Re: KMail - forwarding issues
On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 10:49:24 +0000, Lisi wrote:
> On Sunday 31 October 2010 10:32:24 Camaleón wrote:
>> I don't see how a "lack" (meaning, "inability of choice") can be a good
>> feature ;-(
> There _is_ choice - there are loads of email clients and most of them
> have inline pictures.
I wouldn't call it "choice" when you are forced to drop an e-mail client
you like just because it lack one feature that it should be there (it's a
GUI e-mail client, it allows creating html e-mails, so... why not having
a full featured html editor that allows forwarding/replying while keeping
the original format?).
Besides, there are "thounsand" users wanting such feature.
> But to give you an example of when a lack is a highly to be desired
> Someone on the corner of the road I live in installed a very bright
> security light that was triggered by a motion sensor. The result was
> that as I approached the corner I was suddenly blinded by a very bright
> light shining straight into my eyes. It was fairly soon removed,
> presumably at the insistance of the Police. It was its _presence_ that
> was the bug and its absence a highly desirable feature.
I fail to see a direct relation between this example and Kmail html
issue, because you cannot go and turn off the light (you are not allowed
to do it so, but police) but you can still have plain text e-mail
forwarding _or_ html e-mail forwarding: here the choice is fully yours.
> So here. I regard the fact that my emails are blessedly HTML and
> picture free as a strength, and a highly desirable feature.
Having the option of using html e-mails does not mean you are forced to
go that path, it is up to you when using plain text e-mail or html. Now,
Kmail users do not have that choice.