Does Your Email Client Support HTML?

[Jason Dunn]

We're in the midst of preparing a little something, and I was curious about what % of you use email clients that support HTML email formats. Simple survey!

[PJE]

Hi,

I can view HTML email via my email program (The Bat! - which is excellent by the way) but it does not go back to the web to download any images... which is how it should be.

I have however set it up to show the plain text version by default as I've found that most (99%?) HTML email is SPAM!! Programs such as Outlook Express which send html email are normally readable in plain text. Without the risk of taking control of your machine (jumping to unwanted sites...).

My 2c

PJE

[EDIT: Also HTML email is much larger in size than plain text, which is a big issue if you're using a mobile device with metered data transfers]

[Bob Anderson]

I can view HTML email via my email program (The Bat! - which is excellent by the way) but it does not go back to the web to download any images... which is how it should be.


Hmmm.. interesting... I'll have to check out that program. Hadn't heard of it before.

I'm not sure why this survey is being taken, but I would like to point out that the next version of MS Outlook, as is widely reported, will block HTML e-mails by default... which is good in one sense and bad in another.

I wish HTML e-mails included the graphics, instead of simply pointing back to the source web file. (I think they can, but SPAMMERS obviously don't want to do it that way... they want their web beacons in place so that they can see just how many unlucky fools see their trash.)

[fyiguy]

Cool!!! I hope you are thinking of setting up an emailable subscription to latest news and information from PPCT delivered to your e-mail Inbox daily like we have (http://www.bostonpocketpc.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=pnTresMailer&file=index), that would awesome!!!!

It is great to see this site grow with more functionality...

Keep up the good work!!!!

:D

[Jason Dunn]

I'm not sure why this survey is being taken, but I would like to point out that the next version of MS Outlook, as is widely reported, will block HTML e-mails by default... which is good in one sense and bad in another.

Personally, I think it's mostly bad. There are many, many HTML newsletters out there that I get - including many from Microsoft. Blocking all HTML messages is the height of stupidity, and I really hope Microsoft comes up with a solution that's somewhere in the middle: it protects users from HTML-based spam, but also hurts a lot of very valid HTML-based newsletters out there. I really loathe text-based newsletters - plain text is an ugly, painful, and awkward way to present more than few lines of information to the user.

Speaking of Outlook 11, is anyone here beta testing it? How DOES it deal with HTML newsletters from places like Lockergnome anyway?

[PJE]

Personally, I think it's mostly bad. There are many, many HTML newsletters out there that I get - including many from Microsoft. Blocking all HTML messages is the height of stupidity, and I really hope Microsoft comes up with a solution that's somewhere in the middle: it protects users from HTML-based spam, but also hurts a lot of very valid HTML-based newsletters out there. I really loathe text-based newsletters - plain text is an ugly, painful, and awkward way to present more than few lines of information to the user.

Point taken. It should be possible within an email program to have allowed senders HTML pass through (e.g. all *@microsoft.com) by adding them to the address book, but block off-site HTML entities from other senders.

I like HTML email if it's optimized for size with no links to files on the internet (but then embedded graphics should be kept to a minimum), but the non-local content referenced by html email is becoming a real issue for spam and the like.

PJE

[Green Dragon]

I don't think Outlook 11 blocks HTML e-mail outright, but rather doesn't download remote images by default. That's got to be A Good Thing. I'm guessing you'd be able to, say. right click and email and say 'allow images from this address' or some such.

[egads]

Going to show my age here again :P
HTML has no business in email. If you want to send a HTML news letter, just send a text email with a pointer to a web site that has the news letter.
Most of the HTML emails I get you can tell someone spent 10% thinking about the actual content, and the other 90% farting around with fonts, colors, and tacky animated graphics.

I can't believe that Microsoft is actually thinking of blocking HTML emails !!!
Microsoft and AOL or the $@%^$#'s who pushed HTML in email's.

Anyways, sorry for the rant, but give me a clean clearly written TEXT email any day...

[fyiguy]

Outlook 2003 Beta aka Outlook 11 has 2 new Spam features (about time!) the best part of it is the CRM features that Outlook has been lacking all these years, I haven't tried all the features yet, but I am hoping it will be my replacement for ACT!

Some cool things in the Outlook:

A large "Reading Pane" on the right replaces the preview pane with text that has been enhanced with Microsoft's ClearType "subpixel rendering" (which many PPC users are very familar with)If you prefer you can also place the Reading Pane on the bottom, but when in the vertical position mode Outlook can display up to 40% more text also kind like a PPC window so less scrolling is need to read your message.

Located in the left column is a "context-sensitive navigation pane". Depending on whether you are working in a mail, calendar, contacts, etc. you will have a different menu pop up.

You also get some new features called "search folders" like Unread Mail, Large Messages and For Follow Up which are virtual folders that stay updated automagically, kinda like what you see when using Advanced Find. This is something I set up right away and found very useful.

Your Unread Mail search folder will show all unread messages in ALL of your mail folders(YEAH!!!- I hate it when you get an email in a subfolder and never know it arrived unless you went to it - a great and much added feature).

Some other things I found:

You can set Outlook to block external Internet content (image, sound and video files) in HTML messages, so it won't download everytime you go back to an old message, which can be kind of annoying at times... nice feature... the problem with Web-based spam mail, is that the content comes to the person whether they want it or not--sometimes with strings attached and even worse it can act as what is known as a "Web beacon," telling the sender/spammer that the e-mail address is in fact valid and this can even occur if a person uses a preview window.This is one of the great SPAM filters it has, an applause for MS here!!! This is great for managing Exchange accounts with limited size and space restrictions.

Outlook 11 also simplifies mail handling through a "Quick Flag", displayed next to each message in the default view. One click per message flags the message for follow-up at a later date. Now you just do a one-click operation rather than set a follow-up flag with a right-click followed by data entry.

I also noticed that by default the sender and the sent time are now more prominent features of each mail message, much like Eudora.

User-configurable "read as plain text" option (this is nice especially for some Html mail that is just too much)

Mail Autocomplete address suggestions listed by frequency of use, not alphabetical order, which is really cool no more guessing which email you are sending it too if a person has multiple email, fax addresses...

I also notice BIG speed improvements for POP mail downloads I don't know what they did,but it is definitely faster...

The Calendar section looks very cool kinda like Pocket Informant for the Desktop. Also the Calendar interface includes the ability to view additional calendars in one default view, side by side. If you have permissions on someone else's calendar, a checkbox can display his or her calendar next to yours in the default Calendar view, very useful for Exchange Users.

I am sure there are more and I hope to find them the more I use/play with it...

The interface is really great...

[Janak Parekh]

Going to show my age here again :P
HTML has no business in email. If you want to send a HTML news letter, just send a text email with a pointer to a web site that has the news letter.
Heh. It's clear where different people come from. Jason's from the visual school of thinking, while you (and myself) are old-style text-based emailers. I agree - I largely prefer text email - that's what it was designed for and that's the most useful common denominator.

I use a UNIX console-based emailer (Mutt), although it will automatically convert HTML to plaintext for me so that I can view it without launching Outlook. I do occasionally launch Outlook to check a HTML email, but this is very rare; I infinitely prefer the speed and power of my setup.

I suspect I'm in the minority, though. ;) I will certainly try Outlook 11 out, though -- I stay knowledgeable about a wide variety of mailers. That, and I'll definitely use Outlook as my PIM, as it meeds my needs there pretty nicely.

--janak

[Ed Hansberry]

Going to show my age here again :P
HTML has no business in email.
Amen.

[dma1965]

I personally think HTML email is the work of Satan. It is an annoyance I would pay good money to see eliminated! I have told all vendors I deal with to not ever send me any HTML email or face termination of all business, and I have actually invoked it once (I gave one warning). I use a registry hack to eliminate it in Outlook XP SP-1 and am extremely thankful that Pocket Outlook does not support it. I just hate having to dig through an HTML message to get to the info I need, and flashing/moving graphics, and the riduculously slow download speeds on a dialup. God I hate it!!!

[msprague]

... I use a registry hack to eliminate it in Outlook XP SP-1...
ditto. It should be noted that this registry setting only blocks non-digitally-signed e-mail or nonencrypted e-mail messages from being rendered with html. That is 100% of the messages that I receive.
Knowledge Base Article - 307594 (http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=307594)
OL2002: Users Can Read Nonsecure E-mail as Plain Text

[Pony99CA]

I wish HTML e-mails included the graphics, instead of simply pointing back to the source web file. (I think they can, but SPAMMERS obviously don't want to do it that way... they want their web beacons in place so that they can see just how many unlucky fools see their trash.)
Using MIME, I think you can embed graphics. The problem with doing that is that it increases the size of your E-mail, and makes downloading it slower. For people with slow or metered connections, your suggestion would be bad.

I don't mind links back to real images (as opposed to Web bugs or beacons, which should be outlawed :-)).

Steve

[Jason Dunn]

If you want to send a HTML news letter, just send a text email with a pointer to a web site that has the news letter.

That sort of defeats the purpose of a newletter then, doesn't? When you get a paper newsletter, it doesn't come as a blank sheet of paper saying "please tune in to channel 87 for our newsletter". Email is push - the news comes to you because you want it to. Asking people to click a link to go online to see a newsletter is, no offense, missing the point of email. Email can be archived, sorted, read offline, etc.

HTML messages might be often abused, but that's the fault of the person doing it, not the format. Text is best for short messages. HTML is needed to format and flow large amounts of information.

[Janak Parekh]

HTML messages might be often abused, but that's the fault of the person doing it, not the format.
The problem is that HTML is abusable, though. Web bugs are the biggest problem with HTML email, for example, and there's no easy way to prevent them.

I also work with very long plaintext documents, and it's definitely doable. I agree that HTML might work better for PPCT, though, since we embed pictures and related links.

--janak

[Bob Anderson]

I wish HTML e-mails included the graphics, instead of simply pointing back to the source web file. (I think they can, but SPAMMERS obviously don't want to do it that way... they want their web beacons in place so that they can see just how many unlucky fools see their trash.)
Using MIME, I think you can embed graphics. The problem with doing that is that it increases the size of your E-mail, and makes downloading it slower. For people with slow or metered connections, your suggestion would be bad.

I don't mind links back to real images (as opposed to Web bugs or beacons, which should be outlawed :-)).

Steve

Good points Steve... I guess my problem with HTML mail is that it is a pain in the rear on my laptop that spends much of it's time "not connected" to the internet... So when I open an HTML e-mail that resides in Outlook, I just get a "garbled" message...

The point about file size being larger, however, is very well taken... but keep in mind that whether you download the image with the text, or have your system connect to the server at time of viewing the HTML e-mail, the amount of time it takes to get the image transported across the web and displayed on your screen is the same! (Of course, we don't always look at every HTML e-mail we receive, and that's where the problem is...)

I like some of the comments people made here about "domain specific" e-mail controls... i.e., allow HTML e-mails from [email protected], for example... but since you can easily put any address in the "from" field, you'd need to have the program smart enough to look at the actual e-mail header to sort out the originating machine (and even that could be problematic...)

The long and short of it: Something needs to improve!

[Ed Hansberry]

My personal thing on HTML email is this:

1. If I read it offline, the images aren't there, so I am clueless about what the thing is really about.
2. If I read it on my Pocket PC, I am really clueless.
3. If I am on a slow connection (GPRS or 56K modem) sucking down the images is painful
4. If the images are included, then the email is big.
5. Outlook 11 basically makes 1-3 the default - which is good as I have too many PREVIEW windows turned off for my taste in Outlook 2002 because of the web bugs. I know PPCT would not do that and neither do most, but enough do that I disable the preview window. If it is suspect, I have to close outlook, disconnect the laptop from the network and reopen Outlook in OFFLINE mode (Exchange mode Outlook here) and then open the message to get a clue what it is about. Of course, no images.
6. I really dislike Outlook for email because of this so I use Agent for much of my communication. 100% text. As a result of this I no longer can read Infosync's news letters. I've converted Handango and MS's PocketWatch to text.

I understand exactly where Jason is coming from on a good presentation in HTML, but the only way I and many others will see the images and the presention of the message is if we are online and (in the case of Outlook 11) tell it to go get the images. I might as well just have a link to go look at at that point, so I think the road that Outlook 11 is taking us down (and thank goodness due to the abuse of web bugs) is HTML Email will be nothing more than RTF, which means except for colored fonts, it will convey no more info than a text message.

I am not saying don't do HTML - many prefer it - about 83% do last time I checked the survey. Or is it worked that 83% can do it as oppoed to actually prefer it? Anyway, a choice would be nice. I also understand resources, etc.

[adamz]

I really dislike HTML emails as well. Especially the ones that contain images or *gasp* javascript! I've even got some that opened FLASH movies... how annoying is that?!

But.. HTML emails are actually tollerable if the HTML is only used for conservative things like to make a heading bigger and bold. Or to make type different colors. That's fine, as long as the type can rewrap to my prefered email window size... and it's readable.

Though I would gladly give up the minor potential for color/readability enhancements in order to weed out all the image-intensive, large-tables, difficult to read, bandwidth-consuming HTML emails that get sent around.

Heck, I don't even use image based avatars in these forums.

[PJE]

6. I really dislike Outlook for email because of this so I use Agent for much of my communication. 100% text. As a result of this I no longer can read Infosync's news letters. I've converted Handango and MS's PocketWatch to text.

Ed, check our TheBat! (http://www.ritlabs.com/the_bat/). I used to use Agent for my personal email (and Outlook sticktly for business), but moved to TheBat and have never looked back. This is made worse as I have numerous email addresses on multiple servers which TheBat! handles very well.

PJE

[Jason Dunn]

This reminds me a lot of the discussions that happened back in 1996 when the plain-text HTML coders were swearing about the evils of tables, and other "bad" tags.

<sigh>

Maybe I'll convert the home page to plain text for a day to show you that formatting of information is almost as important as the information itself - information is useless if you can't digest it quickly.

[Pony99CA]

I'm not sure why this survey is being taken, but I would like to point out that the next version of MS Outlook, as is widely reported, will block HTML e-mails by default... which is good in one sense and bad in another.
Personally, I think it's mostly bad. There are many, many HTML newsletters out there that I get - including many from Microsoft. Blocking all HTML messages is the height of stupidity, and I really hope Microsoft comes up with a solution that's somewhere in the middle: it protects users from HTML-based spam, but also hurts a lot of very valid HTML-based newsletters out there. I really loathe text-based newsletters - plain text is an ugly, painful, and awkward way to present more than few lines of information to the user.
I don't use Outlook or have the beta, but I'd be shocked to hear they actually blocked HTML mail. I suspect they just display the text portion (if any).

Here's my solution for handling HTML E-mail in any E-mail client.

By default, turn HTML off, especially in the preview pane, and just display the text portion (if there is no text, display the HTML source for inspection). Even better would be displaying all the HTML except the "dangerous" things, specifically non-local images and JavaScript.
Add a Show all HTML content action to the context menu when right-clicking an E-mail.
Add filtering or rule options which control how HTML is handled in various messages. That way newsletters would display properly without any interaction after you defined an appropriate rule.

I think with those suggestions, HTML E-mail would be safe and palatable.

Steve

[Don Sorcinelli]

This reminds me a lot of the discussions that happened back in 1996 when the plain-text HTML coders were swearing about the evils of tables, and other "bad" tags.

:roll: <sigh> :roll:

Maybe I'll convert the home page to plain text for a day to show you that formatting of information is almost as important as the information itself - information is useless if you can't digest it quickly.

I agree with you here, Jason. I do think that the the presentation of information can be as important as the information itself.

I think that when you are attempting to build anything relating to a "push" communication, you end up having to really think about the goal of the message up front, then build to meet the goal. If the goal is to create an offline equivalent to a web page, then the e-mail will obviously be rich in HTML. If the goal is to push enough information in an e-mail to make people aware of what is available in HTML on a web site, then you can move to a more textual content base (with links to the "robust" web page).

When I decided to implement a daily e-mail newsletter for our site, I thought it over very carefully. I ended up seeking out and finding a solution that allows the subscriber to choose between a text or HTML version of the e-mail. The HTML version does include nicer formatting and graphics (but only in the context of the articles). I spent time making sure that the same text content was the same for each e-mail format, and that linkage existed for more information.

Of course, none of this is ever easy to implement - but it's the challenge that inspires, right? :lol:

DonS

[Ed Hansberry]

Ed, check our TheBat! (http://www.ritlabs.com/the_bat/). I used to use Agent for my personal email (and Outlook sticktly for business), but moved to TheBat and have never looked back. This is made worse as I have numerous email addresses on multiple servers which TheBat! handles very well.
I read about TheBat! when I saw it on the http://www.forteinc.com/survey/survey.php?id=emailclient.php survey. I probably should, but I've used Agent for years and if they get multiple server support this year (only 9 months to go!) I'd rather just wait as opposed to switching systems.

[adamz]

Maybe I'll convert the home page to plain text for a day to show you that formatting of information is almost as important as the information itself - information is useless if you can't digest it quickly.

Oooh ooh! Will the forums work on Pocket PCs then??
You're right, information is useless if you can't digest it quickly. How do constrained width tables and excessive non-content imagery help you do that on a Pocket PC?

[Ed Hansberry]

Maybe I'll convert the home page to plain text for a day to show you that formatting of information is almost as important as the information itself - information is useless if you can't digest it quickly.

Oooh ooh! Will the forums work on Pocket PCs then??
:lol: I knew that couldn't be far behind. I actually thought the same thing. :scatter:

[st63z]

You guys use Forte Agent for email? I use it for Usenet, but it does have a few archaic limitations in the system (like how to list threads newest on top). Heh, I do like their sloww, steady pace of development.

Anyways, I prefer many newsletters in plain text as well, except for some that I've grown accustomed (learned to like) their HTML presentation -- you can't go against the flow forerever :) Also, in Outlook, how do you disable all HTML remote fetching in the preview pane, but still open the HTML message normally when you double click to open it? I think that would be a very simple default to balance my need...

P.S. The Bat! looks good...

[Jonathon Watkins]

Going to show my age here again :P
HTML has no business in email.
Amen.

Well, mostly. If HTML is used sparingly then it can be tolerable. I much prefer text emails, but with good design (just look around this site :wink:) then it may be manageable.

[PJE]

I read about TheBat! when I saw it on the http://www.forteinc.com/survey/survey.php?id=emailclient.php survey. I probably should, but I've used Agent for years and if they get multiple server support this year (only 9 months to go!) I'd rather just wait as opposed to switching systems.

Agent's development pace seems to be picking up, and hopefully they'll get v2.0 out some time this decade :wink:

I've been using Agent for more years than I care to remember, and I think it's stil the best usenet package. However my email requirements outgrew Agent, but if they can combine their current package with a TheBat! quality email function I'd gladly use it for both functions. Then they could deliver a version for Windows CE 11.0 :lol:

As regards the survey, I've used Agent (few years), Pegasus (few weeks), Agent (few years), Outlook -still used for busness email (couple years), Eudora (few months), and TheBat! (couple of years) in that order...

PJE

[Jonathan1]

Yes it supports it but I won't use it because:

1. I have no need for it. I'm not looking for anything other then basic communication.
2. That the chance of a virus is too great.
3. There is the ability for an HTML e-mail to report info back to its source.
4. Makes an e-mail that much larger. Granted LARGER usually means only a few extra K but still.

Its another case of W?BIC!

[Ed Hansberry]

Yes it supports it but I won't use it because:

1. I have no need for it. I'm not looking for anything other then basic communication.
2. That the chance of a virus is too great.
3. There is the ability for an HTML e-mail to report info back to its source.
4. Makes an e-mail that much larger. Granted LARGER usually means only a few extra K but still.

Its another case of W?BIC!
We are the luddites! Stand proud!

:oops:

Funny how we are bleeding edge on some things with no regard for security (you'll never guess who doesn't use a virus scanner here) or system resources and on others, we are squarely in 1992. w00t!

[DrtyBlvd]

Q - If one receives an HTML mail, and it is automatically viewed in the preview pane, not 'opened' and viewed, does that run the danger of 'allowing' code within the message to do anything?

Q - If you have a domain, and email set up for it, say, [email protected], is it not a far simpler thing to avoid spam and unsolicited mail than seeking to do so in third party email programs?

Personally, I like the benefits of HTML in things that I solicit; obviously the spam is unwelcome no matter what the format - but as Spam Inspector gets 95% of mine and bins it anyway, I don't find that too much of a chore - I would echo Jasons' sentiments - I don't want a link to a page, just give me the page for heavens sake! :lol:

[Ed Hansberry]

Q - If one receives an HTML mail, and it is automatically viewed in the preview pane, not 'opened' and viewed, does that run the danger of 'allowing' code within the message to do anything?
It shouldn't on patched versions of Outlook and OE. Outlook 2000 with SR2 plus patches or SR3 should be safe as is Outlook 2002 with SP2. OE is fine if you have all the latest from windowsupdate.microsoft.com.

However, image bugs can still signal back to the source you opened the email and verify your address is live. Outlook 11 will no longer automatically download images because of this.

[Janak Parekh]

Maybe I'll convert the home page to plain text for a day to show you that formatting of information is almost as important as the information itself - information is useless if you can't digest it quickly.
Actually, wouldn't you consider that PPCT was, for its first few years (http://web.archive.org/web/20010124083000/http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/index.html), a very simple, almost plain-text format? While the new format rocks, the old format was quite serviceable and was actually kind of neat in its lightweightness.

Call me a luddite if you will... I never minded the original black-on-grey HTML. :-D

--janak

[Weyoun6]

I personally dont like HTML emails, because it's bad form. Not everyone can read it, while 100% of email readers can (hopfully) recieve plain text.

HTML mail does have its purposes, for sending formal letters, some newsletters, etc. I just think it is abused, especially by spammers. HTML should be used if there is a purpose in using it, not just because its cool.

Mabye I am just an old hacker who thinks that everything still runs on 300baud, but I still think keeping it simple, is better

[Jason Dunn]

Maybe I'll convert the home page to plain text for a day to show you that formatting of information is almost as important as the information itself - information is useless if you can't digest it quickly.
Actually, wouldn't you consider that PPCT was, for its first few years (http://web.archive.org/web/20010124083000/http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/index.html), a very simple, almost plain-text format? While the new format rocks, the old format was quite serviceable and was actually kind of neat in its lightweightness.

Call me a luddite if you will... I never minded the original black-on-grey HTML. :-D

--janak

Take a closer look at that page - even with the simple layout, there are still things I couldn't do with plain text: bigger headline font, bold subject line, coloured hyperlinks, smaller font for time/date stamp, and lest we forget: a nice font for displaying the information. You want to see what it would look like in real plain text? Check this out. (http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/images/dunn2002/heresyourplaintext.gif)

Now tell me how many Web sites look like that? Who wants their Web site looking like a readme.txt file? :lol: Display of information matters - plain text isn't a magic bullet appropriate for all types of communication.

I've been using Outlook as my only email client for six years now, and I've *never* been hit by any sort of HTML-based virus, script, etc. If you stay up to date on the MS patches that flow from Windows Update, the danger is practically non-existant. The vast majority of viruses come from people opening attachments, not reading HTML-based email messages.

I'm seeing a lot of FUD from people I wouldn't expect it from. Very odd. :?

[Janak Parekh]

Take a closer look at that page - even with the simple layout, there are still things I couldn't do with plain text: bigger headline font, bold subject line, coloured hyperlinks, smaller font for time/date stamp, and lest we forget: a nice font for displaying the information. You want to see what it would look like in real plain text? Check this out. (http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/images/dunn2002/heresyourplaintext.gif)
Hmm, maybe I really am a luddite. On second thought, it's the programmer in me. I do absolutely notice the difference, and stylized text is certainly preferable, but I would just as readily visit the second site. 8O

I think I need help... :lol:

I've been using Outlook as my only email client for six years now, and I've *never* been hit by any sort of HTML-based virus, script, etc.
Agreed. I deploy Outlook for a lot of customers, and it's a pretty decent client, so long as you keep up-to-date with the service packs; in addition, Exchange + Outlook is a powerful workgroup combination. The one thing that does annoy me are web bugs, and there's no easy way to stop that in Outlook 10. Outlook 11's curtailing of image loading sounds very cool to me. In my case, I have weird requirements; that's the reason I use what I use, not because I think Outlook is insecure.

--janak

[Jonathon Watkins]

I'm seeing a lot of FUD from people I wouldn't expect it from. Very odd. :?

Well, we can't be cutting edge everywhere, can we? :wink:


As someone said, it may partially depend on how old you are. I still marvel at getting text mails at all. :lol: I was originaly going to say I really did not like HTML mails at all, but thought about it and said more cautiously that it may be OK. It all depends really. Put it this way, we loved the site redesign and if an HTML newletter was not too much bigger in size than a text one and was 'sparingly' designed then it should be OK.

I'm just very.......cautious when it comes to HTML mail. It would take a lot for me to switch HTML viewing on in my mail client.

[DrtyBlvd]

Now tell me how many Web sites look like that? Who wants their Web site looking like a readme.txt file? :lol:

Absolutely 8O

The one thing that really stands out for me is that you would have to read, rather than 'scan' ...

[Pony99CA]

Q - If one receives an HTML mail, and it is automatically viewed in the preview pane, not 'opened' and viewed, does that run the danger of 'allowing' code within the message to do anything?
It shouldn't on patched versions of Outlook and OE. Outlook 2000 with SR2 plus patches or SR3 should be safe as is Outlook 2002 with SP2. OE is fine if you have all the latest from windowsupdate.microsoft.com.
First, that assumes someone is using Outlook or Outlook Express. Of course, those are the most targeted. :-)

Second, do either of those prevent JavaScript from running in HTML E-mail? I have Eudora, and JavaScript macros execute when viewing HTML mail. I've had some spam do an OnLoad to open a Web page, and that page would be completely out of the control of the E-mail client. Your browser's security settings would have to be correct.

I don't know if it's technically possible, but I'd like Internet Explorer to add two new security zones -- E-mail and E-mail Preview. If I visit a Web page, that's one thing, but a page displaying in my E-mail isn't always being viewed by choice.

Steve

[adamz]

Actually, wouldn't you consider that PPCT was, for its first few years (http://web.archive.org/web/20010124083000/http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/index.html), a very simple, almost plain-text format? While the new format rocks, the old format was quite serviceable and was actually kind of neat in its lightweightness.


I agree Janak... the old design was quite refreshing.. no extraneous imagery and buttons, no animated advertisements, no side scrolling... Just great content and a simple article discussion capability.

Not wanting to be frustrated by site "designs" that obstruct the user from accessing the information quickly does not a luddite make. While the ability to use HTML in email messages can be considered a technologoy advancement, it can also be considered a usability degradation when this technology is abused. Since it's not possible to regulate design conventions on the web, users tend to lash out against the enabling technology when the design proves to be annoying and difficult to use.

We saw something similar to this in Jason's article about how so many websites are not developing pages that detect small screened browsers..
http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/articles.php?action=expand,5235 ..and yet now Jason is promoting an email technology that will certainly degrade usability, especially on Pocket PCs?

Can you write HTML based email messages that can detect a user's email client and alter itself according to the presumed design conventions capable of the client? Should email authors even be allowed to identify recipients email client configurations?!

[Jason Dunn]

Q - If one receives an HTML mail, and it is automatically viewed in the preview pane, not 'opened' and viewed, does that run the danger of 'allowing' code within the message to do anything?
It shouldn't on patched versions of Outlook and OE. Outlook 2000 with SR2 plus patches or SR3 should be safe as is Outlook 2002 with SP2. OE is fine if you have all the latest from windowsupdate.microsoft.com.
First, that assumes someone is using Outlook or Outlook Express. Of course, those are the most targeted. :-)

Second, do either of those prevent JavaScript from running in HTML E-mail? I have Eudora, and JavaScript macros execute when viewing HTML mail.

I'm using Outlook XP, and I've never had script execute on me - in fact, when you get an email message with script, it displays as a blank preview window with a security warning that says something to the effect of "This message uses a script which prevents Outlook from previewing it for security reasons" or something similar.

Microsoft is very, very good at patching their email clients for security issues when they crop up. The Web "bug" thing is a different matter, which is what Outlook 11 is going to address.

[Jason Dunn]

I agree Janak... the old design was quite refreshing.. no extraneous imagery and buttons, no animated advertisements, no side scrolling... Just great content and a simple article discussion capability.

And a negative revenue stream - it was not sustainable, period.

We saw something similar to this in Jason's article about how so many websites are not developing pages that detect small screened browsers..
http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/articles.php?action=expand,5235 ..and yet now Jason is promoting an email technology that will certainly degrade usability, especially on Pocket PCs?

Pocket PCs will parse HTML messages and strip out the text. Do you really think we would release a newsletter that was completely useless on a Pocket PC?

We *are* going to have a plain text version of the newsletter, but I wanted to see how many people were able/willing to read HTML-based newsletters so I could know how to allocate my development resources. The number speak for themselves, and let's remember that the newsletter is going to be OPTIONAL - so for those of you who are getting religious about this issue, why? It's not like I'm going to be forcing a 2 MB email message into your Inbox every day whether you like it or not. :lol:

[Ed Hansberry]

Q - If one receives an HTML mail, and it is automatically viewed in the preview pane, not 'opened' and viewed, does that run the danger of 'allowing' code within the message to do anything?
It shouldn't on patched versions of Outlook and OE. Outlook 2000 with SR2 plus patches or SR3 should be safe as is Outlook 2002 with SP2. OE is fine if you have all the latest from windowsupdate.microsoft.com.
First, that assumes someone is using Outlook or Outlook Express. Of course, those are the most targeted. :-)
Uhm... that's right Steve. That is why I started with "It shouldn't on patched versions of Outlook and OE." So actually there was no assumption. I was quite clear on what products I was commenting on.

In case anyone is not clear, do not read my post and think it applies to Netscape's email client. Eudora or any other client capable of rendering HTML email messages. :roll:

[Janak Parekh]

I agree Janak... the old design was quite refreshing.. no extraneous imagery and buttons, no animated advertisements, no side scrolling... Just great content and a simple article discussion capability.
Yes; on the other hand, after getting the new version, I wouldn't go back. My point was that the original version was less stylized but was able to communicate. It's not as compelling, though, which is part of the reason HTML email is so popular.

Not wanting to be frustrated by site "designs" that obstruct the user from accessing the information quickly does not a luddite make.
That was my first perspective when Jason switched to this format, but over time, I got used to it and now I find it a very clean, useable design. Fabrizio did an amazing job balancing content and graphics on this version.

Can you write HTML based email messages that can detect a user's email client and alter itself according to the presumed design conventions capable of the client?
No, you can't. You need either multiple versions or simple-enough HTML that can be parsed by the human eye. Don't worry, I'm sure Jason's looking out for everyone. :)

--janak

[egads]

[quote="Janak Parekh"][quote=Jason Dunn]
Take a closer look at that page - even with the simple layout, there are still things I couldn't do with plain text: bigger headline font, bold subject line, coloured hyperlinks, smaller font for time/date stamp, and lest we forget: a nice font for displaying the information. You want to see what it would look like in real plain text? Check this out. (http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/images/dunn2002/heresyourplaintext.gif)

Now tell me how many Web sites look like that? Who wants their Web site looking like a readme.txt file? :lol: Display of information matters - plain text isn't a magic bullet appropriate for all types of communication.

I've been using Outlook as my only email client for six years now, and I've *never* been hit by any sort of HTML-based virus, script, etc. If you stay up to date on the MS patches that flow from Windows Update, the danger is practically non-existant. The vast majority of viruses come from people opening attachments, not reading HTML-based email messages.

I'm seeing a lot of FUD from people I wouldn't expect it from. Very odd. :?

I thought we were talking about EMAIL here, not web pages ?

I prefer my email's plain text, all of the formating and to me is a distraction. I would also still read PocketPCThoughts if it was plain like in the link above.

I read all kinds of novels, data sheets, and other material that displays a lot of information that is not glitzed up with several different font's, colors, and what not. HTML is great for web pages and has many uses but I don't want it in my email.

Jason, you seem a bit touchy at people who are not for HTML in email's, did you expect every one to be all gung ho for HTML in email ?

Anyways, to each his own !!!

[Pony99CA]

Q - If one receives an HTML mail, and it is automatically viewed in the preview pane, not 'opened' and viewed, does that run the danger of 'allowing' code within the message to do anything?
It shouldn't on patched versions of Outlook and OE. Outlook 2000 with SR2 plus patches or SR3 should be safe as is Outlook 2002 with SP2. OE is fine if you have all the latest from windowsupdate.microsoft.com.
First, that assumes someone is using Outlook or Outlook Express. Of course, those are the most targeted. :-)
Uhm... that's right Steve. That is why I started with "It shouldn't on patched versions of Outlook and OE." So actually there was no assumption. I was quite clear on what products I was commenting on.

In case anyone is not clear, do not read my post and think it applies to Netscape's email client. Eudora or any other client capable of rendering HTML email messages. :roll:
So the correct answer to DrtyBlvd's question -- which doesn't assume a specific E-mail client -- is "Yes, HTML E-mail can run code in the preview pane. Some E-mail clients, including Outlook and Outlook Express, prevent that." :razzing:

Steve

[Pony99CA]

Can you write HTML based email messages that can detect a user's email client and alter itself according to the presumed design conventions capable of the client?
No, you can't. You need either multiple versions or simple-enough HTML that can be parsed by the human eye.
HTML might not be able to detect which E-mail client is being used, but you could probably get a similar effect.

If the E-mail is sent as both text and HTML, non-HTML E-mail clients should display the text properly (this may require a MIME-capable client, though). For HTML-capable clients, I would guess that JavaScript and Dynamic HTML (DHTML) in the E-mail could be used to detect the browser the E-mail client is using and format the page accordingly.

That said, most decent sites allow the user the choice of getting either text E-mail or HTML E-mail. That saves both sides bandwidth over sending out text and HTML E-mail.

Steve

[Janak Parekh]

If the E-mail is sent as both text and HTML, non-HTML E-mail clients should display the text properly (this may require a MIME-capable client, though).
You mean multipart MIME messages. Of course, but that wasn't the question per se. Does anyone know how the Pocket PC Inbox deals with multipart messages?

For HTML-capable clients, I would guess that JavaScript and Dynamic HTML (DHTML) in the E-mail could be used to detect the browser the E-mail client is using and format the page accordingly.
No, since scripting is disabled in most email clients.

--janak

[Pony99CA]

If the E-mail is sent as both text and HTML, non-HTML E-mail clients should display the text properly (this may require a MIME-capable client, though).
You mean multipart MIME messages. Of course, but that wasn't the question per se. Does anyone know how the Pocket PC Inbox deals with multipart messages?

I know it wasn't the exact question, which is why I said you could achieve the same effect. If it looks the same from a user's point of view, is the distinction relevant? :-)

As for how Inbox deals with multi-part messages, I happened to stumble across the "The Pocket PC email syncing problem" thread (http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4567) yesterday while searching for an unrelated matter. Does that help any? It deals more with Outlook synchronization, though, so POP3 E-mail might be different.

To see what happened with POP accounts, I just tried three experiments.

First, I used Mozilla's "Send Page" to send a Web page to me, typing some text around the link it included (there was also an attachment). Eudora displayed my text (with the Web page's background) and the content of the page. Inbox displayed the text and showed me an attachment, but clicking on the attachment gave me an error.

Second, I ensured Mozilla was configured to send both plain text and HTML formats. I then pasted HTML source into the Mozilla E-mail editor (because I couldn't see how to compose text directly in HTML) and sent that. Eudora displayed my text, with formatting. Inbox just displayed the HTML source code.

Third, I used Eudora to send the following text:


Plain text

Bold text

Italic text

Bold Italic text

Comic Sans Bold Blue

It showed up in Inbox as plain text. I then forwarded it to my Web mail account, to see if the text would be plain or show up in HTML. The text was plain, so the HTML was discarded.

I'm not sure whether any of those experiments actually used multi-part MIME. I'm pretty sure the third one did, but I don't know about the first two. I forgot to check the headers in Eudora and I can't check full headers in Inbox. :-(


For HTML-capable clients, I would guess that JavaScript and Dynamic HTML (DHTML) in the E-mail could be used to detect the browser the E-mail client is using and format the page accordingly.
No, since scripting is disabled in most email clients.

But can it be turned on? If so, it can be done; whether anyone wants it is another question. :-)

Steve

[Janak Parekh]

I know it wasn't the exact question, which is why I said you could achieve the same effect. If it looks the same from a user's point of view, is the distinction relevant? :-)
Not really. I was just trying to explain why I answered the way I did.

I'm not sure whether any of those experiments actually used multi-part MIME. I'm pretty sure the third one did, but I don't know about the first two. I forgot to check the headers in Eudora and I can't check full headers in Inbox. :-(
Yes, the best way is to check the headers and see what the MIME type is for the message. In my mail client (Mutt (www.mutt.org)), this is even easier: you can see all the parts of the message by hitting "v" while in the message index, with the message highlighted.

In any case, you want to see a header like:
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
(note that the "mixed" word could be something else).

But can it be turned on? If so, it can be done; whether anyone wants it is another question. :-)
In some, presumably. Not all, though, so the whole purpose is defeated.

--janak