Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.acorn.misc > #3285 > unrolled thread

Pluto & BBC complaints dept.

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.acorn.misc

Contents

  Pluto & BBC complaints dept. M Harding <riscos@mdharding.org.uk> - 2012-01-12 11:30 +0000
    Re: Pluto & BBC complaints dept. Alan Calder <alan_calder@o2.co.uk> - 2012-01-12 12:32 +0000
      Re: Pluto & BBC complaints dept. Dave Symes <dave@triffid.co.uk> - 2012-01-12 18:57 +0000
        Re: Pluto & BBC complaints dept. Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-01-13 09:22 +0100
          Re: Pluto & BBC complaints dept. Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> - 2012-01-13 09:46 +0000
    Re: Pluto & BBC complaints dept. Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> - 2012-01-12 16:24 +0000
    Re: Pluto & BBC complaints dept. Dave Symes <dave@triffid.co.uk> - 2012-01-12 19:02 +0000
      Re: Pluto & BBC complaints dept. Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> - 2012-01-12 19:58 +0000
        Re: Pluto & BBC complaints dept. M Harding <riscos@mdharding.org.uk> - 2012-01-13 11:04 +0000
          Re: Pluto & BBC complaints dept. Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> - 2012-01-13 12:03 +0000
            Re: Pluto & BBC complaints dept. Dev <spam-addy@no.spam.invalid> - 2012-01-13 14:04 +0000
              Re: Pluto & BBC complaints dept. Richard Travers <richtnews@uwclub.net> - 2012-01-16 10:27 +0000
                Re: Pluto & BBC complaints dept. Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> - 2012-01-16 11:36 +0000
          Re: Pluto & BBC complaints dept. Ken Wright <kcwright@ormail.co.uk> - 2012-01-14 20:41 +0000
            Re: Pluto & BBC complaints dept. Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> - 2012-01-14 21:21 +0000
              Re: Pluto & BBC complaints dept. Ken Wright <kcwright@ormail.co.uk> - 2012-01-15 21:03 +0000
            Re: Pluto & BBC complaints dept. Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> - 2012-01-15 11:22 +0000
              Re: Pluto & BBC complaints dept. Ken Wright <kcwright@ormail.co.uk> - 2012-01-15 21:21 +0000
                Re: Pluto & BBC complaints dept. Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-01-16 07:01 +0100
                  Re: Pluto & BBC complaints dept. Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> - 2012-01-16 08:52 +0000
                    Re: Pluto & BBC complaints dept. Jess <phantasm_39@hotmail.com> - 2012-01-24 11:23 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#3285 — Pluto & BBC complaints dept.

Can I get some advice in diagnosing a problem with the BBC iPlayer
complaints department please?

Using Firefox on WindowsXP I filled in their form asking when a
programme might be repeated since it was not on the iPlayer. 

I received an email response but this was unreadable in Pluto: the
body of the email was blank, and there was an HTML attachment of
computerese gibberish, e.g. PFNQQU4+PEZPTlQgZ  etc. 
It occurred to me to send the HTML attachment over to the W-XP side
and I tried to read it in Firefox there - but it still displayed the
same computerese.

I'm using SA-VRPC (RO 4.02) on a WindowsXP computer, with Netfetch and
Pluto.

My first contact with the BBC had been a simple question. I followed
that up with a formal complaint to the Complaints Dept about their
unreadable emailed response.  If I get yet another gibberish
communication, how would you advise me to describe these symptoms
when I fill in their laborious complaints form again? (There's a long
laborious lot of questions to narrow the field, but when finally it
comes to detailing the complaint it's a box of twitterish brevity!)

Michael Harding
Rev. Preb. M.D. Harding   riscos@mdharding.org.uk

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#3288

In article <52505e1f8ariscos@mdharding.org.uk>,
   M Harding <riscos@mdharding.org.uk> wrote:
> Can I get some advice in diagnosing a problem with the BBC iPlayer
> complaints department please?

[Snip]

> I received an email response but this was unreadable in Pluto: the
> body of the email was blank, and there was an HTML attachment of
> computerese gibberish, e.g. PFNQQU4+PEZPTlQgZ  etc. 

My solution for these kinds of emails, which are quite common now, may hekp
you.

Select the offending email in the list, don't open it.  From Menu choose
Export and save the email to somewhere, accepting the defaults.

Next load up !Attacher and drop the saved file onto its load icon.  Save
the resulting file, with a name if base64 won't do.  Finally give this file
the filetype HTML and it'll load into a browser.  It'll need a /htm suffix
if you want to use it on the PC side of course.

Hope I've got all the above correct!  All from memory as I can't seem to
find an example to check it on.

If you haven't got it, !Attacher is at
http://www.johnallen.com/software/attach.zip

Cheers

Alan
[Snip]

-- 
Alan Calder, Milton Keynes, UK.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3299

In article <525063d0e0alan_calder@o2.co.uk>,
   Alan Calder <alan_calder@o2.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <52505e1f8ariscos@mdharding.org.uk>,
>    M Harding <riscos@mdharding.org.uk> wrote:
> > Can I get some advice in diagnosing a problem with the BBC iPlayer
> > complaints department please?

> [Snip]

> > I received an email response but this was unreadable in Pluto: the
> > body of the email was blank, and there was an HTML attachment of
> > computerese gibberish, e.g. PFNQQU4+PEZPTlQgZ  etc. 

> My solution for these kinds of emails, which are quite common now, may
> hekp you.

> Select the offending email in the list, don't open it.  From Menu choose
> Export and save the email to somewhere, accepting the defaults.

> Next load up !Attacher and drop the saved file onto its load icon.  Save
> the resulting file, with a name if base64 won't do.  Finally give this
> file the filetype HTML and it'll load into a browser.  It'll need a /htm
> suffix if you want to use it on the PC side of course.

> Hope I've got all the above correct!  All from memory as I can't seem to
> find an example to check it on.

> If you haven't got it, !Attacher is at
> http://www.johnallen.com/software/attach.zip

> Cheers

> Alan

Yup! I get a lot of these posting from software companies I deal with,
PITA, but that's the way they do it, and from my comunications with them,
they arn't bothered about changing.

You are correct above Alan.

FWIW. Another way if you have a PC and Messenger Pro.

Export from Pluto as you note above, give it an /eml suffix, transport to
the PC and drop on the MessPro Inbox window.

Dave

-- 

Dave Triffid

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3303

On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:57:04 +0000 (GMT), Dave Symes 
<dave@triffid.co.uk> wrote:

> Yup! I get a lot of these posting from software companies I deal 
with,
> PITA, but that's the way they do it, and from my comunications with 
them,
> they arn't bothered about changing.

My phone does email like that, plus markup (which I don't use). 
This...is supposed to be progress. Just seems like a waste of 
bandwidth to me.


Best wishes,

Rick.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3304

In article <almarsoft.2590195919171329036@news.orange.fr>,
   Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:57:04 +0000 (GMT), Dave Symes
> <dave@triffid.co.uk> wrote:

> > Yup! I get a lot of these posting from software
> > companies I deal with, PITA, but that's the way they do
> > it, and from my comunications with them, they arn't
> > bothered about changing.

> My phone does email like that, plus markup (which I don't
> use). This...is supposed to be progress. Just seems like
> a waste of bandwidth to me.

Yes, modern 'smart'phones do seem particularly prone to
base64-encode their e-mails.

Soething I was reminded about only this morning when my
neighbour e-mailed me from his phone to check that his cat
was OK...

If you send 'plain text' from these phones (and, no doubt,
some other systems) you get base64-encoded text.

Pluto, however, can deal with these up to a point, as they
present as a plain text attachment to an emprty text window.
The plain text is perfectly readable, though.

The problem with base64-encoded HTML is that the original
enoded file is (possibly) malformed.

Jeremy Nicoll looked into this some years ago and wrote as
follows:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

base64 data should be in lines of up  to 76 characters
long, whereas in these [encoded HTML] files the lines are
much longer and sometimes start with a  space.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

These overlong lines seem to be the cause of Pluto's
problems.

Looking at a recent such e-mail to me, I see that the lines
in the original base64-encoded HTML are 15 chars longer than
they should be.

Following the instructions as per Allan Calder's response
[article <525063d0e0alan_calder@o2.co.uk> ], if you then
save the decoded HTML back onto the original E-mail in Pluto
(so that you have two HTML attachments, the original,
unintelligble one and the decoded one), and then re-export
and open the exported file in Edit, you see this quite
clearly.

As the e-mail headers will include something like
Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64,
Pluto base64-encodes the readable HTML, so it is not
recognisable as such in Edit. But since the lines are of an
appropriate length, Pluto can read it OK.

-- 
Russell
http://www.russell-hafter-holidays.co.uk
Russell Hafter Holidays         E-mail to enquiries at our domain
Need a hotel? <http://www.hrs.com/?client=en__blue&customerId=416873103>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3292

In article <52505e1f8ariscos@mdharding.org.uk>, M Harding
<riscos@mdharding.org.uk> wrote:
> Can I get some advice in diagnosing a problem with the
> BBC iPlayer complaints department please?

> Using Firefox on WindowsXP I filled in their form asking
> when a programme might be repeated since it was not on
> the iPlayer. 

> I received an email response but this was unreadable in
> Pluto: the body of the email was blank, and there was an
> HTML attachment of computerese gibberish, e.g.
> PFNQQU4+PEZPTlQgZ  etc. It occurred to me to send the
> HTML attachment over to the W-XP side and I tried to read
> it in Firefox there - but it still displayed the same
> computerese.

It will be a base 64 encoded e-mail.

Anyone know what the point of this?

See <5110271021see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> for the
last time (30 April 2010) I wrote about how to deal with
these.

-- 
Russell
http://www.russell-hafter-holidays.co.uk
Russell Hafter Holidays         E-mail to enquiries at our domain
Need a hotel? <http://www.hrs.com/?client=en__blue&customerId=416873103>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3300

In article <52505e1f8ariscos@mdharding.org.uk>,
   M Harding <riscos@mdharding.org.uk> wrote:
[Snippy]
> I received an email response but this was unreadable in Pluto: the
> body of the email was blank, and there was an HTML attachment of
> computerese gibberish, e.g. PFNQQU4+PEZPTlQgZ  etc. 
> It occurred to me to send the HTML attachment over to the W-XP side
> and I tried to read it in Firefox there - but it still displayed the
> same computerese.

> I'm using SA-VRPC (RO 4.02) on a WindowsXP computer, with Netfetch and
> Pluto.

[Snippy]

Michael, Alan's detail is the simplest way to get the job done, so try
that as first choice.

As you are already on a PC there's another possibility.
Export from Pluto as Alan notes, give it an /eml suffix, transport to the
PC side and drop on the Messenger Pro Inbox window.

Firefox is a Browser, not a mail/news client app like Pluto, Messenger Pro
Thunderbird etc.

Dave

-- 

Dave Triffid

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3302

In article <5250877b6adave@triffid.co.uk>, Dave Symes
<dave@triffid.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <52505e1f8ariscos@mdharding.org.uk>, M Harding
> <riscos@mdharding.org.uk> wrote: [Snippy]
> > I received an email response but this was unreadable in
> > Pluto: the body of the email was blank, and there was
> > an HTML attachment of computerese gibberish, e.g.
> > PFNQQU4+PEZPTlQgZ  etc. It occurred to me to send the
> > HTML attachment over to the W-XP side and I tried to
> > read it in Firefox there - but it still displayed the
> > same computerese.

> > I'm using SA-VRPC (RO 4.02) on a WindowsXP computer,
> > with Netfetch and Pluto.

> [Snippy]

> Michael, Alan's detail is the simplest way to get the job
> done, so try that as first choice.

> As you are already on a PC there's another possibility.
> Export from Pluto as Alan notes, give it an /eml suffix,
> transport to the PC side and drop on the Messenger Pro
> Inbox window.

> Firefox is a Browser, not a mail/news client app like
> Pluto, Messenger Pro Thunderbird etc.

The confusion arises because when you get a plain HTML only
e-mail in Pluto, one (certainly I) *does* read it using a
browser.

This, though, is encoded HTML, but Pluto still displays it
as an HTML attachment.

And one must use the Export option from the menu over the
list of e-mails in the box. You must send the whole, raw
e-mail to Attacher, not just the encoded HTML attachment.

-- 
Russell
http://www.russell-hafter-holidays.co.uk
Russell Hafter Holidays         E-mail to enquiries at our domain
Need a hotel? <http://www.hrs.com/?client=en__blue&customerId=416873103>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3305

In article <52508ca0a1see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid>,
   Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> wrote:
> In article <5250877b6adave@triffid.co.uk>, Dave Symes
> <dave@triffid.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <52505e1f8ariscos@mdharding.org.uk>, M Harding
> > <riscos@mdharding.org.uk> wrote: [Snippy]
> > > I received an email response but this was unreadable in
> > > Pluto: the body of the email was blank, and there was
> > > an HTML attachment of computerese gibberish [ . . ]

> > [Snippy]

> > Michael, Alan's detail is the simplest way to get the job
> > done, so try that as first choice.

Yes Alan's method (thanks, Alan) worked.

> > Firefox is a Browser, not a mail/news client app like
> > Pluto, Messenger Pro Thunderbird etc.

> The confusion arises because when you get a plain HTML only
> e-mail in Pluto, one (certainly I) *does* read it using a
> browser.

Me - confused?   8-)  'Twas ever thus.

> This, though, is encoded HTML, but Pluto still displays it
> as an HTML attachment.

> And one must use the Export option from the menu over the
> list of e-mails in the box. You must send the whole, raw
> e-mail to Attacher, not just the encoded HTML attachment.

Thanks for that. I recall having read about this problem, but you
don't normally take in the theory until the issue happens to hit
personally.

BTW having read the emails, I notice that BBC English now not only
includes "action the issue" but they've even invented  a new version
of the past tense of the verb "to broadcast": it's "we broadcasted".
Who said that texting was shrinking the length of words?  8-)    

+ In memoriam Lord Reith.

Michael Harding
Rev. Preb. M.D. Harding   riscos@mdharding.org.uk

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3306

In article <5250df9be0riscos@mdharding.org.uk>, M Harding
<riscos@mdharding.org.uk> wrote:

> they've even invented  a new version of the past tense of
> the verb "to broadcast": it's "we broadcasted"

IMHO that is a difficult one.

Etymologically you are, of course, correct in that both past
tense and past participle of 'cast' are 'cast'.

However, one could make the case that ignoring the etymology
and treating 'broadcast' as a completely new verb and making
it a weak verb is fully justified in terms of clarity.

It *is* without any doubt clearer to write 'we broadcast'
only in the simple present tense, and 'we broadcasted' or
'we have broadcasted' for past and perfect.

I find that while 'I casted' certainly grates, 'I
broadcasted' does not.

FWIW

-- 
Russell
http://www.russell-hafter-holidays.co.uk
Russell Hafter Holidays         E-mail to enquiries at our domain
Need a hotel? <http://www.hrs.com/?client=en__blue&customerId=416873103>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3307

In article <5250e4f01esee.sig@walkingingermany.invalid>,
   Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> wrote:
> In article <5250df9be0riscos@mdharding.org.uk>, M Harding
> <riscos@mdharding.org.uk> wrote:

> > they've even invented  a new version of the past tense of
> > the verb "to broadcast": it's "we broadcasted"

> IMHO that is a difficult one.

> Etymologically you are, of course, correct in that both past
> tense and past participle of 'cast' are 'cast'.

> However, one could make the case that ignoring the etymology
> and treating 'broadcast' as a completely new verb and making
> it a weak verb is fully justified in terms of clarity.

> It *is* without any doubt clearer to write 'we broadcast'
> only in the simple present tense, and 'we broadcasted' or
> 'we have broadcasted' for past and perfect.

> I find that while 'I casted' certainly grates, 'I
> broadcasted' does not.

> FWIW

Oh dear! Then you'd have to allow similar forms such as "he was
typecasted as..." or "the weather was forecasted to be...". Pluto
accepts the latter while beeping at the former; and, ironically, it
accepts 'broadcasted'.

-- 
Dev

Om Namah Shivaya | Om Bhaganetrabhitre namaha

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3335

In article <5250f00d80spam-addy@no.spam.invalid>,
   Dev <spam-addy@no.spam.invalid> wrote:
> Oh dear! Then you'd have to allow similar forms such as "he was
> typecasted as..." or "the weather was forecasted to be...". Pluto
> accepts the latter while beeping at the former; and, ironically, it
> accepts 'broadcasted'.

As it should. Broadcasted is perfectly legitimate, if now rarely used -
indeed it appears to predate 'broadcast'.

R.

-- 

  Richard Travers 
  richtnews@uwclub.net
  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3336

In article <525267a467richtnews@uwclub.net>,
   Richard Travers <richtnews@uwclub.net> wrote:

> In article <5250f00d80spam-addy@no.spam.invalid>, Dev
> <spam-addy@no.spam.invalid> wrote:

> > Oh dear! Then you'd have to allow similar forms such as
> > "he was typecasted as..." or "the weather was forecasted
> > to be...". Pluto accepts the latter while beeping at the
> > former; and, ironically, it accepts 'broadcasted'.

> As it should. Broadcasted is perfectly legitimate, if now
> rarely used - indeed it appears to predate 'broadcast'.

I finally dug out my OED...

It quotes 'cast' as dating from at least the 13 century, but
broadcast only from 17 century - refering to a method of
sewing seed or spreading guano...

It also gives 'casted' as the past participle in common use
from the 14 to the 17 centuries.

Make of it what you will.

Personally I have no problem with any of 'broadcasted',
'typecasted' or 'forecasted'. Just not 'casted'.

-- 
Russell
http://www.russell-hafter-holidays.co.uk
Russell Hafter Holidays         E-mail to enquiries at our domain
Need a hotel? <http://www.hrs.com/?client=en__blue&customerId=416873103>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3315

In article <5250df9be0riscos@mdharding.org.uk>,
   M Harding <riscos@mdharding.org.uk> wrote:
> In article <52508ca0a1see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid>,
>    Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <5250877b6adave@triffid.co.uk>, Dave Symes
> > <dave@triffid.co.uk> wrote:
> > > In article <52505e1f8ariscos@mdharding.org.uk>, M Harding
> > > <riscos@mdharding.org.uk> wrote: [Snippy]
> > > > I received an email response but this was unreadable in
> > > > Pluto: the body of the email was blank, and there was
> > > > an HTML attachment of computerese gibberish [ . . ]

> > > [Snippy]

> > > Michael, Alan's detail is the simplest way to get the job
> > > done, so try that as first choice.

> Yes Alan's method (thanks, Alan) worked.

<snip>

My apologies in getting to this thread a bit late.  I've had the
same problem as Michael only his attachments appear to have
remained attached to the email whereas the ones I receive are not
attached but the gibberish appears in the body of the email after
any email text.
How do I recover it as an attachment?   


> > This, though, is encoded HTML, but Pluto still displays it
> > as an HTML attachment.

> > And one must use the Export option from the menu over the
> > list of e-mails in the box. You must send the whole, raw
> > e-mail to Attacher, not just the encoded HTML attachment.

<snip>

TIA
Regards
Ken Wright

-- 
    _                     _________________________________________
   / \._._ |_  _     _  /'       Orpheus Internet Services
   \_/| |_)| |(/_|_|_> /          'Internet for Everyone'
_______ | ___________./       http://www.orpheusinternet.co.uk

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3317

In article <52519842eckcwright@ormail.co.uk>,
   Ken Wright <kcwright@ormail.co.uk> wrote:

[snip]

> not
> attached but the gibberish appears in the body of the email after
> any email text.
> How do I recover it as an attachment?   

From the box's window, try export the original message and drag to
!Attacher. Re-type any extracted file as HTML and read it in a browser.

-- 
Tim Hill of timil.com . . .
* supports TFT & shares in cheaper ethical telecoms http://tjrh.eu/phone
* has a genuine & spam-proof address for Usenet http://www.invalid.org.uk/
* accepts incoming email: substitute postmaster@ for tim@

... "Love comforteth like sunshine after rain" Venus & Adonis

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3328

In article <52519be163tim@invalid.org.uk>,
   Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
> In article <52519842eckcwright@ormail.co.uk>,
>    Ken Wright <kcwright@ormail.co.uk> wrote:

> [snip]

> > not attached but the gibberish appears in the body of the email
> > after any email text. How do I recover it as an attachment?   

> From the box's window, try export the original message and drag
> to !Attacher. Re-type any extracted file as HTML and read it in a
> browser.

Thanks for reply Tim.  I did try that previously with no joy.  I'm
using Pluto on VRPC on a RisCube with Xp and Pluto does seem to 
have a particular problem with this type of attachment.
Regards
Ken

-- 
    _                     _________________________________________
   / \._._ |_  _     _  /'       Orpheus Internet Services
   \_/| |_)| |(/_|_|_> /          'Internet for Everyone'
_______ | ___________./       http://www.orpheusinternet.co.uk

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3321

In article <52519842eckcwright@ormail.co.uk>, Ken Wright
<kcwright@ormail.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <5250df9be0riscos@mdharding.org.uk>, M Harding
>    <riscos@mdharding.org.uk> wrote:

> > In article
> >    <52508ca0a1see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid>,
> >    Russell Hafter News
> >    <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> wrote:

> > > In article <5250877b6adave@triffid.co.uk>, Dave Symes
> > > <dave@triffid.co.uk> wrote:

> > > > In article <52505e1f8ariscos@mdharding.org.uk>, M
> > > > Harding <riscos@mdharding.org.uk> wrote:

> > > > [Snippy]

> > > > > I received an email response but this was
> > > > > unreadable in Pluto: the body of the email was
> > > > > blank, and there was an HTML attachment of
> > > > > computerese gibberish [ . . ]

> > > > [Snippy]

> > > > Michael, Alan's detail is the simplest way to get
> > > > the job done, so try that as first choice.

> > Yes Alan's method (thanks, Alan) worked.

> <snip>

> My apologies in getting to this thread a bit late.  I've
> had the same problem as Michael only his attachments
> appear to have remained attached to the email whereas the
> ones I receive are not attached but the gibberish appears
> in the body of the email after any email text. How do I
> recover it as an attachment?   

In my experience these are never worth recovering anyway.

I increasingly get e-mails which, although they do contain a
plain text version, also contain an HTML version which
includes a corporate logo and/or the senders signature in
digitised form.

Sometimes these are referred to in the e-mail by an absolute
link eg <http://www.corporateserver.com/logo.png>, but more
often they are sent as part of the e-mail, usually as a
JPEG. E-mail software on other platforms displays the HTML
version of the message, inserting the graphics where
required.

RISC OS e-mail software just displays the actual message,
usually all that you want or need to know, and, if possible,
everything else as attachments.

However, Pluto, at least, appears to have problems at times
with these sorts of e-mails.

Certain businesses, who shall be nameless, send out e-mail
that in Pluto appears as a brief covering mesage in plain
text, followed by a MIME boundary, followed by the same
covering message in HTML format (but which goes on for ever
because 99% of it is between the <HEAD> and </HEAD> tags).
This may then be followed by gibberish, but if you look at
the MIME boundary, then you can see that it is a JPEG in
base64 form, and will almost always turn out to be a logo or
scanned signature.

Fortunately, the document that was actually sent - probaly
as a PDF, still appears as a proper attachment and can be
read in the usual way.

On 2 March last year, Matthew Phillips wrote a very detailed
and clear description
<1911e2ad51.Matthew@sinenomine.freeserve.co.uk> of how
attachments work.

He explained that attachments can be nested. I suspect,
though this is just gut feeling and I have done nothing to
test it, that when Pluto gets an e-mail made up as follows,
using Matthew's description

1) a text/plain e-mail message
2) an image/jpeg picture
3) an image/gif graphic
4) an application/pdf PDF document,

then all is fine.

But when attachments are nested, as Matthew described:

1) a text/plain e-mail message
2) a multipart/mixed structure, containing
2a) the HTML version of the message
2b)
2c)
2d) etc. the JPEGs, GIFs etc to illustrate the HTML version.

I suspect that Pluto gets its knickers in a complete twist,
with parts of the e-mail appearing in the text window and
parts as attachments.

-- 
Russell
http://www.russell-hafter-holidays.co.uk
Russell Hafter Holidays         E-mail to enquiries at our domain
Need a hotel? <http://www.hrs.com/?client=en__blue&customerId=416873103>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3329

In article <5251e8d819see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid>,
   Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> wrote:
> In article <52519842eckcwright@ormail.co.uk>, Ken Wright
> <kcwright@ormail.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <5250df9be0riscos@mdharding.org.uk>, M Harding
> >    <riscos@mdharding.org.uk> wrote:

> > > In article
> > >    <52508ca0a1see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid>,
> > >    Russell Hafter News
> > >    <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> wrote:

> > > > In article <5250877b6adave@triffid.co.uk>, Dave Symes
> > > > <dave@triffid.co.uk> wrote:

> > > > > In article <52505e1f8ariscos@mdharding.org.uk>, M
> > > > > Harding <riscos@mdharding.org.uk> wrote:

> > > > > [Snippy]

> > > > > > I received an email response but this was
> > > > > > unreadable in Pluto: the body of the email was
> > > > > > blank, and there was an HTML attachment of
> > > > > > computerese gibberish [ . . ]

> > > > > [Snippy]

> > > > > Michael, Alan's detail is the simplest way to get
> > > > > the job done, so try that as first choice.

> > > Yes Alan's method (thanks, Alan) worked.

> > <snip>

> > My apologies in getting to this thread a bit late.  I've
> > had the same problem as Michael only his attachments
> > appear to have remained attached to the email whereas the
> > ones I receive are not attached but the gibberish appears
> > in the body of the email after any email text. How do I
> > recover it as an attachment?   

> In my experience these are never worth recovering anyway.

> I increasingly get e-mails which, although they do contain a
> plain text version, also contain an HTML version which
> includes a corporate logo and/or the senders signature in
> digitised form.

> Sometimes these are referred to in the e-mail by an absolute
> link eg <http://www.corporateserver.com/logo.png>, but more
> often they are sent as part of the e-mail, usually as a
> JPEG. E-mail software on other platforms displays the HTML
> version of the message, inserting the graphics where
> required.

Thanks, Russell, for your input.  I know that there are definitely
no graphics in these email attachments, only text.

> RISC OS e-mail software just displays the actual message,
> usually all that you want or need to know, and, if possible,
> everything else as attachments.

> However, Pluto, at least, appears to have problems at times
> with these sorts of e-mails.

It appears so.

<snip>


> On 2 March last year, Matthew Phillips wrote a very detailed
> and clear description
> <1911e2ad51.Matthew@sinenomine.freeserve.co.uk> of how
> attachments work.

I'll have a look at that and see if I can glean some info...

> He explained that attachments can be nested. I suspect,
> though this is just gut feeling and I have done nothing to
> test it, that when Pluto gets an e-mail made up as follows,
> using Matthew's description

> 1) a text/plain e-mail message
> 2) an image/jpeg picture
> 3) an image/gif graphic
> 4) an application/pdf PDF document,

> then all is fine.

> But when attachments are nested, as Matthew described:

> 1) a text/plain e-mail message
> 2) a multipart/mixed structure, containing
> 2a) the HTML version of the message
> 2b)
> 2c)
> 2d) etc. the JPEGs, GIFs etc to illustrate the HTML version.

All possible except 2d.

> I suspect that Pluto gets its knickers in a complete twist,
> with parts of the e-mail appearing in the text window and
> parts as attachments.

Many thanks once more.
Ken

-- 
    _                     _________________________________________
   / \._._ |_  _     _  /'       Orpheus Internet Services
   \_/| |_)| |(/_|_|_> /          'Internet for Everyone'
_______ | ___________./       http://www.orpheusinternet.co.uk

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3332

On 15/01/2012 22:21, Ken Wright wrote:

>> In my experience these are never worth recovering anyway.
[...]
> Thanks, Russell, for your input.  I know that there are definitely
> no graphics in these email attachments, only text.

Some smartphones (mine included) send messages in Base64 format as a 
matter of course; however there should also be a plaintext version, or 
otherwise the message is gibberish to anybody that doesn't have a 
suitably equipped email client.

This, I presume, is progress.


I believe that in some circumstances (kanji in messages?) the Android 
mail software sends out *only* the encoded part, as the message body, 
with no text equivalent. I guess they've not heard of the =XX way of 
MIME encoding? Either way, it seems to be a matter of style over 
substance. Never mind that poor JGHarston can't read it on his Beeb, you 
can use COLOURS dammit! Yeah... useful.


Best wishes,

Rick.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3334

In article
<4f13bd37$0$2541$ba4acef3@reader.news.orange.fr>, Rick
Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 15/01/2012 22:21, Ken Wright wrote:

> >> In my experience these are never worth recovering
> >> anyway.
> [...]
> > Thanks, Russell, for your input.  I know that there are
> > definitely no graphics in these email attachments, only
> > text.

> Some smartphones (mine included) send messages in Base64
> format as a matter of course; however there should also
> be a plaintext version, or otherwise the message is
> gibberish to anybody that doesn't have a suitably
> equipped email client.

As I already observed, 'smart'phones are really bad at this.
Fortunately the phone I use for e-mail is a now ancient (ie
<6 years old) Nokia 9300i which has seriously bad e-mail
software in all sorts of ways, but it does allow you the
choice of sending just plain text, or text + HYML, or just
HTML. And the only things it base64-encodes are documents
that I have attached myself.

> This, I presume, is progress.

;-)

> I believe that in some circumstances (kanji in messages?)
> the Android mail software sends out *only* the encoded
> part, as the message body, with no text equivalent. I
> guess they've not heard of the =XX way of MIME encoding?
> Either way, it seems to be a matter of style over
> substance. Never mind that poor JGHarston can't read it
> on his Beeb, you can use COLOURS dammit! Yeah... useful.

Yes - sometimes I get cutsomers who have managed to
interleave their answers to a number of questions I have
raised with them (Hooray), but explain at the top that their
answers are in red to help them stand out...

Trying to explain to people the '>' is what automatically
gives the colours gts nowhere.

-- 
Russell
http://www.russell-hafter-holidays.co.uk
Russell Hafter Holidays         E-mail to enquiries at our domain
Need a hotel? <http://www.hrs.com/?client=en__blue&customerId=416873103>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.acorn.misc

csiph-web