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

Re: OT (and Flamebait): Top-Posting



On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 20:34:32 -0700
Andy Streich <andy@rushyglen.com> wrote:

> On Thursday 07 July 2005 07:45 pm, Stephen R Laniel wrote:
>
> > XML is chatty. But please: a few hundred extra megabytes
> >won't kill you. Not on hard disks that *start* at 40 gigs.
> >
> > The trouble is that everybody has different standards: some
> > like inline quotes, some like top-posting, and some like
> > bottom-posting. Rather than get exercised about others'
> > aesthetic choices, we should let our programs format our
> > mail the way we want.
> 
> Which is why I like KMail but I'm running it on a -- by today's
> standards --  low-powered system (PII, 400 Mhz, 128 ram, 6 GB hard
> drive).  If the  receivers of your mail are all on cool, modern, "big"
> systems then you've no  worries.  But KMail takes up nearly 30% of my
> available RAM, and I'm  searching for an alternative which likely
> won't have all it's capabilities.

Which is why I avoid KMail, Thunderbird and Evolution - even on my
1.8Ghz Athlon with 1GB of ram. Though I understand this is personal
preference and others have different preferences.

My current mail archive is 1.4GB. More than 90% of that e-mail (measured
in quantity, not size) is plain text from various e-mail lists I'm on.
Looking at the average piece of HTML mail, I see it's at least 3 times
the size of my average plain text e-mail. I think it's safe to assume
that any XML e-mail would also be at least 3 times the size, as we won't
be able to convince people to switch to a fancy format like that without
the extras such as font size and color. This means my mail archive would
be at least 4.2GB and easily more, instead of 1.4GB. Sorry, but that's
not just a difference of a "few hundred extra megabytes". 

Jacob



Reply to: