Re: mergeless in seattle
- From: "Peter Jamieson" <pjj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 18:17:28 +0100
<<
Does plaintext usually have better results?
I would say that in my imited experience, HTML format reflects what's in
your mail merge main document better, but only of course if the recipient's
e-mail client can decode it. Most modern e-mailers can do that, but for
example I had good reason to continue using an e-mail client that could not
until fairly recently. One reason for that is that HTML mails are
intrinsically more likely to cause trouble, and I'm not the only person who
is not necessarily keen to receive them. Some people reject anything except
plain texts. But that's a "choice" issue rather than a technical one.
If I were doing a "legit" e-mail to the sort of numbers you are talking
about, I'd put what I wanted to say on a website and send a plain text
e-mail with a link to it. (Of course many people won't follow a link either,
but there's not a lot you can do about that except cover the same ground in
your text). If you're doing something like sending out a regular newsletter,
IMO it is probably beeter to start something like a Yahoo! group.
Just my 2c-worth
Peter Jamieson
"professor vector" <professorvector@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message news:A1D3EE46-7AA4-49E4-92C2-38AFC5D75E2C@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thanks Peter.
I believe it was HTML. Does plaintext usually have better results?
My default is Outlook.
Addressees use a variety of different services: Hotmail, Outlook, Gmail,
etc.
"Peter Jamieson" wrote:
what format e-mail did you send (HTML/plain text/attachment)?
which e-mail client is set up as your default (typically OL or OE) ?
which e-mail client software are your addressees using?
Q: Why didn't some people receive it?
It may have been blocked by various SPAM/junk mail traps, either by the
recipient's srrvice provider or the individual's e-mail client. e.g. some
people do not know that they need to inspect their junk mail folder from
time to time to ensure that "good" mail has not been placed there.
Is there a way to check that without
calling every person?
I don't think so, but surveying a sample may give you some clues to the
major reasons why the e-mails have goine missing.
Peter Jamieson
"professor vector" <professor vector@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message news:90EB0740-65F3-4D4E-9FFB-1809CEB293A4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I created a mail merge using Word 2003 & Office 2003. It included text,
a
solid color background, and a small image. I sent it to 98 people, but
many
of them did not actually receive this email and some received it with
garbled
text.
In my outlook sent folder, it shows that all 98 messages were sent.
There
were no bouncebacks from emails that didn't make it to the intended
destination.
Q: Why didn't some people receive it? Is there a way to check that
without
calling every person? Why was the email garbled in some instances? Is
there a
limit to the number of people I can send it to?
.
- References:
- Re: mergeless in seattle
- From: Peter Jamieson
- Re: mergeless in seattle
- Prev by Date: Re: Mail merge - Inserting custom barcode
- Next by Date: Re: Mail merge - Inserting custom barcode
- Previous by thread: Re: mergeless in seattle
- Next by thread: Re: Word merges every other record from and Excel data file.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
