Hi Mark, On Mon, 14 Jan 2002 00:34:07 -0500GMT (14/01/2002, 13:34 +0800GMT), GeekMaster wrote:
G> Actually, I don't even need to see the inline content in all cases, G> but I just hate seeing place markers, exclamation points, etc. I get your point, which is perfectly valid IMHO, while I myself feel "safer" with the excclamation marks. >> I would never activate it, but the email cleint should also not nanny >> those who wish to live on the dangerous side of the internet. G> That's pretty much my point, but keep in mind that in my case, I've G> already verified the origin of this e-mail with PopTray, This is a very good point: You *know* that the external contents is safe, but it is not sent with the message for a noble reason: saving bandwidth. Would someone who is against implementing the *option* Mark suggests, kindly comment on this. I think this one is the killer argument. ;-) G> Naturally, there are risks to those who aren't so sure of the G> potential content, but that's why I'd favor implementing the G> functionality as an option, and not the default. This was clear to me, but thanks for pointing this out again. Also, it should not be the default, so new users are in no danger to download stuff they don't want. G>>> Despite all of the very good arguments for sending text only G>>> messages, there *are* times when I choose to send an HTML message. >> Not me, but I see your point. G> I see it as an AM vs FM or Mono vs Stereo type thing. LOL! My area. I built radios from scratch, got my share of burned fingers on the tubes, but lost interest when transistors were invented and stopped looking into hardware when they invented the IC. Now: AM and FM are completely different "protocols" (which would be the up-to-date term, I believe). Stereo radio needs the "FM protocol", but AM has other advantages (range, for example. Or simplicity in sending/receiving). Neither AM/FM nor Mono/Stereo have anything to do with security (unless you count that since AM receivers are easier to build, it is also easier to eavesdrop). And speaking of bandwidth, FM can use even smaller bandwidths (IIRC) while maintaining higher sound qualities. I would think that HTML uses 200-300% of the bandwidth of a comparative plain text email, while increasing quality by less than 50% (non-official figure, just my own opinion), and in some cases no better quality at all (AOL, or many messages sent with OE/OL's default settings). Plus, of course, there is this security risk. G> I don't *need* stereo to hear the content of a radio program, but G> there are cases when it's a richer experience. Likewise, I think G> e-mail messages sent with conservative use of bold text, G> underscores, italics, etc are sometimes just plain "nicer", though G> they don't affect the words themselves in the least. I agree with you, and there are editors out there that support rich text. With rich text (as opposed to HTML) you can do all of the above, but not additional HTML stuff like embedding pictures etc; I also especially hate these colours, and I get business emails with flashing activated in "important" parts of the email! :-( >> Because there is a new-feature-a-day on the beta list. <g> G> Is that another list, or will beta info be distributed via this list? You can subscribe by clicking on this link: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Cheers, Thomas. Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste. Anmeldung unter: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message reply created with The Bat! 1.53t under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build 1998 on a Pentium II/350 MHz. -- ________________________________________________________ Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Latest Vers: 1.53d FAQ : http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com
