Vernon Schryver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > There would be still absolutely no excuse for HTML. Even if the > ietf-announce traffic were safe, by sending HTML you are strongly > encouraging people to misuse misdesigned browswers as their MUAs and so > causing them to be vulnerable to bad traffic from other sources.
I can read HTML mail just fine and I'm not using a browser as my MUA. It is, however, unnecessarily slow since it has to render. > Yes, I'm wondering how many people complaining about ietf-announce > actually subscribe to it, or would subscribe to it in any case. I'm subscribed to ietf-announce. I would prefer that the I-D traffic go to a separate mailing list. I've considered splitting it out that way myself in the past, since generally I'm only interested in the non-I-D traffic (which includes RFCs, last calls, meeting announcements, working group formation notices, and status notifications, all of which I am interested in reading). -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
