Date   

Re: Deletion of Attachments

 

Malcolm,

What does everyone mean by "truly embedded"?
Various things, apparently.

I think Duane was trying to make a distinction between images whose file is carried inline in the HTML (data: protocol) and those where the image file is carried as an attachment (cid: protocol). There is yet a third type, where the image file is "remote" - hosted somewhere on the internet rather than in the message body (http: protocol).

AFAIK there is no means by which an image can be embedded within the
HTML body of an email.
There is. The src parameter to the <img> element can be data: - which places an encoded copy of the image file inline within <img> element.

But I rarely see that in practice, I'm not sure that many email interfaces support it. The standard practice has been to use cid: (Content ID - an attachment) for the image file.

I may have to go test this again, but I think I saw once that Groups.io converts inbound data: images to cid: in the messages outbound to members, and also for the purpose of displaying them on site. This was likely done so that the use of data: wouldn't constitute a loophole in the storage allocation scheme.

It may be displayed there in among the message text but the HTML body
part just contains an image link to an attachment.
Yes, and it is that - the use of an <img> element in the message body that I think most people mean when they use the word "embedded" - regardless of where the actual image data file is located (inline, attached, or remote).

Shal


--
Help: https://groups.io/static/help
More Help: https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum/wiki
Even More Help: Search button at the top of Messages list


Re: Deletion of Attachments

Malcolm Austen
 

On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 19:20:06 -0000, Leeni <leeniluvsgroups@...> wrote:

What do you mean not truly embedded?

What does everyone mean by "truly embedded"?

They were inserted in the body of the email along with added attachments.

AFAIK there is no means by which an image can be embedded within the HTML body of an email. It may be displayed there in among the message text but the HTML body part just contains an image link to an attachment.

Malcolm.

--
Malcolm Austen <malcolm.austen@...>


Re: Why choose plain text over HTML email?

Joe WB9SBD
 

I would rather get 100 digests 10 pages long, that the guy that removes everything from a reply, and then makes his reply, and you have no idea at all what he is talking about.

Joe WB9SBD


On 2/16/2020 1:55 PM, Nivard Ovington wrote:
Its far less of a problem in Groups.io than it was under Rootsweb/Mailman thats for sure

Repeated posting of the whole digest was a regular occurrence

Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK)


Does it waste as much bandwidth as over - quoting? That is a persistent problem with many group members. (I am not necessarily referrring to GMF, but it /is/ a problem.)

Chris 


Re: Why choose plain text over HTML email?

Glenn Glazer
 

On 2/16/2020 12:15, Shal Farley wrote:
But at least pictures are generally recognized as worth a thousand words (grin, I couldn't resist that).

LOL, an ASCII character is eight bytes and in the transcribing industry, a word is generally five characters, so the break even point is at 39.0625Mb. ;)

I think the bottom line is that, like many things, plain versus HTML has become largely a matter of personal preference, on both the sending and receiving ends. One size doesn't fit all, and fortunately Groups.io doesn't force one or the other on any group.

Amen.

Best,

Glenn


Re: Why choose plain text over HTML email?

 

Glenn,

1) Depending on one's group settings, email is by default on groups.io
sent as multipart/alternative ... That means that if one was using
text/plain to reduce bandwidth, that's not going to work for those
groups.
Specifically, that would be groups which have chosen the Force HTML option. In other groups an incoming message with only a text/plain body goes out that way.

Gmail, in both the web interface and mobile app, will send a text/plain body (no multipart) if you don't include any formatting as you compose your message (if you are composing a reply, the quoted original message may override this if it has formatting).

2) While it is true that HTML encoding makes the size of the message
larger than plain text, the difference is vanishingly small compared
to a single image or attachment, ...
Perhaps not always vanishingly (I'm thinking of those email clients that include a bulky CSS header in each outbound formatted message) but in general I concur that images and other files use more space. But at least pictures are generally recognized as worth a thousand words (grin, I couldn't resist that).

I'll do a mea-culpa for the people on limited / metered connections. Though I tend to default to plain text messages, I don't hesitate to switch to HTML when that seems to better suit my content.

I think the bottom line is that, like many things, plain versus HTML has become largely a matter of personal preference, on both the sending and receiving ends. One size doesn't fit all, and fortunately Groups.io doesn't force one or the other on any group.

Shal


--
Help: https://groups.io/static/help
More Help: https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum/wiki
Even More Help: Search button at the top of Messages list


Re: Why choose plain text over HTML email?

Glenn Glazer
 

On 2/16/2020 11:55, Shal Farley wrote:

In the present day Glenn is more correct.

Yes, to be clear I was speaking in the present tense. The bad old days, were, as Shal notes, bad.

Best,

Glenn
Who remembers using Eudora! And PINE!

[political sig trimmed by moderator]


Re: Why choose plain text over HTML email?

Nivard Ovington
 

Its far less of a problem in Groups.io than it was under Rootsweb/Mailman thats for sure

Repeated posting of the whole digest was a regular occurrence

Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK)

Does it waste as much bandwidth as over - quoting? That is a persistent problem with many group members. (I am not necessarily referrring to GMF, but it /is/ a problem.)
Chris


Re: Why choose plain text over HTML email?

 

Jim,

BTW, I seem to remember I copied the sig file on the end of this
messsage from Shal, who owns this group.
Wow, that's an oldie - but still a goodie.

At the time I first adopted it HTML-based malware was running rampant in email, and specifically some Yahoo Groups. HTML was relatively new, and most email clients passed the buffer of HTML code to Windows' render function to put in on screen.

That built-in render turned out to have a lot of vulnerabilities, and contrary to Glenn's assertion, no click or other action on the user's part was necessary - merely displaying the message body was sufficient. I was using Eudora back then, and one of its benefits was that it had an option to use its own built-in HTML render instead of Microsoft's. Eudora's render only implemented a basic subset of HTML, avoiding the tags that were then being exploited. So fancier messages would get ugly, but it sufficed for simple emphasis types of formatting.

In the present day Glenn is more correct. Browsers and email clients have (largely, entirely?) opted to use their own HTML rendering code and have strengthened them tremendously against abuse. It has been ages since I've heard even a rumor of a no-click-required exploit delivered by an HTML message body.

Another delve into history is RFC 1896, an early attempt to head off the domination of HTML as the only type of rich text formatting for email message bodies. Alas, it has been largely ignored, so far as I can tell.
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1896

Shal





--
Help: https://groups.io/static/help
More Help: https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum/wiki
Even More Help: Search button at the top of Messages list


Re: How do YOU choose Moderators?

BMaverick
 

Chuck,

Your group sounds sort of like mine and the age battle.  Then there are the kids who had inherited the farm equipment or bought from a previous member who passed away.  BUT, they are starting out new, raising a family and have day jobs.

The best folks to pick to moderate are wise enough not to get picked or will turn it down.

My membership community resides on 4 continents too. 

Making the move from YG to GIO, the membership numbers adjusted like a landslide.  Sure, we have history, yet the participants are now up to 35 years older from the startup.  The re-enlisted is a mix-bag. 

So, it would require some time, possible a year before prompting folks to step up. 


Re: Why choose plain text over HTML email?

Glenn Glazer
 

Two other things on the so-called bandwidth issue.

1) Depending on one's group settings, email is by default on groups.io sent as multipart/alternative per section 7.2.3 of RFC 1341. This means that everyone downloads both the text/plain and the text/html versions of the email and the MUA picks the one the reader selected in preferences. That means that if one was using text/plain to reduce bandwidth, that's not going to work for those groups.

2) While it is true that HTML encoding makes the size of the message larger than plain text, the difference is vanishingly small compared to a single image or attachment, which is orders of magnitude larger than the difference. When all is said and done, HTML is still text, still ASCII characters. <bold>foo</bold>  adds the cost of exactly 13 characters over just typing the word 'foo'. And, as Chris points out, overquoting is also a huge consumer of bandwidth, much greater (especially for long threads) than the number of characters used for HTML tags.

Best,

Glenn
P.S. For the plain text folks, I italicized the word "both" in the second paragraph above. The typing of this P.S. also consumed more bandwidth than the HTML tags used to create that font style.
P.P.S. I included a link in that same paragraph to the RFC as a method of citation to back up what I was saying. I consider this a best practice in discourse and there is nothing dangerous about it.

[Irrelevant sig line trimmed by Moderator]


Re: Deletion of Attachments

Leeni
 

What do you mean not truly embedded?
They were inserted in the body of the email along with added attachments. 
 
 
 
 

-------Original Message-------
 
From: Duane
Date: 2/16/2020 12:56:33 PM
Subject: Re: [GMF] Deletion of Attachments
 
On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 12:53 PM, Leeni wrote:
That is not true.
Attachments as well as the embedded images have been removed.
As you were told earlier, only the attachments are being deleted.  If images are missing from the body, then they were attachments, not truly embedded.  You'd have to look at the source code (and understand it) to see that this is true.

Duane
--
GMF's Wiki: https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum/wiki
Help: https://groups.io/static/help
A few site FAQs: https://groups.io/static/pricing#frequently-asked-questions
 


Re: Why choose plain text over HTML email?

Glenn Glazer
 

On 2/16/2020 10:46, Jim Fisher wrote:
First, I'm not talking about digest but individual messages, but that probably 
isn't important. I have my email client set to read all emails, from whatever 
source, in plain text. The text is what matters. The main reason for not 
reading in HTML is that it can carry malware and I don't want my computer to be 
infected that way. I know that form of infection is less common that it once 
was, but it is still possible. 

The only way this is possible is if the reader clicks on a bad link or attachment. If they do not click on the link it is NOT possible to get Not having links/attachments at all defies the general utility of links/attachments in emails for the sake of an easily avoidable error. It's like banning pencils because someone got poked in the eye with a pencil once.

I recommend this article which lists several very easy ways of detecting phishing in emails:

https://blog.malwarebytes.com/101/2017/06/somethings-phishy-how-to-detect-phishing-attempts/


Others have also pointed out the difficulty of 
reading the fonts and colours some people choose. HTML in nearly all cases 
simply wastes bandwidth as again others have pointed out, which for people on 
slow connections is still of some importance, so I always send in plain text as 
well.

I have to admit, I read the bandwidth claims with some incredulity. I live in a rural, mountainous area with substandard internet. I have no problem with the speed of HTML embedded emails.

Perhaps people need to upgrade from their acoustic modems.

Best,

Glenn

[political sig trimmed by moderator]


Re: Why choose plain text over HTML email?

Chris Jones
 

On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 06:46 PM, Jim Fisher wrote:
HTML in nearly all cases simply wastes bandwidth as again others have pointed out
Does it waste as much bandwidth as over - quoting? That is a persistent problem with many group members. (I am not necessarily referrring to GMF, but it is a problem.)

Chris


Re: Why choose plain text over HTML email?

Laurence Taylor
 

txercoupemuseum.org <ercoguru@txercoupemuseum.org> wrote:

Since those here are presumably group “management” of some sort, WHY
would you not want the HTML version of digest for at least THIS
forum? Is it longer, or ???. Seems to me like going to a play
blindfolded or watching a color movie in black and white.
Partly because it increases the size of the email, sometimes
condiserably. Partly because it can introduce malware.

And partly because adding HTML coding doesn't add anything to the
message apart from the sender's choice of font, size, colour, &c., which
I don't want.

A plain text email includes what was written, clearly (because I set my
PC to display it in a font I can read) and without any risk of anything
nasty happening.

Oh yes, and emphasis? /Italic/, *bold* or _underlined_ works very well.

--
rgds
LAurence
<><


Re: Deletion of Attachments

Duane
 

On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 12:53 PM, Leeni wrote:
That is not true.
Attachments as well as the embedded images have been removed.
As you were told earlier, only the attachments are being deleted.  If images are missing from the body, then they were attachments, not truly embedded.  You'd have to look at the source code (and understand it) to see that this is true.

Duane
--
GMF's Wiki: https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum/wiki
Help: https://groups.io/static/help
A few site FAQs: https://groups.io/static/pricing#frequently-asked-questions


Re: Bouncing posts from members using COX

Duane
 

On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 12:13 PM, David Tuma wrote:
experiencing bouncing posts sent to them.  They have Cox as their ISP
If you haven't already, take a look at https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum/wiki/Dealing-with-Bouncing and https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum/wiki/Example-Bounce-Probe.  If you're sure the notification email is being accepted by Cox, it may be that it's being diverted by them to the spam folder.  (There are even a few services that accept the email, then toss it in the bit bucket.)  Cox is one of the services that just decide to bounce emails from GIO now and then.  It usually clears up in a couple of days, after enough people complain to them.

Duane
--
GMF's Wiki: https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum/wiki
Help: https://groups.io/static/help
A few site FAQs: https://groups.io/static/pricing#frequently-asked-questions


Re: Deletion of Attachments

Leeni
 

That is not true.
Attachments as well as the embedded images have been removed.
 
Also the archives are not correct in they way they are being labeled if someone was going to save from the archives. 
 
Labeled 0 instead of maybe Poodle Dog
Labeled 1 instead of maybe Tabby Cat
Labeled 2 instead of Hippy Car
Labeled 3 instead of Thank You Valentine 
 
And so on and so on. If all 4 of those images are in the archives they would be labeled starting with 0 up to 4
If each one was in a separate email, they all would be labeled 0
 
 
 

-------Original Message-------
 
From: Duane
Date: 2/16/2020 12:26:59 PM
Subject: Re: [GMF] Deletion of Attachments
 
On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 12:12 PM, Leeni wrote:
But if the archives are going to be there, then they should be correct.
As far as the site is concerned, they're correct.  No embedded images are removed, only old attachments.

Duane
--
GMF's Wiki: https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum/wiki
Help: https://groups.io/static/help
A few site FAQs: https://groups.io/static/pricing#frequently-asked-questions
 


Re: Why choose plain text over HTML email?

 

First, I'm not talking about digest but individual messages, but that probably
isn't important. I have my email client set to read all emails, from whatever
source, in plain text. The text is what matters. The main reason for not
reading in HTML is that it can carry malware and I don't want my computer to be
infected that way. I know that form of infection is less common that it once
was, but it is still possible. Others have also pointed out the difficulty of
reading the fonts and colours some people choose. HTML in nearly all cases
simply wastes bandwidth as again others have pointed out, which for people on
slow connections is still of some importance, so I always send in plain text as
well.

BTW, I seem to remember I copied the sig file on the end of this messsage from
Shal, who owns this group.

Jim

On 15 Feb 2020 at 15:10, txercoupemuseum.org wrote:

Since those here are presumably group "management" of some sort, WHY would
you not want the HTML version of digest for at least THIS forum? Is it longer,
or ???. Seems to me like going to a play blindfolded or watching a color movie
in black and white.

WRB
--
//\\ Plain Text Campaign | Remember -
\\// No HTML/RTF in email | You can't get malware from plain text!
XX No Word docs in email | No one has ever said "I can't read that
//\\ Respect open standards | plain text email you sent."


Re: Why choose plain text over HTML email?

David Grimm
 

On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 04:32 PM, txercoupemuseum.org wrote:
WHY would you not want the HTML version of digest for at least THIS forum?
Back to the original question. So after reading this question, I decided to see what I might be missing by selecting Plain Digest. After changing to Full Featured Digest, I found out why I prefer the Plain Digest: I couldn't read the Full Featured Digest due mostly to lines scrolling off the visible page when using any of three different email clients, both Android and Windows based. Yes, I got fancy colors and different fonts, but I also had to go to a web-browser and go through each thread to see what I couldn't in the digest. Which defeats totally the purpose for which I get the digest by email. 

Yes, I probably could go in and hack in different settings for my email clients, but it is much easier as long as I have logged in here, to just change my subscription back to Plain Digest, thank you very much.

Dave


Re: Why choose plain text over HTML email?

Glenn Glazer
 

On 2/16/2020 10:06, Steve Hayes wrote:
On 16 Feb 2020 at 8:59, Glenn Glazer wrote:

The inventions of text formatting such as italics and underlining long predate
HTML and are used for technical language requirements (such as story and book
titles), not "embellishment or obscuration [sic]". From a linguist
perspective, these font formats are no different than other "visual tricks"
like punctuation, line spacing and so on, none of which existing in early
English.
And if you really and that, the convention is to indicate _italics_ by 
underlining and *bold* with asterisks, and if you export it to and MS word 
document, it will convert those into the printable fonts for you. 

You might object that exporting and converting is too much schlep, but so is 
exporting to an HTML stripper. 


I don't think that convention is universal, since I see your italics as underlined:



I don't think the shlep is necessary. In the sample above, I italicized italics and underlined underlining and yet your MUA/browser stripped the formatting off cleanly.

Best,

Glenn

--
PG&E Delenda Est

8881 - 8900 of 38346