Re: [Evolution] Reply "Outlook Style"

[Hans van der Merwe <hvdmerwe sunspace co za>]

On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 09:44 -0400, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 09:20 +0200, Hans van der Merwe wrote:
> > Now, some have also asked me why I send mail in plain text.
> > And.....why do I? HTML email is a "standard" (its got a RFC and
> > everything), so why not send in HTML? Silly formatting and colour
> > coding aside.
> 
> Because:
> 


Sorry all this is getting OT, my last response, promise.



>      1. Plain text is also a standard

Yes, and


>      2. You almost never need the silly formatting and colour coding

Unless when it is required - like pointing out reply chunks etc



>      3. Everyone's ideas of appropriate formatting (e.g. fonts) and
>         colours tend to vary a lot, so messages are in my experience
>         visually noisy and actually *harder* to read than plain text.

Same can be said for any other way of communication.  I can 
foRmat
                           This                        			also    
        sEmi
 unreadablE

Proper programs will solve this.
And yes, Outlook is not one of them.



>      4. HTML mail can have embedded URLs and represent a security
>         problem

Only if the reader allow it.
Again, dont consider Outlook.


>      5. Using HTML increases the size of messages, which affects a)
>         storage space and b) bandwidth efficiency.
> 

True, but this is true for all other web traffic - couple of extra tags
will surely not break the network.  Tagging may even help with QoS.


My 2c worth

ps sorry for the inline, I know its a mailing list no no




E-Mail disclaimer:
http://www.sunspace.co.za/emaildisclaimer.htm