----- Original Message ----- From: "Rodent of Unusual Size" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2001 4:01 PM Subject: Re: "Under God" (Was Re: Tragedy in Israel)
> Robert Seeberger wrote: > > > > That being said, ITS RANT TIME!!!!!! > > > > Html mail posting has become so common on the net that > > it has become normal everyday for many. Why dont the > > Luddite bastards <G>that bitch about wanting > > plaintext just upgrade their mail to accomodate reality. > > Maybe because MUAs aren't the sole clients? There are > digests, and archived lists available through the Web, > and ... This deserves discussion. Call me stupid, but whats a MUA? > > > I fail to see why the biggest ISP in the world (AOL) and > > the biggest groups of users (newbies and AOL users), cannot > > be accomodated. > > I guess you don't. The second set really doesn't count; > the newbies and AOL users don't know any better, and will > use whatever their ISP or net provider sets up for them. > And I strongly suspect that most of them only communicate > with others inside the AOL word, so it doesn't matter. > However, when they start communicating with the rest of > the world, which has been here rather longer than has AOL.. > well, that's when the question of who should accomodate whom > comes up. Again. I'm no fan of AOL. IMNSHO it is the greatest concentration of "crap in need of reform" on the net. One look at that crowded opening page when one logs on is all the evidence I need to turn my nose up at it. > > As for the 'biggest ISP in the world,' well, they want > everyone to bow to their *opinions* simply because of > their size. A few years ago they blocked almost half the > Web sites on the planet from access by their users because > in AOL's *opinion* the servers weren't speaking HTTP > correctly. They were, of course, wrong. Yes, I recall that event with much amusement. > > Might doesn't make right. At least, a lot of lives have > been spent in defence of that belief. /me grins his agreement > > As for HTML messages.. what The Fool sent wasn't an HTML > message, it was a message containing HTML encoded as > quoted-printable -- and the header indicated neither of > these things, so most (if not all) MUAs are generally > going to assume plaintext. So if you *must* rail, > why not blame the messenger for a malformed message? :-) > -- Great reply Ken! I think the idea that some want to keep email in the form it held in the past is what I find aggravating. Things change and things improve. Hey, black and white TV was great too! I find it enormously entertaining when the netgeeky among us claim to have the fastest machine, the newest progs and mods, and then pedanticly rail for keeping the original killer app in the same state it has been in fer years and years. Why shouldnt email evolve and gain new capabilities? Why should that be a problem? xponent Stirring it up rob
