On Mon, 7 Jul 2008, A. Pagaltzis wrote: > * Yoz Grahame <y...@yoz.com> [2008-07-07 03:30]: > > There are quite a few reasons why HTML mail is a bad thing. > > Most of them have been irrelevant for at least the past 5 > > years, doubly so for people who just want to send formatted > > mail around internally. > > Surely that means UTF-8 plaintext mail’s fine now also? > > Regards, > -- > Αριστοτέλης Παγκαλτζής // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
Sure, why not? I didn't realize before this (ridiculously overlong, but par for the list of late) thread that anyone still cares about the HTML vs ASCII email divide. Really, if you prefer plain text, then you should be using something like Pine/Alpine or Mutt, and Pine for one has supported HTML mail for around a decade now. So where's the problem? That a 100 word message that used to take 2k is now 40k? Who cares? That tactless people like to use pink 48pt Comic Sans? So what? Okay, fine, so you use Outlook / Thunderbird / Apple Mail / Donkeys, and the pink 48pt Comic Sans makes your eyes bleed. But how often does that actually happen? Maybe some people have a slightly hamfisted approach to formatting their thoughts, but in my experience, people *that* bad are rare, and with such people, if it isn't going to be the email, then it's going to be other things they do that you're confronted with (printouts on the company bulletin board and the like). Earle couldn't be any more correct about this. HTML mail, who cares? -- Chris Devers
