On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 07:21:39AM +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Mi, 10 iul 19, 10:35:33, John Crawley wrote: > > On 2019-07-10 01:52, Greg Wooledge wrote: > > > > > > Please post only text, not HTML. If your email agent *cannot* do plain > > > text alone, at least configure it to send both plain text and HTML. Or, > > > y'know, get a better email agent. > > > > > Of course text messages are best (and what I use all the time) but surely a > > decent mail agent on the receiver's end will display that OK? On Thunderbird > > the OP was perfectly readable, and I had no idea it wasn't plain text till I > > checked the source. > > 1. As far as I know html e-mail is not standardized. > > This means that one's messages might look entirely different at the > receiver's end to what the sender intended. > > Computer output needed to diagnose problems is best sent unchanged. > Good luck in figuring out how to do this in a html message. > > Bonus points for e-mail clients trying to apply the same formatting > to the text part as well, making it less readable. > > 2. Some (many?) of us are reading messages on text-only clients. > > This may be for objective or subjective reasons, but it's probably > quite common here. > > Sure, there are ways to display html content, but see 1. > > 3. The html (part) can add significant overhead. > > It's not a major issue for the few messages usually currently sent to > the list, but if all posters would be using html it could have a > significant impact for readers on a data cap. 4. html viewers are known for being exploitable in many and surprising ways. Complexity gotta give, somewhere. Some folks (go figure!) don't like the idea of their mail user agents being exploitable. Cheers -- t
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature