Just before making his bedtime cocoa Thomas wrote:
>Doubling or tripling of mail size will double or triple the price
of
>Internet access for those who actually have to pay for their
access - e.g.
>in those countries, where you pay for local phone calls by the
minute (or any
>other time unit). That seems rather reckless to me... Hence,
there is a very
>strong economical interest from some people in keeping mails
short.
Just as Tony finished his cocoa Rich Kulawiec articulated the
simlar sentiment:
>There are people out there who have access to
>mail but *not* to the web and therefore don't have web browsers;
>there are people who live at the far end of 2400-baud modems;
The economic argument is unsound for two reasons.
1. Indisputably, as Shawn McMahon wrote, email is a tiny fraction
of overall Internet traffic. By applying the same logic, emails
are
similarly a small fraction of of isp connection time and costs.
2. The inefficient (eg response code 200) mail transfer
dialogue means that there is not that much difference in overall
connection time between a html and non-html mail.
If Shawn is unwilling to continue to argue the case for html, I
am.
I'ts getting chilly tonight. I'm off now to fire up my valve
(tube) computer, 5-bit teletype and 300 baud modem. If I feel
*really* nostalgic, I might just enter my program using binary
switches.
Kind regards,
Tony Wells
Phenomenal Books
"I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the
time to make it shorter" - Blaise Pascal.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
bookstuff: www.phenomenal-books.com
anyotherstuff: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Intnl tel/fax: +44 1524 845559
UK tel/fax: 01524845559
Mobile: (+44) (0) 370 963410
--
PLEASE read the Red Hat FAQ, Tips, Errata and the MAILING LIST ARCHIVES!
http://www.redhat.com/RedHat-FAQ /RedHat-Errata /RedHat-Tips /mailing-lists
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe" as the Subject.
