On Fri, 2006-05-12 at 08:10 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
On Fri, 2006-05-12 at 13:43 +0200, Erik Slagter wrote:On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 00:01 -0500, Peter Van Lone wrote:- rant on - html email is only evil 5-7 years ago. Or, today for systems and users that measure storage and processor time, or bandwidth, in terms that were prevalent 5-7 years ago. Today ... html email is required. It is still de-riguer on lists, etc ... and I am used to it being "more polite". But html email is here to stay, as is using the email system as "knowledge management" not just sending/receiving small text messages. - rant off -You surely must be joking. The argument of more space/bandwidth has never been valid.You've never used a 28.8kbps modem to fetch email, have you? There was a time when uucp-at-9600bps was how much email was transmitted. HTML mail would have been a disaster.
Actually I did, be it fidonet mail at 1200/75 bps. OTOH ascii compresses very well and HTML mail even more...
Even now, high-volume lists like lkml would double or treble the needed bandwidth and disk space needed if everyone used html.
I doesn't have my preference as well, but it's not the most important reason for me.
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature