[NTLUG:Discuss] PlainText Vs HTML

[Kevin E. Ivey]

MadHat wrote:
> 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.

<snipped>

Howdy,

Speed and bandwidth are not the issue.  Most folks are not concerned 
with the time it takes to load email; the issue is storage of large 
email messages and the resultant consumption of disk space.  Also, the 
time required to wade through the mess of HTML code in order to read the 
subject material causes a nuisance to the reader.

If the sender needs to refer to a web page or HTML-coded text, he should 
include a link to the site or location of the file.

There are plenty of folks out there (here) who use very lightweight mail 
readers and do not appreciate the HTML junk clogging up their inbox.

That's my $.02, anyway.

keVIn