Re: [RC] [RC] This is what comes through On Ridecamp DIGEST whenyou don't Trim Your Messages! - Diane Trefethen
I'm no "pc guru" but I think a more important point than whether or not you actually
SEE all the code is that each email
message arrives at your computer IN THAT FORM. It is called the
SOURCE. I use Mozilla Thunderbird and to
view an email's Source Code, you can highlight the email in your
mailbox and then hit "Ctrl U". A new window will open and you can see
the entire Source Code for that email, including all headers. In
Outlook Express, you highlight the email, right click, click on
"Properties", select "Details", click on "Message Source", and then
click on the Maximize box in
the upper right-hand corner of the "Maximize" screen.
Another consideration is the encoding you use to send your emails. I
use Western (ISO-8859-1). Either Chris doesn't OR Ridecamp itself is
responsible for re-encoding the emails. Western (ISO-8859-1) is very
efficient at utilizing bandwidth. [BTW, I am not picking on Chris -
it's just that the email was the biggest one I still had on my
computer]. The
differences, though incomplete, are:
Chris' email of 11-10-2005, as it arrived at my emailbox, is 16KB and
the Source Code for the message, without headers, is about 358 lines.
The same email sent by
me directly TO me in Western (ISO-8859-1) is still about 358 lines but
only 4kb. The same email sent in Western (ISO-8859-1) and cut down to
Chris' message plus the script for Jim's email containing just the
first sentence is 2kb and about 107 lines. I can't replicate a cut
down email using Chris' encoding nor did I want to garbage up Ridecamp
with a bunch of test messages. Nevertheless, you can see that the
original email needs about 8X as much bandwidth as the cut down version
using Western (ISO-8859-1). IF Ridecamp itself is responsible for the
huge bandwidth overhead, then the full version uses only 2X the
bandwidth of the cut down email. Still, not including all the extra
verbiage DOES save about 50% in bandwidth.
Oh... and to make this Endurance related, when you show for BC,
wouldn't you rather have used 50% less horse! :)
PS: Because I am really sending this email to Ridecamp, I will also
send it to myself to see if there is a difference in the amount of
bandwidth consumed.
Mary Ann Spencer wrote:
It is related to whether or not your email is using html format.
Perhaps a pc guru can explain it better. But there are settings in
your browser/email to correct it.
...
Hmmm. I used to get the digest and all the tags didn't come through
like
that. It did get tedious when multiple posts got strung together,
but not
with all the code like yours. Does anyone know if there is a
difference in
email clients that allows that to be turned off by the recipient?
Does all
that garbage show up in the original posts or only the copies?
