On 11/14/03 8:37 PM, "Bruce Klutchko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is my reply in plain text. See the previous email for HTML. Then > compare sizes, visual quality, etc.
HTML took 3K. Plain text took 2k. Therefore, I saved 1K by using plain text. I'm not so sure that the difference would be as big percentage-wise if the text were much longer - we might see 1-2K difference in a longer email. So what is the problem with HTML? It doesn't seem to take any longer to open, either. I know that SPAM is a different kettle of fish - it usually consists of little text and reaches out to its mother ship to alert the alien slime that you are reading it. That does take time. Also about SPAM, does anybody know anyone who admits to buying from spammers? Obviously, somebody buys, or spammers would be out of business. You can find some really great deals thru spam, of course. Send then your debit card to show them you are trustworthy, and they'll send you a big surprise. -- Bruce ____________________________________________________ B R U C E K. klutch-at-erols.com -- To unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> archives: <http://www.mail-archive.com/entourage-talk%40lists.letterrip.com/> old-archive: <http://www.mail-archive.com/entourage-talk%40lists.boingo.com/>
