On 05/13 10:07:44, Bill Fischofer wrote: > I don't think we need to impose those sort of restrictions. I personally > use sylpheed for patches and GMail for everything else and they have no > problem sorting things out. > > The ODP mailing list covers both discussions as well as patches, and HTML > is useful for the former. The onus should be on those who have problems > with this to upgrade their tools rather than sending everyone else back to > the 1980s. > > On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Mike Holmes <mike.hol...@linaro.org> wrote: > > > All, > > > > A topic that comes up occasionally that affects some mail tools like > > outlook is that html email on this list makes it harder for some folks to > > process patches. > > > > I use mutt specifically to avoid using a fancy email client for all my > > patch download/send work, it is powered by coal/steam and would work fine > > on a 1970 VAX but there you go. > > > > Anyway, does anyone object to having mailman reject HTML mail ? One up > > side is that I will not waste time blocking offers of cheap watches and fax > > services from the list :) > > > > On the other hand I will miss bullet lists and the color red when I am > > grumpy. > > > > Mike
+1 for plain text I think this topic is more about simplicity and best practices rather than anything else. Here is an example of why HTML doesn't work well with archives: https://lists.linaro.org/pipermail/lng-odp/2016-May/023134.html Another useful link: http://www.tux.org/lkml/#s3-9 _______________________________________________ lng-odp mailing list lng-odp@lists.linaro.org https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp
