Martin Fritsche wrote:
> Brian Heinrich wrote:
>
>> Depends on your background, I s'pose. HTML messages have their
>> problems (largely due to how e-mail clients mark 'em up, from what I
>> can see), and may not have any added utility over and above a
>> plain-text message, but, damn!, they're generally more readable.
>> Unless, of course, you like reading messages that wrap every 40
>> characters or so. . . .
>
>
> The length of a line has nothing to do with HTML or not.
>
I know that it has nothing to do with HTML; the problem seems limited to
plain text messages, and seems to have to do with line wraps (soft
returns) coming thro' as carriage returns. Never bothered to try to
figure it out, or to see if there's a work-around for the issue, so I
s'pose I shouldn't bitch about it, even tho' I /do/ find it annoying.
If the line length is 100 to 150 characters long, it isn't too bad, but
some clients seem to default to 72 characters or so, which starts to
become annoying; one friend used to use Yahoo!, and her messages
probably wrapped at 40 to 45 characters, which quite rapidly became
annoying.
More just personal preference than anything: I like HTML mail; others
like plain text mail. I guess I just dislike being victimised by the
formatting quirks of certain e-mail clients (web mail clients seem to be
the worst or this, I must say).
For what it's worth. . . .
Brian
--
Signs are taken for wonders. 'We would see a sign!'
The word within a word, unable to speak a word,
Swaddled in darkness. In the juvescence of the year
Came Christ the tiger
-- T. S. Eliot, 'Gerontion'
