On Sun, 17 Oct 1999, Matt Stegman wrote:
> > BTW this is NOT being sent in HTML
>
> This one doesn't seem to be, but...
>
> Today, I'm using Pine (ver 3.96L) to read my mail. Depending on where I
> am and what my computer is booted to, I may use Pine ver 4.10 or TkRat
> (ver 1.2) to read my mail. Depemnding on how things are sent, it either
> takes me a lot of trouble to read HTML mail, or it's as easy to read as
> plain text mail.
>
> With Pine 3.96L, the HTML either shows up as an attachment beneath the
> plain text version, ot both the plain text and HTML show up as attachments
> to an empty mail. When both are attachments, I won't read it, unless the
> subject line really interests me. When it takes no extra effort to read
> plain text, I'll read it and suggest that the poster turn off HTML in the
> future, as a courtesy.
>
> When using Pine 4.10, HTML is interpreted and displayed fine. No
> additional attachments are shown. Thus, unless the sender throws in a
> link or something, I almost can't tell that HTML is being used.
>
> TkRat works a lot like the older Pine, except it's easier to read
> attachments. By default, the "source code" of the attchment is shown, so
> when it'a plain text there's no effort required. HTML is a little more
> difficult to read, but I can usually parse it okay. Still, if someone
> uses HTML, I'll rebuke them (hopefully in a polite manner).
>
> The post I was responding to had an attachment of type "text/HTML". I
> assumed this was a duplicate version of the mail, only formatted in HTML
> for those mailers that can read it. This prompted me to suggest turning
> off HTML in the mailer.
>
> > About the guy who flamed getting flamed re: being TOLD to turn off HTML...I
> > can agree with some of his opinion.
>
> I suppose so, but from what I hear, mail clients are in use that are even
> tougher than my old Pine on HTML mail- as in, it takes a LOT of extra
> effort to read it. So, it's easier for everyone if plain text is used.
> Not to mention that ASCII is the universal format.
>
> > > First tip: turn off HTML in your mail client when posting to this list.
> > > Plenty of us use mail clients that don't handle HTML too well, and tend to
> > > disregard posts using HTML- or flame those who use it.
> >
> > So either quit whining about the use of HTML, or get a better Mail reader
>
> I like my mail readers just fine. Frankly, I see no reason to switch just
> because someone can't take a little time to be courteous. I try to stay
> away from flame wars, but as has been said plenty of time before, HTML
> eats up bandwith and offers little in the way of necessary features. Most
> of the time, what few extra features it offers are raely used.
> Punctuation can emphasize just as well as boldness or italics. I see no
> reason to use HTML when plain text suffices just as well, while retaining
> more compatibility and making less fuss. If you insist, I can quit
> whining about the use of HTML; from here on out I'll just ignore it. Less
> effort for me, certainly.
>
> Not too long ago, Civileme posted that he forsees this list degenerating
> into two lists- those who post in and respond to HTML, and those who
> don't. I hope that doesn't happen; I'd hate for anyone to be restricted
> to helping only a certain group of people.
>
> -Matt Stegman
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
That would be unfortunate. Especially since those who provide the
best most effective help on this list appear to use text. If all
these individuals stoped responding to HTML requests, then the
available resources for those who need help and want to use HTML
would be seriously limited. And I thought I was done with all this,
Ernie
