On Tue, 10 Apr 2001 18:53:19 -0700
JC Dill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 06:29 PM 4/10/01, J C Lawrence wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2001 13:09:57 -0700 JC Dill
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I didn't say it did. But the users will demand the ability to
> send and SEE HTMLized email, sooner or later.
This is possible. However for the privacy and security concerns I
outlined this is not a service I can offer. HTML email exposes me,
as a list manager, to exposing both my membership and all future
recipients over the forseeable future.
I'm not willing to be that cavalier.
> By archiving HTMLized email, you let everyone see the HTML in all
> its glory, via a browser, on a website.
By design I archive only the plain text alternative (for the old
days when I let the odd HTML through).
> Then you can strip the HTML from individual emails before sending
> it off to those who don't want HTML but do want individual emails,
> and leave it intact for those who do want HTML in individual
> emails.
One of my requirements of list archives is that they are an exact
representation of the messages as the list members (did) receive
them (ie fidelity). Archiving HTML, let alone archiving a different
message than broadcast would break this rule.
> Of course, this makes those who want to receive only plain text
> the second class users, as they won't see formatting that other
> users use and see (bolding, underlining, etc.) and may result in
> discussion issues where someone misses what was really meant
> because they didn't see the formatting.
This is a another, if secondary, reason to not allow HTML on lists.
> I don't look forward to this day, but I don't know what anyone can
> do to stop it from happening. Especially what with AOL6 and WebTV
> and Hotmail making in increasingly hard for people to send in
> plain text.
I have a minor advantage: AOL constitudes <3% of my subscriber base.
AOL+MSN+Hotmail+WebTV is still under 5% (and I think under 4% but I
haven't checked). Admittedly, this simply puts me ahead of the
tide, not out of its way.
Long term handling? I don't know. I suspect that I may just
curmudge and flatly mandate text/plain with the ruling that if you
want to participate on my lists you'll have to adapt. For several
of them I occupy a critical enough position for the field that I can
and do get away with that (I already require proper attributions and
quote formatting for posts to make it onto the lists), but its a
long term untenable position.
My concern right now is different: Can I reliably strip the HTML
portion from multipart/alternative text/plain text/html messages and
end up with a readable and moderately well formatted texp/plain
message? Currently the answer seems to be, "no". This is the
primary cause behind my currently deleting them unseen/unbroadcast.
I just don't have the time or interest in fixing them, and I
especially don't see the need to bother if the poster didn't.
ObNote: At the moment I hand moderate and typically hand reformat
all posts to my main lists (margins, quoted paragraph reflow,
quote clarity, etc). On most (13 out of 16 (yes, I keep logs)) of
the occassions when I've let posts through without such massaging,
the authors have later wrtten back, in considerable embarrassment
over how poorly their message presented and read, and have
requested assistance in producing more readable and professional
messages.
Charming, but sad really.
--
J C Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------(*) http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/
--=| A man is as sane as he is dangerous to his environment |=--
