Hello MFPA,
On Sun, 15 Jun 2014 11:50:57 +0100 GMT (15-Jun-14, 17:50 +0700 GMT),
MFPA wrote:
Most emails (like the text messages here) do not
require HTML and should be sent as plaintext.
I would say that no email requires HTML, only a very few emails
benefit from it's use,
That either
Hello Jack,
On Sun, 15 Jun 2014 18:14:42 -0500 GMT (16-Jun-14, 06:14 +0700 GMT),
Jack S. LaRosa wrote:
All excellent points. I must confess to not knowing that your
descriptions of *bold*, /italics/ and _underline_ were commonly
accepted methods of expressing those features in plaintext.
Monday, June 16, 2014, 12:42:51 AM, you wrote:
And even if the recipient views in HTML, their viewing settings may be
wildly different to your own, so they don't see what you imagine they
might.
Not to mention all those crazy colours that make a lot of HTML mails
extremely difficult to
Monday, June 16, 2014, 1:14:42 AM, you wrote:
I too have a Gmail account
which I seldom use because TB! far exceeds Gmail.
I have a gmail account as well. The only time I went to the website
was to create that address in the first place (or to resolve those
pesky web login required
Hello Adrian,
On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 16:30:12 +0200 GMT (16-Jun-14, 21:30 +0700 GMT),
Adrian Godfrey wrote:
And even if the recipient views in HTML, their viewing settings may be
wildly different to your own, so they don't see what you imagine they
might.
Not to mention all those crazy
Monday, June 16, 2014, 4:44:06 PM, you wrote:
Wasted bandwidth: Not an issue in the 21st century.
Of course it's a waste. Why send the same message twice? Even without
roaming charges, many providers have daily volume limits. Plain text is
more than adequate. I agree attachments don't
6 matches
Mail list logo
