[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date index][Thread index]
Re: st: RE: RE: Plain text Messages on Statalist
I was a member of this list several years ago, and I remember that
most email programs used plain text as a default. That is, people had
to actively choose to send html. I think that times have changed
sufficiently that I daresay most mailers are more likely to use html
as the default. I was caught by this myself a few weeks ago when I
re-subscribed to statalist and noted that my postings were not going
through. Only after bothering Marcello about this did he point out
that my messages (using Microsoft Outlook at first and then GMail
next) were all being sent as html, and hence were being blocked (So,
Nick, apparently there is no reason for you to be annoyed with html
posts, as they are blocked!). I have since set my mailer to use plain
text and no longer have problems.
I think in this day when html mail is more likely the default, the FAQ
should more prominently point out that messages must be in plain text.
On 10/6/05, Nick Cox <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> I don't want to misunderstand you, or anybody else,
> but in turn I am quoted out of context here. I said
> "What are you saying is that some people cannot
> produce plain text. At worse, those people will find
> that their messages cannot get through or that they get some
> flak from list members such as myself for sending
> HTML. If anyone objects to that, which is pretty mild,
> perhaps they should consider not posting
> to Statalist if they cannot comply with its
> recommendations, which are long-standing, or starting
> another list run according to their practices."
> The condition "If anyone objects to that, which is pretty mild,
> perhaps" is crucial here.
> That said, I am open to a case for changing
> FAQ to advise people how to comply with the recommendations,
> but people must suggest specific wording and
> give concrete details. I still worry that the FAQ
> is too long and too little read, and am reluctant
> to create precedents by stuffing it with extraneous
> Thomas Speidel
> > Nick, I think I have been misunderstood. I wasn't objecting about the
> > requirements of Statalist. A few months ago I had problems posting
> > messages to the list because my email client was unable to
> > produce Plain
> > Text messages. My messages sent to Statalist simply did not
> > get posted.
> > I later found out, this was not due to the fact I was sending HTML
> > messages, but rather, with the fact messages were sent using the MIME
> > protocol. Additionally, because my workplace uses "Outlook
> > Web Access",
> > which is a webmail implementation of MS Outlook, I had no control on
> > these options. In Outlook Web Access, the user cannot choose to send
> > plain text messages or turn the MIME protocol off. Since many
> > companies/institutions are moving towards webmail implementations of
> > email systems, I thought other people may experience the same
> > problems I
> > experienced.
> > You are correct in saying "many people who send HTML have the facility
> > to send plain text ". However, in my case I did not have that option.
> > I don't agree in saying that these people "should consider not posting
> > to Statalist". This is why I was suggesting a brief mention of this in
> > the FAQ. Perhaps, we could provide suggestions to alternative methods
> > for those unable to post (opening a free account with an
> > email host that
> > can comply with Statalist's recommendations?).
> > Just giving some suggestions...
> > Thomas
> * For searches and help try:
> * http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html
> * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
> * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
* For searches and help try: