Re: Stop it with putting your e-mail body in ATT attachments. Its annoying and no one can see your message
There is nothing wrong with MS Outlook express. You need to stem your hostility towards Microsoft and recognize that they are the dominant desktop (something like 90%) and you need to get used to it and stop fighting. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nipper, Arnold" <arnold@nipper.de> To: "John Palmer" <nanog@adns.net> Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 5:36 PM Subject: Re: Stop it with putting your e-mail body in ATT attachments. Its annoying and no one can see your message
John,
use a real MUA and you will have no problem. Something like mutt, you know ...
Arnold - also mostly using Outlook Express -
----- Original Message ----- From: "John Palmer" <nanog@adns.net> To: <nanog@merit.edu> Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 12:29 AM Subject: Stop it with putting your e-mail body in ATT attachments. Its annoying and no one can see your message
I know this is off the current subject., but some of you are sending these e-mail's to the list that appear as attachments and not text.
This is even more annoying than HTML Mail.
The message appears with an empty body and attachments that have names that start with ATT....
This is annoying. Many people wont read your messages because opening attachments is a security risk. If you want your postings read, please use plain text e-mail and not these stupid ATT attachments.
(flame off)
----- Original Message ----- From: "Joseph T. Klein" <jtk@titania.net> Cc: <nanog@trapdoor.merit.edu> Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 5:21 PM Subject: Billing Notice
On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 05:50:52PM -0500, John Palmer wrote:
There is nothing wrong with MS Outlook express. You need to stem your hostility towards Microsoft and recognize that they are the dominant desktop (something like 90%) and you need to get used to it and stop fighting.
Just because it is the dominant MUA does not make it correct. There are plenty of MUA's out there that have no problem displaying those messages. If you want to see them, then use one of those MUA's, or get MS to fix its mailers. I suppose the reason that outlook doesn't support PGP attachments isn't because MS is promoting a different standard? So much for interoperability. --Adam -- Adam McKenna <adam@flounder.net> | GPG: 17A4 11F7 5E7E C2E7 08AA http://flounder.net/publickey.html | 38B0 05D0 8BF7 2C6D 110A
"Adam McKenna" <adam-nanog@flounder.net> wrote:
Just because it is the dominant MUA does not make it correct. There are plenty of MUA's out there that have no problem displaying those messages.
Apologies in advance for perpetuating this OT flame war.... Anyone with MUA replacement suggestions not covered below, please send them directly. I have been searching for the last year to replace OE. Thus far, it is the only IMAP client I have found which has these two critical qualities: 1) Does not crash attempting to load headers from an IMAP mailbox +500MB in size / +2000 messages. I use server-side filters and segregate mail based on date into subfolders by hand, but still can't avoid this condition from happening occasionally (i.e. long weekend) even with a lot of maintenance (and aggressive use of RBLs). And this on a machine with 768MB of memory, it shouldn't be a resources issue.... Ironically, the full version of Outlook chokes just as bad as every other client I've tried, but OE has proven itself a pinnacle of stability (I cannot recall the last time it crashed). 2) Will display the unread count of every IMAP folder without manual checking on my behalf. Due to the environment issues mentioned above, the most important stuff has to be filtered server-side into a sub-mailbox that is not deluged with spam and more mundane matters. I don't care as much about the unread count of "Inbox" as I do of "Trouble". In short, I'm using OE because I need a functional IMAP client that isn't crashing every time I sneeze. The short list that I have tried includes: - Netscape Messenger, vers. 4.7 - 6.x (both Windows and unix) - Mozilla release 1 and prior - Mutt, pine and kmail (on both linux and *BSD) - Eudora latest release It is the mail situation which has kept me tied to windows. Perhaps I should just change my e-mail address.... Mike P.S. Far be it from me to defend OE, but since at least Sept 1999- the month I switched to IMAP and have archives to date it- I have had exactly 0 virus infections. Perhaps it's because I read bugtraq and patch religiously, or perhaps it's because I know better than to load .bat/com/exe/pif/scr files received via e-mail. However, I do not maintain anything in the address book, in the expectation that one *will* eventually slip through.
Mulberry is definitely worth a look for the setup you describe (http://www.cyrusoft.com/). It's the only mailer I've tried that does IMAP, including off-line use, really well. My largest folder right now is 8606 messages and it handles it fine (it does have a problem with *huge* text messages though). --On 09 July 2002 18:05 -0600 Mike Lewinski <mike@rockynet.com> wrote:
"Adam McKenna" <adam-nanog@flounder.net> wrote: Apologies in advance for perpetuating this OT flame war.... Anyone with MUA replacement suggestions not covered below, please send them directly.
I have been searching for the last year to replace OE. Thus far, it is the only IMAP client I have found which has these two critical qualities:
1) Does not crash attempting to load headers from an IMAP mailbox +500MB in size / +2000 messages. I use server-side filters and segregate mail based on date into subfolders by hand, but still can't avoid this condition from happening occasionally (i.e. long weekend) even with a lot of maintenance (and aggressive use of RBLs). And this on a machine with 768MB of memory, it shouldn't be a resources issue.... Ironically, the full version of Outlook chokes just as bad as every other client I've tried, but OE has proven itself a pinnacle of stability (I cannot recall the last time it crashed).
2) Will display the unread count of every IMAP folder without manual checking on my behalf. Due to the environment issues mentioned above, the most important stuff has to be filtered server-side into a sub-mailbox that is not deluged with spam and more mundane matters. I don't care as much about the unread count of "Inbox" as I do of "Trouble".
In short, I'm using OE because I need a functional IMAP client that isn't crashing every time I sneeze. The short list that I have tried includes:
- Netscape Messenger, vers. 4.7 - 6.x (both Windows and unix) - Mozilla release 1 and prior - Mutt, pine and kmail (on both linux and *BSD) - Eudora latest release
It is the mail situation which has kept me tied to windows. Perhaps I should just change my e-mail address....
Mike
P.S. Far be it from me to defend OE, but since at least Sept 1999- the month I switched to IMAP and have archives to date it- I have had exactly 0 virus infections. Perhaps it's because I read bugtraq and patch religiously, or perhaps it's because I know better than to load .bat/com/exe/pif/scr files received via e-mail. However, I do not maintain anything in the address book, in the expectation that one *will* eventually slip through.
-- Rob.
> There is nothing wrong with MS Outlook express. Uh, you _are_ joking, right? -Bill
Thus spake "Bill Woodcock" <woody@zocalo.net>
> There is nothing wrong with MS Outlook express.
Uh, you _are_ joking, right?
Outlook and Outlook Express have very similar GUI's, but are very different under the hood. OE has a lot more in common with Eudora than it does with "real" Outlook. In the 3+ years I've been using OE, the only problem I've ever had is with those damned PGP/MIME messages. Zero crashes to date. S
Sometimes a signature is unnecessary: the foolishness of the comment itself can be proof of its authorship. jnull PGP: 0x54B1A25C "!!!!!" It's the little things .... -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of John Palmer Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 5:51 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Stop it with putting your e-mail body in ATT attachments. Its annoying and no one can see your message There is nothing wrong with MS Outlook express. You need to stem your hostility towards Microsoft and recognize that they are the dominant desktop (something like 90%) and you need to get used to it and stop fighting. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nipper, Arnold" <arnold@nipper.de> To: "John Palmer" <nanog@adns.net> Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 5:36 PM Subject: Re: Stop it with putting your e-mail body in ATT attachments. Its annoying and no one can see your message
John,
use a real MUA and you will have no problem. Something like mutt, you know ...
Arnold - also mostly using Outlook Express -
----- Original Message ----- From: "John Palmer" <nanog@adns.net> To: <nanog@merit.edu> Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 12:29 AM Subject: Stop it with putting your e-mail body in ATT attachments. Its annoying and no one can see your message
I know this is off the current subject., but some of you are sending these e-mail's to the list that appear as attachments and not text.
This is even more annoying than HTML Mail.
The message appears with an empty body and attachments that have names that start with ATT....
This is annoying. Many people wont read your messages because opening attachments is a security risk. If you want your postings read, please use plain text e-mail and not these stupid ATT attachments.
(flame off)
----- Original Message ----- From: "Joseph T. Klein" <jtk@titania.net> Cc: <nanog@trapdoor.merit.edu> Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 5:21 PM Subject: Billing Notice
On Tue, 9 Jul 2002, John Palmer wrote: : : There is nothing wrong with MS Outlook express. You need to stem : your hostility towards Microsoft and recognize that they are the dominant : desktop (something like 90%) and you need to get used to it and stop : fighting. Uh, no. I *don't* need to get used to it and there *are* things wrong with it... scott : : ----- Original Message ----- : From: "Nipper, Arnold" <arnold@nipper.de> : To: "John Palmer" <nanog@adns.net> : Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 5:36 PM : Subject: Re: Stop it with putting your e-mail body in ATT attachments. Its annoying and no one can see your message : : : > John, : > : > use a real MUA and you will have no problem. Something like mutt, you know : > ... : > : > Arnold - also mostly using Outlook Express - : > : > ----- Original Message ----- : > From: "John Palmer" <nanog@adns.net> : > To: <nanog@merit.edu> : > Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 12:29 AM : > Subject: Stop it with putting your e-mail body in ATT attachments. Its : > annoying and no one can see your message : > : > : > > : > > I know this is off the current subject., but some of you are sending : > > these e-mail's to the list that appear as attachments and not text. : > > : > > This is even more annoying than HTML Mail. : > > : > > The message appears with an empty body and attachments that have : > > names that start with ATT.... : > > : > > This is annoying. Many people wont read your messages because : > > opening attachments is a security risk. If you want your postings : > > read, please use plain text e-mail and not these stupid ATT : > > attachments. : > > : > > (flame off) : > > : > > : > > ----- Original Message ----- : > > From: "Joseph T. Klein" <jtk@titania.net> : > > Cc: <nanog@trapdoor.merit.edu> : > > Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 5:21 PM : > > Subject: Billing Notice : > > : > > : > > : > : > : :
On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 05:50:52PM -0500, John Palmer wrote:
There is nothing wrong with MS Outlook express. You need to stem
Surely you must be joking.
your hostility towards Microsoft and recognize that they are the dominant desktop (something like 90%) and you need to get used to it and stop fighting.
On NANOG? Are you sure? So, I took the past three years of NANOG postings, and grepped them for X-Mailer headers. The sample consists of 20634 postings since June 14th, 1999. Of these 20634, 10996 didn't have X-Mailer headers and although some may have this information elsewhere, I'm not going to bother. Of the remaining 9638, there are 523 unique X-Mailer references. I disqualified 24 for being quoted, or random X-Mailer discussion on NANOG. (X-Mailer discussion seems to be the ONLY thread that hasn't repeated itself in the last month.) The breakdown: Microsoft 38.71% (not even half the way to 90%) Mozilla 11.41% Eudora 10.86% ELM 6.63% exmh 5.25% Web Mail 5.20% Mutt 4.70% New MH 3.64% VM 2.36% Mulberry 1.90% Gnus 1.27% MH 0.96% If we include the postings with no X-Mailer in the sample, Microsoft drops to 18.08% of the total -- I'm not aware of any M$ email product that didn't include an X-Mailer header. Of course, about the only thing you can conclude from this is that people with no X-Mailer post more often than anyone else ;) Still, 18% is a far cry from 90%. Care to try that again? --msa
On 07/09/02, "Majdi S. Abbas" <msa@samurai.sfo.dead-dog.com> wrote:
your hostility towards Microsoft and recognize that they are the dominant desktop (something like 90%) and you need to get used to it and stop fighting.
On NANOG? Are you sure?
Even in its heyday, the NANOG list has always been pretty far from being a representative sample of the Internet. At this point I'd call it a stretch even to claim that NANOG posters are a representative sample of current routing engineers. -- J.D. Falk "It's all vegan, except for <jdfalk@cybernothing.org> the goat squeezings!" -- rachel
On Tue, 9 Jul 2002, Majdi S. Abbas wrote:
Of the remaining 9638, there are 523 unique X-Mailer references. I disqualified 24 for being quoted, or random X-Mailer discussion on NANOG. (X-Mailer discussion seems to be the ONLY thread that hasn't repeated itself in the last month.)
The breakdown:
Microsoft 38.71% (not even half the way to 90%) Mozilla 11.41% Eudora 10.86% ELM 6.63% exmh 5.25% Web Mail 5.20% Mutt 4.70% New MH 3.64% VM 2.36% Mulberry 1.90% Gnus 1.27% MH 0.96%
If we include the postings with no X-Mailer in the sample, Microsoft drops to 18.08% of the total -- I'm not aware of any M$ email product that didn't include an X-Mailer header.
Of course, about the only thing you can conclude from this is that people with no X-Mailer post more often than anyone else ;)
Most of those are likely pine, which you can tell by looking at the message-id... James Smallacombe PlantageNet, Inc. CEO and Janitor up@3.am http://3.am =========================================================================
Guess no one uses Pegasus Mail anymore, *reminiscence of the good ol days when that was all that the Department of Defense used* ----- Original Message ----- From: <up@3.am> To: "Majdi S. Abbas" <msa@samurai.sfo.dead-dog.com> Cc: <nanog@merit.edu> Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 8:56 AM Subject: Re: Stop it with putting your e-mail body in ATT attachments. Its annoying and no one can see your message
On Tue, 9 Jul 2002, Majdi S. Abbas wrote:
Of the remaining 9638, there are 523 unique X-Mailer references. I disqualified 24 for being quoted, or random X-Mailer discussion on NANOG. (X-Mailer discussion seems to be the ONLY thread that hasn't repeated itself in the last month.)
The breakdown:
Microsoft 38.71% (not even half the way to 90%) Mozilla 11.41% Eudora 10.86% ELM 6.63% exmh 5.25% Web Mail 5.20% Mutt 4.70% New MH 3.64% VM 2.36% Mulberry 1.90% Gnus 1.27% MH 0.96%
If we include the postings with no X-Mailer in the sample, Microsoft drops to 18.08% of the total -- I'm not aware of any M$ email product that didn't include an X-Mailer header.
Of course, about the only thing you can conclude from this is that people with no X-Mailer post more often than anyone else ;)
Most of those are likely pine, which you can tell by looking at the message-id...
James Smallacombe PlantageNet, Inc. CEO and Janitor up@3.am http://3.am =========================================================================
HA! I remember pegasus! That was ages ago. before windows... Our branch got all macs (the really old shoebox ones) before we'd succumb but we were over ruled eventually. They have them in the smithsonian now. enough ot. back to work. Jane "Gerardo A. Gregory" wrote:
Guess no one uses Pegasus Mail anymore,
*reminiscence of the good ol days when that was all that the Department of Defense used*
----- Original Message ----- From: <up@3.am> To: "Majdi S. Abbas" <msa@samurai.sfo.dead-dog.com> Cc: <nanog@merit.edu> Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 8:56 AM Subject: Re: Stop it with putting your e-mail body in ATT attachments. Its annoying and no one can see your message
On Tue, 9 Jul 2002, Majdi S. Abbas wrote:
Of the remaining 9638, there are 523 unique X-Mailer references. I disqualified 24 for being quoted, or random X-Mailer discussion on NANOG. (X-Mailer discussion seems to be the ONLY thread that hasn't repeated itself in the last month.)
The breakdown:
Microsoft 38.71% (not even half the way to 90%) Mozilla 11.41% Eudora 10.86% ELM 6.63% exmh 5.25% Web Mail 5.20% Mutt 4.70% New MH 3.64% VM 2.36% Mulberry 1.90% Gnus 1.27% MH 0.96%
If we include the postings with no X-Mailer in the sample, Microsoft drops to 18.08% of the total -- I'm not aware of any M$ email product that didn't include an X-Mailer header.
Of course, about the only thing you can conclude from this is that people with no X-Mailer post more often than anyone else ;)
Most of those are likely pine, which you can tell by looking at the message-id...
James Smallacombe PlantageNet, Inc. CEO and Janitor up@3.am http://3.am =========================================================================
I'd settle for a MUA that when it gets a Jeopardy-posted message; it reverses the phase of the poloron burst and reflects it back to the offender, causing a panel on the bridge to burst into flame (and a red-shirt to die). (It follows up with an automagic kill-file entry, in case they have No Clue but do possess a spare panel & red-shirt.) -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 09:36:43PM -0700, Majdi S. Abbas wrote: [snip]
The breakdown:
Microsoft 38.71% (not even half the way to 90%) Mozilla 11.41% Eudora 10.86% ELM 6.63% exmh 5.25% Web Mail 5.20% Mutt 4.70% New MH 3.64% VM 2.36% Mulberry 1.90% Gnus 1.27% MH 0.96%
[snip]
--msa
Close, but no banana for you: 26.1534 percent, Pine 20.2465 percent, Microsoft Total (Outlook, Outlook Express, Exchange, etc) 15.5250 percent, Mutt 7.7120 percent, Microsoft Outlook 7.6985 percent, Internet Mail Service (Exchange) 5.7049 percent, Eudora 5.2738 percent, Mozilla (Netscape) 4.7013 percent, Microsoft Outlook Express 3.6102 percent, Unknown (536 messages were not identifiable) 3.2734 percent, Elm 2.1823 percent, exmh 1.6232 percent, Web Mail 1.4144 percent, Gnus/Emacs 1.2326 percent, Mulberry 0.9160 percent, VM 0.7139 percent, Yahoo! 0.4715 percent, Hotmail 0.3839 percent, Lotus Notes 0.3166 percent, The Bat! 0.3031 percent, KMail 0.2896 percent, Apple Mail 0.2694 percent, Pocomail 0.2694 percent, MH 0.2627 percent, Evolution 0.2088 percent, DMailWeb Web to Mail Gateway 0.2021 percent, Mahogany 0.1414 percent, Squirrel Mail 0.1414 percent, CommuniGate Pro Web Mailer 0.1347 percent, mh-e 0.1145 percent, IMail 0.1078 percent, Sylpheed 0.1010 percent, Microsoft-Entourage 0.1010 percent, Mew version x.xx on Emacs 0.0943 percent, dtmail 1.3.0 @(#)CDE Version 0.0741 percent, Tellurian WebMail 0.0674 percent, tin 0.0674 percent, Forte Agent 0.0539 percent, My Own Email 0.0471 percent, ZMail 0.0471 percent, Mail User's Shell 0.0404 percent, MailRoom For Internet Mail 0.0269 percent, stuphead ver. 0.5.3 (Wiskas) 0.0269 percent, MIME-tools 4.104 (Entity 4.117) 0.0202 percent, your-mom-encapsulated-in-smtp 0.0202 percent, Vivian Mail 0.0202 percent, PostOffice 0.0202 percent, Mirapoint Webmail Direct 0.0202 percent, Becky! 0.0135 percent, Excite Inbox 0.0135 percent, /bin/bash 0.0135 percent, AeroMail 0.0067 percent, XFMail 0.0067 percent, WorldClient Standard 0.0067 percent, TWIG 0.0067 percent, The Rodent, go figure. 0.0067 percent, TBBS/TIGER v1.0/PRIMP 1.56p 0.0067 percent, slrn 0.0067 percent, Opera 0.0067 percent, emacs 20.5.1 (via feedmail 8 I) 0.0067 percent, Calypso Total messages: 14847 This resulted from checking X-Mailer, User-Agent, and Message-ID as a last resort (yahoo, hotmail, pine..), timespan is from Feb 2001 to now. -- Matthew S. Hallacy FUBAR, LART, BOFH Certified http://www.poptix.net GPG public key 0x01938203
participants (15)
-
Adam McKenna -
Bill Woodcock -
David Lesher -
Gerardo A. Gregory -
J.D. Falk -
jnull -
John Palmer -
Majdi S. Abbas -
Matthew S. Hallacy -
Mike Lewinski -
Pawlukiewicz Jane -
Rob Pickering -
Scott Weeks -
Stephen Sprunk -
up＠3.am