_ > text = "text" > and less reliably > text = TEXT > > IMHO we need a damn good reason to abandon this.   So true, just a little correction: The usual practice, at least on Usenet, is   text = /text/ text = *text* text = TEXT   Axel   --__--__--   Message: 37 From: Axel Siebert To: opera-users@opera.com Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:33:37 +0100 Subject: Re: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   25.02.03 15:43:15, "Melwyn Da'alimar" wrote:   >For example, a friend of mine sending html emails is a zero cost for me, as >I have adsl, it is my home mail, I do not pay for bandwith   Oh, but you do!! You just don't notice it because you pay a fixed amount. But if everybody would use available bandwidth reasonably, all ISPs would need less powerful servers, less thick lines, less fat storage, so they could offer much cheaper flatrates. You are already paying for HTML mail, rest assured.   Axel   --__--__--   Message: 38 From: "Suryanto Hendrawan" To: Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 23:13:48 +0100 Subject: [OU] endlose Schleife Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Hi,   als ich die Seite http://www.wetter.de offnete, bekam ich eine endlose Schleife. Hat jemand auch dieses merkwuerdige Verhalten, oder liegt es nur in meinem Rechner. Ich benutze Opera 7.01 auf Windows XP Pro.   Schoenen Abend Suryanto Hendrawan     --__--__--   Message: 39 From: "Suryanto Hendrawan" To: Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 23:22:46 +0100 Subject: [OU] endless loop Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Hi again,   sorry for the last mail, have forgotten to write it in english. also, als i try to open http://www.wetter.de , i have received an endless loop. have anybody the same problem? any idea, how to solve it? I use opera 7.01 in Windows XP Pro.   Thanks Suryanto Hendrawan       --__--__--   Message: 40 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:08:50 -0800 From: Larry Washbrook Subject: Re: [OU] endless loop To: opera-users@opera.com Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   I'm using Opera 7.01 with Windows XP Pro and have no difficulty accessing the site. I don't know where your problem is.   On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 23:22:46 +0100, Suryanto Hendrawan wrote:   > Hi again, > > sorry for the last mail, have forgotten to write it in english. also, > als i try to open http://www.wetter.de , i have received an endless loop. > have anybody the same problem? any idea, how to solve it? > I use opera 7.01 in Windows XP Pro. > > Thanks > Suryanto Hendrawan > >       --     --__--__--   Message: 41 Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 00:19:11 +0100 From: Andre Wichartz To: Larry Washbrook Subject: Re[2]: [OU] endless loop Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Hello Larry,   On Wednesday, February 26, 2003, 15:08:50 -0800 GMT (which was 00:08 local time), Larry Washbrook wrote:   LW> On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 23:22:46 +0100, Suryanto Hendrawan LW> wrote:   >> sorry for the last mail, have forgotten to write it in english. also, >> als i try to open http://www.wetter.de , i have received an endless loop. >> have anybody the same problem? any idea, how to solve it? >> I use opera 7.01 in Windows XP Pro.   LW> I'm using Opera 7.01 with Windows XP Pro and have no difficulty LW> accessing the site. I don't know where your problem is.   It was the same for me. Normally I have Opera id as IE. So I loaded the page a second time, this time id-ing as Opera and there it is: a endless loop.   So your answer is to id as IE. Then the site works.     -- Cheers, Andre   "The government of the people, by the people, for t     --__--__--   Message: 42 From: Axel Siebert To: opera-users@opera.com Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 00:31:46 +0100 Subject: Re: Re[2]: [OU] endless loop Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   26.02.03 00:19:11, Andre Wichartz wrote:   >>> sorry for the last mail, have forgotten to write it in english. also, >>> als i try to open http://www.wetter.de , i have received an endless loop. >>> have anybody the same problem? any idea, how to solve it? >>> I use opera 7.01 in Windows XP Pro.   > It was the same for me. Normally I have Opera id as IE. So I loaded the > page a second time, this time id-ing as Opera and there it is: a endless > loop. > > So your answer is to id as IE. Then the site works.   No. The answer is to reload the page. If you visit it for the first time, it will work. If it is drawn from the cache on the next visit, it loops. The reason is some FUBAR JavaSpit designed to make sure you don't circumvent the frameset. Try hitting the stop/reload button a few times while it loops, eventually this will force a reload, which will finish loading.   Axel       --__--__--   Message: 43 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:07:03 -0800 To: opera-users@opera.com From: "Nicholas H. Kaps" Organization: Perspectives Subject: [OU] email problem Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   I recently am having a problem with my email. Part of my email is not downloaded from my isp.   A box appears that says "Generic Error" Inside the box is the following statement.   "nkaps@garlic.com Opera tried to retrieve message 1(UIDL CL%#!odC"!e#:!!6&H"!) from the POP3 server, but failed to store it on your machine."   Has anyone else had a similiar problem or any ideas as to what happened?? -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/   --__--__--   Message: 44 To: opera-users@opera.com, opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 From: Edward Organization: Retired Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:19:46 -0500 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   I am not sure what you all are talking about. But what I want is to just type a message and sent it. I am too old to fool with BS notations. I am not a programer and do not want to be. If what you are talking about does not require other than just typing the message. Disregard my comments. Edward     On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:31:22 +0800, Andrew Gregory wrote:   > In response to my previous message... > > On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 22:32:56 -0500, Patrick Shanahan > wrote: > >> Email is *plain* ascii text, not 'marked-up' by html, css, or any other >> method. > > I mostly agree with this, but I also recognise that the computing world > largely left text-only systems behind about ten years ago. Email is > probably the most-used form of communication on the Internet and I think > it is past time *someone* brought it into the graphical present. Note > that I would strongly oppose anything that would prevent text-only people > from reading or otherwise using email. I think the existing method of > attaching a marked-up email to a plain text version is the best way of > doing this. However, I don't think *HTML* is the way to go. It's too big > and complicated. Only a tiny subset is needed:

                                                              , , , , > , and (as a shorter alternative to

                                                              ) at least, > maybe
                                                                ,
                                                                  ,
                                                                1. as well. Ignoring , such a marked-up message > would be easily readable, even if a plain-text alternate version were not > available. > >> Unformatted things are only ugly if your email-client is not capable of >> presenting them properly. > > My points were that plain text only messages make this difficult, if not > impossible. Too much formatting information is lost in the conversion to > plain text. > >> To follow your line of reasoning (which I partially agree), nothing but >> plain ascii text email should exist. I use a text-mode client which, >> of itself, is only capable of presenting plain ascii text. > > No, email should *always* be accessible to people no matter the > capabilities of their client, but I think it is wrong for the now tiny > minority of people who can *only* handle plain text to hold back the vast > majority of people using graphical system from being able to add a little > formatting (bold, underline, italic, colour, fonts) to their messages. > >> I do reformat quoted text to <72 chars, trim quotes and do not TOFU as >> a courtesy to the reader. This was at one time the norm for the >> internet community, but since the proliferation of internet >> participants (just after the inception of aol), courtesy and adherance >> to 'norms' has sadly become a *laugh*. > > I had to look up what TOFU meant, and I agree (although I haven't > religously followed those guidelines). It is true that now that a much > higher proportion of the population are on the 'net, the average > capability/courtesy has dropped accordingly. A sad reflection on the > society we live in. When I was at uni for several years, my only 'net > access was via a 19200 baud VT102 terminal emulator, so I know what it > was like and what we have to remain compatible with. > > Nevertheless, the only way is forward, and email *must* change. It would > be better if someone came up with an RFC for simple markup, otherwise (if > it isn't already too late) MS and their HTML monsters will dictate what > emails of the future will be.       -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/     --__--__--   Message: 45 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:53:49 -0500 To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] email problem From: Edward Organization: Retired Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Yes I had the same pop up error message. I reloaded Opera7.1 and it went away for awhile. Now it is back. I asked about this on a forum but noone knew what to do. I do not know what this message is telling me other than Opera is having a problem. With what? Edward   On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:07:03 -0800, Nicholas H. Kaps wrote:   > I recently am having a problem with my email. Part of my email is not > downloaded from my isp. > > A box appears that says "Generic Error" > Inside the box is the following statement. > > "nkaps@garlic.com > Opera tried to retrieve message 1(UIDL CL%#!odC"!e#:!!6&H"!) from the > POP3 server, but failed to store it on your machine." > > Has anyone else had a similiar problem or any ideas as to what happened??       -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/       --__--__--   -- Opera-users mailing list Opera-users@opera.com http://list.opera.com/mailman/listinfo/opera-users     End of Opera-users DigestSend Opera-users mailing list submissions to opera-users@opera.com   To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://list.opera.com/mailman/listinfo/opera-users or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to opera-users-request@opera.com   You can reach the person managing the list at opera-users-admin@opera.com   When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Opera-users digest..."     Today's Topics:   1. Re: Opera7 crushes down! (Axel Siebert) 2. Problems in receiving HTML emails (Melwyn Da'alimar) 3. Re: V7 problem that did not happen with V6.05 (Allan Smith) 4. Help 2 questions: Thanks, victory (hester reik) 5. Re: Problems in receiving HTML emails (Axel Siebert) 6. Mailto (Melwyn Da'alimar) 7. RE: Email formatting problem with M2 (Fred Bone) 8. Re: Problems in receiving HTML emails (Melwyn Da'alimar) 9. Strange behaviour in attachments (Melwyn Da'alimar) 10. Viewing attachments (Melwyn Da'alimar) 11. Re: Strange behaviour in attachments (Axel Siebert) 12. Re: Email formatting problem with M2 (Matthew Winn) 13. Re: Strange behaviour in attachments (Melwyn Da'alimar) 14. Spam in mailing lists ? (Melwyn Da'alimar) 15. Re: Strange behaviour in attachments (Axel Siebert) 16. Re: Email formatting problem with M2 (Paul Boizot) 17. Identify as (Melwyn Da'alimar) 18. Re: Email formatting problem with M2 (Andrew Gregory) 19. Re: Email formatting problem with M2 (Melwyn Da'alimar) 20. Re: Email formatting problem with M2 (Andrew Gregory) 21. Re: Email formatting problem with M2 (Melwyn Da'alimar) 22. Re: Identify as (Josef W. Segur) 23. Java Script Menu is Acting up in Opera (Frank Owen) 24. Re: Email formatting problem with M2 (Patrick Shanahan) 25. Re: Identify as (Melwyn Da'alimar) 26. Re: Email formatting problem with M2 (Melwyn Da'alimar) 27. Re: Java Script Menu is Acting up in Opera (Melwyn Da'alimar) 28. RE: Java Script Menu is Acting up in Opera (Frank Owen) 29. FAQ: query (Sue Sims) 30. RE: Email formatting problem with M2 (Tom Knight) 31. Browse mails (Melwyn Da'alimar) 32. Re[2]: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 (Andre Wichartz) 33. Re: Identify as (jonathan murphy) 34. Re: Java Script Menu is Acting up in Opera (jonathan murphy) 35. Re: Email formatting problem with M2 (Alan G Isaac) 36. Re: Re: Email formatting problem with M2 (Axel Siebert) 37. Re: Email formatting problem with M2 (Axel Siebert) 38. endlose Schleife (Suryanto Hendrawan) 39. endless loop (Suryanto Hendrawan) 40. Re: endless loop (Larry Washbrook) 41. Re[2]: [OU] endless loop (Andre Wichartz) 42. Re: Re[2]: [OU] endless loop (Axel Siebert) 43. email problem (Nicholas H. Kaps) 44. Re: Email formatting problem with M2 (Edward) 45. Re: email problem (Edward)   --__--__--   Message: 1 From: Axel Siebert To: opera-users@opera.com Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:04:46 +0100 Subject: Re: [OU] Opera7 crushes down! Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   24.02.03 11:52:16, Sir Jinx! wrote:   > But, today when I wanted to start it Opera crushes!!!!   Well, I suppose it crAshes. The executables are already compressed, so I don't think they could be crushed any further. SCNR :)   > "OPERA caused an invalid page fault in > module XMLPARSE.DLL at 0167:67e990f2..."   In such cases, we need a crash log, see: http://list.opera.com/pipermail/opera-users/2003-January/016619.html   Axel         --__--__--   Message: 2 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:06:16 +0100 To: opera-users@opera.com From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Subject: [OU] Problems in receiving HTML emails Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Hi,   I do not want to read emails in html. Is it true that preferred body mode set to 2 tells Opera to display mails in text, even if there is only an html version available ?   Moreover, when someone send me an html email with pictures included *in the body* of the message, I am unable to access those pictures. When I have set preffered body mode to 0, I had an error message saying something like : Warning, error while decoding the message. With preferred body mode to 1 I can see the mail in html without problem, and with preferred body mode set to 2 I have no error message but cannot access the pictures.   What I mean is that pictures appear in attachment access point, in the column, but not as attachment in the body of the message. Only way for me to view those pictures is to copy mail as raw text, then open a text editor, paste the text, save the message as a .eml file and read it with Outlook Express. Not very convenient...   Perhaps a way to directly right click on message then choose "save as .eml", or the html message beeing an attachment of the text one would be helpful.   Thanks :)   --__--__--   Message: 3 From: Allan Smith To: opera-users@opera.com Cc: Axel Siebert , freexone Subject: Re: [OU] V7 problem that did not happen with V6.05 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 11:20:24 +0000 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:38:37 +0100, Axel Siebert wrote:   > 24.02.03 21:24:26, Allan Smith wrote: >   >> I find that if I open Opera (7.01) by double clicking on an attachment to an >> e-mail in Agent (1.93) which I currently use e-mail a new copy of opera is >> opened (even if an existing copy is already open). This did not happen with >> v6.05 of Opera. >   > I don't know Agent, so this question might be dumb, but: Is it really > necessary to double-click, and there's no possibility that this might be > interpreted as opening twice?   Axel,   The double start was not something I thought of but as it turns out it does not appear to be the problem. Single click selects the attachment (shown in Agent in a box) and a double click launches it. Attachments may also be launched with from a right click menu on the attachment.   What appears to be the problem is the "current directory" (possibly a synonym for the "'start in directory' as modified since the application was launched") where Opera is running from. The existing open copy of v7.01 is used ONLY if the "current directory" is the same as Agent's own data directory. This deos not appear to be the case with v6.05. The parent process is not a factor, the presence or otherwide of a parameter to v7.01 is not a factor. The only thing I can find that affects it is the directory where v7.01 was started from.   How or why this is the case has me somewhat puzzled.   Regards, Allan Smith (Northwood, Middlesex, England)   --__--__--   Message: 4 To: opera From: hester reik Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 06:56:05 -0500 Subject: [OU] Help 2 questions: Thanks, victory Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Thank you, Jonathan for all your suggestions. I had most of the stuff checked that you suggested. And I already had things set to accept cookies. But the real victory is this...... I got the web technician at my investment account site I couldn't access to download and install Opera 7.01. He couldn't log into the site either :-) and is bumping the case up to the next person to see if they can configure their site in such a way that it is compatible with 7.01. (The interesting thing is.....it worked in 6.05, though I always had to log in 2x.) With the economy in the tank and things not looking good for the future (long or short term) perhaps they were scared of losing a client :-). (not likely). Sorry for the editorializing. hester   Perhaps your cookie settings? Are you set to accept all cookies? I'm just guessing.   Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/     --__--__--   Message: 5 From: Axel Siebert To: opera-users@opera.com Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:44:51 +0100 Subject: Re: [OU] Problems in receiving HTML emails Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   25.02.03 12:06:16, "Melwyn Da'alimar" wrote:   > Is it true that preferred body mode set to 2 tells Opera to display mails > in text, even if there is only an html version available ?   Mode 2 is planned to do that, but it's not yet implemented. For now, modes 2 and 0 are identical.   > Moreover, when someone send me an html email with pictures included *in the > body* of the message, I am unable to access those pictures. When I have set > preffered body mode to 0, I had an error message saying something like : > Warning, error while decoding the message. With preferred body mode to 1 I > can see the mail in html without problem, and with preferred body mode set > to 2 I have no error message but cannot access the pictures.   I suppose the pictures are declared as part of the HTML mail, so they are not identified as attachments. Could you upload the raw mail as a compressed text file so I can have a look at it?   Uploading instructions: http://list.opera.com/pipermail/opera-users/2003-January/016619.html   Axel       --__--__--   Message: 6 To: opera-users@opera.com From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:01:59 +0100 Subject: [OU] Mailto Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Hi,   Why when I click on a mailto link in an application (not in a web page, but in an about box of an application) it launches outlook express instead of Opera M2 ?   Isnt it possible to setup Opera as default email client ?   Thanks :)   --__--__--   Message: 7 From: "Fred Bone" To: opera-users@opera.com Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:11:10 -0000 Subject: RE: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   On 25 Feb 2003 at 10:12, Tom Knight wrote:   [...] [not sure who wrote the next bit as the name wasn't there] > > It says a lot about the people I talk to but leaves me with a > > question: why is technical savvy tied > > to an aversion to html-ised messages? >   > Especially since it's part of a proposed standard (rfc 2557): > ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc2557.txt   But rfc2557 is about the relationship between parts of a message. It doesn't say anything about flavours of HTML in message bodies, beyond setting out conventions for the links.     --__--__--   Message: 8 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:21:49 +0100 To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Problems in receiving HTML emails From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Le Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:44:51 +0100, Axel Siebert me-at-axelsiebert.de |Opera Mailing List| a écrit:   > 25.02.03 12:06:16, "Melwyn Da'alimar" wrote: >   >> Is it true that preferred body mode set to 2 tells Opera to display >> mails in text, even if there is only an html version available ? >   > Mode 2 is planned to do that, but it's not yet implemented. For now, > modes > 2 and 0 are identical. >   They are really identical ? Strange then that I have the warning message when it is set as 0, and not when it is set as 2 :)   >> Moreover, when someone send me an html email with pictures included *in >> the body* of the message, I am unable to access those pictures. When I >> have set preffered body mode to 0, I had an error message saying >> something like : Warning, error while decoding the message. With >> preferred body mode to 1 I can see the mail in html without problem, and >> with preferred body mode set to 2 I have no error message but cannot >> access the pictures. >   > I suppose the pictures are declared as part of the HTML mail, so they are > not identified as attachments. Could you upload the raw mail as a > compressed text file so I can have a look at it? >   > Uploading instructions: > http://list.opera.com/pipermail/opera-users/2003-January/016619.html >   > Axel >   I am doing it with a test email I am writing to myself with outlook express, for privacy reasons... The name of archive is melwynmail2.zip. You can delete melwyn.zip and melwynmail.zip, as those are errors in transmission. I have used IE to FTP, as the command line doesnt seem to work...   Oh, there's no way to drag'n drop to opera to upload a file, as it is possible with IE ? Too bad :)   Thanks :)   --__--__--   Message: 9 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:36:59 +0100 To: opera-users@opera.com From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Subject: [OU] Strange behaviour in attachments Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Hi,   This question is about access point, attachment access point. There are documents, images, music, video, archives.   First, is it possible to add more than that ?   Second, I had a message with a .zip file attached, which appear in Documents access point and not archives one. How is this possible ?   Thanks :)   --__--__--   Message: 10 To: opera-users@opera.com From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:41:33 +0100 Subject: [OU] Viewing attachments Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Hi,   is there a way to view attachments of emails without Opera downloading them on hard drive ? As does Outlook Express I guess, so I havent to put it on my hardrive then delete it if I don't like it.   Don't know what does OE, but when I have an attachment, I just open it. If I don't like it, I delete the mail and the attachment is gone. With Opera, it downloads it in my download folder, then I have to delete it from this download folder if I dislike it.   Thanks...   --__--__--   Message: 11 From: Axel Siebert To: opera-users@opera.com Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:48:18 +0100 Subject: Re: [OU] Strange behaviour in attachments Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   25.02.03 13:36:59, "Melwyn Da'alimar" wrote:   > Second, I had a message with a .zip file attached, which appear in > Documents access point and not archives one. How is this possible ?   Wrong Content-Type? Again, raw mail please.   Axel       --__--__--   Message: 12 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:59:25 +0000 From: Matthew Winn To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 10:12:43AM -0000, Tom Knight wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: opera-users-admin@opera.com > > Sent: 25 February 2003 09:46 > > On 25 Feb 2003 at 13:31, Andrew Gregory wrote: > > > However, I don't think *HTML* is the way to go. It's too big and > > > complicated. Only a tiny subset is needed:

                                                                  , , , > > > , , and > > > (as a shorter alternative to

                                                                  ) at least, > > > maybe
                                                                    ,
                                                                      , > > >
                                                                    1. as well. Ignoring , such a marked-up message > > > would be easily > > > readable, even if a plain-text alternate version were not available.   This has often been suggested and I'd support a limited set of XHTML elements. (If we're going to have formatting in a message we might at least make it XHTML so it's easy to parse.) The problems with HTML mail as it is right now are:   (a) Tools for creating HTML mail bloat the message far beyond reason in their attempts to make the message look _exactly_ as it appeared on the sender's screen. If the sender asks for a bold word they should get word, not an immense block of formatting which tries to preserve their choice of colours, font face and size, line width, margins, and everything else which is appropriate only to them.   (b) That bloat means it's necessary to send a plain-text copy of the message so it can be read by those without HTML-aware clients, further increasing the message size.   (c) There's no restriction on the elements used, so client software must contain a built-in web browser instead of a simple formatter.   (d) There's no restriction on the elements used, so there are security risks associated with scripting and linked images.   (e) Displaying of a formatted message is at the mercy of each client's understanding of HTML. All web browsers are buggy, and there's no reason to expect that email clients would do any better.   (f) There are many versions of HTML but no agreement on which one to use.   (g) The world is full of halfwits who think that everyone else wants a demonstration of the full range of effects permitted by HTML.   An agreed set of limited formatting elements would be great. It would remove the bloated attempts to set every single display attribute on every part of the message. It would eliminate the security issues. It would create a standard for formatting to which all clients could conform. And it would deprive idiots of the ability to send me a message in flashing 72pt text in the hope that I'll think it must be worth reading. The only difficult parts are agreeing a set of elements and persuading Microsoft to support that set without adding its own extensions.   The text/enriched format (RFC1896) is the right idea (but I'd prefer shorter element names). In particular, I consider the design criteria at the start of RFC1896 to be essential.   > > I consider the message text to be more important than its > > appearance and messages, for me at least, > > are easier to read if they are uniformly formatted; > > monospaced font, a nice text size and quotes in > > different colours.   I sometimes need to send messages with a small amount of formatting. Just a few minutes ago I sent a long technical message with several sections and it would have been useful to be able to highlight the title of each section so the reader could scan through the document more efficiently.   > > why is technical savvy tied > > to an aversion to html-ised messages?   Because to judge by the sort of bloated and formatting-heavy HTML messages most fans of HTML mail send, the senders clearly have no knowledge about things like bandwidth or the fact that you can't guarantee that the recipient of a message will see things exactly as they were when sent. If someone spends two minutes writing a message and ten minutes tarting it up they obviously don't know much about mail.   > Especially since it's part of a proposed standard (rfc 2557): > ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc2557.txt   RFC2557 isn't about mail formatting. It's about encapsulating aggregate documents which consist of a root document and linked resources. In a web environment client software can use URLs to fetch linked resources but that's not possible when the whole lot is encapsulated in a single file or transaction, and it's that situation which RFC2557 addresses.   It's an ideal format to use when a browser is saving a web page and all its associated images. Isn't this what IE uses?   -- Matthew Winn (matthew@sheridan.co.uk)   --__--__--   Message: 13 To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Strange behaviour in attachments From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:11:24 +0100 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Le Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:48:18 +0100, Axel Siebert me-at-axelsiebert.de |Opera Mailing List| a écrit:   > 25.02.03 13:36:59, "Melwyn Da'alimar" wrote: > >> Second, I had a message with a .zip file attached, which appear in >> Documents access point and not archives one. How is this possible ? > > Wrong Content-Type? > Again, raw mail please. > > Axel > > Sorry, I cannot, as I havent kept this message. So the attachment access point do not use only file extension, but scan the file ?   --__--__--   Message: 14 To: opera-users@opera.com From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:13:17 +0100 Subject: [OU] Spam in mailing lists ? Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Hi,   Is there a risk the email address we use in a mailing list beeing used as spam ?   And about spam, as we cannot trust Opera Spam system, how can we remove spam from my messages, and spam management ?   Thanks :)   --__--__--   Message: 15 From: Axel Siebert To: opera-users@opera.com Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:23:19 +0100 Subject: Re: [OU] Strange behaviour in attachments Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   25.02.03 14:11:24, "Melwyn Da'alimar" wrote:   >>> Second, I had a message with a .zip file attached, which appear in >>> Documents access point and not archives one. How is this possible ? >> >> Wrong Content-Type? >> Again, raw mail please. >> > Sorry, I cannot, as I havent kept this message. So the attachment access > point do not use only file extension, but scan the file ?   No. An attachment has a header telling what it is, regardless of the file extension. File extensions are meaningless on the web, it's dang Internet Explorer who imposed the Windoze (in fact, DOS) concept of file extensions. So most likely the attachment header declared it as generic data or document or whatever.   Axel       --__--__--   Message: 16 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:35:34 +0000 From: "Paul Boizot" To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Hi, I use plain text e-mail too, and don't like HTML e-mail - but as I wrote a few weeks back re another similar discussion, there are plenty of people out there who are never going to be tech-heads and there is no reason why they should be. If the ability is put in front of them to put pretty colours in and have visual creative fun, then some people will do just that and think nothing of it. (Not me, honest! Oh no, I wouldn't use a PC for fun!). They have different priorities.   Yes, if the tech-heads and geeks and sensible regulators can get together and agree and impose a system that permits reasonable formatting without huge bloated HTML e-mails, that is great. Then the non-techies will work with the more limited capabilities they have. But there is no need to slag off the non-tech people, who are being coerced and enticed by the million into using computers, for not knowing about bandwidth.   If there is anyone to slag off, it is whoever/however people get their intro to computing in the first place, if it does not give them the necessary info - and this is almost impossbile to thoroughly police - or the capitalists who will sell what anyone wants now, to make their money, irrespective of other "sensible" considerations.   Best Wishes, Paul   *********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********   On 25/02/03 at 12:59 Matthew Winn wrote:   >CUT   >> > I consider the message text to be more important than its >> > appearance and messages, for me at least, >> > are easier to read if they are uniformly formatted; >> > monospaced font, a nice text size and quotes in >> > different colours. > >CUT > >Because to judge by the sort of bloated and formatting-heavy HTML >messages most fans of HTML mail send, the senders clearly have no >knowledge about things like bandwidth or the fact that you can't >guarantee that the recipient of a message will see things exactly >as they were when sent. If someone spends two minutes writing a >message and ten minutes tarting it up they obviously don't know >much about mail. > >-- >Matthew Winn (matthew@sheridan.co.uk) >--     -------------------------   website; www.paulboizot.co.uk     --__--__--   Message: 17 To: opera-users@opera.com From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:55:20 +0100 Subject: [OU] Identify as Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Read on Opera forum :   > The most common cause of pages not working properly > is the fact that they are badly written; this is so > because they are blocking you either partly (by > filtering out code) or wholly (by saying "incompatible > browser") because you are running Opera. They do this > by scanning the "User-Agent" string that your browser > (Opera) supplies to the website. Regardless of your > "identify as" setting, this string always contains > the word "Opera".   Is this true ? I mean, I have been of a website blocking browsers other than IE and netscape, not because of their choice, but because the webmaster thought this website cannot be read using other browsers. I then identify myself as IE, and this site worked well with this setting...   So anyone can explain me how it works ?   Thanks :)   --__--__--   Message: 18 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:18:25 +0800 To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 From: Andrew Gregory Organization: Southern Cross Software Solutions Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 20:15:43 +1030, wrote:   > > On 25 Feb 2003 at 13:31, Andrew Gregory wrote: >> Only a tiny subset is needed:

                                                                      , , , , , and (as a >> shorter alternative to

                                                                      ) at least, maybe
                                                                        ,
                                                                          ,
                                                                        1. as >> well. > > Why ? It has to be the most misused tag on the web.   Well, I started up Wordpad on my Windows computer and looked at the toolbar, then listed the tags related to what I saw. I would consider Wordpad to be a minimal feature 'word processor'.   can be misused, of course, but I don't consider that a huge problem. I've seen plenty of plain text emails where the poster has abused their Caps Lock key (i.e. left it on), but I wouldn't consider the precence of a Cap Lock key a problem. It's all in how it's used.   > I consider the message text to be more important than its appearance   The message text *is* what's important, but it is also nice to apply a little extra formatting too.   > Personally I have found that the people who do send HTML mail are the > exact same people I don't want to read HTML mail from. I have received > emails with dark grey text on black, white text on huge backgrounds, one > letter -- one colour. Most of them are easier to read in the raw markup > than when they are correctly rendered.   Fair enough, but doesn't let you specify a background colour, just the foreground colour, size and typeface.   > why is technical savvy tied to an aversion to html-ised messages?   People start off ignorant of computer systems and the goings-on behind the scenes. 'Tech savvy' people often understand how things work, and the costs of doing those things in different ways. So, if someone doesn't understand how HTML email composing actually works, in their ignorance they consider it a 'zero cost'. Once someone learns HTML, and how email works, they understand what happens when they send an HTML email (i.e. duplicate plain text/marked up versions, extra characters for various tags, etc). They have also often seen the crap that popular software packages like MS Word call 'HTML email'.   I consider myself a 'tech savvy' person. I am opposed to HTML email, but not to marked up email. I really wish somebody would come up with an RFC or something before *HTML* email really gets out of hand (if it hasn't already). -- Andrew Gregory, Web:   --__--__--   Message: 19 To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:43:15 +0100 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Le Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:18:25 +0800, Andrew Gregory andrew-at- scsoftware.com.au |Opera Mailing List| a écrit:   >> Personally I have found that the people who do send HTML mail are the >> exact same people I don't want to read HTML mail from. I have received >> emails with dark grey text on black, white text on huge backgrounds, one >> letter -- one colour. Most of them are easier to read in the raw markup >> than when they are correctly rendered. > > Fair enough, but doesn't let you specify a background colour, just > the foreground colour, size and typeface. > Sure, but what about someone writing a text with a yellow font ? Unreadable with a white background. Even worse, what about white font with a white background ? :)   >> why is technical savvy tied to an aversion to html-ised messages? > > People start off ignorant of computer systems and the goings-on behind > the scenes. 'Tech savvy' people often understand how things work, and the > costs of doing those things in different ways. So, if someone doesn't > understand how HTML email composing actually works, in their ignorance > they consider it a 'zero cost'. Once someone learns HTML, and how email > works, they understand what happens when they send an HTML email (i.e. > duplicate plain text/marked up versions, extra characters for various > tags, etc). They have also often seen the crap that popular software > packages like MS Word call 'HTML email'. > > I consider myself a 'tech savvy' person. I am opposed to HTML email, but > not to marked up email. I really wish somebody would come up with an RFC > or something before *HTML* email really gets out of hand (if it hasn't > already). > Zero cost depends on the situation. For example, a friend of mine sending html emails is a zero cost for me, as I have adsl, it is my home mail, I do not pay for bandwith, and I do not receive thousands of messages a day. I don't care if somebody sends me html emails, it costs me nothing.   Sure, now that I use M2, I receive html in plain text, but html or text costs the same money for me... zero cost.   Now I understand some people prefer text email, I understand when you receive thousands of emails a day it can be an issue... But I'm sure even if you receive thousands of emails a day, only a few of them are html, isnt it ?   Thanks :)   --__--__--   Message: 20 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:43:28 +0800 To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 From: Andrew Gregory Organization: Southern Cross Software Solutions Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:51:24 +0100, Axel Siebert wrote:   > I know a lot of text-mode clients, and all of them are able to scroll > left/right. I have yet to see a client which simply dismisses everything > longer than 78 characters.   I will admit I don't use text-mode clients at all, and therefore cannot point the finger at an implementation that actually lost information, but I don't consider it impossible for someone to be that silly :-) Just when you think you've seen the most stupid things, somebody else comes along....   >> If you feel the same about email, and that everybody should be able to >> read your emails, you should be supporting the 78 character limit too. > > I do, very much so! I am an ardent follower of correct line wrapping, > that's why I even do it manually to make sure it's perfect. Generally > being a perfectionist, I was just bitching about your wording that it's > "impossible". > Surely lines longer than 78 characters must be avoided at all costs, by > citing the RFC I just wanted to stress that there is no *technical* > limitation which would make it truly impossible. It was really all about > the > word "impossible". Sorry if I created a misunderstanding there.   That's OK.   > Where did you get the impression that I didn't want limited line length? > I just said that it must be done better than M2 currently does.   Where you talked about a 1000 character/line limit - which is way beyond any screen I've seen and hence effectively an 'unlimited' line length.   > That's precisely why I want to see *while composing* where the mail > client will break the lines, as I can in M1.   Now, this would be useful, but only if it could be toggled on/off during composition.   > Yes, no algorithm is perfect. However, an attempt must be made so select > the best one, the one whose result is acceptable in most of the cases. > All I'm saying is that the current comb-quoting-introducing algorithm > certainly not the best. I'm not saying the converting-to-format-flowed- > by- > paragraph-concatenation-and-inserting-new-CRLFSPACEs-for-text-mode- > clients > algorithm makes no mistakes, but I have tested it on 6500 messages I > received > over the last year, and the number of messages where a concatenation took > place which really looked bad was exactly 2. The number of messages where > M2 would introduce horrible comb quoting was about 2300. So I guess it > would be > a very significant improvement.   These are very interesting statistics - and a very good argument for your algorithm over what currently happens.   -- Andrew Gregory, Web:   --__--__--   Message: 21 To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:31:51 +0100 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Le Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:43:28 +0800, Andrew Gregory andrew-at- scsoftware.com.au |Opera Mailing List| a écrit:   > On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:51:24 +0100, Axel Siebert > wrote: > >> I know a lot of text-mode clients, and all of them are able to scroll >> left/right. I have yet to see a client which simply dismisses everything >> longer than 78 characters. > > I will admit I don't use text-mode clients at all, and therefore cannot > point the finger at an implementation that actually lost information, but > I don't consider it impossible for someone to be that silly :-) Just when > you think you've seen the most stupid things, somebody else comes > along.... > My father is using a text mode client... And he is not silly hehe :) He cannot do anything else. He's working in a university, as a math teacher, and they are using unix (or linux) systems. He hasnt a computer but a workstation, and the only client he can use is a unix, text client.   I hate text client :) It seems when we are talking about GUI, it seems linux users hate them... perhaps using text mode software make them more elitist :)   --__--__--   Message: 22 From: "Josef W. Segur" To: opera-users@opera.com Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:38:43 -0500 Subject: Re: [OU] Identify as Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   On 25 Feb 03, at 14:55, Melwyn wrote:   > Read on Opera forum : > > > The most common cause of pages not working properly > > is the fact that they are badly written; this is so > > because they are blocking you either partly (by > > filtering out code) or wholly (by saying "incompatible > > browser") because you are running Opera. They do this > > by scanning the "User-Agent" string that your browser > > (Opera) supplies to the website. Regardless of your > > "identify as" setting, this string always contains > > the word "Opera". > > Is this true ? I mean, I have been of a website blocking browsers other > than IE and netscape, not because of their choice, but because the > webmaster thought this website cannot be read using other browsers. I then > identify myself as IE, and this site worked well with this setting... > > So anyone can explain me how it works ?   shows how the Useragent strings are formatted.   The User-Agent header is sent with every URL request, so the server can decide what to return based on that.   The other technique site authors often use is to 'sniff' the browser using JavaScript. The useragent string can be checked from the script, or some other navigator object data. Opera changes the navigator.appName and navigator.appVersion data depending on which ID is chosen. is one example of a good sniffer. You can see what data Opera supplies for each ID by reloading.   -- Joe   --__--__--   Message: 23 From: "Frank Owen" To: Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 08:51:56 -0700 Subject: [OU] Java Script Menu is Acting up in Opera Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   This is a multi-part message in MIME format.   ------=_NextPart_000_008E_01C2DCAB.269FA430 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable   I have a Java Script menu that pulls in and out via a MouseOver. I also = have the links set to change colors on MouseOver. In IE, the script = works great. In opera, it will pull the menu out, and push it back in = fine as long as I do not use the "MouseOver" for the links. I have put = a example on my website.   http://www.wosnetworks.com/opera/maino.htm   Thank you for your help!!   Frank ------=_NextPart_000_008E_01C2DCAB.269FA430 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable  
                                                                          I have a Java Script menu that pulls in = and out via=20 a MouseOver.  I also have the links set to change colors on=20 MouseOver.  In IE, the script works great.  In opera, it will = pull the=20 menu out, and push it back in fine as long as I do not use the = "MouseOver" for=20 the links.  I have put a example on my website.
                                                                           
                                                                          http://www.wosnetwork= s.com/opera/maino.htm
                                                                           
                                                                          Thank you for your help!!
                                                                           
                                                                          Frank
                                                                            ------=_NextPart_000_008E_01C2DCAB.269FA430--     --__--__--   Message: 24 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:53:05 -0500 From: Patrick Shanahan To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   * Melwyn Da'alimar [02-25-03 10:34]: ... chop ... chop .... > My father is using a text mode client... And he is not silly hehe :) He > cannot do anything else. He's working in a university, as a math teacher, > and they are using unix (or linux) systems. He hasnt a computer but a > workstation, and the only client he can use is a unix, text client. > > I hate text client :) It seems when we are talking about GUI, it seems > linux users hate them... perhaps using text mode software make them more > elitist :)   You are searching. Most (of the elder) also dislike the mouse. The cli allows exacting control and a speed that you wouldn't believe. But, knowledge is also necessary.   You find the same with the elder x86 users, also. Dos allowed control and speed. Many things are still *much_better* accomplished from the dos cli than from winedohs. -- Patrick Shanahan Please avoid TOFU and trim >quotes< http://wahoo.no-ip.org Registered Linux User #207535 icq#173753138 @ http://counter.li.org   --__--__--   Message: 25 To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Identify as From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 17:02:52 +0100 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Le Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:38:43 -0500, Josef W. Segur jsegur-at-westelcom.com |Opera Mailing List| a écrit:   > The other technique site authors often use is to 'sniff' the browser > using JavaScript. The useragent string can be checked from the script, > or some other navigator object data. Opera changes the navigator.appName > and navigator.appVersion data depending on which ID > is chosen. > is one example of a good sniffer. You can see what data Opera supplies > for each ID by reloading. > Oh so it means that if the website is only checking navigator.appname, it will work if the site is designed for IE and we are identifying as IE, but that the web site can go further, and know what browser we are "really" using ? :)   --__--__--   Message: 26 To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 17:07:40 +0100 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Le Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:53:05 -0500, Patrick Shanahan paka-at-myrealbox.com |Opera Mailing List| a écrit:   > * Melwyn Da'alimar [02-25-03 10:34]: > ... chop ... chop .... >> My father is using a text mode client... And he is not silly hehe :) He >> cannot do anything else. He's working in a university, as a math >> teacher, and they are using unix (or linux) systems. He hasnt a computer >> but a workstation, and the only client he can use is a unix, text >> client. >> >> I hate text client :) It seems when we are talking about GUI, it seems >> linux users hate them... perhaps using text mode software make them more >> elitist :) > > You are searching. Most (of the elder) also dislike the mouse. The > cli allows exacting control and a speed that you wouldn't believe. But, > knowledge is also necessary. > > You find the same with the elder x86 users, also. Dos allowed control > and speed. Many things are still *much_better* accomplished from the > dos cli than from winedohs. > Perhaps, but I hate to have to memorize hundreds of hotkeys :) In Opera I remember the 'K' to mark as read, and I do all other actions with the mouse. A friend of mine has hundred of hotkeys and can handle them, I simply cannot. You can be sure that with a text client I will often hit F1 to read what hotkey to use. My father doesn't do this because he hates the mouse, but just because the technician setup the unix system like that, and he cannot change this. There is also a note saying it is forbidden to install third party softwares :)   --__--__--   Message: 27 To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Java Script Menu is Acting up in Opera From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 17:10:08 +0100 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Le Tue, 25 Feb 2003 08:51:56 -0700, Frank Owen franko-at-utsonline.net |Opera Mailing List| a écrit:   > I have a Java Script menu that pulls in and out via a MouseOver. I also > have the links set to change colors on MouseOver. In IE, the script > works great. In opera, it will pull the menu out, and push it back in > fine as long as I do not use the "MouseOver" for the links. I have put a > example on my website. > > http://www.wosnetworks.com/opera/maino.htm > > Thank you for your help!! > > Frank > I have no menu at all in the webpage you gave as an example... I'm using Opera 7.   --__--__--   Message: 28 From: "Frank Owen" To: Subject: RE: [OU] Java Script Menu is Acting up in Opera Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:19:51 -0700 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   This is a multi-part message in MIME format.   ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C2DCAF.0CD30A20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable   The menu is located on the left hand side. It pulls out when you move = over the blue shaded box next to the edge of the browser window. I will = download opera 7 and see if it is there. Thanks!       --Frank   -----Original Message-----   From: opera-users-admin@opera.com [mailto:opera-users-admin@opera.com]On   Behalf Of Melwyn Da'alimar   Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 9:10 AM   To: opera-users@opera.com   Subject: Re: [OU] Java Script Menu is Acting up in Opera       Le Tue, 25 Feb 2003 08:51:56 -0700, Frank Owen franko-at-utsonline.net=20   |Opera Mailing List| a =E9crit:   > I have a Java Script menu that pulls in and out via a MouseOver. I = also=20       > have the links set to change colors on MouseOver. In IE, the script=20   > works great. In opera, it will pull the menu out, and push it back in=20   > fine as long as I do not use the "MouseOver" for the links. I have put = a=20   > example on my website.   >   > http://www.wosnetworks.com/opera/maino.htm   >   > Thank you for your help!!   >   > Frank   >   I have no menu at all in the webpage you gave as an example... I'm using =     Opera 7.   --=20   Opera-users: http://list.opera.com/mailman/listinfo/opera-users   More lists: http://list.opera.com/mailman/listinfo/   Unsubscribe: mailto:opera-users-request@opera.com?subject=3Dunsubscribe   ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C2DCAF.0CD30A20 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable  

                                                                          The menu is located on the left hand side.  It pulls out when = you move=20 over the blue shaded box next to the edge of the browser window.  I = will=20 download opera 7 and see if it is there.  Thanks!

                                                                           

                                                                          --Frank

                                                                          -----Original Message-----

                                                                          From: opera-users-admin@opera.com = [mailto:opera-users-admin@opera.com]On

                                                                          Behalf Of Melwyn Da'alimar

                                                                          Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 9:10 AM

                                                                          To: opera-users@opera.com

                                                                          Subject: Re: [OU] Java Script Menu is Acting up in Opera

                                                                           

                                                                          Le Tue, 25 Feb 2003 08:51:56 -0700, Frank Owen = franko-at-utsonline.net

                                                                          |Opera Mailing List| <bof2hatpew0t@sneakemail.com> a = =E9crit:

                                                                          > I have a Java Script menu that pulls in and out via a MouseOver. = I also=20

                                                                           

                                                                          > have the links set to change colors on MouseOver. In IE, the = script

                                                                          > works great. In opera, it will pull the menu out, and push it = back in=20

                                                                          > fine as long as I do not use the "MouseOver" for the links. I = have put a=20

                                                                          > example on my website.

                                                                          >

                                                                          > http://www.wosnetworks.com/opera/maino.htm

                                                                          >

                                                                          > Thank you for your help!!

                                                                          >

                                                                          > Frank

                                                                          >

                                                                          I have no menu at all in the webpage you gave as an example... I'm = using

                                                                          Opera 7.

                                                                          --

                                                                          Opera-users: http://list.opera.com/mailman/listinfo/opera-users

                                                                          More lists: http://list.opera.com/mailman/listinfo/

                                                                          Unsubscribe:=20 mailto:opera-users-request@opera.com?subject=3Dunsubscribe

                                                                            ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C2DCAF.0CD30A20--     --__--__--   Message: 29 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 11:34:59 -0500 To: "opera-users@opera.com" From: Sue Sims Subject: [OU] FAQ: query Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Part of my new job description is to develop a series of FAQs for the Opera newsgroups and mailing lists, so...I'm starting with you :-)   There are a few ways to approach the issue of FAQs, and I've chosen to leave it up to the members how to develop the FAQs. I expect to include some administrivia (like detailed instructions on how to unsubscribe, since some list members don't understand that all it takes is to click on the link included in each and every mailing to the list). Other than administrivia, what specific questions would you like to include? Please include the *answers*, as well. I expect to use the eventual FAQ as proof of concept in developing the other FAQs for the newsgroups. You will receive credit in the FAQ for your answers (unless you request anonymity).   All discussion should take place on the list, preferably in a thread which includes FAQ in the subject. Why, you ask? Because I'm most interested in this being a community effort, and the only way to do that is to open the process up to the *community*. Those not interested in participating should be able to filter out all messages which contain FAQ in the subject.   Thanks for your help.   Sue     --__--__--   Message: 30 From: "Tom Knight" To: Subject: RE: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 17:07:03 -0000 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com         > > Especially since it's part of a proposed standard (rfc 2557): > > ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc2557.txt > > RFC2557 isn't about mail formatting. It's about > encapsulating aggregate > documents which consist of a root document and linked resources. In a > web environment client software can use URLs to fetch linked resources > but that's not possible when the whole lot is encapsulated in a single > file or transaction, and it's that situation which RFC2557 addresses.     I'm afraid this does extend to use of html mail. Looking at section 9, "Examples" shows this:   9.1 Example of a HTML body without included linked objects   The first example is the simplest form of an HTML email message. This message does not contain an aggregate HTML object, but simply a message with a single HTML body part. This body part contains a URI but the messages does not contain the resource referenced by that URI. To retrieve the resource referenced by the URI the receiving client would need either IP access to the Internet, or an electronic mail web gateway.   From: foo1@bar.net To: foo2@bar.net Subject: A simple example Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit  

                                                                          Acute accent

                                                                          The following two lines look have the same screen rendering:

                                                                          E with acute accent becomes É.
                                                                          E with acute accent becomes É.

                                                                          Try clicking here.

                                                                            Horrid but true.   It's interesting to note section 11 "Security Considerations". where it mentions some of the faults people (rightly) find with html mail, including:   11.1 Security considerations not related to caching   It is possible for a message sender to misrepresent the source of a multipart/related body part to a message recipient by labeling it with a Content-Location URI that references another resource. Therefore, message recipients should only interpret Content-Location URIs as labeling a body part for the resolution of references from body parts in the same multipart/related message structure, and not as the source of a resource, unless this can be verified by other means.   URIs, especially File URIs, if used without change in a message, may inadvertently reveal information that was not intended to be revealed outside a particular security context. Message senders should take care when constructing messages containing the new header fields, defined in this standard, that they are not revealing information outside of any security contexts to which they belong.   Some resource servers hide passwords and tickets (access tokens to information which should not be reveled to others) and other sensitive information in non-visible fields or URIs within a text/html resource. If such a text/html resource is forwarded in an email message, this sensitive information may be inadvertently revealed to others.   Since HTML documents can either directly contain executable content (i.e., JavaScript) or indirectly reference executable content (The "INSERT" specification, Java). It is exceedingly dangerous for a receiving User Agent to execute content received in a mail message without careful attention to restrictions on the capabilities of that executable content.   HTML-formatted messages can be used to investigate user behaviour, for example to break anonymity, in ways which invade the privacy of individuals. If you send a message with a inline link to an object which is not itself included in the message, the recipients mailer or browser may request that object through HTTP. The HTTP transaction will then reveal who is reading the message. Example: A person who wants to find out who is behind an anonymous user identity, or from which workstation a user is reading his mail, can do this by sending a message with an inline link and then observe from where this link is used to request the object.     --__--__--   Message: 31 To: opera-users@opera.com From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:41:22 +0100 Subject: [OU] Browse mails Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Hi,   is it possible to tell Opera to browse all our mails to add people in our active contact list, and to remove people from this list who are not used anymore ?   Thanks   --__--__--   Message: 32 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:51:27 +0100 From: Andre Wichartz To: Andrew Gregory Subject: Re[2]: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Hello Andrew,   On Tuesday, February 25, 2003, 22:18:25 +0800 GMT (which was 15:18 local time), Andrew Gregory wrote:   AG> On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 20:15:43 +1030, wrote:   >> Why ? It has to be the most misused tag on the web.   AG> Well, I started up Wordpad on my Windows computer and looked at the AG> toolbar, then listed the tags related to what I saw. I would consider AG> Wordpad to be a minimal feature 'word processor'.   But not everything that is possible with wordpad is suitable for email. The nice thing about plain text is that I can decide in which way my emails are presented. I decide which font of which size and which foreground and background colours are used. The bad thing about html mail (besides the bandwith issues) is that it takes this freedom away from me. I am forced to look at a message in the layout the sender liked the most. Well, maybe I don't like it at all. Or even worse: Maybe my eyes are not as good and I therefore prefer a larger font. But now I am forced to look at that small font I can barely read.   AG> can be misused, of course, but I don't consider that a huge problem. AG> I've seen plenty of plain text emails where the poster has abused their AG> Caps Lock key (i.e. left it on), but I wouldn't consider the precence of a AG> Cap Lock key a problem. It's all in how it's used.   Yes. But I just don't see a good use for . I have a reason why I want to view mails in my favourite font. Why should the sender force a different one upon me? I can understand that sometime it's desireable to make a word bold or underlined to emphasize it. But is not needed here.     -- Cheers, Andre   "1. If it's green or it wiggles, it's biology. 2. If it stinks, it's chemistry. 3. If it doesn't work, it's physics."       --__--__--   Message: 33 To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Identify as From: jonathan murphy Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:19:05 -0000 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:55:20 +0100, Melwyn Da'alimar wrote:   > Read on Opera forum : >> Regardless of your >> "identify as" setting, this string always contains >> the word "Opera". > > Is this true ?   Yes, that last statement is true.   I mean, I have been of a website blocking browsers other > than IE and netscape, not because of their choice, but because the > webmaster thought this website cannot be read using other browsers. > I then identify myself as IE, and this site worked well with this > setting...   If you set to ID as IE, Opera sends the IE user agent string followeed by the word Opera. Most sites which have casual browser detection just look for "MSIE" or "Netscape" and setting the ID is sufficient to get round them. The presence of the word Opera allows web authors who do actually know what they're doing to realise that you aren't really IE and present you with a page tuned for Opera by looking at the user agent string in more detail. The majority of sites don't do this.   -- Jonathan Murphy   --__--__--   Message: 34 To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Java Script Menu is Acting up in Opera From: jonathan murphy Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:30:47 -0000 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:19:51 -0700, Frank Owen wrote:   > The menu is located on the left hand side. It pulls out when you move > over the blue shaded box next to the edge of the browser window. I will > download opera 7 and see if it is there. Thanks! >   if (document.all) document.write(the menu is in here.............. (not sure why this needs to be written in JS?)   This adds up to "if the user has MSIE, write the menu! document.all is MS proprietary, not part of JavaScript. The menu will not appear in anything other than IE. Later on there's some document.layers stuff (Netscape 4 only). You need to read a more recent JavaScript tutorial, perhaps.   -- Jonathan Murphy   --__--__--   Message: 35 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:24:17 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) From: Alan G Isaac To: opera-users@opera.com organization: American University Subject: [OU] Re: Email formatting problem with M2 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   > On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 22:32:56 -0500, Patrick Shanahan > wrote: >> Email is *plain* ascii text, not 'marked-up' by html, >> css, or any other method.   On Tue, Andrew Gregory wrote: > I mostly agree with this, but I also recognise that the > computing world largely left text-only systems behind > about ten years ago. Email is probably the most-used form > of communication on the Internet and I think it is past > time *someone* brought it into the graphical present. Note > that I would strongly oppose anything that would prevent > text-only people from reading or otherwise using email. I > think the existing method of attaching a marked-up email > to a plain text version is the best way of doing this. > However, I don't think *HTML* is the way to go. It's too > big and complicated. Only a tiny subset is needed:

                                                                          , > , , , , and (as a shorter alternative > to

                                                                          ) at least, maybe
                                                                            ,
                                                                              ,
                                                                            1. as well. > Ignoring , such a marked-up message would be easily > readable, even if a plain-text alternate version were not > available.   Ignoring that the proposal is in part to implement deprecated HTML, it seems that

                                                                              = eol, eol text = *text* text = _text_ text = "text" and less reliably text = TEXT   IMHO we need a damn good reason to abandon this. If you just want to change the display of the marked up text, pick an email client that supports "Trivial Markup" (e.g., Mahogany).   > Nevertheless, the only way is forward, and email *must* > change.   I really do not see why. Unless you mean that it inevitably will change, which is probably true.   > It would be better if someone came up with an RFC > for simple markup, otherwise (if it isn't already too > late) MS and their HTML monsters will dictate what emails > of the future will be.   To find out, look at your spam. But your point is well taken.   Cheers, Alan Isaac         --__--__--   Message: 36 From: Axel Siebert To: opera-users@opera.com Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:34:45 +0100 Subject: Re: [OU] Re: Email formatting problem with M2 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   25.02.03 21:24:17, Alan G Isaac wrote:   > Ignoring that the proposal is in part to implement > deprecated HTML, it seems that >

                                                                              = eol, eol > text = *text* > text = _text_ > text = "text" > and less reliably > text = TEXT > > IMHO we need a damn good reason to abandon this.   So true, just a little correction: The usual practice, at least on Usenet, is   text = /text/ text = *text* text = TEXT   Axel   --__--__--   Message: 37 From: Axel Siebert To: opera-users@opera.com Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:33:37 +0100 Subject: Re: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   25.02.03 15:43:15, "Melwyn Da'alimar" wrote:   >For example, a friend of mine sending html emails is a zero cost for me, as >I have adsl, it is my home mail, I do not pay for bandwith   Oh, but you do!! You just don't notice it because you pay a fixed amount. But if everybody would use available bandwidth reasonably, all ISPs would need less powerful servers, less thick lines, less fat storage, so they could offer much cheaper flatrates. You are already paying for HTML mail, rest assured.   Axel   --__--__--   Message: 38 From: "Suryanto Hendrawan" To: Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 23:13:48 +0100 Subject: [OU] endlose Schleife Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Hi,   als ich die Seite http://www.wetter.de offnete, bekam ich eine endlose Schleife. Hat jemand auch dieses merkwuerdige Verhalten, oder liegt es nur in meinem Rechner. Ich benutze Opera 7.01 auf Windows XP Pro.   Schoenen Abend Suryanto Hendrawan     --__--__--   Message: 39 From: "Suryanto Hendrawan" To: Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 23:22:46 +0100 Subject: [OU] endless loop Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Hi again,   sorry for the last mail, have forgotten to write it in english. also, als i try to open http://www.wetter.de , i have received an endless loop. have anybody the same problem? any idea, how to solve it? I use opera 7.01 in Windows XP Pro.   Thanks Suryanto Hendrawan       --__--__--   Message: 40 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:08:50 -0800 From: Larry Washbrook Subject: Re: [OU] endless loop To: opera-users@opera.com Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   I'm using Opera 7.01 with Windows XP Pro and have no difficulty accessing the site. I don't know where your problem is.   On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 23:22:46 +0100, Suryanto Hendrawan wrote:   > Hi again, > > sorry for the last mail, have forgotten to write it in english. also, > als i try to open http://www.wetter.de , i have received an endless loop. > have anybody the same problem? any idea, how to solve it? > I use opera 7.01 in Windows XP Pro. > > Thanks > Suryanto Hendrawan > >       --     --__--__--   Message: 41 Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 00:19:11 +0100 From: Andre Wichartz To: Larry Washbrook Subject: Re[2]: [OU] endless loop Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Hello Larry,   On Wednesday, February 26, 2003, 15:08:50 -0800 GMT (which was 00:08 local time), Larry Washbrook wrote:   LW> On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 23:22:46 +0100, Suryanto Hendrawan LW> wrote:   >> sorry for the last mail, have forgotten to write it in english. also, >> als i try to open http://www.wetter.de , i have received an endless loop. >> have anybody the same problem? any idea, how to solve it? >> I use opera 7.01 in Windows XP Pro.   LW> I'm using Opera 7.01 with Windows XP Pro and have no difficulty LW> accessing the site. I don't know where your problem is.   It was the same for me. Normally I have Opera id as IE. So I loaded the page a second time, this time id-ing as Opera and there it is: a endless loop.   So your answer is to id as IE. Then the site works.     -- Cheers, Andre   "The government of the people, by the people, for t     --__--__--   Message: 42 From: Axel Siebert To: opera-users@opera.com Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 00:31:46 +0100 Subject: Re: Re[2]: [OU] endless loop Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   26.02.03 00:19:11, Andre Wichartz wrote:   >>> sorry for the last mail, have forgotten to write it in english. also, >>> als i try to open http://www.wetter.de , i have received an endless loop. >>> have anybody the same problem? any idea, how to solve it? >>> I use opera 7.01 in Windows XP Pro.   > It was the same for me. Normally I have Opera id as IE. So I loaded the > page a second time, this time id-ing as Opera and there it is: a endless > loop. > > So your answer is to id as IE. Then the site works.   No. The answer is to reload the page. If you visit it for the first time, it will work. If it is drawn from the cache on the next visit, it loops. The reason is some FUBAR JavaSpit designed to make sure you don't circumvent the frameset. Try hitting the stop/reload button a few times while it loops, eventually this will force a reload, which will finish loading.   Axel       --__--__--   Message: 43 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:07:03 -0800 To: opera-users@opera.com From: "Nicholas H. Kaps" Organization: Perspectives Subject: [OU] email problem Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   I recently am having a problem with my email. Part of my email is not downloaded from my isp.   A box appears that says "Generic Error" Inside the box is the following statement.   "nkaps@garlic.com Opera tried to retrieve message 1(UIDL CL%#!odC"!e#:!!6&H"!) from the POP3 server, but failed to store it on your machine."   Has anyone else had a similiar problem or any ideas as to what happened?? -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/   --__--__--   Message: 44 To: opera-users@opera.com, opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 From: Edward Organization: Retired Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:19:46 -0500 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   I am not sure what you all are talking about. But what I want is to just type a message and sent it. I am too old to fool with BS notations. I am not a programer and do not want to be. If what you are talking about does not require other than just typing the message. Disregard my comments. Edward     On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:31:22 +0800, Andrew Gregory wrote:   > In response to my previous message... > > On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 22:32:56 -0500, Patrick Shanahan > wrote: > >> Email is *plain* ascii text, not 'marked-up' by html, css, or any other >> method. > > I mostly agree with this, but I also recognise that the computing world > largely left text-only systems behind about ten years ago. Email is > probably the most-used form of communication on the Internet and I think > it is past time *someone* brought it into the graphical present. Note > that I would strongly oppose anything that would prevent text-only people > from reading or otherwise using email. I think the existing method of > attaching a marked-up email to a plain text version is the best way of > doing this. However, I don't think *HTML* is the way to go. It's too big > and complicated. Only a tiny subset is needed:

                                                                              , , , , > , and (as a shorter alternative to

                                                                              ) at least, > maybe
                                                                                ,
                                                                                  ,
                                                                                1. as well. Ignoring , such a marked-up message > would be easily readable, even if a plain-text alternate version were not > available. > >> Unformatted things are only ugly if your email-client is not capable of >> presenting them properly. > > My points were that plain text only messages make this difficult, if not > impossible. Too much formatting information is lost in the conversion to > plain text. > >> To follow your line of reasoning (which I partially agree), nothing but >> plain ascii text email should exist. I use a text-mode client which, >> of itself, is only capable of presenting plain ascii text. > > No, email should *always* be accessible to people no matter the > capabilities of their client, but I think it is wrong for the now tiny > minority of people who can *only* handle plain text to hold back the vast > majority of people using graphical system from being able to add a little > formatting (bold, underline, italic, colour, fonts) to their messages. > >> I do reformat quoted text to <72 chars, trim quotes and do not TOFU as >> a courtesy to the reader. This was at one time the norm for the >> internet community, but since the proliferation of internet >> participants (just after the inception of aol), courtesy and adherance >> to 'norms' has sadly become a *laugh*. > > I had to look up what TOFU meant, and I agree (although I haven't > religously followed those guidelines). It is true that now that a much > higher proportion of the population are on the 'net, the average > capability/courtesy has dropped accordingly. A sad reflection on the > society we live in. When I was at uni for several years, my only 'net > access was via a 19200 baud VT102 terminal emulator, so I know what it > was like and what we have to remain compatible with. > > Nevertheless, the only way is forward, and email *must* change. It would > be better if someone came up with an RFC for simple markup, otherwise (if > it isn't already too late) MS and their HTML monsters will dictate what > emails of the future will be.       -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/     --__--__--   Message: 45 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:53:49 -0500 To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] email problem From: Edward Organization: Retired Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Yes I had the same pop up error message. I reloaded Opera7.1 and it went away for awhile. Now it is back. I asked about this on a forum but noone knew what to do. I do not know what this message is telling me other than Opera is having a problem. With what? Edward   On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:07:03 -0800, Nicholas H. Kaps wrote:   > I recently am having a problem with my email. Part of my email is not > downloaded from my isp. > > A box appears that says "Generic Error" > Inside the box is the following statement. > > "nkaps@garlic.com > Opera tried to retrieve message 1(UIDL CL%#!odC"!e#:!!6&H"!) from the > POP3 server, but failed to store it on your machine." > > Has anyone else had a similiar problem or any ideas as to what happened??       -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/       --__--__--   -- Opera-users mailing list Opera-users@opera.com http://list.opera.com/mailman/listinfo/opera-users     End of Opera-users DigestSend Opera-users mailing list submissions to opera-users@opera.com   To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://list.opera.com/mailman/listinfo/opera-users or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to opera-users-request@opera.com   You can reach the person managing the list at opera-users-admin@opera.com   When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Opera-users digest..."     Today's Topics:   1. Re: Opera7 crushes down! (Axel Siebert) 2. Problems in receiving HTML emails (Melwyn Da'alimar) 3. Re: V7 problem that did not happen with V6.05 (Allan Smith) 4. Help 2 questions: Thanks, victory (hester reik) 5. Re: Problems in receiving HTML emails (Axel Siebert) 6. Mailto (Melwyn Da'alimar) 7. RE: Email formatting problem with M2 (Fred Bone) 8. Re: Problems in receiving HTML emails (Melwyn Da'alimar) 9. Strange behaviour in attachments (Melwyn Da'alimar) 10. Viewing attachments (Melwyn Da'alimar) 11. Re: Strange behaviour in attachments (Axel Siebert) 12. Re: Email formatting problem with M2 (Matthew Winn) 13. Re: Strange behaviour in attachments (Melwyn Da'alimar) 14. Spam in mailing lists ? (Melwyn Da'alimar) 15. Re: Strange behaviour in attachments (Axel Siebert) 16. Re: Email formatting problem with M2 (Paul Boizot) 17. Identify as (Melwyn Da'alimar) 18. Re: Email formatting problem with M2 (Andrew Gregory) 19. Re: Email formatting problem with M2 (Melwyn Da'alimar) 20. Re: Email formatting problem with M2 (Andrew Gregory) 21. Re: Email formatting problem with M2 (Melwyn Da'alimar) 22. Re: Identify as (Josef W. Segur) 23. Java Script Menu is Acting up in Opera (Frank Owen) 24. Re: Email formatting problem with M2 (Patrick Shanahan) 25. Re: Identify as (Melwyn Da'alimar) 26. Re: Email formatting problem with M2 (Melwyn Da'alimar) 27. Re: Java Script Menu is Acting up in Opera (Melwyn Da'alimar) 28. RE: Java Script Menu is Acting up in Opera (Frank Owen) 29. FAQ: query (Sue Sims) 30. RE: Email formatting problem with M2 (Tom Knight) 31. Browse mails (Melwyn Da'alimar) 32. Re[2]: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 (Andre Wichartz) 33. Re: Identify as (jonathan murphy) 34. Re: Java Script Menu is Acting up in Opera (jonathan murphy) 35. Re: Email formatting problem with M2 (Alan G Isaac) 36. Re: Re: Email formatting problem with M2 (Axel Siebert) 37. Re: Email formatting problem with M2 (Axel Siebert) 38. endlose Schleife (Suryanto Hendrawan) 39. endless loop (Suryanto Hendrawan) 40. Re: endless loop (Larry Washbrook) 41. Re[2]: [OU] endless loop (Andre Wichartz) 42. Re: Re[2]: [OU] endless loop (Axel Siebert) 43. email problem (Nicholas H. Kaps) 44. Re: Email formatting problem with M2 (Edward) 45. Re: email problem (Edward)   --__--__--   Message: 1 From: Axel Siebert To: opera-users@opera.com Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:04:46 +0100 Subject: Re: [OU] Opera7 crushes down! Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   24.02.03 11:52:16, Sir Jinx! wrote:   > But, today when I wanted to start it Opera crushes!!!!   Well, I suppose it crAshes. The executables are already compressed, so I don't think they could be crushed any further. SCNR :)   > "OPERA caused an invalid page fault in > module XMLPARSE.DLL at 0167:67e990f2..."   In such cases, we need a crash log, see: http://list.opera.com/pipermail/opera-users/2003-January/016619.html   Axel         --__--__--   Message: 2 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:06:16 +0100 To: opera-users@opera.com From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Subject: [OU] Problems in receiving HTML emails Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Hi,   I do not want to read emails in html. Is it true that preferred body mode set to 2 tells Opera to display mails in text, even if there is only an html version available ?   Moreover, when someone send me an html email with pictures included *in the body* of the message, I am unable to access those pictures. When I have set preffered body mode to 0, I had an error message saying something like : Warning, error while decoding the message. With preferred body mode to 1 I can see the mail in html without problem, and with preferred body mode set to 2 I have no error message but cannot access the pictures.   What I mean is that pictures appear in attachment access point, in the column, but not as attachment in the body of the message. Only way for me to view those pictures is to copy mail as raw text, then open a text editor, paste the text, save the message as a .eml file and read it with Outlook Express. Not very convenient...   Perhaps a way to directly right click on message then choose "save as .eml", or the html message beeing an attachment of the text one would be helpful.   Thanks :)   --__--__--   Message: 3 From: Allan Smith To: opera-users@opera.com Cc: Axel Siebert , freexone Subject: Re: [OU] V7 problem that did not happen with V6.05 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 11:20:24 +0000 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:38:37 +0100, Axel Siebert wrote:   > 24.02.03 21:24:26, Allan Smith wrote: >   >> I find that if I open Opera (7.01) by double clicking on an attachment to an >> e-mail in Agent (1.93) which I currently use e-mail a new copy of opera is >> opened (even if an existing copy is already open). This did not happen with >> v6.05 of Opera. >   > I don't know Agent, so this question might be dumb, but: Is it really > necessary to double-click, and there's no possibility that this might be > interpreted as opening twice?   Axel,   The double start was not something I thought of but as it turns out it does not appear to be the problem. Single click selects the attachment (shown in Agent in a box) and a double click launches it. Attachments may also be launched with from a right click menu on the attachment.   What appears to be the problem is the "current directory" (possibly a synonym for the "'start in directory' as modified since the application was launched") where Opera is running from. The existing open copy of v7.01 is used ONLY if the "current directory" is the same as Agent's own data directory. This deos not appear to be the case with v6.05. The parent process is not a factor, the presence or otherwide of a parameter to v7.01 is not a factor. The only thing I can find that affects it is the directory where v7.01 was started from.   How or why this is the case has me somewhat puzzled.   Regards, Allan Smith (Northwood, Middlesex, England)   --__--__--   Message: 4 To: opera From: hester reik Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 06:56:05 -0500 Subject: [OU] Help 2 questions: Thanks, victory Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Thank you, Jonathan for all your suggestions. I had most of the stuff checked that you suggested. And I already had things set to accept cookies. But the real victory is this...... I got the web technician at my investment account site I couldn't access to download and install Opera 7.01. He couldn't log into the site either :-) and is bumping the case up to the next person to see if they can configure their site in such a way that it is compatible with 7.01. (The interesting thing is.....it worked in 6.05, though I always had to log in 2x.) With the economy in the tank and things not looking good for the future (long or short term) perhaps they were scared of losing a client :-). (not likely). Sorry for the editorializing. hester   Perhaps your cookie settings? Are you set to accept all cookies? I'm just guessing.   Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/     --__--__--   Message: 5 From: Axel Siebert To: opera-users@opera.com Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:44:51 +0100 Subject: Re: [OU] Problems in receiving HTML emails Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   25.02.03 12:06:16, "Melwyn Da'alimar" wrote:   > Is it true that preferred body mode set to 2 tells Opera to display mails > in text, even if there is only an html version available ?   Mode 2 is planned to do that, but it's not yet implemented. For now, modes 2 and 0 are identical.   > Moreover, when someone send me an html email with pictures included *in the > body* of the message, I am unable to access those pictures. When I have set > preffered body mode to 0, I had an error message saying something like : > Warning, error while decoding the message. With preferred body mode to 1 I > can see the mail in html without problem, and with preferred body mode set > to 2 I have no error message but cannot access the pictures.   I suppose the pictures are declared as part of the HTML mail, so they are not identified as attachments. Could you upload the raw mail as a compressed text file so I can have a look at it?   Uploading instructions: http://list.opera.com/pipermail/opera-users/2003-January/016619.html   Axel       --__--__--   Message: 6 To: opera-users@opera.com From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:01:59 +0100 Subject: [OU] Mailto Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Hi,   Why when I click on a mailto link in an application (not in a web page, but in an about box of an application) it launches outlook express instead of Opera M2 ?   Isnt it possible to setup Opera as default email client ?   Thanks :)   --__--__--   Message: 7 From: "Fred Bone" To: opera-users@opera.com Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:11:10 -0000 Subject: RE: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   On 25 Feb 2003 at 10:12, Tom Knight wrote:   [...] [not sure who wrote the next bit as the name wasn't there] > > It says a lot about the people I talk to but leaves me with a > > question: why is technical savvy tied > > to an aversion to html-ised messages? >   > Especially since it's part of a proposed standard (rfc 2557): > ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc2557.txt   But rfc2557 is about the relationship between parts of a message. It doesn't say anything about flavours of HTML in message bodies, beyond setting out conventions for the links.     --__--__--   Message: 8 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:21:49 +0100 To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Problems in receiving HTML emails From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Le Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:44:51 +0100, Axel Siebert me-at-axelsiebert.de |Opera Mailing List| a écrit:   > 25.02.03 12:06:16, "Melwyn Da'alimar" wrote: >   >> Is it true that preferred body mode set to 2 tells Opera to display >> mails in text, even if there is only an html version available ? >   > Mode 2 is planned to do that, but it's not yet implemented. For now, > modes > 2 and 0 are identical. >   They are really identical ? Strange then that I have the warning message when it is set as 0, and not when it is set as 2 :)   >> Moreover, when someone send me an html email with pictures included *in >> the body* of the message, I am unable to access those pictures. When I >> have set preffered body mode to 0, I had an error message saying >> something like : Warning, error while decoding the message. With >> preferred body mode to 1 I can see the mail in html without problem, and >> with preferred body mode set to 2 I have no error message but cannot >> access the pictures. >   > I suppose the pictures are declared as part of the HTML mail, so they are > not identified as attachments. Could you upload the raw mail as a > compressed text file so I can have a look at it? >   > Uploading instructions: > http://list.opera.com/pipermail/opera-users/2003-January/016619.html >   > Axel >   I am doing it with a test email I am writing to myself with outlook express, for privacy reasons... The name of archive is melwynmail2.zip. You can delete melwyn.zip and melwynmail.zip, as those are errors in transmission. I have used IE to FTP, as the command line doesnt seem to work...   Oh, there's no way to drag'n drop to opera to upload a file, as it is possible with IE ? Too bad :)   Thanks :)   --__--__--   Message: 9 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:36:59 +0100 To: opera-users@opera.com From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Subject: [OU] Strange behaviour in attachments Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Hi,   This question is about access point, attachment access point. There are documents, images, music, video, archives.   First, is it possible to add more than that ?   Second, I had a message with a .zip file attached, which appear in Documents access point and not archives one. How is this possible ?   Thanks :)   --__--__--   Message: 10 To: opera-users@opera.com From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:41:33 +0100 Subject: [OU] Viewing attachments Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Hi,   is there a way to view attachments of emails without Opera downloading them on hard drive ? As does Outlook Express I guess, so I havent to put it on my hardrive then delete it if I don't like it.   Don't know what does OE, but when I have an attachment, I just open it. If I don't like it, I delete the mail and the attachment is gone. With Opera, it downloads it in my download folder, then I have to delete it from this download folder if I dislike it.   Thanks...   --__--__--   Message: 11 From: Axel Siebert To: opera-users@opera.com Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:48:18 +0100 Subject: Re: [OU] Strange behaviour in attachments Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   25.02.03 13:36:59, "Melwyn Da'alimar" wrote:   > Second, I had a message with a .zip file attached, which appear in > Documents access point and not archives one. How is this possible ?   Wrong Content-Type? Again, raw mail please.   Axel       --__--__--   Message: 12 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:59:25 +0000 From: Matthew Winn To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 10:12:43AM -0000, Tom Knight wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: opera-users-admin@opera.com > > Sent: 25 February 2003 09:46 > > On 25 Feb 2003 at 13:31, Andrew Gregory wrote: > > > However, I don't think *HTML* is the way to go. It's too big and > > > complicated. Only a tiny subset is needed:

                                                                                  , , , > > > , , and > > > (as a shorter alternative to

                                                                                  ) at least, > > > maybe
                                                                                    ,
                                                                                      , > > >
                                                                                    1. as well. Ignoring , such a marked-up message > > > would be easily > > > readable, even if a plain-text alternate version were not available.   This has often been suggested and I'd support a limited set of XHTML elements. (If we're going to have formatting in a message we might at least make it XHTML so it's easy to parse.) The problems with HTML mail as it is right now are:   (a) Tools for creating HTML mail bloat the message far beyond reason in their attempts to make the message look _exactly_ as it appeared on the sender's screen. If the sender asks for a bold word they should get word, not an immense block of formatting which tries to preserve their choice of colours, font face and size, line width, margins, and everything else which is appropriate only to them.   (b) That bloat means it's necessary to send a plain-text copy of the message so it can be read by those without HTML-aware clients, further increasing the message size.   (c) There's no restriction on the elements used, so client software must contain a built-in web browser instead of a simple formatter.   (d) There's no restriction on the elements used, so there are security risks associated with scripting and linked images.   (e) Displaying of a formatted message is at the mercy of each client's understanding of HTML. All web browsers are buggy, and there's no reason to expect that email clients would do any better.   (f) There are many versions of HTML but no agreement on which one to use.   (g) The world is full of halfwits who think that everyone else wants a demonstration of the full range of effects permitted by HTML.   An agreed set of limited formatting elements would be great. It would remove the bloated attempts to set every single display attribute on every part of the message. It would eliminate the security issues. It would create a standard for formatting to which all clients could conform. And it would deprive idiots of the ability to send me a message in flashing 72pt text in the hope that I'll think it must be worth reading. The only difficult parts are agreeing a set of elements and persuading Microsoft to support that set without adding its own extensions.   The text/enriched format (RFC1896) is the right idea (but I'd prefer shorter element names). In particular, I consider the design criteria at the start of RFC1896 to be essential.   > > I consider the message text to be more important than its > > appearance and messages, for me at least, > > are easier to read if they are uniformly formatted; > > monospaced font, a nice text size and quotes in > > different colours.   I sometimes need to send messages with a small amount of formatting. Just a few minutes ago I sent a long technical message with several sections and it would have been useful to be able to highlight the title of each section so the reader could scan through the document more efficiently.   > > why is technical savvy tied > > to an aversion to html-ised messages?   Because to judge by the sort of bloated and formatting-heavy HTML messages most fans of HTML mail send, the senders clearly have no knowledge about things like bandwidth or the fact that you can't guarantee that the recipient of a message will see things exactly as they were when sent. If someone spends two minutes writing a message and ten minutes tarting it up they obviously don't know much about mail.   > Especially since it's part of a proposed standard (rfc 2557): > ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc2557.txt   RFC2557 isn't about mail formatting. It's about encapsulating aggregate documents which consist of a root document and linked resources. In a web environment client software can use URLs to fetch linked resources but that's not possible when the whole lot is encapsulated in a single file or transaction, and it's that situation which RFC2557 addresses.   It's an ideal format to use when a browser is saving a web page and all its associated images. Isn't this what IE uses?   -- Matthew Winn (matthew@sheridan.co.uk)   --__--__--   Message: 13 To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Strange behaviour in attachments From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:11:24 +0100 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Le Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:48:18 +0100, Axel Siebert me-at-axelsiebert.de |Opera Mailing List| a écrit:   > 25.02.03 13:36:59, "Melwyn Da'alimar" wrote: > >> Second, I had a message with a .zip file attached, which appear in >> Documents access point and not archives one. How is this possible ? > > Wrong Content-Type? > Again, raw mail please. > > Axel > > Sorry, I cannot, as I havent kept this message. So the attachment access point do not use only file extension, but scan the file ?   --__--__--   Message: 14 To: opera-users@opera.com From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:13:17 +0100 Subject: [OU] Spam in mailing lists ? Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Hi,   Is there a risk the email address we use in a mailing list beeing used as spam ?   And about spam, as we cannot trust Opera Spam system, how can we remove spam from my messages, and spam management ?   Thanks :)   --__--__--   Message: 15 From: Axel Siebert To: opera-users@opera.com Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:23:19 +0100 Subject: Re: [OU] Strange behaviour in attachments Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   25.02.03 14:11:24, "Melwyn Da'alimar" wrote:   >>> Second, I had a message with a .zip file attached, which appear in >>> Documents access point and not archives one. How is this possible ? >> >> Wrong Content-Type? >> Again, raw mail please. >> > Sorry, I cannot, as I havent kept this message. So the attachment access > point do not use only file extension, but scan the file ?   No. An attachment has a header telling what it is, regardless of the file extension. File extensions are meaningless on the web, it's dang Internet Explorer who imposed the Windoze (in fact, DOS) concept of file extensions. So most likely the attachment header declared it as generic data or document or whatever.   Axel       --__--__--   Message: 16 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:35:34 +0000 From: "Paul Boizot" To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Hi, I use plain text e-mail too, and don't like HTML e-mail - but as I wrote a few weeks back re another similar discussion, there are plenty of people out there who are never going to be tech-heads and there is no reason why they should be. If the ability is put in front of them to put pretty colours in and have visual creative fun, then some people will do just that and think nothing of it. (Not me, honest! Oh no, I wouldn't use a PC for fun!). They have different priorities.   Yes, if the tech-heads and geeks and sensible regulators can get together and agree and impose a system that permits reasonable formatting without huge bloated HTML e-mails, that is great. Then the non-techies will work with the more limited capabilities they have. But there is no need to slag off the non-tech people, who are being coerced and enticed by the million into using computers, for not knowing about bandwidth.   If there is anyone to slag off, it is whoever/however people get their intro to computing in the first place, if it does not give them the necessary info - and this is almost impossbile to thoroughly police - or the capitalists who will sell what anyone wants now, to make their money, irrespective of other "sensible" considerations.   Best Wishes, Paul   *********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********   On 25/02/03 at 12:59 Matthew Winn wrote:   >CUT   >> > I consider the message text to be more important than its >> > appearance and messages, for me at least, >> > are easier to read if they are uniformly formatted; >> > monospaced font, a nice text size and quotes in >> > different colours. > >CUT > >Because to judge by the sort of bloated and formatting-heavy HTML >messages most fans of HTML mail send, the senders clearly have no >knowledge about things like bandwidth or the fact that you can't >guarantee that the recipient of a message will see things exactly >as they were when sent. If someone spends two minutes writing a >message and ten minutes tarting it up they obviously don't know >much about mail. > >-- >Matthew Winn (matthew@sheridan.co.uk) >--     -------------------------   website; www.paulboizot.co.uk     --__--__--   Message: 17 To: opera-users@opera.com From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:55:20 +0100 Subject: [OU] Identify as Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Read on Opera forum :   > The most common cause of pages not working properly > is the fact that they are badly written; this is so > because they are blocking you either partly (by > filtering out code) or wholly (by saying "incompatible > browser") because you are running Opera. They do this > by scanning the "User-Agent" string that your browser > (Opera) supplies to the website. Regardless of your > "identify as" setting, this string always contains > the word "Opera".   Is this true ? I mean, I have been of a website blocking browsers other than IE and netscape, not because of their choice, but because the webmaster thought this website cannot be read using other browsers. I then identify myself as IE, and this site worked well with this setting...   So anyone can explain me how it works ?   Thanks :)   --__--__--   Message: 18 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:18:25 +0800 To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 From: Andrew Gregory Organization: Southern Cross Software Solutions Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 20:15:43 +1030, wrote:   > > On 25 Feb 2003 at 13:31, Andrew Gregory wrote: >> Only a tiny subset is needed:

                                                                                      , , , , , and (as a >> shorter alternative to

                                                                                      ) at least, maybe
                                                                                        ,
                                                                                          ,
                                                                                        1. as >> well. > > Why ? It has to be the most misused tag on the web.   Well, I started up Wordpad on my Windows computer and looked at the toolbar, then listed the tags related to what I saw. I would consider Wordpad to be a minimal feature 'word processor'.   can be misused, of course, but I don't consider that a huge problem. I've seen plenty of plain text emails where the poster has abused their Caps Lock key (i.e. left it on), but I wouldn't consider the precence of a Cap Lock key a problem. It's all in how it's used.   > I consider the message text to be more important than its appearance   The message text *is* what's important, but it is also nice to apply a little extra formatting too.   > Personally I have found that the people who do send HTML mail are the > exact same people I don't want to read HTML mail from. I have received > emails with dark grey text on black, white text on huge backgrounds, one > letter -- one colour. Most of them are easier to read in the raw markup > than when they are correctly rendered.   Fair enough, but doesn't let you specify a background colour, just the foreground colour, size and typeface.   > why is technical savvy tied to an aversion to html-ised messages?   People start off ignorant of computer systems and the goings-on behind the scenes. 'Tech savvy' people often understand how things work, and the costs of doing those things in different ways. So, if someone doesn't understand how HTML email composing actually works, in their ignorance they consider it a 'zero cost'. Once someone learns HTML, and how email works, they understand what happens when they send an HTML email (i.e. duplicate plain text/marked up versions, extra characters for various tags, etc). They have also often seen the crap that popular software packages like MS Word call 'HTML email'.   I consider myself a 'tech savvy' person. I am opposed to HTML email, but not to marked up email. I really wish somebody would come up with an RFC or something before *HTML* email really gets out of hand (if it hasn't already). -- Andrew Gregory, Web:   --__--__--   Message: 19 To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:43:15 +0100 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Le Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:18:25 +0800, Andrew Gregory andrew-at- scsoftware.com.au |Opera Mailing List| a écrit:   >> Personally I have found that the people who do send HTML mail are the >> exact same people I don't want to read HTML mail from. I have received >> emails with dark grey text on black, white text on huge backgrounds, one >> letter -- one colour. Most of them are easier to read in the raw markup >> than when they are correctly rendered. > > Fair enough, but doesn't let you specify a background colour, just > the foreground colour, size and typeface. > Sure, but what about someone writing a text with a yellow font ? Unreadable with a white background. Even worse, what about white font with a white background ? :)   >> why is technical savvy tied to an aversion to html-ised messages? > > People start off ignorant of computer systems and the goings-on behind > the scenes. 'Tech savvy' people often understand how things work, and the > costs of doing those things in different ways. So, if someone doesn't > understand how HTML email composing actually works, in their ignorance > they consider it a 'zero cost'. Once someone learns HTML, and how email > works, they understand what happens when they send an HTML email (i.e. > duplicate plain text/marked up versions, extra characters for various > tags, etc). They have also often seen the crap that popular software > packages like MS Word call 'HTML email'. > > I consider myself a 'tech savvy' person. I am opposed to HTML email, but > not to marked up email. I really wish somebody would come up with an RFC > or something before *HTML* email really gets out of hand (if it hasn't > already). > Zero cost depends on the situation. For example, a friend of mine sending html emails is a zero cost for me, as I have adsl, it is my home mail, I do not pay for bandwith, and I do not receive thousands of messages a day. I don't care if somebody sends me html emails, it costs me nothing.   Sure, now that I use M2, I receive html in plain text, but html or text costs the same money for me... zero cost.   Now I understand some people prefer text email, I understand when you receive thousands of emails a day it can be an issue... But I'm sure even if you receive thousands of emails a day, only a few of them are html, isnt it ?   Thanks :)   --__--__--   Message: 20 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:43:28 +0800 To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 From: Andrew Gregory Organization: Southern Cross Software Solutions Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:51:24 +0100, Axel Siebert wrote:   > I know a lot of text-mode clients, and all of them are able to scroll > left/right. I have yet to see a client which simply dismisses everything > longer than 78 characters.   I will admit I don't use text-mode clients at all, and therefore cannot point the finger at an implementation that actually lost information, but I don't consider it impossible for someone to be that silly :-) Just when you think you've seen the most stupid things, somebody else comes along....   >> If you feel the same about email, and that everybody should be able to >> read your emails, you should be supporting the 78 character limit too. > > I do, very much so! I am an ardent follower of correct line wrapping, > that's why I even do it manually to make sure it's perfect. Generally > being a perfectionist, I was just bitching about your wording that it's > "impossible". > Surely lines longer than 78 characters must be avoided at all costs, by > citing the RFC I just wanted to stress that there is no *technical* > limitation which would make it truly impossible. It was really all about > the > word "impossible". Sorry if I created a misunderstanding there.   That's OK.   > Where did you get the impression that I didn't want limited line length? > I just said that it must be done better than M2 currently does.   Where you talked about a 1000 character/line limit - which is way beyond any screen I've seen and hence effectively an 'unlimited' line length.   > That's precisely why I want to see *while composing* where the mail > client will break the lines, as I can in M1.   Now, this would be useful, but only if it could be toggled on/off during composition.   > Yes, no algorithm is perfect. However, an attempt must be made so select > the best one, the one whose result is acceptable in most of the cases. > All I'm saying is that the current comb-quoting-introducing algorithm > certainly not the best. I'm not saying the converting-to-format-flowed- > by- > paragraph-concatenation-and-inserting-new-CRLFSPACEs-for-text-mode- > clients > algorithm makes no mistakes, but I have tested it on 6500 messages I > received > over the last year, and the number of messages where a concatenation took > place which really looked bad was exactly 2. The number of messages where > M2 would introduce horrible comb quoting was about 2300. So I guess it > would be > a very significant improvement.   These are very interesting statistics - and a very good argument for your algorithm over what currently happens.   -- Andrew Gregory, Web:   --__--__--   Message: 21 To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:31:51 +0100 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Le Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:43:28 +0800, Andrew Gregory andrew-at- scsoftware.com.au |Opera Mailing List| a écrit:   > On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:51:24 +0100, Axel Siebert > wrote: > >> I know a lot of text-mode clients, and all of them are able to scroll >> left/right. I have yet to see a client which simply dismisses everything >> longer than 78 characters. > > I will admit I don't use text-mode clients at all, and therefore cannot > point the finger at an implementation that actually lost information, but > I don't consider it impossible for someone to be that silly :-) Just when > you think you've seen the most stupid things, somebody else comes > along.... > My father is using a text mode client... And he is not silly hehe :) He cannot do anything else. He's working in a university, as a math teacher, and they are using unix (or linux) systems. He hasnt a computer but a workstation, and the only client he can use is a unix, text client.   I hate text client :) It seems when we are talking about GUI, it seems linux users hate them... perhaps using text mode software make them more elitist :)   --__--__--   Message: 22 From: "Josef W. Segur" To: opera-users@opera.com Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:38:43 -0500 Subject: Re: [OU] Identify as Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   On 25 Feb 03, at 14:55, Melwyn wrote:   > Read on Opera forum : > > > The most common cause of pages not working properly > > is the fact that they are badly written; this is so > > because they are blocking you either partly (by > > filtering out code) or wholly (by saying "incompatible > > browser") because you are running Opera. They do this > > by scanning the "User-Agent" string that your browser > > (Opera) supplies to the website. Regardless of your > > "identify as" setting, this string always contains > > the word "Opera". > > Is this true ? I mean, I have been of a website blocking browsers other > than IE and netscape, not because of their choice, but because the > webmaster thought this website cannot be read using other browsers. I then > identify myself as IE, and this site worked well with this setting... > > So anyone can explain me how it works ?   shows how the Useragent strings are formatted.   The User-Agent header is sent with every URL request, so the server can decide what to return based on that.   The other technique site authors often use is to 'sniff' the browser using JavaScript. The useragent string can be checked from the script, or some other navigator object data. Opera changes the navigator.appName and navigator.appVersion data depending on which ID is chosen. is one example of a good sniffer. You can see what data Opera supplies for each ID by reloading.   -- Joe   --__--__--   Message: 23 From: "Frank Owen" To: Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 08:51:56 -0700 Subject: [OU] Java Script Menu is Acting up in Opera Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   This is a multi-part message in MIME format.   ------=_NextPart_000_008E_01C2DCAB.269FA430 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable   I have a Java Script menu that pulls in and out via a MouseOver. I also = have the links set to change colors on MouseOver. In IE, the script = works great. In opera, it will pull the menu out, and push it back in = fine as long as I do not use the "MouseOver" for the links. I have put = a example on my website.   http://www.wosnetworks.com/opera/maino.htm   Thank you for your help!!   Frank ------=_NextPart_000_008E_01C2DCAB.269FA430 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable  
                                                                                          I have a Java Script menu that pulls in = and out via=20 a MouseOver.  I also have the links set to change colors on=20 MouseOver.  In IE, the script works great.  In opera, it will = pull the=20 menu out, and push it back in fine as long as I do not use the = "MouseOver" for=20 the links.  I have put a example on my website.
                                                                                           
                                                                                          http://www.wosnetwork= s.com/opera/maino.htm
                                                                                           
                                                                                          Thank you for your help!!
                                                                                           
                                                                                          Frank
                                                                                            ------=_NextPart_000_008E_01C2DCAB.269FA430--     --__--__--   Message: 24 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:53:05 -0500 From: Patrick Shanahan To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   * Melwyn Da'alimar [02-25-03 10:34]: ... chop ... chop .... > My father is using a text mode client... And he is not silly hehe :) He > cannot do anything else. He's working in a university, as a math teacher, > and they are using unix (or linux) systems. He hasnt a computer but a > workstation, and the only client he can use is a unix, text client. > > I hate text client :) It seems when we are talking about GUI, it seems > linux users hate them... perhaps using text mode software make them more > elitist :)   You are searching. Most (of the elder) also dislike the mouse. The cli allows exacting control and a speed that you wouldn't believe. But, knowledge is also necessary.   You find the same with the elder x86 users, also. Dos allowed control and speed. Many things are still *much_better* accomplished from the dos cli than from winedohs. -- Patrick Shanahan Please avoid TOFU and trim >quotes< http://wahoo.no-ip.org Registered Linux User #207535 icq#173753138 @ http://counter.li.org   --__--__--   Message: 25 To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Identify as From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 17:02:52 +0100 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Le Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:38:43 -0500, Josef W. Segur jsegur-at-westelcom.com |Opera Mailing List| a écrit:   > The other technique site authors often use is to 'sniff' the browser > using JavaScript. The useragent string can be checked from the script, > or some other navigator object data. Opera changes the navigator.appName > and navigator.appVersion data depending on which ID > is chosen. > is one example of a good sniffer. You can see what data Opera supplies > for each ID by reloading. > Oh so it means that if the website is only checking navigator.appname, it will work if the site is designed for IE and we are identifying as IE, but that the web site can go further, and know what browser we are "really" using ? :)   --__--__--   Message: 26 To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 17:07:40 +0100 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Le Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:53:05 -0500, Patrick Shanahan paka-at-myrealbox.com |Opera Mailing List| a écrit:   > * Melwyn Da'alimar [02-25-03 10:34]: > ... chop ... chop .... >> My father is using a text mode client... And he is not silly hehe :) He >> cannot do anything else. He's working in a university, as a math >> teacher, and they are using unix (or linux) systems. He hasnt a computer >> but a workstation, and the only client he can use is a unix, text >> client. >> >> I hate text client :) It seems when we are talking about GUI, it seems >> linux users hate them... perhaps using text mode software make them more >> elitist :) > > You are searching. Most (of the elder) also dislike the mouse. The > cli allows exacting control and a speed that you wouldn't believe. But, > knowledge is also necessary. > > You find the same with the elder x86 users, also. Dos allowed control > and speed. Many things are still *much_better* accomplished from the > dos cli than from winedohs. > Perhaps, but I hate to have to memorize hundreds of hotkeys :) In Opera I remember the 'K' to mark as read, and I do all other actions with the mouse. A friend of mine has hundred of hotkeys and can handle them, I simply cannot. You can be sure that with a text client I will often hit F1 to read what hotkey to use. My father doesn't do this because he hates the mouse, but just because the technician setup the unix system like that, and he cannot change this. There is also a note saying it is forbidden to install third party softwares :)   --__--__--   Message: 27 To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Java Script Menu is Acting up in Opera From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 17:10:08 +0100 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Le Tue, 25 Feb 2003 08:51:56 -0700, Frank Owen franko-at-utsonline.net |Opera Mailing List| a écrit:   > I have a Java Script menu that pulls in and out via a MouseOver. I also > have the links set to change colors on MouseOver. In IE, the script > works great. In opera, it will pull the menu out, and push it back in > fine as long as I do not use the "MouseOver" for the links. I have put a > example on my website. > > http://www.wosnetworks.com/opera/maino.htm > > Thank you for your help!! > > Frank > I have no menu at all in the webpage you gave as an example... I'm using Opera 7.   --__--__--   Message: 28 From: "Frank Owen" To: Subject: RE: [OU] Java Script Menu is Acting up in Opera Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:19:51 -0700 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   This is a multi-part message in MIME format.   ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C2DCAF.0CD30A20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable   The menu is located on the left hand side. It pulls out when you move = over the blue shaded box next to the edge of the browser window. I will = download opera 7 and see if it is there. Thanks!       --Frank   -----Original Message-----   From: opera-users-admin@opera.com [mailto:opera-users-admin@opera.com]On   Behalf Of Melwyn Da'alimar   Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 9:10 AM   To: opera-users@opera.com   Subject: Re: [OU] Java Script Menu is Acting up in Opera       Le Tue, 25 Feb 2003 08:51:56 -0700, Frank Owen franko-at-utsonline.net=20   |Opera Mailing List| a =E9crit:   > I have a Java Script menu that pulls in and out via a MouseOver. I = also=20       > have the links set to change colors on MouseOver. In IE, the script=20   > works great. In opera, it will pull the menu out, and push it back in=20   > fine as long as I do not use the "MouseOver" for the links. I have put = a=20   > example on my website.   >   > http://www.wosnetworks.com/opera/maino.htm   >   > Thank you for your help!!   >   > Frank   >   I have no menu at all in the webpage you gave as an example... I'm using =     Opera 7.   --=20   Opera-users: http://list.opera.com/mailman/listinfo/opera-users   More lists: http://list.opera.com/mailman/listinfo/   Unsubscribe: mailto:opera-users-request@opera.com?subject=3Dunsubscribe   ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C2DCAF.0CD30A20 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable  

                                                                                          The menu is located on the left hand side.  It pulls out when = you move=20 over the blue shaded box next to the edge of the browser window.  I = will=20 download opera 7 and see if it is there.  Thanks!

                                                                                           

                                                                                          --Frank

                                                                                          -----Original Message-----

                                                                                          From: opera-users-admin@opera.com = [mailto:opera-users-admin@opera.com]On

                                                                                          Behalf Of Melwyn Da'alimar

                                                                                          Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 9:10 AM

                                                                                          To: opera-users@opera.com

                                                                                          Subject: Re: [OU] Java Script Menu is Acting up in Opera

                                                                                           

                                                                                          Le Tue, 25 Feb 2003 08:51:56 -0700, Frank Owen = franko-at-utsonline.net

                                                                                          |Opera Mailing List| <bof2hatpew0t@sneakemail.com> a = =E9crit:

                                                                                          > I have a Java Script menu that pulls in and out via a MouseOver. = I also=20

                                                                                           

                                                                                          > have the links set to change colors on MouseOver. In IE, the = script

                                                                                          > works great. In opera, it will pull the menu out, and push it = back in=20

                                                                                          > fine as long as I do not use the "MouseOver" for the links. I = have put a=20

                                                                                          > example on my website.

                                                                                          >

                                                                                          > http://www.wosnetworks.com/opera/maino.htm

                                                                                          >

                                                                                          > Thank you for your help!!

                                                                                          >

                                                                                          > Frank

                                                                                          >

                                                                                          I have no menu at all in the webpage you gave as an example... I'm = using

                                                                                          Opera 7.

                                                                                          --

                                                                                          Opera-users: http://list.opera.com/mailman/listinfo/opera-users

                                                                                          More lists: http://list.opera.com/mailman/listinfo/

                                                                                          Unsubscribe:=20 mailto:opera-users-request@opera.com?subject=3Dunsubscribe

                                                                                            ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C2DCAF.0CD30A20--     --__--__--   Message: 29 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 11:34:59 -0500 To: "opera-users@opera.com" From: Sue Sims Subject: [OU] FAQ: query Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Part of my new job description is to develop a series of FAQs for the Opera newsgroups and mailing lists, so...I'm starting with you :-)   There are a few ways to approach the issue of FAQs, and I've chosen to leave it up to the members how to develop the FAQs. I expect to include some administrivia (like detailed instructions on how to unsubscribe, since some list members don't understand that all it takes is to click on the link included in each and every mailing to the list). Other than administrivia, what specific questions would you like to include? Please include the *answers*, as well. I expect to use the eventual FAQ as proof of concept in developing the other FAQs for the newsgroups. You will receive credit in the FAQ for your answers (unless you request anonymity).   All discussion should take place on the list, preferably in a thread which includes FAQ in the subject. Why, you ask? Because I'm most interested in this being a community effort, and the only way to do that is to open the process up to the *community*. Those not interested in participating should be able to filter out all messages which contain FAQ in the subject.   Thanks for your help.   Sue     --__--__--   Message: 30 From: "Tom Knight" To: Subject: RE: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 17:07:03 -0000 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com         > > Especially since it's part of a proposed standard (rfc 2557): > > ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc2557.txt > > RFC2557 isn't about mail formatting. It's about > encapsulating aggregate > documents which consist of a root document and linked resources. In a > web environment client software can use URLs to fetch linked resources > but that's not possible when the whole lot is encapsulated in a single > file or transaction, and it's that situation which RFC2557 addresses.     I'm afraid this does extend to use of html mail. Looking at section 9, "Examples" shows this:   9.1 Example of a HTML body without included linked objects   The first example is the simplest form of an HTML email message. This message does not contain an aggregate HTML object, but simply a message with a single HTML body part. This body part contains a URI but the messages does not contain the resource referenced by that URI. To retrieve the resource referenced by the URI the receiving client would need either IP access to the Internet, or an electronic mail web gateway.   From: foo1@bar.net To: foo2@bar.net Subject: A simple example Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit  

                                                                                          Acute accent

                                                                                          The following two lines look have the same screen rendering:

                                                                                          E with acute accent becomes É.
                                                                                          E with acute accent becomes É.

                                                                                          Try clicking here.

                                                                                            Horrid but true.   It's interesting to note section 11 "Security Considerations". where it mentions some of the faults people (rightly) find with html mail, including:   11.1 Security considerations not related to caching   It is possible for a message sender to misrepresent the source of a multipart/related body part to a message recipient by labeling it with a Content-Location URI that references another resource. Therefore, message recipients should only interpret Content-Location URIs as labeling a body part for the resolution of references from body parts in the same multipart/related message structure, and not as the source of a resource, unless this can be verified by other means.   URIs, especially File URIs, if used without change in a message, may inadvertently reveal information that was not intended to be revealed outside a particular security context. Message senders should take care when constructing messages containing the new header fields, defined in this standard, that they are not revealing information outside of any security contexts to which they belong.   Some resource servers hide passwords and tickets (access tokens to information which should not be reveled to others) and other sensitive information in non-visible fields or URIs within a text/html resource. If such a text/html resource is forwarded in an email message, this sensitive information may be inadvertently revealed to others.   Since HTML documents can either directly contain executable content (i.e., JavaScript) or indirectly reference executable content (The "INSERT" specification, Java). It is exceedingly dangerous for a receiving User Agent to execute content received in a mail message without careful attention to restrictions on the capabilities of that executable content.   HTML-formatted messages can be used to investigate user behaviour, for example to break anonymity, in ways which invade the privacy of individuals. If you send a message with a inline link to an object which is not itself included in the message, the recipients mailer or browser may request that object through HTTP. The HTTP transaction will then reveal who is reading the message. Example: A person who wants to find out who is behind an anonymous user identity, or from which workstation a user is reading his mail, can do this by sending a message with an inline link and then observe from where this link is used to request the object.     --__--__--   Message: 31 To: opera-users@opera.com From: "Melwyn Da'alimar" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:41:22 +0100 Subject: [OU] Browse mails Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Hi,   is it possible to tell Opera to browse all our mails to add people in our active contact list, and to remove people from this list who are not used anymore ?   Thanks   --__--__--   Message: 32 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:51:27 +0100 From: Andre Wichartz To: Andrew Gregory Subject: Re[2]: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Hello Andrew,   On Tuesday, February 25, 2003, 22:18:25 +0800 GMT (which was 15:18 local time), Andrew Gregory wrote:   AG> On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 20:15:43 +1030, wrote:   >> Why ? It has to be the most misused tag on the web.   AG> Well, I started up Wordpad on my Windows computer and looked at the AG> toolbar, then listed the tags related to what I saw. I would consider AG> Wordpad to be a minimal feature 'word processor'.   But not everything that is possible with wordpad is suitable for email. The nice thing about plain text is that I can decide in which way my emails are presented. I decide which font of which size and which foreground and background colours are used. The bad thing about html mail (besides the bandwith issues) is that it takes this freedom away from me. I am forced to look at a message in the layout the sender liked the most. Well, maybe I don't like it at all. Or even worse: Maybe my eyes are not as good and I therefore prefer a larger font. But now I am forced to look at that small font I can barely read.   AG> can be misused, of course, but I don't consider that a huge problem. AG> I've seen plenty of plain text emails where the poster has abused their AG> Caps Lock key (i.e. left it on), but I wouldn't consider the precence of a AG> Cap Lock key a problem. It's all in how it's used.   Yes. But I just don't see a good use for . I have a reason why I want to view mails in my favourite font. Why should the sender force a different one upon me? I can understand that sometime it's desireable to make a word bold or underlined to emphasize it. But is not needed here.     -- Cheers, Andre   "1. If it's green or it wiggles, it's biology. 2. If it stinks, it's chemistry. 3. If it doesn't work, it's physics."       --__--__--   Message: 33 To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Identify as From: jonathan murphy Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:19:05 -0000 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:55:20 +0100, Melwyn Da'alimar wrote:   > Read on Opera forum : >> Regardless of your >> "identify as" setting, this string always contains >> the word "Opera". > > Is this true ?   Yes, that last statement is true.   I mean, I have been of a website blocking browsers other > than IE and netscape, not because of their choice, but because the > webmaster thought this website cannot be read using other browsers. > I then identify myself as IE, and this site worked well with this > setting...   If you set to ID as IE, Opera sends the IE user agent string followeed by the word Opera. Most sites which have casual browser detection just look for "MSIE" or "Netscape" and setting the ID is sufficient to get round them. The presence of the word Opera allows web authors who do actually know what they're doing to realise that you aren't really IE and present you with a page tuned for Opera by looking at the user agent string in more detail. The majority of sites don't do this.   -- Jonathan Murphy   --__--__--   Message: 34 To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Java Script Menu is Acting up in Opera From: jonathan murphy Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:30:47 -0000 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:19:51 -0700, Frank Owen wrote:   > The menu is located on the left hand side. It pulls out when you move > over the blue shaded box next to the edge of the browser window. I will > download opera 7 and see if it is there. Thanks! >   if (document.all) document.write(the menu is in here.............. (not sure why this needs to be written in JS?)   This adds up to "if the user has MSIE, write the menu! document.all is MS proprietary, not part of JavaScript. The menu will not appear in anything other than IE. Later on there's some document.layers stuff (Netscape 4 only). You need to read a more recent JavaScript tutorial, perhaps.   -- Jonathan Murphy   --__--__--   Message: 35 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:24:17 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) From: Alan G Isaac To: opera-users@opera.com organization: American University Subject: [OU] Re: Email formatting problem with M2 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   > On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 22:32:56 -0500, Patrick Shanahan > wrote: >> Email is *plain* ascii text, not 'marked-up' by html, >> css, or any other method.   On Tue, Andrew Gregory wrote: > I mostly agree with this, but I also recognise that the > computing world largely left text-only systems behind > about ten years ago. Email is probably the most-used form > of communication on the Internet and I think it is past > time *someone* brought it into the graphical present. Note > that I would strongly oppose anything that would prevent > text-only people from reading or otherwise using email. I > think the existing method of attaching a marked-up email > to a plain text version is the best way of doing this. > However, I don't think *HTML* is the way to go. It's too > big and complicated. Only a tiny subset is needed:

                                                                                          , > , , , , and (as a shorter alternative > to

                                                                                          ) at least, maybe
                                                                                            ,
                                                                                              ,
                                                                                            1. as well. > Ignoring , such a marked-up message would be easily > readable, even if a plain-text alternate version were not > available.   Ignoring that the proposal is in part to implement deprecated HTML, it seems that

                                                                                              = eol, eol text = *text* text = _text_ text = "text" and less reliably text = TEXT   IMHO we need a damn good reason to abandon this. If you just want to change the display of the marked up text, pick an email client that supports "Trivial Markup" (e.g., Mahogany).   > Nevertheless, the only way is forward, and email *must* > change.   I really do not see why. Unless you mean that it inevitably will change, which is probably true.   > It would be better if someone came up with an RFC > for simple markup, otherwise (if it isn't already too > late) MS and their HTML monsters will dictate what emails > of the future will be.   To find out, look at your spam. But your point is well taken.   Cheers, Alan Isaac         --__--__--   Message: 36 From: Axel Siebert To: opera-users@opera.com Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:34:45 +0100 Subject: Re: [OU] Re: Email formatting problem with M2 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   25.02.03 21:24:17, Alan G Isaac wrote:   > Ignoring that the proposal is in part to implement > deprecated HTML, it seems that >

                                                                                              = eol, eol > text = *text* > text = _text_ > text = "text" > and less reliably > text = TEXT > > IMHO we need a damn good reason to abandon this.   So true, just a little correction: The usual practice, at least on Usenet, is   text = /text/ text = *text* text = TEXT   Axel   --__--__--   Message: 37 From: Axel Siebert To: opera-users@opera.com Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:33:37 +0100 Subject: Re: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   25.02.03 15:43:15, "Melwyn Da'alimar" wrote:   >For example, a friend of mine sending html emails is a zero cost for me, as >I have adsl, it is my home mail, I do not pay for bandwith   Oh, but you do!! You just don't notice it because you pay a fixed amount. But if everybody would use available bandwidth reasonably, all ISPs would need less powerful servers, less thick lines, less fat storage, so they could offer much cheaper flatrates. You are already paying for HTML mail, rest assured.   Axel   --__--__--   Message: 38 From: "Suryanto Hendrawan" To: Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 23:13:48 +0100 Subject: [OU] endlose Schleife Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Hi,   als ich die Seite http://www.wetter.de offnete, bekam ich eine endlose Schleife. Hat jemand auch dieses merkwuerdige Verhalten, oder liegt es nur in meinem Rechner. Ich benutze Opera 7.01 auf Windows XP Pro.   Schoenen Abend Suryanto Hendrawan     --__--__--   Message: 39 From: "Suryanto Hendrawan" To: Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 23:22:46 +0100 Subject: [OU] endless loop Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Hi again,   sorry for the last mail, have forgotten to write it in english. also, als i try to open http://www.wetter.de , i have received an endless loop. have anybody the same problem? any idea, how to solve it? I use opera 7.01 in Windows XP Pro.   Thanks Suryanto Hendrawan       --__--__--   Message: 40 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:08:50 -0800 From: Larry Washbrook Subject: Re: [OU] endless loop To: opera-users@opera.com Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   I'm using Opera 7.01 with Windows XP Pro and have no difficulty accessing the site. I don't know where your problem is.   On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 23:22:46 +0100, Suryanto Hendrawan wrote:   > Hi again, > > sorry for the last mail, have forgotten to write it in english. also, > als i try to open http://www.wetter.de , i have received an endless loop. > have anybody the same problem? any idea, how to solve it? > I use opera 7.01 in Windows XP Pro. > > Thanks > Suryanto Hendrawan > >       --     --__--__--   Message: 41 Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 00:19:11 +0100 From: Andre Wichartz To: Larry Washbrook Subject: Re[2]: [OU] endless loop Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Hello Larry,   On Wednesday, February 26, 2003, 15:08:50 -0800 GMT (which was 00:08 local time), Larry Washbrook wrote:   LW> On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 23:22:46 +0100, Suryanto Hendrawan LW> wrote:   >> sorry for the last mail, have forgotten to write it in english. also, >> als i try to open http://www.wetter.de , i have received an endless loop. >> have anybody the same problem? any idea, how to solve it? >> I use opera 7.01 in Windows XP Pro.   LW> I'm using Opera 7.01 with Windows XP Pro and have no difficulty LW> accessing the site. I don't know where your problem is.   It was the same for me. Normally I have Opera id as IE. So I loaded the page a second time, this time id-ing as Opera and there it is: a endless loop.   So your answer is to id as IE. Then the site works.     -- Cheers, Andre   "The government of the people, by the people, for t     --__--__--   Message: 42 From: Axel Siebert To: opera-users@opera.com Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 00:31:46 +0100 Subject: Re: Re[2]: [OU] endless loop Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   26.02.03 00:19:11, Andre Wichartz wrote:   >>> sorry for the last mail, have forgotten to write it in english. also, >>> als i try to open http://www.wetter.de , i have received an endless loop. >>> have anybody the same problem? any idea, how to solve it? >>> I use opera 7.01 in Windows XP Pro.   > It was the same for me. Normally I have Opera id as IE. So I loaded the > page a second time, this time id-ing as Opera and there it is: a endless > loop. > > So your answer is to id as IE. Then the site works.   No. The answer is to reload the page. If you visit it for the first time, it will work. If it is drawn from the cache on the next visit, it loops. The reason is some FUBAR JavaSpit designed to make sure you don't circumvent the frameset. Try hitting the stop/reload button a few times while it loops, eventually this will force a reload, which will finish loading.   Axel       --__--__--   Message: 43 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:07:03 -0800 To: opera-users@opera.com From: "Nicholas H. Kaps" Organization: Perspectives Subject: [OU] email problem Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   I recently am having a problem with my email. Part of my email is not downloaded from my isp.   A box appears that says "Generic Error" Inside the box is the following statement.   "nkaps@garlic.com Opera tried to retrieve message 1(UIDL CL%#!odC"!e#:!!6&H"!) from the POP3 server, but failed to store it on your machine."   Has anyone else had a similiar problem or any ideas as to what happened?? -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/   --__--__--   Message: 44 To: opera-users@opera.com, opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] Email formatting problem with M2 From: Edward Organization: Retired Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:19:46 -0500 Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   I am not sure what you all are talking about. But what I want is to just type a message and sent it. I am too old to fool with BS notations. I am not a programer and do not want to be. If what you are talking about does not require other than just typing the message. Disregard my comments. Edward     On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:31:22 +0800, Andrew Gregory wrote:   > In response to my previous message... > > On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 22:32:56 -0500, Patrick Shanahan > wrote: > >> Email is *plain* ascii text, not 'marked-up' by html, css, or any other >> method. > > I mostly agree with this, but I also recognise that the computing world > largely left text-only systems behind about ten years ago. Email is > probably the most-used form of communication on the Internet and I think > it is past time *someone* brought it into the graphical present. Note > that I would strongly oppose anything that would prevent text-only people > from reading or otherwise using email. I think the existing method of > attaching a marked-up email to a plain text version is the best way of > doing this. However, I don't think *HTML* is the way to go. It's too big > and complicated. Only a tiny subset is needed:

                                                                                              , , , , > , and (as a shorter alternative to

                                                                                              ) at least, > maybe
                                                                                                ,
                                                                                                  ,
                                                                                                1. as well. Ignoring , such a marked-up message > would be easily readable, even if a plain-text alternate version were not > available. > >> Unformatted things are only ugly if your email-client is not capable of >> presenting them properly. > > My points were that plain text only messages make this difficult, if not > impossible. Too much formatting information is lost in the conversion to > plain text. > >> To follow your line of reasoning (which I partially agree), nothing but >> plain ascii text email should exist. I use a text-mode client which, >> of itself, is only capable of presenting plain ascii text. > > No, email should *always* be accessible to people no matter the > capabilities of their client, but I think it is wrong for the now tiny > minority of people who can *only* handle plain text to hold back the vast > majority of people using graphical system from being able to add a little > formatting (bold, underline, italic, colour, fonts) to their messages. > >> I do reformat quoted text to <72 chars, trim quotes and do not TOFU as >> a courtesy to the reader. This was at one time the norm for the >> internet community, but since the proliferation of internet >> participants (just after the inception of aol), courtesy and adherance >> to 'norms' has sadly become a *laugh*. > > I had to look up what TOFU meant, and I agree (although I haven't > religously followed those guidelines). It is true that now that a much > higher proportion of the population are on the 'net, the average > capability/courtesy has dropped accordingly. A sad reflection on the > society we live in. When I was at uni for several years, my only 'net > access was via a 19200 baud VT102 terminal emulator, so I know what it > was like and what we have to remain compatible with. > > Nevertheless, the only way is forward, and email *must* change. It would > be better if someone came up with an RFC for simple markup, otherwise (if > it isn't already too late) MS and their HTML monsters will dictate what > emails of the future will be.       -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/     --__--__--   Message: 45 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:53:49 -0500 To: opera-users@opera.com Subject: Re: [OU] email problem From: Edward Organization: Retired Reply-To: opera-users@opera.com   Yes I had the same pop up error message. I reloaded Opera7.1 and it went away for awhile. Now it is back. I asked about this on a forum but noone knew what to do. I do not know what this message is telling me other than Opera is having a problem. With what? Edward   On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:07:03 -0800, Nicholas H. Kaps wrote: > I recently am having a problem with my email. Part of my email is not > downloaded from my isp. > > A box appears that says "Generic Error" > Inside the box is the following statement. > > "nkaps@garlic.com > Opera tried to retrieve message 1(UIDL CL%#!odC"!e#:!!6&H"!) from the > POP3 server, but failed to store it on your machine." > > Has anyone else had a similiar problem or any ideas as to what happened?? -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ --__--__-- -- Opera-users mailing list Opera-users@opera.com http://list.opera.com/mailman/listinfo/opera-users End of Opera-users Digest