Mason83 wrote on 17/01/2016 13:37:
On 17/01/2016 08:44, Ray_Net wrote:
Just what I said :-) In fact I had done this test to prove at someone
that html mail could be smaller than plain-text mail, because in
plain-text mail you cannot do a copy/paste, so there MUST be an
attachment, which is bigger. This guy have declared that he hate html
mails because html mails have more bytes that plain-text mail .. I just
give him the opposite situation.
I disagree, HTML messages are necessarily larger than the plain-text
equivalent, because of the formatting tags.
Your demonstration wouldn't work with a lossless compressed file,
such as zip or xz. Using a lossy compressed file is cheating since
SM is reencoding the file.
So you're comparing:
plain-text + original JPEG vs HTML + lower-quality JPEG
Yes, but the receiver got the same information .....(the lower quality
of the picture in the html mail is not a problem)
_______________________________________________
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
