On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 04:38:11PM -0400, John Hawkinson wrote: > I don't mean to monopolize the conversation, but: > > Derek Martin <inva...@pizzashack.org> wrote on Wed, 31 Aug 2022 > at 15:48:55 EDT in <20220831194855.gc13...@bladeshadow.org>: > > > I don't see why this matters, because as I already pointed out, any > > desktop GUI MUA will have no trouble displaying 72 character lines > > wrapped as they are, and any *reasonable* mobile can do the same by > > rotating it. > > (1) I do not agree that it is reasonable to expect mobile users to > rotate their screens.
That's merely your opinion, which you are entitled to. Being
unwilling to make the smallest effort to rotate your screen, when it
will give you optimal reading conditions, seems like the definition of
"unreasonable" to me.
> (a) I think many won't do it
That is their choice, for which they may live with the consequences.
Not my problem.
> (b) Even if recipients *do* rotate, they will still have the
> subconscious/psychological result that "Dealing with Derek's emails
> takes more work, he is annoying."
That, arguably, would be my problem, but in 33 years of using e-mail,
has never been. Not once. Not because of the way I format e-mail, at
any rate... =8^)
> (2) On desktop GUIs, emails will be readable, but they will look
> different from most other sender's emails. This again becomes a
> variant of (1)(b).
I think you are projecting a level of unadaptability on people that is
uncommon. In any case, that, too, is not my problem... It's their
choice, their consequences, as I keep saying. If they actually tried
it, I dare say many if not most might find it preferable.
> I think we can all accept that when people have to do more work
I find the notion that turning your wrist slightly an amount of extra
work that even bears consideration laughable. Exception granted for
folks who have physical limitations which make that difficult or
impossible, but I'm betting such people aren't reading e-mail on a
phone.
> > There actually is significant psychological research into the ideal
> > line length for reading. There's some variation, but the consensus
> > seems to come in at about 60-75 characters, at a width of roughly
> > 4-5".
>
> Sure, but this assumes a lot of things.
To be clear, we're talking about plain text e-mail here, since this
discussion is irrelevant for variable-width HTML mail. My assumptions
are pretty safe, at least for every GUI client I occasionally use,
which thankfully does not include Outlook, so can't speak to that.
Your belief that using long lines is fine also assumes a lot of
things, about the MUA, MTA, and MDA software in use by you--wherever
you may be sending it from--and by all of your recipients, not to
mention any custom tools they may be using to process it. Safe enough
for typical users--less so for atypical users--like most of the folks
on this list. =8^)
> > > As for standards-compliance, that's a red herring. Long lines are
> > > not going to trip up any modern client, they're just not.
> >
> > It may be less relevant today, but it's still relevant.
>
> As noted by Kurt, this is up to the MUA to address, and is easily
> fixed by encoding as quoted-printable. Probably other ways too.
That's technically true but anything that can send mail is technically
a MUA, and may or may not be capable of automatically converting your
garbage in into lovely standards-compliant data out. Suppose you
suddently have a need to send e-mail programmatically... You're in the
habit of sending long lines because you're convinced it's
"better"--will the tools you use care? Maybe. Maybe not. Will it
matter? That depends on whether the e-mail you send matters, and
maybe how time-sensitive it is...
> > lines of plain text at 72 characters should ever need to display
> > unreadably for any desktop user, or even anyone on any reasonable
> > mobile device which can rotate lines parallel to their longer side,
>
> Hard disagree. People don't always rotate, shouldn't have to, and
> will resent it when forced to do so.
Again their choice, but fine--I will not, and should not have to
change the way I compose e-mail from well-established standards and
conventions, and will resent it if you try (and ultimately fail) to
force me to. So where does that leave you? Rotating your phone is BY
FAR the easiest, most practical and economical solution to that
conundrum. Choose to or not, it's on you.
> I don't really think we're flouting the standards.
You're already aware that RFC 5322 (and a bunch of others) recommends
keeping line lengths below 78 characters, and you're willfully
dismissing that recommendation, so by definition yes you are. But
conventions are also standards, and your failure to comply with
established conventions may be causing difficulty for people who are
doing some sort of automated processing of their mail which expects
those conventions. So again, yes.
And for the record, RFC 2119 says this about "SHOULD":
This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there may
exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
carefully weighed before choosing a different course.
So it IS only a recommendation, not a requirement--but it's a pretty
strong recommendation, and either way you're still flouting it.
> I suppose I should send some 2,000-character paragraph emails as
> tests to see what happens, but I very much doubt there will be
> problems as a result.
Sent from a modern MUA, probably not. From something else, such as
/usr/bin/sendmail fed from a text file containing your very long
lines, more probably, though perhaps sendmail will, on submission,
convert it. I don't think so, but it's been a long while since I had a
reason to care, so I'm not sure. From other unspecified things,
including legacy clients, undefined. But that is the entire point of
that paragraph in the RFC: You don't know what will happen, unless
you've read the code, or the documentation (though that has been known
to be wrong)... And should you actually send mail that has long
lines, that are not QP formatted--intentionally or not--then you dont
know at all how your receiving end will handle it--or any of the mail
forwarders/gateways in between.
--
Derek D. Martin http://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02
-=-=-=-=-
This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result in
undeliverable mail due to spam prevention. Sorry for the inconvenience.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
