> This reminds me of the text/html debate. If you put links in the body > and some guru that has the answer doesn't like links in the body, they > may not read your post and you could be left without a answer for a > while longer. Or worse yet, if it is some software that is rarely used, > they may be the only one here that uses the software and has the answer.
Well, I could do the same and erase any message with urls as footnotes, since I dislike them. So it's the same thing, reversed. Trashing emails just because they're not formatted as you like them is a highly idiotic thing to do. I don't like top-posting for example, but I do not trash top-posted mails -at worst, I explain the user why top-posting looks bad. > I prefer html messages myself but a lot of people here don't like them > so I send text. Some users even have filters that sends html to > /dev/null which means they don't ever even get seen or read. This is > something you may want to consider when you send something. I send text myself too usually (don't know when I'm using gmail from the web like now). However if I receive html mail, my mail client is set up to make it look like it's only text, so I don't really see the difference. > Also, I have ran into tinyurl not working or if I look up a old post, it > may have expired or something and the link goes nowhere. So guess what, > I don't click on tinyurl stuff much. Good point. But again, while sending HTML mail to a non-HTML enabled mail client results in annoying garbage(*), or while top posting can make a long thread impossible to follow, there is no reason not to read even a loooooong URL in the text flow. So using footnotes is purely aestethical -and even if I agree it's more good-looking, it's much less practical for my personal usage. So I want an ecosystem with URLs in the text body, therefore I will use them :) This does not mean I drop mails formatted in the other way in the trashbin. This just means we live happily with the differences, and let natural selection select what fits more. (*)There is also to ponder the fact that I find quite amusing that someone is using a non-HTML-enabled mail client in 2008, and I would like to know about that. I don't like html mail myself, but *actively refusing* to deal with it , it's something escaping my comprehension. > Thoughts to ponder. Surely, thanks. m.
