From: G. Smith (gsmith at domain clubi.ie)
Date: Fri 14 May 1999 - 22:53:42 IST
I would say use what is appropiate and necessary, same as i do when i'm
writing web pages.
I always use the minimum possible technology to get the widest audience. Also
like me who dont check their mail every 5 mins, like i had 188 mails to
download this evening
and if they'd all been html my poor modem would still be pumping data at this
HTML mail is there if you need to use it.. where there is no other reasonable
by all means use it, but those situations are pretty rare. In fact if i had
or graphical to show people i'd put it on a webserver and post a URL link.
avail free everywhere so theres little excuse...
Paul Curtayne wrote:
> I for one strongly urge non-html mails, and I have a html-capable
> client as do most people. Many of us don't like it and have no wish to
> impose it on those using Pine etc.
> HTML mail is just irritating, it wastes bandwidth and it's completely
> unnecessary. Email started as plain text because it had to and it
> should stay as such to accommodate those on terminals, etc.
> This is particualarly relevant as most of us are in UN*X environments
> obviously. I used Elm for years (ASCII based) and it was much
> preferable to any Exchange bollox or similar.
> Tell me how html enhances any mails on this list please???
> Please accede the wishes of the group which are to use the lowest
> common denominator, i.e. plain text email. Let this matter be over.
> Paul (waiting for the flagrant abuse of bandwidth to begin, aka petty
> > Ah, jeez, I'm just fed up with people moaning about HTML mail.
> > Get a f**cking HTML capable e-mail client, or just delete
> > those HTML mails.
> Irish Linux Users' Group: ilug at domain linux.ie
> http://www.linux.ie/mailman/listinfo/ilug for (un)subscription information.
> List maintainer: listmaster at domain linux.ie
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Thu 06 Feb 2003 - 13:04:12 GMT