Jon Ribbens wrote:
Loren Wilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Taking a look at that and offering my opinions:
Thanks for taking the time to have a look at it. Apart from inline
images though, the other points either don't apply to our emails, or
don't appear to be contributing to the SpamAssassin score.
In all honesty, I have to ask: does this mail NEED to be html? Other than
flashy colors and imbedded images what does it buy you that the text
message wouldn't convey? Unfortunately html, embedded images, align right,
and flashy colors all end up making the thing look like a typical drug spam.
I know that flashy colors and imbedded images are important if you are
sending these to CEOs or other people that never learned to read.
Unfortunately yes, this mail absolutely 100% does need to be HTML.
A significant proportion of the target audience includes management
types, sales and marketing types, etc and the presentation is at
least as important as the content, if not more so.
Personally I don't have anything against HTML emails if they have a
text equivalent as well, and it's somewhat irritating that it's this
precise feature that's one of the things SpamAssassin dislikes :-/
It's not so much about liking or disliking. It's about using tell tale
signs to detecting probable spam.
Jo
