Kent West wrote: > Advantages of text only: > -------------------------------- > Text takes less bandwidth than HTML. Vastly less, considering that HTML mail tends to use attachments for embedded images. > Text is readable on any system; HTML may not be (ie. mutt, etc). Actually, mutt is perfectly capable of displaying HTML mail by converting it to text, given suitable MIME configuration. > other? Does the phrase "email virus" mean anything to you? The insecurities of products like Microsoft Outhouse are directly related to using a web browser engine to display email. > There are indeed good reasons for using plain text. However, email is > for conveying information, and it seems to me that more info can be > conveyed with HTML than with text. I don't remember ever receiving an HTML email that actually benefited from being in HTML, so in practice, I disagree. > Bandwidth issues and filesize issues > are less of an issue today than five years ago (realizing that some > parts of the world still live in 1200baud-and-pay-by-the-minute Land). Which is an important issue, especially for a public mailing list. We have subscribers who pay by the kilobyte for incoming data, or pay by the minute for dialup service. Keeping the bandwidth down is still important. If you have something to say that will really benefit from HTML, set up your own web page somewhere and mail out the URL. Your mail will be very compact, and only those who are interested need to download the page. Craig
Attachment:
pgpI3YTrRKM_P.pgp
Description: PGP signature