On 25 Jun 2000, 12:17, Tom Neff wrote:
> For lists with something non-Net related (i.e. real world) to talk
> about, text still wins in my experience. The more mail people get, the
> more they appreciate a simple text-only Digest on a daily topic of
> interest like WW1 aviation.
I feel the same way about "Net related" mailing lists, which are now
just as much the real world to all of us.
> Nevertheless, there is a fraction of readers that actively wants and
> likes to send HTML and attachments, etc. They are not the majority and
> they should not dictate how things go for everybody else, but they
> exist.
Don't we all have a responsibility to show them that their desire to
use HTML in e-mail is largely a brainwashing attempt by the commercial
element of the Internet in order to present more dynamic ad
presentations? We all understand that HTML in e-mail does not in any
way improve the actual content of the message. The value of the
content and communication of e-mail is to be found in it's words and
not in it's pictures and colors. But this is not enough in the world
of advertising.
Advertisers must have psychological tools to sway you into buying their
product or service. Words are not enough. In advertising, plain ascii
text just does not have the selling power of that which HTML e-mail
packs.
I refuse HTML on my lists for all of the standard reasons, as has been
enumerated on this list the last few days. But one other reason I
refuse it is because I have a strong aversion for outside commercial
interests to use my own resources to further their gain. When I see
HTML mail, I feel like I am being used for someone else's gain. I
don't want that for myself or my subscribers.
> There is another (growing) fraction that has no idea what HTML is, or
> what the difference is between HTML vs. text, or attachments vs.
> quoting, or which they are sending, or how to change settings to send
> something else, or why anybody would care. They just know that Outlook
> Express or Eudora seems to be working, and they press this button here.
All modern, popular e-mail clients now come with HTML capability. The
newcomer to the Internet almost always see's the point of view of the
big commercial interests, first and foremost. When they get to us,
they are often already brainwashed or deceived into thinking that HTML
belongs in e-mail. It often becomes a kick in the head for them to
learn the grim realities of the Internet. Our job is to
parenthetically kick them in the head and teach them the realities of
the Internet.
I find myself constantly teaching Internet "right from wrong" to
newcomers. Some reject my advice and go on to act the part of the
captive consumer that the commercial interests want them to be. But
many others do finally come to see the value in using plain text as the
means of communication in e-mail.
> My goal as a list administrator is to protect the rights and interests
> of all members, including those who need or prefer plain text and low
> bandwidth. I can't afford the smug foolishness of admins who jettison
> or ignore plain-text members for being "behind the curve" (strangely
> reminiscent of "get a real browser!!" on cretinous software-specific Web
> pages).
I agree with you. For those whom think HTML mail is "behind the curve"
I might point out that HTML mail is closer to reactionary caveman
drawings as a means to communicate. Text e-mail, on the other hand, is
the written word of modern times and in human communications, that has
far more power than pictures. A picture may be worth a thousand words
but I submit to you that one well written sentence can conjure up a
thousand pictures in one's mind.
> What I wish I had were some tools that let me please the greatest number
> of members. Maybe they exist and I haven't found them; maybe I'll have
> to write some in my C.F.T. Specifically I wish that members could opt
> to receive
>
> * Plain text only (MIME-extracted from a multipart, or LYNX-rendered
> from
> HTML, if necessary), OR...
> * HTML/styled text;
>
> * Individual messages, OR
> * Concatenated "omnibus" Digest, OR
> * Multipart MIME Digest;
>
> * Attachments mailed as attachments to the message or Digest, OR
> * Attachments stored server side in a file spool and sent as URL's, OR
> * Attachments over a member-specified size sent as URL's.
I feel sure you could now do all that if you really wanted to go to the
trouble. I would not wish to give my subscribers that many options.
As owner and/or administrators of our lists, we have to make our own
decisions and draw the line somewhere. A mailing list is a benevolent
dictatorship and not a "to each his own" utopia.
> I also wish, although this isn't a MIME issue and it's hard to achieve
> on the server side, that there was a proper "reply wizard" available
> that would allow a replying member to choose carefully between sending
> to the whole list, versus sending privately to just one message author.
Most e-mail clients have that capability. I just did that with this
reply.
> While we were at it, we could pre-empt tricks like attaching an entire
> Digest to the reply.
I have not had them tested yet, but I believe the taboo filters I have
in place will prevent that. If not, then I am prepared to teach, to
lecture, to fuss, or whatever it takes to get the point across.
> At least that stuff can be stripped at the server.
It can be done, but I never want to miss an opportunity to teach a
newbie "my way" to the Internet. So in that vein, I allow them to trip
up some. I know I can no longer reach the crusty veterans on this list
whom have been sucked into the commercial abyss, but I sure can
influence a whole lot of newcomers to the Internet to my way of
thinking about things. :-)
Alan
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.ashlists.org/
