Thread: Email signature
Hi all!
Since it's supposed to look more professional, I'll be sending out my press
email in HTML form. For this purpose, I've created a signature file, which
you can see at the following link:
http://postgres-si.org/email/pg_sig.png
If you plan on doing the same, and like the way the sig looks, feel free to
use it. You can get the template at:
http://postgres-si.org/email/pg_sig.zip
(I hope there's nothing wrong if I use the PG logo this way.)
Regards, Aleksander
Aleksander, > Since it's supposed to look more professional, I'll be sending out my press > email in HTML form. For this purpose, I've created a signature file, which I reccomend against this. I do not find HTML e-mail to be "more professional", and spam filters tend to block HTML-only mail. -- -Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Josh Berkus wrote: > Aleksander, > > > Since it's supposed to look more professional, I'll be sending out my press > > email in HTML form. For this purpose, I've created a signature file, which > > I reccomend against this. I do not find HTML e-mail to be "more > professional", and spam filters tend to block HTML-only mail. As long as it's multi-part mime with a text portion and an html portion, and the attached graphics are reasonably small, then I see no big problem with an email that contains an html portion. However, it might be better to send an email with a link back to the html version on a server somewhere so the user doesn't have to download the larger html version unless they want to.
Aleksander, > I understend your concerns, but looking through my inbox I can see that > everyone, except a small number of fellow programmers, is using html format > for sending messges. It seems to be the standard here and plaintext > messages are pretty much out of the question for business communication. > I'm not kidding - sometimes I even get asked why I keep replying in > plaintext! :) Ok, different from here, then. In California, plaintext is still the standard for anything but advertisements. -- -Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
Josh Berkus wrote: > I reccomend against this. I do not find HTML e-mail to be "more > professional", and spam filters tend to block HTML-only mail. > I understend your concerns, but looking through my inbox I can see that everyone, except a small number of fellow programmers, is using html format for sending messges. It seems to be the standard here and plaintext messages are pretty much out of the question for business communication. I'm not kidding - sometimes I even get asked why I keep replying in plaintext! :) But otherwise it really depends on the recipient. Average computer users - and most journalists, even those writing for computer magazines, fall into this category - tend to prefer html emails; which is why I'll be using this format. It's understandable, though, that your audience might have different preferences. -Aleksander
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Josh Berkus wrote: > Aleksander, > > > I understend your concerns, but looking through my inbox I can see that > > everyone, except a small number of fellow programmers, is using html format > > for sending messges. It seems to be the standard here and plaintext > > messages are pretty much out of the question for business communication. > > I'm not kidding - sometimes I even get asked why I keep replying in > > plaintext! :) > > Ok, different from here, then. In California, plaintext is still the > standard for anything but advertisements. Same here ... my spam filters pick up nicely on HTML email and shuffle it off to where its supposed to ... no mans land :)
Hi Aleksander, Yep, there's no professional IT person that I know of that uses HTML email. Most consider it *rude* to be sent HTML email, or that the person sending it was clueless (or made a mistake in their settings somehow). Regards and best wishes, Justin Clift Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Josh Berkus wrote: > > >>Aleksander, >> >> >>>I understend your concerns, but looking through my inbox I can see that >>>everyone, except a small number of fellow programmers, is using html format >>>for sending messges. It seems to be the standard here and plaintext >>>messages are pretty much out of the question for business communication. >>>I'm not kidding - sometimes I even get asked why I keep replying in >>>plaintext! :) >> >>Ok, different from here, then. In California, plaintext is still the >>standard for anything but advertisements. > > > Same here ... my spam filters pick up nicely on HTML email and shuffle it > off to where its supposed to ... no mans land :) > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Hello, It is my experience that it is only us geeks (read programmers) that really hate html email. The majority of people out there don't know or care about the difference. Sincerely, Joshua Drake Justin Clift wrote: > Hi Aleksander, > > Yep, there's no professional IT person that I know of that uses HTML > email. Most consider it *rude* to be sent HTML email, or that the > person sending it was clueless (or made a mistake in their settings > somehow). > > Regards and best wishes, > > Justin Clift > > > Marc G. Fournier wrote: > >> >> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Josh Berkus wrote: >> >> >>> Aleksander, >>> >>> >>>> I understend your concerns, but looking through my inbox I can see >>>> that >>>> everyone, except a small number of fellow programmers, is using >>>> html format >>>> for sending messges. It seems to be the standard here and plaintext >>>> messages are pretty much out of the question for business >>>> communication. >>>> I'm not kidding - sometimes I even get asked why I keep replying in >>>> plaintext! :) >>> >>> >>> Ok, different from here, then. In California, plaintext is still the >>> standard for anything but advertisements. >> >> >> >> Same here ... my spam filters pick up nicely on HTML email and >> shuffle it >> off to where its supposed to ... no mans land :) >> >> >> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- >> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate >> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your >> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly > > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if > your > joining column's datatypes do not match -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC - S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming, shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-222-2783 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com PostgreSQL.Org - Editor-N-Chief - http://www.postgresql.org
Hi, Sorry Joshua, but syst. eng. hate html e-mail too. (at least some of them;-)) In fact I think there people who don't know there is the choice (only html for them. "There is another solution in oulook ?" ) and others. Bruno Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Hello, > > It is my experience that it is only us geeks (read programmers) that > really hate html email. The majority of > people out there don't know or care about the difference. > > Sincerely, > > Joshua Drake > > > Justin Clift wrote: > >> Hi Aleksander, >> >> Yep, there's no professional IT person that I know of that uses HTML >> email. Most consider it *rude* to be sent HTML email, or that the >> person sending it was clueless (or made a mistake in their settings >> somehow). >> >> Regards and best wishes, >> >> Justin Clift >> >> >> Marc G. Fournier wrote: >> >>> >>> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Josh Berkus wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Aleksander, >>>> >>>> >>>>> I understend your concerns, but looking through my inbox I can see >>>>> that >>>>> everyone, except a small number of fellow programmers, is using >>>>> html format >>>>> for sending messges. It seems to be the standard here and plaintext >>>>> messages are pretty much out of the question for business >>>>> communication. >>>>> I'm not kidding - sometimes I even get asked why I keep replying in >>>>> plaintext! :) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Ok, different from here, then. In California, plaintext is still the >>>> standard for anything but advertisements. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Same here ... my spam filters pick up nicely on HTML email and >>> shuffle it >>> off to where its supposed to ... no mans land :) >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------(end of >>> broadcast)--------------------------- >>> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate >>> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your >>> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly >> >> >> >> >> >> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- >> TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if >> your >> joining column's datatypes do not match > > > -- Bruno LEVEQUE System Engineer SARL NET6D bruno.leveque@net6d.com http://www.net6d.com
On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 18:05:55 +0100, Bruno LEVEQUE <bruno.leveque@net6d.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Sorry Joshua, but syst. eng. hate html e-mail too. (at least some of > them;-)) > > In fact I think there people who don't know there is the choice (only > html for them. "There is another solution in oulook ?" ) and others. One thing I have thought of doing is using multipart/alternative to add a text/html part that didn't match the text/plain part and instead had a message to please disable html to read this message message. I figure that most geeks will have set their mailer to prefer text/plain over text/html instead of going by part order for multipart/alternative messages. I haven't wanted to spend the work to do this though. I do run a couple of low volume mailing lists using ezmlm-idx and I have html stripped out of messages so that pure html messages get rejected and multipart/alternative messages only end up having their text/plain parts get through.
Bruno Wolff III wrote: > One thing I have thought of doing is using multipart/alternative to > add a text/html part that didn't match the text/plain part and instead > had a message to please disable html to read this message message. That wouldn't do much good. How many e-mail clients allow you to choose displayed format? I don't think Mozilla does - at least I couldn't find anything by quckly going over the available settings. But even if they do change how their email is displayed, they'd most likely still be composing it as html. -Aleksander
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > It is my experience that it is only us geeks (read programmers) that > really hate html email. The majority of > people out there don't know or care about the difference. That's exactly how I see it, too. Programmers use plaintext for practical reasons, while most people simply don't care. But, nevertheless, they are quite likely to be used to html emails and like them - otherwhise they WOULD care, wouldn't they? I believe that sending plaintext to someone who likes html is about as bad as sending html to someone who prefers plaintext. That's why you need to know you audience and choose the format accordingly. While I did say that I'll be sending emails in html, I didn't mean that I'll be sending them all that way. Some of the recipients on my list are are Linux user groups / list moderators. I know they wouldn't be too happy about html mails. Same goes for any other address where I know the person receiving the message is likely to prefer plaintext. Still, most of the people on my list fall into the other group and so they'll be receiving the html email. -Aleksander
On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 20:04:31 +0100, Aleksander Kmetec <aleksander.kmetec@intera.si> wrote: > > That wouldn't do much good. How many e-mail clients allow you to choose > displayed format? I don't think Mozilla does - at least I couldn't find > anything by quckly going over the available settings. But even if they do > change how their email is displayed, they'd most likely still be composing > it as html. mutt allows you to select preferred types to override the implied preferrence based on part order. It also allows you to view any part of the message (often needing an external viewer).
> >mutt allows you to select preferred types to override the implied preferrence >based on part order. It also allows you to view any part of the message >(often needing an external viewer). > > > The majority of our target market will probably think you are talking about a dog that can read email with the above sentence. The target market runs: Outlook Outlook Express Eudora Mozilla Mail Aol Mail Notes All of which will by default accept HTML email. J >---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- >TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org > > -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-222-2783 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com Editor-N-Chief - PostgreSQl.Org - http://www.postgresql.org
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > > > > >mutt allows you to select preferred types to override the implied preferrence > >based on part order. It also allows you to view any part of the message > >(often needing an external viewer). > > > > > > > The majority of our target market will probably think you are talking > about a dog that > can read email with the above sentence. > > The target market runs: > > Outlook > Outlook Express > Eudora > Mozilla Mail > Aol Mail > Notes > > All of which will by default accept HTML email. Agreed, however, I just wanted to make sure everyone understands that while sending email that is HTML with an HTML mime header is ok, sending an email that is HTML without any headers is very bad form. Most email engines DO in fact set the proper headers to html email so that the recipient software is told that it is in fact html. If you send an email with no headers in html to me, I get a bunch of gobbly-gook that I have to cut and paste into a file and reopen in a web browser to read, so I probably won't bother. On the other hand, Pine (what I'm using) understands html email just fine, highlighting the links and allowing me to open them from within pine. As long as the headers are set properly. So, the real rudeness is in sending html only email that doesn't have the headers set. That's something that quite a few people still do. Mostly spammers in my experience, but the occasional post here has it.
My 2 cents. Anytime I see HTML in my email, I automatically assume the e-mail is spam and hit the junk button. scott.marlowe wrote: > So, the real rudeness is in sending html only email that doesn't have the > headers set. That's something that quite a few people still do. Mostly > spammers in my experience, but the occasional post here has it.