On Thu, 2002-12-05 at 16:18, Earle Martin wrote: > On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 03:19:32PM +0000, Kate L Pugh wrote: > > On Thu 05 Dec 2002, "Natalie S. Ford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Paul Makepeace posted a more involved solution a few months ago: > > http://london.pm.org/pipermail/london.pm/Week-of-Mon-20021014/014513.html > > That's the solution I currently use; however, it's not much use to the > majority of people who - I reckon - don't read their mail in a terminal > session.... It's only because I *do* read my mail this way that I can > cope with unsolicited HTML mail, because I'm using dialup - I agree fully > with Roger's earlier comment. If you want to do shiny graphical things, why > not do them on the Web, where they're meant to be, rather than a kludgy hack > like HTML mail that pisses a lot of people off? >
That last line should read: like HTML mail that pisses a lot of people LIKE US off? And therein lies the rub: frankly *we* are not "most people". "Most people", that use email, are actually using HTML all the time; because "most people" use Outlook or some similarly functioned MUA on Windows. The default setting for "most" mail input on "most" MUAs is HTML. This is therefore what "most people" use - whether *we* like it or not. I agree, it pisses people *like* *us* off (including me [esp. when they use such _tiny_ fonts]). But, thankfully, I am not "most people". Please take my hatred of Windows, Outlook et al as read (flames not required) but, at the same time, please don't underestimate their prevalence. Dirk -- Please Note: Some Quantum Physics Theories Suggest That When the Consumer Is Not Directly Observing This Product, It May Cease to Exist or Will Exist Only in a Vague and Undetermined State.
