Carroll Grigsby wrote:
how many newbies use html? too damn many.
-- Mostly because they don't realize that (1) there is an option, (2) using HTML can be hazardous, (3) HTML is inefficient, (4) form != substance, and (5) they're fishing with the wrong bait.
as i said, newbies do not care.
> On the good side, AFAIK we've never > gotten a posting using 30 pt Gothic Cyrillian script font on a mauve > background with embedded audio and video clips.
lets not be giving them any ideas. :)
how many newbies take time to read help files? very few.
-- So-called help files often aren't.
i have yet to see an email prog with ability to send text as plain or html and not contain in help how to select one of other.
how many newbies make there first question 'how do i send plain text'? none
-- And why would they know? They're newbies.
if they can read to join list, they can read request to send plain text.
how many experts use html to reply to an html newbie? too damn many.
-- Not that I've noticed, but I'm not going to argue the point. Most of the HTML posts from long-timers that I've seen are from folks who are at work where HTML is the accepted standard.
i think you need to look a little closer at headers.
most every one who subscribes to this list is aware that there is a request for subscribers to use 'text/plain'.
-- You are making the assumption that people actually read the instructions beforehand and, for those who do, that they understand the difference between HTML and plain text.
if they do not know diff, they should stay out of linux. linux requires reading as well as understanding..
> FWIW, I made a suggestion a while back that new
subscribers be required to verify that they had read the terms of usage before they were granted access. The response was less than underwhelming.
a 'toa' is really not necessary. if a subscriber, whether a newbie or expert post in html, then those who reply should reply only with 'please re post in plain text'. not say, 'oh, well', and then answer. they will get help, and from what i have seen, they will get even more help from subscribers who do not reply to html.
there is no excuse for any user of aol, eudora, mozilla, kmail, ximian, ole, or multitude of other email progs, to send text/html. yet they do.
-- Sure there is: They don't know any better.
that is not a good reason.
but, before you show how little you are aware of, check this site; http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
-- And how are newbies supposed to know about that address? Hell, I'm willing to bet that lots of long time users, including me, never heard of it.
and for those using eudora, i suggest you check iss sight to see how unsafe eudora is, even when using text/plain.
-- I'm cool here. Never used Eudora.
i did try it years back, disabled html, but still did not like it.
-- What's wrong with lazy?
nothing that i know of. unless it is being too lazy to disable html, or to find an email prog that either does not have html or at lest to disable sending html. :)
peace out.
tc,hago.
g . -- =+= think green... save a tree, save a life, save time, save bandwidth, save storage. send email: text/plain - disable pgp/gpg/geek code attachments. =+= if you are proud to be an american, then buy "made in america".
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
