Re: OT: Flamebait: Text vs HTML email

[Richard Cobbe <cobbe@airmail.net>]

Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> writes:

> As in may other areas, 3" high bold, red fonts in emails can
> be directly attributable to PEBKAC, and that does not invalidate
> the *judicious* use of differing sizes, strokes and colors...

Granted.  But then, we've developed conventions for representing things
like size and weight (if not necessarily color) in plain ASCII:

    *boldface*
    /italics/
    _underline_
    HEAVY EMPHASIS or LARGER TEXT

Some mail readers (like Gnus) will even render the first three examples
above in boldface, italics, and underlined, stripping out the */_ stuff.

So, I guess it really boils down to a tradeoff: is the added expressiveness
of HTML worth reading all those mails from people who don't know how to use
it, the extra bandwidth required, and the security risks?

For me, the answer is no.  YMMV.

Richard
-- 
/"\
\ /  ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN
 X     AGAINST HTML MAIL AND NEWS
/ \


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org