On 27 Jun 2000, 13:07, Tom Neff wrote:
> I don't think we "all have a responsibility" to teach such a thing, even
> if we believe it ourselves, which the responses (temperate and
> intemperate) to this thread demonstrate is not universally the case.
To any issue you feel strongly about, you have a greater chance of
swaying the masses by speaking up than remaining mute. However, as I
alluded earlier, most of the anti-text crowd on this list are lost
causes. They are guided by greed and avarice and there is little I can
do to dissuade them.
I can, however, have a great influence on newcomers to the Internet and
novice list owners. I have indeed, through the years, convinced many
that HTML, RTF and all the other non-text documentation methods, are
poor choices for e-mail discussion lists.
To effect that kind of loyalty to one's cause, you must position
yourself as a leader and a teacher. You must be willing to take the
time to guide your subscribers into using their e-mail as you believe
it best be utilized - especially in the context of a discussion mailing
list.
> Some list managers may adopt this as a personal mission and persevere
> with it, despite the fact that an increasing pie-slice of readers have
> no idea what they're talking about or why they should waste their time
> trying to comply.
I like to take a little more optimistic view of my subscribers. Yes,
it does take time to convince newcomers to the importance of list
etiquette values. I can remember that in my early years, I rebelled
against the same values that I teach today. I fully expect many I try
to reach will rebel against my ideals, but like myself, if they
continuously hear the same teachings over and over from many sources,
then it will finally sink in, as it did with me. I would hope, for
this to all sink in, that I am not the only voice they hear.
> But most list managers, from what I have seen, are more interested in
> serving their underlying topic and community, e.g. vintage BMW owners
> or neutron star researchers, with a minimum of headache and a maximum
> of member satisfaction, than in waging these kinds of insider wars.
If you don't maintain the vehicle, it falls apart eventually. Constant
maintenance is a job of every list owner, in order to preserve the
quality and purpose of the "underlying topic and community," as you so
eloquently put it.
> (An unfortunate side effect of "meta discussion syndrome" is that
> meta-lists like this one tend disproportionately to attract those who
> DO have the energy to moonlight as MIMEWar commandos. If there were
> a truly representative way to canvass the working cohort of list
> admins out there in the world, some flame threads that look important
> here now would shrink to the size of styrofoam packing peanuts.)
Well, in my mind, the truest test would be to ask all proponents of
HTML mail this question:
"If all outgoing e-mail were postage pre-paid per piece by the sender
based on "weight" -- weight defined by size in bytes, rather than the
costs being borne by the receiver, AND/OR the receiver could refuse any
e-mail sent to it and return it to sender, whereby the sender was
required to pay for that piece of returned e-mail by "weight", would
you then opt to send all your e-mail by text or by HTML?
Imagine sending 10,000 opt-in newsletters to your customers and upon
hitting the SEND button, you're e-mail client relays back a message
from your provider, "The charge for this distribution will be $500 for
HTML; $350.00 for RTF; $49.99 for plain text. Please enter choice and
then enter your credit card number."
The senders of HTML mail do not pay for their actions anywhere near the
burden of costs endured by the receivers. I fervently believe this is
wrong.
Text e-mail is the closest thing we have today, to equal accountability
on both ends of an e-mail transport. That alone is the best argument
to it's favor.
> HTML mail may be a relatively recent development, but styled text, more
> generally, has been around for a while, and poses most of the same
> issues of size, incomprehensibility, and misuse. At least the HTML
> revolution has made picking through a digest full of RTF curlies or
> NROFF dotwords a relatively rare occurence!
HTML is a wonderful invention, but it was made for the WWW and web
browsers - not e-mail. It must be MIME contorted to send with e-mail.
In fact, it really is not e-mail at all. It is an attachment to e-
mail, much like a leech or a tick. It is in our browsers where HTML
shines. We need not send out bandwidth hogging e-mail messages full of
HTML, when all that would suffice is one clickable URL that would open
the browser to a web site with the document that in display. We can do
that in a text message.
I was at a web site of a well known newsletter a few minutes before
beginning this response. It made me sick to read that he only offers
HTML newsletters because he could not get his precious banner ads in a
text newsletter and thus could not get his money from his unwitting
subscribers.
When I read things like this, it infuriates me. I currently own four
mailing lists for which I pay for three of them out of my own pocket,
along with a contracted web hosting service to serve the subscribers of
these lists and in the past I have owned two other lists, making six
lists in all. I have never, ever made a single dime from any of them.
I have never distributed ads that I sold in any list message or
newsletter. I have never had banner ads at any web site I owned, for
which I received remuneration. I am just a blue collar worker who pays
for all of this out of his own hard working pocket. And I ask myself
every day, if I can do this, why can't every other listowner? Why must
you distribute a newsletter at a cost to your subscribers instead of
generously bearing the costs yourself.
I wonder if that listowner of that newsletter would send his newsletter
letter out as HTML were he to pay for every click upon the banner,
rather than receiving money for the exposures.
> If you give message authors a style toolbar for bold, italic, red, green
> etc, they WILL tend to use it, and turn a deaf ear to fussbudget
> preachments that they "don't really need it."
Not me. I can remember first seeing this in...ah...I think it was AOL
and then shortly after that, Eudora 3 came out with it. My e-mail
girlfriend and I exchanged a couple of RTF's and I thought it was kind
of novel for about 2 e-mails. After that, I realized that it was all
problematic, klutzy, and very soon, boring. Most of all, our
communications were suffering. We would spend more time arranging the
font than developing our thoughts. It quickly dawned on me, that RTF
was about the ugliest e-mail I had ever seen.
I also had a stint working with a large contingency in the world that
only had e-mail as their only access to the Internet and for them, HTML
was not only an annoyance, it was an affront. I've also worked a
little with the blind. I know from that experience that HTML e-mail
can cause a lot of problems for them. Few would opt for HTML e-mail
over text.
I remember once working several weeks with a blind Englishman who used
ELM as his e-mail client. I ask you, what is he supposed to do when
HTML arrives in his inbox? Would the senders of HTML be willing to
"walk a mile in his shoes" and just use ELM or Pine as their e-mail
clients? Perhaps they could write their HTML newsletters, blindfolded?
> That's why I'd rather just strip it out. 95% of posters will NEVER KNOW
> that it was done anyway.
That's fine. They give us that feature at eGroups. For my Majordomo's
I bounce them, which is better in my way of thinking. My MJ list
subscribers learn that if they want to post to my lists, they must
configure their mail clients to only send in text. And I stand ready
to help them do just that. My idea is to get them to configure their
clients to text only in hopes that it will stay that way for them, most
of the time. I want them to set it as HTML only after considering the
possible adverse affects of their actions.
With eGroups striping the HTML, my egroups subscribers merrily keep
sending e-mail out as HTML. In this manner, I don't have nearly the
impact upon their future e-mail habits as I do with my Majordomos.
> One annoying thing that DEMIME and Lynx-ing doesn't address is when
> people, even in otherwise plain text messages, can't resist saying
>
> I put up the picture of the gooney bird on <A HREF="mysite.com">my
> site</A>
>
> instead of just writing the URL in plain text where smart mailers can
> pick it up, and dumb printers and message strippers can preserve it for
> readers to click or type in.
Yes. The AOL influence. I don't bother with the double URLs, myself.
It always struck me as a waste of good bytes. It also annoys me to get
newsletters where half the newsletter is written for standard protocols
and then the newsletter is repeated again for AOL subscribers. Can you
imagine if every single e-mail you received was in two languages? :-)
Were AOL subscribers the majority on any list I owned, then I would
accommodate them.
Still, if you are a seller of a product and you want to reach the
largest audience, you kowtow to AOL. So next time you see the "A HREF
URL", just consider that the sender is kissing A**. People do that for
money, you know.
Alan
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
