Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
Re: Email Standards[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org
- Subject: Re: Email Standards
- From: FLew98 <FLew98(--nospam--at)aol.com>
- Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 18:57:29 EST
In a message dated 98-03-07 20:16:44 EST, nmends(--nospam--at)mt.net write: > At some point, folks should be willing either to upgrade their software or to > live with the consequences if they don't want to. ....We all know engineers who > pride themselves on never upgrading anything. ....If a guy wants to > continue doing his laundry by beating it on a rock, fine, but he shouldn't > insist that the rest of us can't use washing machines because of it. :-) Nigel is a bit presumptious and arrogant. For AOL subscribers, it's not a case of electing to use a better browser. In fact, AOL subscribers have a choice of using the "native" AOL browser, which is a modified version of IE3, or the full MS version of IE3. MSIE3 has more features and controls than the AOL version, and is the one I normally run. So, when it comes to benefitting from 'current' standards such as html, AOL users aren't missing out. The problem stems from the manner in which AOL has implemented its e-mail server - it doesn't properly display html e-mail. I've been unsuccessful in trying to configure Outlook Express to work with the AOL server. Calls to AOL technical help, on those occasions I managed to get a live body on the line, have produced no solution. They said they don't know how to accomplish it, either. So, why do some folks who should know better still stay with AOL? In my case, it's because four other family members like AOL for other reasons, including its proprietary content. Three of them access AOL from computers in other cities. Because AOL allows an account to have five different password- protected user IDs, those family members get a free ride instead of paying $264 a year for their own accounts. The only restriction is that two IDs can't be on-line simultaneously, but since we are scattered in different time zones, it's only an occasional and minor inconvenience. We have no problem handling and viewing attachments in other formats such as .pdf, .jpg, .xls, and .doc, so AOL's inability to display html e-mail properly is only a slight irritant that is more than offset by the savings. I'm not a great AOLfan (and I don't own their stock) - it has other quirks and limitations that may yet cause me to go to another ISP. However, given its 12 million customers (and possible 60 million user IDs) AOL's outdated e-mail module arguably remains a de facto alternative 'standard'. Even on a listserv like this one, with its computer literate subscribers, there appears to be many AOL users. These folks, whatever their reasons for remaining with AOL, have needs that shouldn't be cavalierly dismissed, as Nigel suggests. Dennis' recent post about Version 4, and how it can work with Outlook Express, is a bit premature the last time I checked. Even though AOL didn't call it a beta version, that's what it is. It restricted distribution to 50K downloads, after which addtional download requests were denied. I learned about it after the cutoff. Frank Lew, SE Orinda, CA
- Prev by Subject: Re: Email Standards
- Next by Subject: Re: Email Standards
- Previous by thread: Re: Email Standards, MIME, HTML Mail, RTF etc.
- Next by thread: Re: Email Standards