[NTLUG:Discuss] PlainText Vs HTML

[JM5379@sbcglobal.net]

i agree with dropping the "enhancements"; i often (such as now)
use a web-based portal to read my email from work and it does not
handle the rfc attachments at all, merely shows they exist.

k.i.s.s. is still a marvellously wonderful concept.


--- Original Message ---
From: MadHat <madhat at unspecific.com>
To: NTLUG-Discuss <discuss at ntlug.org>
Subject: [NTLUG:Discuss] PlainText Vs HTML

>
>So a question about the list....
>
>Does anyone (besides me) care about HTML mail on the list?
>
>The old argument was that most readers didn't support it.  Now
many do,
>including the one I use.  And now, the messages are sent, on
average, as
>a multipart message, MIME encoded, so even if your client doesn't
>support the HTML, it _should_ show the plain text version.  Now with
>that comes larger messages and in some cases attachments. I
don't like
>either, but I am a purest and considered to be an 'Old Timer' by
>many...  Basically my stance on lists has always been no
attachments and
>no HTML/RTF and keep mail as small as possible to mailing lists,
since
>not everyone is broadband.  Some of us pay for bandwidth.  There is
>still the issue of embedded images and javascript and such, but
should
>that be left up to the end user to deal with?
>
>I am curious how the denizens of this list feel.  We had the
discussion
>before about basic rules, and I was going to put something up for
>reference.  I would like to ask people (off list) to turn off
HTML, but
>if no one else cares, I am just being an ass.
>
>So...  feedback?
>
>
>-- 
>MadHat at Unspecific.com
>"Anyone who understands Linux/Unix, really understands the universe.
> Anyone who understands Windows, really understands Windows."
>          - Richard Thieme, DefCon 10, 2002 
>
>_______________________________________________
>https://ntlug.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss