[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Daft Internet Stuff [Re: Returning from "vacation". (MIA?)]

On Sun, May 18, 2003 at 03:25:42PM +0100, Matt Ryan wrote:
> Neil McGovern wrote:
> > These are all valid points, however, I still don't want to read HTML
> > e-mail in mutt.
> You are figting a losing battle.

Unfortunatly, this may be so, but the latest trend I personally have
seen is away from HTML e-mail.

> then you are highly unlikely to get them to change it. 

I disagree. Once I've explained why I don't like HTML e-mail, people
normally see 'my side' and switch.

> Some devices (cable TV email?) may not even be able to
> turn it off. Whatever the arguements are for running a lean mean email
> client its probably going to have to cope with HTML email or you are going
> to have to limit who you interact with!

I don't have a problem with those who CAN'T send in plain-text. I just
prefer not to receive HTML e-mail.

> Yes, but then if the majority of clients can send/recive HTML email, who has
> the compatibility problem?

The same train of thought will bring down W3C and HTML guidelines, and
in fact, the principal that gcc/debian/java/... works on all platforms.
The majority of people use MS Windows. Thus, why should linux be

On the whole bandwidth issue, I know it's been flogged to death but
here's a prime example:
An ex-lecturer (one which was, ironically, meant to be teaching good
programming techniques) sent us a Microsoft Word HTML formatted 
*one-line* e-mail that totaled over 100k.
Following that trend, and using a 56k dial-up, do you really want to
spend your time downloading a message that says "Thanks for your
message" for 3 minutes?

16 Channels in mode 4
I disclaim everything I can under English law.
gpg key - http://www.halon.org.uk/pubkey.txt ; the.earth.li 8DEC67C5

Reply to: