Re: debian on icebook (it can be done)
On Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 06:06:11PM -0500, Charles Sebold wrote:
> On 18 Tammuz 5761, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> > I really don't understand what the problem with html mail. It was a
> > pain until I figured out how to get mutt to use links or lynx to
> > output it as text... but now everything is peachy.
>
> I can view these in similar ways, but that isn't the point.
>
> > If they send pictures you have Xwindows and a bunch of viewers...
> > executables are a pain, but you chose non-windows for a reason,
> > right?
>
> But this isn't sending pictures (which would probably be offtopic for
> this list anyway), this is sending text, with no added markup
> whatsoever most of the time. If you're sending text, why not send
> text/plain? Then you guarantee the maximum audience, you aren't
> putting people at the mercy of their varied and largely incompatible
> browsers (what if I send you something that is IE5 only? Or Mozilla
> only? That would be annoying in Lynx, I should think), you aren't
> wasting bandwidth on multiple-encoding and a ton of HTML tags, you
> aren't wasting everybody's hard drive space, and you are "keeping it
> simple, stupid" (the stupid is not aimed at you or him, it's just a
> saying). Besides, sometimes you don't have X11. I use my system as
> much from terminals as I do at the console. I'm doing this in a tty
> even as we speak.
I meant pictures in a more general since, not in this or other
similar lists, so you can just disregard. If the server really cared
about bandwidth and disk
space, they would convert html to text at that point. That is where
you would get the most benefit...
OK, so text/plain is easier on your mail reader. My point is that you
shouldn't discriminate based on a completely *open* file format. Once
you make the necessary changes to mutt or whatever text email client
you choose to use, you can forget that it is even html.
>
> > Actually, I think we should be sending rtf mail everywhere. It's an
> > open standard, it hasn't been extended in a long time, and it has
> > more features than html.
>
> If we're going to go that far, why not LaTeX? Or PostScript? Or
> better yet, PDF? There you get all the benefits of HTML etc. and all
> the drawbacks of Yet Another Non-Plaintext format.
>
> RTF, for most people, has to be compiled from source or a GUI, as does
> PostScript or PDF. What a hassle.
>
I think this will happen eventually, and probably already is in some
cases. Look at it another way, which is better? .doc or .pdf or .rtf
or etc? I'd choose pdf or rtf. It really depends on your requirements.
> (Not trying to start a fight, just explaining my position. And I note
> that Ethan Benson just went to the trouble of "plonk"-ing the OP. If
> you are sending to this list in a format which won't be read by the
> most avid and helpful poster, maybe it's time to reconsider your
> format.)
If we're going to go to the extreme of disregarding htmlized posts,
then we might as well just reject then from being sent to the list.
To summarize, if your text (and I do read my mail via mutt with ssh
often) email client can read the format, and present it to you without
hassle, why reject it?
The pdf and rtf tools can probably distill those formats into text
also, and if so that should be acceptable.
Really, if we want to have a policy, it should be set on the server
and left to that. This attitude that some of us have doesn't help
anyone, especially if the response is silence.
Mike
Reply to: