| 1 |
lordsauronthegreat@×××××.com wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sunday 30 April 2006 11:21 am, Alexander Skwar wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Kesara Rathnayake wrote: |
| 4 |
>> > I guess Firefox is slow now because of whole lot of Extentions that we |
| 5 |
>> > used today. |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> To find out, I asked OP to create a blank profile. I also assume |
| 8 |
>> a local problem at his side. OP should simply create a new profile |
| 9 |
>> and report back. |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> Alexander Skwar |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> PS: I begin to hate Googlemail because of the default to use HTML |
| 14 |
>> even if it is not required. Sucks. Big time. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> I used the GMail web interface for a long time and it defaulted to plain text |
| 17 |
> for me. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
This might be correct. However on new accounts, HTML is used. |
| 20 |
If you don't believe me, simply create a new account, and you'll |
| 21 |
see. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> If I changed to rich-text the next time it'd default to RTF. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
No, it most certainly did not. Who accepts RTF? |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> I |
| 28 |
> changed it to plain-text and then it defaulted the next time to (you guessed |
| 29 |
> it) plain text. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Yep. This means, it accepts your user settings, but it doesn't say |
| 32 |
anything about the defaults. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
> I don't know what you're complaining about. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
I complain about HTML mails and about the fact, that Gmail defaults |
| 37 |
to HTML mails, despite what you're writing. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
> Perhaps you |
| 40 |
> tried it at a time when they hadn't yet corrected that bug? |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
What bug? The bug, that the default is, that HTML mails |
| 43 |
are composed? |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
Actually, I don't think it is a bug - I rather think, it's |
| 46 |
a business decision. |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
> It's still in |
| 49 |
> the beta stage, you know. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
As if anything on Google is NOT in beta... |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
>> Another thing that sucks, is that HTML mails are permitted on this |
| 54 |
>> list. Why not just dump the HTML part (and every other attachment)? |
| 55 |
> |
| 56 |
> Why not, |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
Makes mails larger, without adding anything useful (normally). |
| 59 |
Further, it makes mails a bit harder to read and harder to |
| 60 |
quote. |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
eg. the mail which I quoted: In HTML, it's about 1179 bytes. In |
| 63 |
text/plain, it is 729 bytes. And actually, the HTML caused |
| 64 |
overhead is even more, as the 2nd MIME part (the HTML part) |
| 65 |
caused additional headers to be added. Those are an additional |
| 66 |
378 bytes. |
| 67 |
|
| 68 |
So, in this case, we've got a mail of (at least) 2286 bytes, |
| 69 |
where 729 bytes would have been sufficient. |
| 70 |
|
| 71 |
> if it irks you so much, make a script that will change RTF/HTML to |
| 72 |
> Plaintext? |
| 73 |
|
| 74 |
That's not a useful advice. I'd have to accept the (normally) |
| 75 |
uselessly bloated mail first and then strip it. Makes no sense. |
| 76 |
|
| 77 |
> It wouldn't be terribly difficult... |
| 78 |
|
| 79 |
Depends. |
| 80 |
|
| 81 |
Alexander Skwar |
| 82 |
-- |
| 83 |
We seldom repent talking too little, but very often talking too much. |
| 84 |
-- Jean de la Bruyere |
| 85 |
-- |
| 86 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives