> I'm going to run user surveys and see what they want for my
> discussion lists. if the users are ready for HTML, I'll do it. if
> not, I'll go with demime as well. Too many users have no clue WHAT's
> coming out the back end of their mail clients, so telling them to
> turn it off is less and less useful and doesn't solve the problem, it
> merely starts the discussion.
Chuq, it would not surprise me if some percentage of your subscribers
think HTML is the virus that causes AIDS.
The solution I would like is a subscription process which recognizes
whether a new subscriber can handle HTML or not and sends HTML-based
messages out in HTML or plaintext, accordingly. However, I'm not sure that
current subscription protocols have the ability to do that level of
discrimination yet. And that doesn't necessarily deal with users who read
mail from multiple locations, though many of them are sophisticated enough
that if a no-HTML subscription option was available they could choose
for themselves.
I'm almost to the point where I would like a web-based subscription form, with
appropriate security measures to guard against automated mass attacks and
e-mail confirmation, of course. And if I use cookies, I could then
permit web-based users to post to my lists. Right now my web readers are
read-only unless they subscribe via e-mail. (I don't think I would go to
a web-only subscription form, but I could see that being the primary
subscription vehicle.)
--
Mike Nolan
