-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
The Friday 2007-01-05 at 21:06 -0500, Geir A. Myrestrand wrote:
> > > Note that you can send images without using HTML. Just make
> > > references to the attached images if necessary. There are also
> > > document formats you can use for this that will serve your content
> > > better.
> >
> > With html the image is shown inserted in the right place in the text flow.
> > With plain text he would be forced to look it up. This is comparable to
> > having books with the images printed in a separata in the middle of the
> > book, because the printing machine can't handle it.
>
> I know, that is why I said he can make a reference to the image (like what is
> frequently done in both magazines and books), or use a separate document that
> is either attached to the message or referenced via a URL for example. The
> latter is better if it has to be an inline image that is directly next to the
> associated text. Otherwise the "connect the dots" solution is often good
> enough IMO.
If someone needs to write emails with images inserted in the text, html is
good enough for that use. Not the only solution, but it is one of the
possible solutions.
It is also nice for newsletters and circulars.
It is just another resource, another tool that can be used and can be
abused. That's the problem.
For instance, I receive some "commercial" emails that I have to glance at.
What I strongly dislike is that often they refer to external images: they
break my privacy, they can know when and whether I read them. So my reader
is set not to load them unless I tell it to.
On the other hand, loading external images has an advantage for both
sides: they are not sent to everybody, and thus it saves resources to both.
As often, it is not the tool that is "evil", but the use some make of it.
And also very often, "evil" is too strong a word. Misguided users mostly.
>
> > Web sites use html. Nobody tells them to use plain text. Html is not evil
> > per se.
>
> Agree.
>
> > Use of html by evil people can be evil. That's different.
>
> Use of HTML in e-mail is evil (at least on a mailing list), no matter whether
> the person is evil or not. Well, that is my opinion. ;-)
I wouldn't say evil, but very "improper". Solution is simple: if the mail
contains a text part, let the text part through, discard the html. The old
suse list server did that. If it is html only, reject it giving an
explanation.
The user may not even know he is using html. I know because many gmail
users were not aware they were sending html to the list till the new
opensuse server took over the old suse server.
I consider evil use of html, for instance, phising. That's evil. They are
trying to lure somebody and steal his money. They intend real damage to
somebody.
Hey, somebody sent last Monday an attachment to this list sized 258KB. Did
you see it? It contains images. Last November there was a half a megabyte
email, a log and an OOo file. That's also very improper in my book. Some
people are paying metered connections. They should have uploaded the files
somewhere and posted the link.
Others send a "me too" line leaving intact 64 Kbytes of quoted email.
That's also improper.
Evil? That's to strong a word :-)
> Most people probably don't care or disagree, and I am fine with that. We don't
> all have to agree (or disagree). I just voiced my opinion when someone voiced
> theirs.
Ok :-)
> If you can't express yourself in pure text, then I don't want to see how you
> express yourself with HTML --at least not in an e-mail... ;-)
There is usually no need to use html. There may be, but not here.
Although... perhaps a subset allowing some typographic control would be
nice (emphasis, underline...). But impossible to agree on such an
standard by now, I suppose.
> I have to admit I receive regular e-mails in HTML too, by choice. Some content
> is more about presentation than the message, but to me it feels more like one
> of those things that was made because it was possible and not because it
> should be done.
Yes, too often.
> HTML messages are an excellent feed for spam filters though, maybe more useful
> for that than for "artistic expressions".
True as well.
But you know, most of the spam I receive now days contain the "payload" in
an image or photo. The plain text or html content is random.
> Maybe too much are shoe-horned into the old Internet e-mail standards to be
> backwards compatible. Wonder if we're ever going to see something like a new
> generation of e-mail standards that goes beyond what is in SMTP/ESMTP and
> associated standards today.
Who knows :-)
- --
Cheers,
Carlos E. R.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76
iD8DBQFFnximtTMYHG2NR9URAsxzAJ9HG9d4eKDcOdDWzZdQQ/qaTH/mQQCfSG1K
7mKBFBaLTkOgAdCu9zJaLwg=
=at4p
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
