Nicolas Brouard:
>>And is it reasonable to allow messages to be blown up
>>to over 3 times their original size by the inclusion of html?
>
>3 X is not a shame. Structured documents make you think 2 X faster !
>(that's only provocative)
And incorrect. Or are you trying to tell me that the NY Times (black text on
white paper) would be more useful if it contained a bunch of funky
formatting in the body of each article? I think not. In fact, I KNOW not.
>>Not on any lists I run. I filter all of them and return HTML, VCARD, RTF
>>and
>>similar garbage to their originators.
>>
>VCARD are not used because people don't feel them as necessary. Why should
>you filter them out, they are so few...
Because they're garbage. Garbage is garbage, regardless of the frequency (or
lack thereof) of its appearance.
Why is this so difficult to understand?
>RTF files are proprietary formats, much bigger (10 X or more) than HTML
>documents, their use are most of time useless compared to HTML, and
>therefore should be filtered or, better, "warned".
They should be bounced. As should html, vcards and all the rest. Bottom
line: if it's not signal, it's noise. Configuring your mailer to send plain
text is a trivial exercise. I am involved in managing 8 mailing lists, which
deliver anywhere from 10 msgs/day to about 600 users (highly technical
content) to 250 msgs/day to 2000 users (primarily entertainment in nature).
None allow any of the garbage you support. All have international reader
bases. All have users with levels of experience ranging from internet "old
timers" to folks who signed up to AOL for the first time last week. None
seem to have any problems living by the rules which have been established.
Tom Coradeschi, Info-LabVIEW List Maintainer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://k-whiner.pica.army.mil/info-labview/info-labview.html
