Jerry posted on Fri, 29 Apr 2011 09:08:11 -0400 as excerpted:
> On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 12:36:15 +0000 (UTC)
> Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@xxxxxxx> articulated:
>
> [snip]
>
> Is there something wrong with your MUA? I am not a fan of HTML mail in a
> mail forum either; however, all I need do is click on the text view
> option in claws-mail and all is well. Doesn't your MUA have an option to
> view the text version of a message?
Simple. The client doesn't parse HTML and makes no distinction between
HTML and plain text, which can be a good thing if the plain-text part is a
dummy as it is with some (broken) senders. It shows all plain-test parts
and all html parts, as plain-text-only by deliberate policy, including
security. So I actually got the text displayed twice, but selected out of
the part with the html to respond to, thus demonstrating the ugly mess it
creates back to the person who created it.
> And why burden the OP, and others with this long drawn out legalese,
> which probably isn't even accurate anyway, when it was not pertinent to
> the OP's question?
Again it's simple enough. It's my reply. My reply style tends to include
a lot of detail and background that other replies may not. I've gotten
many thanks over the years for explaining various aspects of problems that
people never understood before. Part of that explanation, where it
touches on servantware, includes my own reasons for choosing only free
alternatives. They're certainly accurate in the context of being my own
reasons, which is how I present them. Others certainly make their own
choices and are free to continue to do so, but I make it clear enough
where I stand and why, whenever the topic comes up in a reply of mine.
Worded differently, if the matter touches on servantware, so does the
reply, in no small part because in my opinion, no solution regarding
servantware can be complete as long as that master/servant relationship
(in the context of my sig) remains. The user remains free to make their
own choice, but IMO, any solution that includes servantware is at best a
workaround for a servantware free solution, and that's exactly how I
present it.
Of course, a reader can scan for the stuff they want if they wish,
ignoring the rest. But for those who really don't like it, any decent
client has this function called ignore, aka the killfile. Its entire
purpose is to allow a user to ensure they don't see posts from someone or
on some topic they'd prefer not to see (tho they might still appear in
quotes in followups), for a period which may be forever, if they choose to
make it so. I'm quite aware that my style doesn't appeal to everyone, due
either to verbosity, or to opinion delivered along with the proposed
solution. That's what killfiles are /for/, and I've no problem at all
with people putting me in them, if they believe it's best for their peace
of mind to do so. True, they'll lose whatever else I might have said as
well, but they'd lose it if I simply didn't reply, too, and so would all
those who have found benefit from my replies over the years, so for their
benefit, I might as well reply and let those who choose to killfile it, do
just that.
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
___________________________________________________
This message is from the kde mailing list.
Account management: https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde.
Archives: http://lists.kde.org/.
More info: http://www.kde.org/faq.html.
