On Tuesday 11 June 2002 01:49 pm, Sridhar Dhanapalan wrote: > On Tue, 11 Jun 2002 18:46:08 +0100, John Richard Smith > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tuesday 11 June 2002 15:17, you wrote: > > > Besides, what can't be said in plain text e-mail? Do you lack the > > > necessary communication skills to use simple words? Did Tolkien > > > write using fancy fonts and colours? My point is that HTML mail is > > > simply unnecessary. Do you want /italics/, _underlining_ or *bold* > > > fonts? Do you want a smiley face :-) ? It all can be done in plain > > > text. > > > > Plain text is all right as far as it goes, I don't mind using it for > > say Newbie, or just sending an order to some sales person, > > but 99% of the world traffic in emails is HTML. Yes it is. > > No, it isn't. Do yo have any statistics to back that? I'm willing to bet > that your figures are off by a long shot. > > > and I for > > one would not like to have my hands tied behind my back by > > not being able to use it. Suppose you had to email your curriculum > > vitae to a prospective employer and you emailer cannot send HTML > > your document looks silly and gives the imprssion you don't care. > > It says you are not even prepared to take that little bit of extra > > time and care to make a nice presentation, or that your emailer is > > not much, and you ought to do something about it. > > Make an attachment. It's not hard, and it's exactly the same as using the > 'send in plain text and HTML' setting in some mail clients. > > > It is not only that, emails are the absolute front runner by far ,by > > way of an adversiement for linux. Every day many emails get sent > > around the world people receive and send in HTML but you can always > > tell it came from a linux user it's plain text. > > Huh? I'm sorry, but I am increasingly getting the feeling that you are just > making sweeping generalisations without having any real clue as to what > you're talking about. Most mail clients, whether they be client or server > (e.g. webmail) based, on Windows or another OS (GNU/Linux, Mac, BeOS, > etc.), do _not_ allow the creation of HTML mail. Just because someone > doesn't use Netscape or LookOut, it doesn't automatically mean they're > using Linux. Your presumption is simply wrong. > > > It doesn't say > > much of a positive message does it. It doesn't say to the world , > > well here's and example of what I would like to aspire to. It portays > > Linux users as second best, also runs, not up with the main streem. > > Now you may want that, absolutely fine, that is your right, ahmen, I > > for one would champion the right of the individual to do and be > > whatever they want to be so long as it is not harmful to others as a > > criminal would be, but most people will willingly accept that sending > > and receiveing HTML is just fine. I would like that choice to be mine. > > Then go use Netscape -- it does what you need. Why are you complaining? If > you want the "choice" to have e-mail virii execute automatically then you > should also go back to Windows. > > BTW, did you even _read_ the links I gave earlier, or did you just > 'conveniently ignore' them? I've given a million-and-one reasons why HTML > mail is not a good thing, yet you still continue with the 'I want flashy > shiny buttons with glitter and a pony' rant.
Another point, John: If you really want to see something ugly, take a look at an html e-mail with html disabled. You'll see that the message becomes obscured by the format codes to the point of illegibility. It seems to me that defeats the purpose of e-mail, which is to convey information in a clear and easily understood fashion. (I used to have a few examples of those around, but they seem to have been deleted.) -- cmg
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
