Percentage of General Public with Web Based Emails

Percentage of General Public with Web Based Emails

am 23.04.2005 02:13:00 von dan.fanelli

Hi All, I'm a developer working on a mass email application, and
putting a good amount of work into having a good text format for the
messages as well as web-based email (html). Does anyone out there have
any statistics on what percentage of people/email clients that DON'T
have Web-Based email? Just wondering if the amount of work we've been
putting into the text versions of these emails is not in proportion to
the number of people that will actually see the text version. Thanks
in advnace :)

Re: Percentage of General Public with Web Based Emails

am 23.04.2005 04:34:48 von DFS

dan.fanelli@gmail.com wrote:

> Hi All, I'm a developer working on a mass email application,

Spamware?

> and
> putting a good amount of work into having a good text format for the
> messages as well as web-based email (html). Does anyone out there have
> any statistics on what percentage of people/email clients that DON'T
> have Web-Based email?

I throw out HTML mail parts. There's a data point for you.

--
David.

Re: Percentage of General Public with Web Based Emails

am 23.04.2005 05:17:43 von Neil W Rickert

dan.fanelli@gmail.com writes:

> Does anyone out there have
>any statistics on what percentage of people/email clients that DON'T
>have Web-Based email?

Wrong question.

You need to also consider that part of the population that WON'T use
html mail, even though they have it available.

Re: Percentage of General Public with Web Based Emails

am 23.04.2005 11:56:00 von Frank Slootweg

dan.fanelli@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi All, I'm a developer working on a mass email application, and
> putting a good amount of work into having a good text format for the
> messages as well as web-based email (html). Does anyone out there have
> any statistics on what percentage of people/email clients that DON'T
> have Web-Based email? Just wondering if the amount of work we've been
> putting into the text versions of these emails is not in proportion to
> the number of people that will actually see the text version. Thanks
> in advnace :)

I/we understand what you are trying to say, but as a "developer", you
should know that HTML != "web-based email".

Re: Percentage of General Public with Web Based Emails

am 23.04.2005 13:05:41 von NM Public

On 23 Apr 2005 Frank Slootweg wrote:
> dan.fanelli@gmail.com wrote:
>> Hi All, I'm a developer...
>
> I/we understand what you are trying to say, but as a "developer", you
> should know that HTML != "web-based email".


Yes, for example, I've been testing a lot of web-based email
clients lately and all of the following can be set up to both
send and display only *plain text* messages.

Horde/IMP (my current favorite)
WebPine
FastMail.FM webmail
SquirrelMail

Also many (most?) web-based mail clients let the user configure
what, if any images, are displayed. Typical options include:

* display no images
* display only local images (i.e., display no remote images)

So even if you discover that a majority of email users view and
send HTML messages, it might be the case that the majority of
email users do not view email images. In summary

* Web-based email does not imply HTML email
* HTML email does not imply that images are displayed

Good luck with your research,
Let us know what you discover,
Nancy

--
Infinite Ink:
IMAP Service Providers:

Re: Percentage of General Public with Web Based Emails

am 23.04.2005 15:35:05 von Alan Clifford

On Sat, 22 Apr 2005 dan.fanelli@gmail.com wrote:

> Hi All, I'm a developer working on a mass email application, and
> putting a good amount of work into having a good text format for the
> messages as well as web-based email (html). Does anyone out there have
> any statistics on what percentage of people/email clients that DON'T
> have Web-Based email? Just wondering if the amount of work we've been
> putting into the text versions of these emails is not in proportion to
> the number of people that will actually see the text version. Thanks
> in advnace :)
>
>

No-one at all uses plain text email anymore so you can forget about it.
Just have your application create html.

--
Alan

Re: Percentage of General Public with Web Based Emails

am 23.04.2005 19:45:10 von NormanM

In article <1114215180.013573.149760@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, says...

> Hi All, I'm a developer working on a mass email application, and
> putting a good amount of work into having a good text format for the
> messages as well as web-based email (html). Does anyone out there have
> any statistics on what percentage of people/email clients that DON'T
> have Web-Based email? Just wondering if the amount of work we've been
> putting into the text versions of these emails is not in proportion to
> the number of people that will actually see the text version. Thanks
> in advnace :)

If only ten people that received your email did not view it as HTML, will
you be willing to just write them off as not worth the effort to support
text mode messages?

--
Norman
~Win dain a lotica, En vai tu ri, Si lo ta
~Fin dein a loluca, En dragu a sei lain
~Vi fa-ru les shutai am, En riga-lint

Re: Percentage of General Public with Web Based Emails

am 24.04.2005 23:04:15 von kd6lvw

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, David F. Skoll wrote:
> dan.fanelli@gmail.com wrote:
> > Hi All, I'm a developer working on a mass email application,
>
> Spamware?

You need to ask? It's already obvious that it is based on what was said....

> > and
> > putting a good amount of work into having a good text format for the
> > messages as well as web-based email (html). Does anyone out there have
> > any statistics on what percentage of people/email clients that DON'T
> > have Web-Based email?
>
> I throw out HTML mail parts. There's a data point for you.

I reject at the server HTML mail. HTML is for web pages, not mail.

Since you are developing a text/plain part for your messages, that pretty much
answered your question right there: Text/html will NOT be adding anything to
the message (except to increase its size). Therefore, it is USELESS in your
application.

However, please include your text/html parts so we can identify and kill your
mail as spam.

Re: Percentage of General Public with Web Based Emails

am 25.04.2005 20:40:05 von bill

I have my client set to display text only. If you sent ur message using
"HTML only" then I would not have been able to read it.


wrote in message
news:1114215180.013573.149760@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com.. .
> Hi All, I'm a developer working on a mass email application, and
> putting a good amount of work into having a good text format for the
> messages as well as web-based email (html). Does anyone out there have
> any statistics on what percentage of people/email clients that DON'T
> have Web-Based email? Just wondering if the amount of work we've been
> putting into the text versions of these emails is not in proportion to
> the number of people that will actually see the text version. Thanks
> in advnace :)
>

Re: Percentage of General Public with Web Based Emails

am 25.04.2005 21:51:49 von Frank Slootweg

D. Stussy wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, David F. Skoll wrote:
> > dan.fanelli@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Hi All, I'm a developer working on a mass email application,
> >
> > Spamware?
>
> You need to ask? It's already obvious that it is based on what was said....

Well, they are such things as email lists, i.e. opt-in, so I don't see
why you asume malice.

> > > and putting a good amount of work into having a good text format
> > > for the messages as well as web-based email (html). Does anyone
> > > out there have any statistics on what percentage of people/email
> > > clients that DON'T have Web-Based email?
> >
> > I throw out HTML mail parts. There's a data point for you.
>
> I reject at the server HTML mail. HTML is for web pages, not mail.

A rather non-sensical statement. Yes, the majority of HTML is one/for
the web, but HTML is not web-only. You may not *like* HTML mail, but
that doesn't mean it does not have its uses outside the web.

> Since you are developing a text/plain part for your messages, that
> pretty much answered your question right there: Text/html will NOT be
> adding anything to the message (except to increase its size).
> Therefore, it is USELESS in your application.

In cases where HTML is 'needed', i.e. offers formatting/presentation/
advantages, the text/plain part is often a minimalistic,
somewhat usable, but user-unfriendly subset. I subscribe to several
mailing lists where this is the case.

I am by no means an HTML-advocate, but HTML *has* its uses, in mail,
documents, etc.. If done right and with a proper MUA (in this context
even Outlook Express is a proper MUA), the recipient has the choice what
(not) to display.

The only somewhat valid argument is extra bandwith, storage space,
etc., so the text/html part must indeed be a *better* part than the
text/plain part, not just a (somewhat one-on-one) copy.

> However, please include your text/html parts so we can identify and
> kill your mail as spam.

Re: Percentage of General Public with Web Based Emails

am 26.04.2005 09:40:55 von Alan Mackenzie

Frank Slootweg wrote on 25 Apr 2005 19:51:49 GMT:
> D. Stussy wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, David F. Skoll wrote:
>> > dan.fanelli@gmail.com wrote:
>> > > Hi All, I'm a developer working on a mass email application,
>> >
>> > Spamware?
>>
>> You need to ask? It's already obvious that it is based on what was said....

> Well, they are such things as email lists, i.e. opt-in, so I don't see
> why you asume malice.

The fact that the OP didn't enlarge on his intentions lends support to
the spamware assumption.

>> > > and putting a good amount of work into having a good text format
>> > > for the messages as well as web-based email (html). Does anyone
>> > > out there have any statistics on what percentage of people/email
>> > > clients that DON'T have Web-Based email?

>> > I throw out HTML mail parts. There's a data point for you.

>> I reject at the server HTML mail. HTML is for web pages, not mail.

> A rather non-sensical statement. Yes, the majority of HTML is one/for
> the web, but HTML is not web-only. You may not *like* HTML mail, but
> that doesn't mean it does not have its uses outside the web.

Clearly not - but that is what HTML is for; the web.

>> Since you are developing a text/plain part for your messages, that
>> pretty much answered your question right there: Text/html will NOT be
>> adding anything to the message (except to increase its size).
>> Therefore, it is USELESS in your application.

> In cases where HTML is 'needed', i.e. offers formatting/presentation/
> advantages, the text/plain part is often a minimalistic,
> somewhat usable, but user-unfriendly subset.

How often is HTML used thus? Virtually never, in my experience. It's
just on by default and left on. What makes you say that the text/plain
part is user-unfriendly? I'd say just the opposite. It can be read on
any email program, and it gets displayed in the way the recipient likes
(complete with fancy formatting, should he so wish). And text doesn't
impose any requirement on the receiver to filter out the formatting tags.

> I subscribe to several mailing lists where this is the case.

What? That HTML is used to advantage?

> I am by no means an HTML-advocate, but HTML *has* its uses, in mail,
> documents, etc.. If done right and with a proper MUA (in this context
> even Outlook Express is a proper MUA), the recipient has the choice what
> (not) to display.

Just like the recipient also has the choice not to display adverts for
potency pills and fake Rolices, you mean?

> The only somewhat valid argument is extra bandwith, storage space,
> etc., so the text/html part must indeed be a *better* part than the
> text/plain part, not just a (somewhat one-on-one) copy.

Not the only one. The extra time and effort you're imposing on the
recipient to do the filtering, even if that filtering is simply deleting
it at the server. And that extra space is not just 20 or 30%, it's a
factor of, perhaps, 3.

And, of course, viruses and trojan horses don't come over in plain text
messages. I am 100% immune to "email" viruses, because my email client
can't execute attached programs.

>> However, please include your text/html parts so we can identify and
>> kill your mail as spam.

--
Alan Mackenzie (Munich, Germany)
Email: aacm@muuc.dee; to decode, wherever there is a repeated letter
(like "aa"), remove half of them (leaving, say, "a").

Re: Percentage of General Public with Web Based Emails

am 26.04.2005 13:34:30 von Frank Slootweg

Alan Mackenzie wrote:

Hi Alan! :-)

> Frank Slootweg wrote on 25 Apr 2005 19:51:49 GMT:
> > D. Stussy wrote:
> >> On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, David F. Skoll wrote:
> >> > dan.fanelli@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > > Hi All, I'm a developer working on a mass email application,
> >> >
> >> > Spamware?
> >>
> >> You need to ask? It's already obvious that it is based on what was said....
>
> > Well, they are such things as email lists, i.e. opt-in, so I don't see
> > why you asume malice.
>
> The fact that the OP didn't enlarge on his intentions lends support to
> the spamware assumption.

Well, let's see how this pans out. I did/do not assume malice. If I
assumed malice, then my comments about valid use of HTML in email would
be irrelevant, because the email would be abuse, whether it was in HTML
or not.

> >> > > and putting a good amount of work into having a good text format
> >> > > for the messages as well as web-based email (html). Does anyone
> >> > > out there have any statistics on what percentage of people/email
> >> > > clients that DON'T have Web-Based email?
>
> >> > I throw out HTML mail parts. There's a data point for you.
>
> >> I reject at the server HTML mail. HTML is for web pages, not mail.
>
> > A rather non-sensical statement. Yes, the majority of HTML is one/for
> > the web, but HTML is not web-only. You may not *like* HTML mail, but
> > that doesn't mean it does not have its uses outside the web.
>
> Clearly not - but that is what HTML is for; the web.

Wrong: As I said, HTML is *not* web-only. See below for valid/needed
use of HTML outside the web. Hint: Think what the M stands for. I.e. I
am not, at least not mainly, talking about the HT, I'm talking about the
ML.

> >> Since you are developing a text/plain part for your messages, that
> >> pretty much answered your question right there: Text/html will NOT be
> >> adding anything to the message (except to increase its size).
> >> Therefore, it is USELESS in your application.
>
> > In cases where HTML is 'needed', i.e. offers formatting/presentation/
> > advantages, the text/plain part is often a minimalistic,
> > somewhat usable, but user-unfriendly subset.
>
> How often is HTML used thus? Virtually never, in my experience. It's
> just on by default and left on. What makes you say that the text/plain
> part is user-unfriendly? I'd say just the opposite. It can be read on
> any email program, and it gets displayed in the way the recipient likes
> (complete with fancy formatting, should he so wish). And text doesn't
> impose any requirement on the receiver to filter out the formatting tags.

Please read what I wrote: *When* HTML is *needed*, the text/plain part
is user-unfriendly c.q. less friendly.

The point is that HTML mail is *used* so often when it is *not*
needed, that people get all worked up about it and don't realize that
sometimes it *is* needed c.q. offers advantages over text/plain.

I am talking about this latter category. Why am I talking about this
category? Because the original poster talked about mass email, i.e. not
one-to-one personal email. And no, mass email != spam. For spam it needs
to be unsolicited. I am not talking about unsolicited email, see below.

> > I subscribe to several mailing lists where this is the case.
>
> What? That HTML is used to advantage?

Yes. Examples are newsletters from travel agents etc., from ISPs,
telephone providers, etc., etc. These emails have pictures, colors,
different fonts, colums, frames, etc.. Things which are possible in
HTML, but not in text/plain.

So the point is use of HTML in mail that is *not* your run of the mill
one-to-one communication. I.e. if I would send you this article/message
by email in HTML, then that would be misuse/abuse, but the newsletters
are clearly valid use of HTML.

An analogy: Paper magazines, pamplets, etc., which are *not* junk
mail, i.e. to which you are subscribed. These also use the above
mentioned features (pictures, colors, ...), do they not? Then why
wouldn't the electronic equivalent use them?

So HTML has its use in email, i.e. outside the web. Other non-web use
is for example the use of HTML in documents.

> > I am by no means an HTML-advocate, but HTML *has* its uses, in mail,
> > documents, etc.. If done right and with a proper MUA (in this context
> > even Outlook Express is a proper MUA), the recipient has the choice what
> > (not) to display.
>
> Just like the recipient also has the choice not to display adverts for
> potency pills and fake Rolices, you mean?

No, what I mean is that the recipient can display the text/plain part
(because that is safe(r)) and *possibly* display the text/html part when
the text/plain part looks interesting.

> > The only somewhat valid argument is extra bandwith, storage space,
> > etc., so the text/html part must indeed be a *better* part than the
> > text/plain part, not just a (somewhat one-on-one) copy.
>
> Not the only one. The extra time and effort you're imposing on the
> recipient to do the filtering, even if that filtering is simply deleting
> it at the server. And that extra space is not just 20 or 30%, it's a
> factor of, perhaps, 3.

Note my "*better*" qualifier! I.e. for *valid* use of HTML (see my
above examples), you don't need to do any (additional) filtering.

> And, of course, viruses and trojan horses don't come over in plain text
> messages. I am 100% immune to "email" viruses, because my email client
> can't execute attached programs.

True. See my "safe(r)" comment above.

> >> However, please include your text/html parts so we can identify and
> >> kill your mail as spam.

Re: Percentage of General Public with Web Based Emails

am 28.04.2005 21:07:58 von Alan Mackenzie

Frank Slootweg wrote on 26 Apr 2005 11:34:30 GMT:
> Alan Mackenzie wrote:

> Hi Alan! :-)

>> Frank Slootweg wrote on 25 Apr 2005 19:51:49 GMT:
>> > D. Stussy wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, David F. Skoll wrote:
>> >> > dan.fanelli@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> > > Hi All, I'm a developer working on a mass email application,

[ .... ]

>> >> I reject at the server HTML mail. HTML is for web pages, not mail.

>> > A rather non-sensical statement. Yes, the majority of HTML is
>> > one/for the web, but HTML is not web-only. You may not *like* HTML
>> > mail, but that doesn't mean it does not have its uses outside the
>> > web.

>> Clearly not - but that is what HTML is for; the web.

> Wrong: As I said, HTML is *not* web-only. See below for valid/needed
> use of HTML outside the web. Hint: Think what the M stands for. I.e. I
> am not, at least not mainly, talking about the HT, I'm talking about
> the ML.

....and we're reduced to arguing about the meaning of words. My fault,
along with anybody else willing to take his share of the blame. Lets
just say, HTML is _primarily_ for the web. That's what it was invented
for, and its use there is universally accepted. It _can_ be used for
other purposes, such as email, but such use can and often does give rise
to heated feelings, both logical and not, and is thus, perhaps, best
avoided in those other circumstances. ;-)

[ .... ]

>> > In cases where HTML is 'needed', i.e. offers
>> > formatting/presentation/ advantages, the text/plain part
>> > is often a minimalistic, somewhat usable, but user-unfriendly
>> > subset.

>> How often is HTML used thus? Virtually never, in my experience. It's
>> just on by default and left on. What makes you say that the
>> text/plain part is user-unfriendly? I'd say just the opposite. It
>> can be read on any email program, and it gets displayed in the way the
>> recipient likes (complete with fancy formatting, should he so wish).
>> And text doesn't impose any requirement on the receiver to filter out
>> the formatting tags.

> Please read what I wrote: *When* HTML is *needed*, the text/plain part
> is user-unfriendly c.q. less friendly.

Hmm. What you wrote was "...where HTML is 'needed'", with that critical
word in single quotes. I agree with you on principle, that when HTML is
needed, it is user-friendlier to those recipients who are set up to
render HTML.

> The point is that HTML mail is *used* so often when it is *not*
> needed, that people get all worked up about it and don't realize that
> sometimes it *is* needed c.q. offers advantages over text/plain.

Yep, that's me! I think that HTML in mail is much more often abused than
used. So much more, indeed, that anybody suggesting that such mail
might, even occasionally, be useful or justified lays himself open to
charges of trolling. But not you, of course, Frank!

> I am talking about this latter category. Why am I talking about this
> category? Because the original poster talked about mass email, i.e. not
> one-to-one personal email. And no, mass email != spam. For spam it
> needs to be unsolicited. I am not talking about unsolicited email, see
> below.

Mass mail is often spam, even though it needn't be. The massest of mail,
begin sent to hundreds of thousands or millions is surely always spam,
though.

>> > I subscribe to several mailing lists where this is the case.

>> What? That HTML is used to advantage?

> Yes. Examples are newsletters from travel agents etc., from ISPs,
> telephone providers, etc., etc. These emails have pictures, colors,
> different fonts, colums, frames, etc.. Things which are possible in
> HTML, but not in text/plain.

OK, point accepted. As a matter of interest, what do you use to view it
with?

> So the point is use of HTML in mail that is *not* your run of the mill
> one-to-one communication. I.e. if I would send you this article/message
> by email in HTML, then that would be misuse/abuse, but the newsletters
> are clearly valid use of HTML.

> An analogy: Paper magazines, pamplets, etc., which are *not* junk
> mail, i.e. to which you are subscribed. These also use the above
> mentioned features (pictures, colors, ...), do they not? Then why
> wouldn't the electronic equivalent use them?

> So HTML has its use in email, i.e. outside the web. Other non-web use
> is for example the use of HTML in documents.

Yes. But HTML isn't designed for documents, and there are better formats
for this.

>> > I am by no means an HTML-advocate, but HTML *has* its uses, in mail,
>> > documents, etc.. If done right and with a proper MUA (in this
>> > context even Outlook Express is a proper MUA), the recipient has the
>> > choice what (not) to display.

>> Just like the recipient also has the choice not to display adverts for
>> potency pills and fake Rolices, you mean?

> No, what I mean is that the recipient can display the text/plain part
> (because that is safe(r)) and *possibly* display the text/html part when
> the text/plain part looks interesting.

Alternatively, if only the text/plain bit was sent, together with a URL
for the HTML bit, that would save a lot of bandwidth.

>> > The only somewhat valid argument is extra bandwith, storage space,
>> > etc., so the text/html part must indeed be a *better* part than the
>> > text/plain part, not just a (somewhat one-on-one) copy.

>> Not the only one. The extra time and effort you're imposing on the
>> recipient to do the filtering, even if that filtering is simply deleting
>> it at the server. And that extra space is not just 20 or 30%, it's a
>> factor of, perhaps, 3.

> Note my "*better*" qualifier! I.e. for *valid* use of HTML (see my
> above examples), you don't need to do any (additional) filtering.

>> And, of course, viruses and trojan horses don't come over in plain text
>> messages. I am 100% immune to "email" viruses, because my email client
>> can't execute attached programs.

> True. See my "safe(r)" comment above.

--
Alan Mackenzie (Munich, Germany)
Email: aacm@muuc.dee; to decode, wherever there is a repeated letter
(like "aa"), remove half of them (leaving, say, "a").

Re: Percentage of General Public with Web Based Emails

am 29.04.2005 09:46:38 von Frank Slootweg

Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> Frank Slootweg wrote on 26 Apr 2005 11:34:30 GMT:
[deleted]

Hi again, Alan. Thanks for your nice and humorous (sp?) response. We
mostly agree, so I'll try to keep it somewhat short and concentrate on
the remaining main points.

> >> > I subscribe to several mailing lists where this is the case.
>
> >> What? That HTML is used to advantage?
>
> > Yes. Examples are newsletters from travel agents etc., from ISPs,
> > telephone providers, etc., etc. These emails have pictures, colors,
> > different fonts, colums, frames, etc.. Things which are possible in
> > HTML, but not in text/plain.
>
> OK, point accepted. As a matter of interest, what do you use to view it
> with?

Well, I *could* tell you, but then I'd to kill you! :-)

But seriously: I use Outlook Express . My main reasons
are that I want to be aware of what most people use###have to suffer and
I had to use Outlook (non-Express) professionally (luckily besides
'UNIX' mailx(1) (Berkeley mail) :-)).

Lots of people bash Microsoft or/and OE, but for mail OE isn't too
bad, if you know what you're doing (which rules out 99.9+% of the
user-base! :-). You can set OE to "Read all messages in plain text".
What that will do is display the text/plain part of a
multipart/alternative message and show the text/html part of such
messages as a pseudo attachment. I.e. the text/html part *is* not
opened/rendered, but *can* be opened. This covers the majority of the
messages, both the one-to-one personal messages where Joe Luser has left
the sending-in-HTML default, and the 'newsletter' type of category which
I mentioned. For the exceptions, an HTML-only message, i.e. without a
text/plain part, the HTML is stripped and the resulting text is
displayed. That will give a 'crummy' result, but at least no danger.
the text/plain part. In short: Not too bad.

> > So the point is use of HTML in mail that is *not* your run of the mill
> > one-to-one communication. I.e. if I would send you this article/message
> > by email in HTML, then that would be misuse/abuse, but the newsletters
> > are clearly valid use of HTML.
>
> > An analogy: Paper magazines, pamplets, etc., which are *not* junk
> > mail, i.e. to which you are subscribed. These also use the above
> > mentioned features (pictures, colors, ...), do they not? Then why
> > wouldn't the electronic equivalent use them?
>
> > So HTML has its use in email, i.e. outside the web. Other non-web use
> > is for example the use of HTML in documents.
>
> Yes. But HTML isn't designed for documents, and there are better formats
> for this.

Well, whether it was not designed for documents is debatable and
whether there are "better" formats is even more subject of heated debate
("better" just doesn't exist, it's all a matter of frame-of-reference,
preference, opinion, etc.). But in any case, it is *used* for such
purposes. As I said, HTML is also a markup language. It is used as such
on the web (i.e. not only for hypertext purposes) and many 'pages' on
the web are actually HTML documents. For example the (HP-UX) UNIX
manpages are available in HTML format. In my opinion that is
"documents", whether we (TINW) like it or not. There are many, many more
examples (Things like FAQs come to mind. If you want more examples then
I can have a look. Normally I don't pay particular attention, because
for me it is a non-issue). Also some products are shipped with HTML
documents, i.e. non-web use.

The debate on "better" formats often refers to PDF. For me PDF is,
like everything else on this world, not "better" but different. A big
drawback - which may not matter to you/me/us (TINU) - is that a PDF
'renderer' is not (by default) available on all/most systems and a PDF
document must be opened (i.e. on man's security hole is another man's
feature). Also, if I'm not mistaken, PDF has more problems with
/ overhead for high(er) resolution pictures in the 'text'. At least many
PDF documents I've seen have rather crappy graphics.

> >> > I am by no means an HTML-advocate, but HTML *has* its uses, in mail,
> >> > documents, etc.. If done right and with a proper MUA (in this
> >> > context even Outlook Express is a proper MUA), the recipient has the
> >> > choice what (not) to display.
>
> >> Just like the recipient also has the choice not to display adverts for
> >> potency pills and fake Rolices, you mean?
>
> > No, what I mean is that the recipient can display the text/plain part
> > (because that is safe(r)) and *possibly* display the text/html part when
> > the text/plain part looks interesting.
>
> Alternatively, if only the text/plain bit was sent, together with a URL
> for the HTML bit, that would save a lot of bandwidth.

Yes, but that would need an online connection. Some people still need/
prefer offline use. I am one of those people (see my "User-Agent:"
header). To me this is just another example of the fictitious concept of
something being "better" than something else. It doesn't exist [1]. I.e.
including an URL is not better than including a text/html part, it's
different.

[deleted]

[1] Frank's law: A can not be better than B, because if it is, B
doesn't exist, so A is still not better. [2]

[2] Frank's law can not be proven wrong. Don't even try.

Re: Percentage of General Public with Web Based Emails

am 02.05.2005 10:04:33 von kd6lvw

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> D. Stussy wrote:
> > On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, David F. Skoll wrote:
> > > dan.fanelli@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > Hi All, I'm a developer working on a mass email application,
> > >
> > > Spamware?
> >
> > You need to ask? It's already obvious that it is based on what was said....
>
> Well, they are such things as email lists, i.e. opt-in, so I don't see
> why you asume malice.

If it were legitimate list software, then he would call it a list expander
instead of a mass mailer. Malice is based on his phraseology.

> > > > and putting a good amount of work into having a good text format
> > > > for the messages as well as web-based email (html). Does anyone
> > > > out there have any statistics on what percentage of people/email
> > > > clients that DON'T have Web-Based email?
> > >
> > > I throw out HTML mail parts. There's a data point for you.
> >
> > I reject at the server HTML mail. HTML is for web pages, not mail.
>
> A rather non-sensical statement. Yes, the majority of HTML is one/for
> the web, but HTML is not web-only. You may not *like* HTML mail, but
> that doesn't mean it does not have its uses outside the web.

More than 90% of all HTML email adds nothing to the content over its
corresponding text/plain equivalent. It has its ABUSES too, especially with
spam.

> > Since you are developing a text/plain part for your messages, that
> > pretty much answered your question right there: Text/html will NOT be
> > adding anything to the message (except to increase its size).
> > Therefore, it is USELESS in your application.
>
> In cases where HTML is 'needed', i.e. offers formatting/presentation/
> advantages, the text/plain part is often a minimalistic,
> somewhat usable, but user-unfriendly subset. I subscribe to several
> mailing lists where this is the case.

Pure BS. If he can't represent his ideas in the text/plain section, then he
shouldn't send one - and maybe he'll be in the 10% (or less) of email where
HTML actually does something useful for the message.

> I am by no means an HTML-advocate, but HTML *has* its uses, in mail,
> documents, etc.. If done right and with a proper MUA (in this context
> even Outlook Express is a proper MUA), the recipient has the choice what
> (not) to display.

And it has its abuses too.

> The only somewhat valid argument is extra bandwith, storage space,
> etc., so the text/html part must indeed be a *better* part than the
> text/plain part, not just a (somewhat one-on-one) copy.

Often, it is not. Where it is "useful," the text/plain part would then fail to
properly convey the message - so then the plaintext becomes useless.

> > However, please include your text/html parts so we can identify and
> > kill your mail as spam.

Re: Percentage of General Public with Web Based Emails

am 02.05.2005 10:16:23 von kd6lvw

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > > A rather non-sensical statement. Yes, the majority of HTML is one/for
> > > the web, but HTML is not web-only. You may not *like* HTML mail, but
> > > that doesn't mean it does not have its uses outside the web.
> >
> > Clearly not - but that is what HTML is for; the web.
>
> Wrong: As I said, HTML is *not* web-only. See below for valid/needed
> use of HTML outside the web. Hint: Think what the M stands for. I.e. I
> am not, at least not mainly, talking about the HT, I'm talking about the
> ML.

HyperText Markup Language. Were you thinking that the "M" stood for mail?

> So the point is use of HTML in mail that is *not* your run of the mill
> one-to-one communication. I.e. if I would send you this article/message
> by email in HTML, then that would be misuse/abuse, but the newsletters
> are clearly valid use of HTML.

And if you were to send an entire newsletter by HTML to me as email, you would
be (and should be) marked as a spammer. What's wrong with sending as
text/plain the URL of where the newsletter may be accessed? That's alot less
bandwidth for the email system - and doesn't waste any as ONLY those actually
interested in reading it will fetch it - as opposed to everyone receiving a
FULL copy (where some copies may be pitched due to site policy, 30-day timeout
for someone away on vacation, etc.).

> An analogy: Paper magazines, pamplets, etc., which are *not* junk
> mail, i.e. to which you are subscribed. These also use the above
> mentioned features (pictures, colors, ...), do they not? Then why
> wouldn't the electronic equivalent use them?

If it can be reduced to text/plain, then the sender is confirming that THERE IS
NO USE for them....

> So HTML has its use in email, i.e. outside the web. Other non-web use
> is for example the use of HTML in documents.

HTML email is a MISTAKE by those who first created the integrated
web-browser/e-mail/newsgroup clients; a mistake that needs to be corrected just
as spammers need "correction."

> Note my "*better*" qualifier! I.e. for *valid* use of HTML (see my
> above examples), you don't need to do any (additional) filtering.

For any "valid" use of HTML in e-mail, one doesn't need a text/plain part (nor
is a reasonable equivalent to the HTML message possible).

Re: Percentage of General Public with Web Based Emails

am 02.05.2005 10:24:00 von kd6lvw

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > ...
> > Yes. But HTML isn't designed for documents, and there are better formats
> > for this.
>
> Well, whether it was not designed for documents is debatable and
> whether there are "better" formats is even more subject of heated debate
> ("better" just doesn't exist, it's all a matter of frame-of-reference,
> preference, opinion, etc.). But in any case, it is *used* for such
> purposes. As I said, HTML is also a markup language. It is used as such
^^^^
"Also?" What do you mean by that?

Defintion: HTML = HyperText Markup Language.

So, it's a markup language in addition to primarily (per you) what?

> on the web (i.e. not only for hypertext purposes) and many 'pages' on
> the web are actually HTML documents. For example the (HP-UX) UNIX
> manpages are available in HTML format. In my opinion that is
> "documents", whether we (TINW) like it or not. There are many, many more
> examples (Things like FAQs come to mind. If you want more examples then
> I can have a look. Normally I don't pay particular attention, because
> for me it is a non-issue). Also some products are shipped with HTML
> documents, i.e. non-web use.

> > ...
> > Alternatively, if only the text/plain bit was sent, together with a URL
> > for the HTML bit, that would save a lot of bandwidth.
>
> Yes, but that would need an online connection. Some people still need/
> prefer offline use. I am one of those people (see my "User-Agent:"
> header). To me this is just another example of the fictitious concept of
> something being "better" than something else. It doesn't exist [1]. I.e.
> including an URL is not better than including a text/html part, it's
> different.

Online connection: So? Just how did they get their mail in the first place if
not via an online connection? Did it simply "magically appear" in their
computer?

Re: Percentage of General Public with Web Based Emails

am 02.05.2005 12:11:14 von Frank Slootweg

D. Stussy wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Apr 2005, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > > ...
> > > Yes. But HTML isn't designed for documents, and there are better formats
> > > for this.
> >
> > Well, whether it was not designed for documents is debatable and
> > whether there are "better" formats is even more subject of heated debate
> > ("better" just doesn't exist, it's all a matter of frame-of-reference,
> > preference, opinion, etc.). But in any case, it is *used* for such
> > purposes. As I said, HTML is also a markup language. It is used as such
> ^^^^
> "Also?" What do you mean by that?
>
> Defintion: HTML = HyperText Markup Language.
>
> So, it's a markup language in addition to primarily (per you) what?

HTML is a markup language, not all markup languages have hypertext
functionality. IIRC, HTML was derived from, modeled after,
existing markup languages (SGML?). I.e. was not the first markup
language, it's just the most widely known one. HTML can be used to
create/ 'format'/layout/ documents which have nothing to do
with hypertext. I.e. besides a hypertext language it is *also* a
(somehwat) general purpose markup lanuage and in the examples I gave it
is used for *that* purpose.

> > on the web (i.e. not only for hypertext purposes) and many 'pages' on
> > the web are actually HTML documents. For example the (HP-UX) UNIX
> > manpages are available in HTML format. In my opinion that is
> > "documents", whether we (TINW) like it or not. There are many, many more
> > examples (Things like FAQs come to mind. If you want more examples then
> > I can have a look. Normally I don't pay particular attention, because
> > for me it is a non-issue). Also some products are shipped with HTML
> > documents, i.e. non-web use.
>
> > > ...
> > > Alternatively, if only the text/plain bit was sent, together with a URL
> > > for the HTML bit, that would save a lot of bandwidth.
> >
> > Yes, but that would need an online connection. Some people still need/
> > prefer offline use. I am one of those people (see my "User-Agent:"
> > header). To me this is just another example of the fictitious concept of
> > something being "better" than something else. It doesn't exist [1]. I.e.
> > including an URL is not better than including a text/html part, it's
> > different.
>
> Online connection: So? Just how did they get their mail in the first
> place if not via an online connection? Did it simply "magically
> appear" in their computer?

Do you understand what online and offline mean? While I'm typing this,
I'm offline, i.e. I have no network connection. I might be anywhere
where there *is* no network connection (i.e. on the road, in the bush,
on a mountain, in a plane, ), but I still can read News, write
responses, read mail, write responses. I think/hope you get the picture.

So why would I need an online connection for *reading* already
received email?

Re: Percentage of General Public with Web Based Emails

am 02.05.2005 12:41:09 von Frank Slootweg

D. Stussy wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2005, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > > > A rather non-sensical statement. Yes, the majority of HTML is one/for
> > > > the web, but HTML is not web-only. You may not *like* HTML mail, but
> > > > that doesn't mean it does not have its uses outside the web.
> > >
> > > Clearly not - but that is what HTML is for; the web.
> >
> > Wrong: As I said, HTML is *not* web-only. See below for valid/needed
> > use of HTML outside the web. Hint: Think what the M stands for. I.e. I
> > am not, at least not mainly, talking about the HT, I'm talking about the
> > ML.
>
> HyperText Markup Language. Were you thinking that the "M" stood for
> mail?

Addressed in my other response of today (and also in earlier responses).

> > So the point is use of HTML in mail that is *not* your run of the mill
> > one-to-one communication. I.e. if I would send you this article/message
> > by email in HTML, then that would be misuse/abuse, but the newsletters
> > are clearly valid use of HTML.
>
> And if you were to send an entire newsletter by HTML to me as email,
> you would be (and should be) marked as a spammer.

Exactly which part of "email lists, i.e. opt-in" didn't you
understand? You (generic you) signed up for it, so it *can't* be spam
(remember that U-thingy?).

> What's wrong with sending as text/plain the URL of where the
> newsletter may be accessed? That's alot less bandwidth for the email
> system - and doesn't waste any as ONLY those actually interested in
> reading it will fetch it - as opposed to everyone receiving a FULL
> copy (where some copies may be pitched due to site policy, 30-day
> timeout for someone away on vacation, etc.).

Already addressed in my other responses, i.e. (amongst others) the
offline argument.

Note that it's fine that for *you* (and many others) the
URL-to-the-newletter method is best/acceptable, but that does not mean
that it is best/acceptable for *everybody*. (See my '"better" doesn't
exist argument.)

> > An analogy: Paper magazines, pamplets, etc., which are *not* junk
> > mail, i.e. to which you are subscribed. These also use the above
> > mentioned features (pictures, colors, ...), do they not? Then why
> > wouldn't the electronic equivalent use them?
>
> If it can be reduced to text/plain, then the sender is confirming that
> THERE IS NO USE for them....

They can not be "reduced" to text/plain. How on earth could "pictures,
colors, different fonts, colums, frames, etc.." be "reduced" to
text/plain? In my very first response, to you, I said (to you) "the
text/plain part is often a minimalistic, somewhat usable, but
user-unfriendly subset." and that is exactly what they are, i.e. *no*
"pictures, colors, ...".

> > So HTML has its use in email, i.e. outside the web. Other non-web use
> > is for example the use of HTML in documents.
>
> HTML email is a MISTAKE by those who first created the integrated
> web-browser/e-mail/newsgroup clients; a mistake that needs to be
> corrected just as spammers need "correction."

Good luck trying to "correct" it. I'd rather fight a dozen or so other
windmills instead.

> > Note my "*better*" qualifier! I.e. for *valid* use of HTML (see my
> > above examples), you don't need to do any (additional) filtering.
>
> For any "valid" use of HTML in e-mail, one doesn't need a text/plain
> part (nor is a reasonable equivalent to the HTML message possible).

See above and before. Your definition of what is "valid" just doesn't
match with that of the majority of e-mail senders and recipients.

Don't get me wrong: As I said, I'm no HTML advocate. I have been using
e-mail since before there was *any* form of "net", no Internet, no
Usenet, no UUCP-net, nada, and I'm been using mailx(1) (Berkeley Mail),
i.e. text only mail for two decades, but 'formatted' (for need of a
better word) e-mail *does* have its use and HTML 'happens' to be the
most widely available 'renderer' around, whether you/me/me (TINW) like
it or not.

Bottom line: Windmills.

Re: Percentage of General Public with Web Based Emails

am 02.05.2005 13:05:38 von Frank Slootweg

D. Stussy wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Apr 2005, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > D. Stussy wrote:
> > > On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, David F. Skoll wrote:
> > > > dan.fanelli@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > Hi All, I'm a developer working on a mass email application,
> > > >
> > > > Spamware?
> > >
> > > You need to ask? It's already obvious that it is based on what was said....
> >
> > Well, they are such things as email lists, i.e. opt-in, so I don't see
> > why you asume malice.
>
> If it were legitimate list software, then he would call it a list
> expander instead of a mass mailer. Malice is based on his
> phraseology.

We have already established that the original poster is weak in using
the right terminology, so why should we expect him to use the right
terminology for this part?

> > > > > and putting a good amount of work into having a good text format
> > > > > for the messages as well as web-based email (html). Does anyone
> > > > > out there have any statistics on what percentage of people/email
> > > > > clients that DON'T have Web-Based email?
> > > >
> > > > I throw out HTML mail parts. There's a data point for you.
> > >
> > > I reject at the server HTML mail. HTML is for web pages, not mail.
> >
> > A rather non-sensical statement. Yes, the majority of HTML is one/for
> > the web, but HTML is not web-only. You may not *like* HTML mail, but
> > that doesn't mean it does not have its uses outside the web.
>
> More than 90% of all HTML email adds nothing to the content over its
> corresponding text/plain equivalent.s

Yes. I said "so often". You say "90%". And your point is?

> It has its ABUSES too, especially with spam.

Yes, but *I* am *not* talking about (abuse nor) spam (but about "email
lists, i.e. opt-in"). It would be nice if you read / responded to what
people actually wrote, instead of (mis)using someones postings to go
off on an anti-HTML_in_e-mail rant. Rant all you like, but do not
(mis)use my postings as a 'reason'.

> > > Since you are developing a text/plain part for your messages, that
> > > pretty much answered your question right there: Text/html will NOT be
> > > adding anything to the message (except to increase its size).
> > > Therefore, it is USELESS in your application.
> >
> > In cases where HTML is 'needed', i.e. offers formatting/presentation/
> > advantages, the text/plain part is often a minimalistic,
> > somewhat usable, but user-unfriendly subset. I subscribe to several
> > mailing lists where this is the case.
>
> Pure BS. If he can't represent his ideas in the text/plain section, then he
> shouldn't send one - and maybe he'll be in the 10% (or less) of email where
> HTML actually does something useful for the message.

Yes, I'm talking about the "10% (or less)". Again: Read before yelling.

> > I am by no means an HTML-advocate, but HTML *has* its uses, in mail,
> > documents, etc.. If done right and with a proper MUA (in this context
> > even Outlook Express is a proper MUA), the recipient has the choice what
> > (not) to display.
>
> And it has its abuses too.

And text/plain has its abuses too. Your point being?

> > The only somewhat valid argument is extra bandwith, storage space,
> > etc., so the text/html part must indeed be a *better* part than the
> > text/plain part, not just a (somewhat one-on-one) copy.
>
> Often, it is not. Where it is "useful," the text/plain part would
> then fail to properly convey the message - so then the plaintext
> becomes useless.

No, not use*less*, just, as I *wrote*, less useful/friendly.

Re: Percentage of General Public with Web Based Emails

am 11.05.2005 04:01:01 von dan.fanelli

Hi All, haven't checked the group in a bit....man people can be
suspicious (D. Stussy)....anyway FYI not everyone likes to give their
company names and personal info on groups - Mr. Stussy would you like
to post your phone number, family members names,
etc...geez....anyway....we're dealing with hotel reservation
confirmation emails, so if you want to start a thread and discuss
spammers feel free, but the point was I have deadlines coming up and
feel I'm spending a bit too much time working with the text version of
the multipart email and am simply curious to know how many people
(percentages) are viewing the text versions. Simple - 2 body parts are
getting sent out, one html, one text and I'm wondering if anyone knows
or has some statistics of how many people out of say 1000 will actually
view the text portion of the multipart email. If anyone wants to start
a thread about spammers feel free....and to those with some useful
information, thanks in advance.

Re: Percentage of General Public with Web Based Emails

am 11.05.2005 23:47:52 von Alan Mackenzie

dan.fanelli@gmail.com wrote on 10 May 2005 19:01:01 -0700:
[ .... ]

> anyway....we're dealing with hotel reservation confirmation emails, so
> if you want to start a thread and discuss spammers feel free, but the
> point was I have deadlines coming up and feel I'm spending a bit too
> much time working with the text version of the multipart email and am
> simply curious to know how many people (percentages) are viewing the
> text versions.

I don't know, either. But bare in mind, text emails are universally
readable, html formatted ones need to be rendered or filtered. Plain
text emails don't contain trojans or viruses.

If you send an HTML mail to somebody with a text client, you'll piss him
off massively. If you send a multipart mail to a text client, you'll
piss the recipient off at least somewhat. I'd certainly not feel that
positive about your hotel if I had to wade through all the MIME sludge to
find the actual content of your message. If you simply send a text mail,
everybody will be happy, surely?

I'd've thought that in the hotel business, the threshold for annoying
customers would be very low. Why don't you reply in the same format that
the enquiry came in in, and plain text by default? Mail formats are an
emotional topic.

> Simple - 2 body parts are getting sent out, one html, one text and I'm
> wondering if anyone knows or has some statistics of how many people out
> of say 1000 will actually view the text portion of the multipart email.

Most of the people on this newsgroup. ;-)

> If anyone wants to start a thread about spammers feel free....and to
> those with some useful information, thanks in advance.

--
Alan Mackenzie (Munich, Germany)
Email: aacm@muuc.dee; to decode, wherever there is a repeated letter
(like "aa"), remove half of them (leaving, say, "a").