![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
eftychia at 02:11pm on 2004-04-15The person I complained about a few days ago did write back. He said that he did not attach images. (Okay, maybe he didn't mean to, but they wound up attached anyhow, unless someone cracked my password and edited my mail spool after his message arrived, just to make him look bad.)
Unfortunately he also had the gall to write:
"but as a point of information - a whole new generation of internet users have begun using this thing called the world wide web... amazing as it may seem, these people regularly communicate with each other sending and receiving text, music, pictures and video."This, of course, ticked me off. First, does it mean he's one of the new generation of Internet users who believes that the World Wide Web is the Internet, rather than being just one service that uses the Internet? Second, where does he get off lecturing me in that tone of voice after I suggested that perhaps he'd meant to post a pointer to a web page instead of attached binaries -- what, I can say that but not know about the Web? Third, the fact that you can send images, sound, and video over email does not mean that it's polite to send large files to strangers unexpectedly.
At this point it appears (as far as I can tell from this end of the wire) that the initial problem was his use of a web browser instead of a proper mail client, and that his browser didn't do what he thought he was telling it to do. But his responding that he "did not do that" and assuming I'm net.clueless, without bothering to check whether or not he'd actually sent what he thought he'd sent, rather bothered me. If he didn't do it, why do I have one GIF and one JPG attached to his message?
(no subject)
(no subject)
The GIF is a masthead for the newsletterish thing.
The JPG is an image of a concert poster.
Which means that every bloody detail he tried to communicate was in an image, not in plain text nor in HTML. Date, time, lineup, location -- all in the JPG!!
I think we can file him in the clueless category now.
(no subject)
(no subject)
If he really ticks me off, I'll send a GIF or PNG of a screen-capture showing what all 1900+ lines of his message looked like on my end.
(No, that'd tie up my own modem too long. I'll just tweak the HTML in such a way that it should display in his browser the way I saw it in my telnet window.)
(no subject)
(no subject)
b) There's a difference between "webmail" (mail read and sent via a web site) and normal mail using a mail client built into a web browser. This person appears to be sending normal mail using Netscape as his mail program.
c) Mail from both your Hotmail account and your Yahoo account arrive in plain text form, usually with reasonable line lengths (a quick check turned up only one exception with long lines, and it may have been a copy/paste thing).
Ahem.
On the other hand, I don't think I've ever been so bonehead stupid as to "accidentally" e-mail images to anyone, and, being fairly familiar with every major version of Communicator since about 3.7, I can't for the life of me figure out how he's trying to get away with arguing that he didn't do it on purpose.
What I think has gone on here is that he's got both HTML mail (including the "background" misfeature) and "embed images" turned on, both of which, incidentally, I turn off. (I also disable a lot of the other things, and make darn sure my lines wrap at a decent width. Then again, I more or less know what I'm doing, I think.)
Gi'm hell, Glenn. You orta tell him how long you've been online, considering that I'm a noob compared to you, and I have been around for a relative while (longer if you count that CompuServe stuff etc. back in 1987 or so)... Then again, I don't imagine that it would make much difference to that sort of mind.
Thanks
And I did mention to him (responding to the patronizing tone) that I've been online since before the Great Renaming. Either he knows what that is and knows it means I'm a net.old.fart (though not as much so as some of my friends), or he doesn't know but ought to get a clue that his not knowing means that it was Before His Time.
(no subject)
This reminds me of one response to early spam. (I can't remember if it was actually Cantor & Siegel, the green-card lawyers, or someone soon thereafter.) Anyway, someone had spammed Usenet and included a FAX number as the only method of contact, so one of the net regulars (forget which -- maybe Chuq or Spaf?) posted that he'd faxed them the posting guidelines for some large number of groups. And, just in case the folks in the office didn't know how to access Usenet, he sent along readnews, man * for Unix, and a copy of X. :-) (They, of course, had to dig through all this if they wanted to recover any other faxes that came in during that time.)
(no subject)
Instant Karma
He explained how he had attached nine pictures to an email and sent them to the list, patiently waiting for them to crawl up his phone line. Twelve subscribers' emails bounced. And the resultant 9M elephant tried to crawl down the drinking straw of his dialup connection.
Re: Instant Karma
That There Interweb Thingy
he did indeed send attachments by saving his email to a web server as
plain text (so he sees all headers and mime-boundaries and what-not),
then sending him the URL of that file. You're then also demonstrating
proper behavior by emailing the URL of a huge thing rather than emailing
it.
- Vicky