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.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Evolution-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list
