Re: [OT] KMail - forwarding issues
On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 16:51:05 +0100, Klistvud wrote:
> Dne, 31. 10. 2010 14:51:00 je Camaleón napisal(a):
>> I don't know how can you equate all that stuff with having html e-mail
>> unsless you also avoid using Internet (websites use html and not plain
>> text and we are all happy with that).
> I was not equating anything with anything, I was just trying to make a
> distinction about features not always being choices and vice versa; and
> about features not always making us better off.
Care to tell me just one thing that would make having a full featured
html formatting editor embedded in kmail harm users?
Sorry, but I fail to see how "adding" new options can be "bad" for users.
Will it make Kmail package breaks? No, I don't think so.
Will it make Kmail package increses its size? Maybe some megabytes, not a
Will it prevent user for using plain text e-mails as they were used to?
No, it won't, users can still use their MUA in the way they prefer.
So, what is the damage this will make? I can't name it.
>> People is free to choose whatever they want because they have the
>> capability to do it so, that's the beatiful of freedom.
> With freedom should come responsibility. However, that doesn't seem to
> be the case. If I take a look around me -- of course, it may just be me
> -- I see that, more often than not, people make choices for the worse.
Let people learn from their errors. Forcing users to act as "they should"
will only make they reject to do it that way. It's a psychological fact:
the more interest you have in people behave in a concrete manner, the
more interest they'll have in acting the opposite.
> Problem is, those poor choices of the so-called "majority" have
> repercussions on all of us. In the end, I'm forced to endure HTML mail,
> although I may despise it. I'm forced to endure flash although I may
> despise it. If I want to be able to play music on a mobile phone or a
> portable player, I'm forced to either use the patent-encumbered mp3
> format or nothing -- open formats are not supported, or only
That must be you, sir. I'm not enforced to anything of this. I can browse
ups or flash animations. You like flash? You got it. You don't like, you
can avoid it without any problem. Todays browsers can handle that for you
in an easy manner.
> If I want to watch family photos on my home DVD recorder,
> they have to be in the royalty-encumbered jpg format -- again, open
> formats are rarely supported. Gosh, even for just *taking* a family
> photo I'll have a hard time finding a camera that doesn't use
> patent-encumbered formats! If I want to buy a laptop that is at least
> half-compatible with a Free OS, I must go to great lengths to check in
> advance that all components will work at all, because the wise majority
> is quite content with it working in Windows and couldn't care less. And
> it's not just a matter of abstract principles, sometimes it interferes
> with my life quite directly. For example, if I want to exchange document
> files with my clients in order to make my living -- they require I use
> the proprietary Word .doc format. They've obviously never even heard of
> .odt and the like. All these, and many other, choices are being thrust
> upon me on a daily basis by the "savvy majority", and they are all poor
> choices in my view.
That seems to be a bit of rant again many things that have nothing to do
with the issue we are talking about. Ranting is free, though. I think
that a bit of ranting does not hurt from time to time, but in the end, I
prefer acting and helping users/developers to fix things they do not like
or they want to improve :-)
>> Your are messing up things. Nobody is telling that you have to use html
>> mails, I am telling that having such option will not prevent users for
>> still using text e-mails.
>> In fact, you will still receive html spam and viruses regardless the
>> you use and regardless its capabilities, so your argument is bit of no-
> True, but if you think about what made HTML spam and viruses possible in
> the first place, you'll come to the conclusion that it was the
> introduction of HTML mail.
I don't have -right now- any statistics about this, but IIRC, there is a
higher percentage of spam using plain text e-mail rather than html
format, because users avoid opening html messages (antivirus companies
and anti-malware campaings tell them to do so) so they are very cautelous
with these e-mails but have no problem with opening plain text ones.
> It was the bane of the "feature-driven
> design". It was the "hey, why-not" attitude. Many of us never wanted it.
If you don't want to use something, then do not use it but let other
users can make use of it if they want :-)
> I was on dial-up at the time and sure as hell didn't want it. I thought
> that text-only mail standard was lean, bandwidth-efficient, fast and
> lightweight, and something the Internet Consortium (or whoever invented
> it) could really be proud of. Why ruin it? Well, the savvy majority
> decided for us all. Now, we have to endure HTML spam and viruses just
> like all those who made the wise decision to introduce HTML "features"
> into e-mail. Well, thanks for nothing.
Okay... nothing prevents you for returning to your "sweet cavern" if you
are happy on it: cut down your dsl lease line, return to dial-up and
start using mutt and wget to browse the web and fetching e-mails ;-)
> P.S. Nothing of the above is aimed at Kmail specifically. Kmail is the
> greatest mail client I've ever used, more complete, more intuitive, and
> more stable than Balsa which I'm using now. I've only dropped it because
> I switched to Gnome and don't want to burden my system with any KDE
> libraries. I've used Kmail for a year or so and never even noticed
> whether it had HTML support or no -- just goes to show how much I needed
I have to agree with that: Kmail is the best MUA I've ever used (and I
had to deal with Outlook 2000/2007, Outlook Express, Windows Mail,
Thunderbird, Gmail webmail and Mutt).
Now I use Icedove/Thunderbird in GNOME, Mutt and also a newsreader (Pan)
to read and reply to this list :-)