> From: Robert Seeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Rodent of Unusual Size" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > 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. Hey a 500MHZ machine is good enough for everyone, even the ubergeek that I am. Don't break what works. Hey almost all cutting edge linux apps are that way. > Why shouldnt email evolve and gain new capabilities? > Why should that be a problem? Because it has become a platform for viral marketing and spying on people through web-bugs/cookies/Java. The best part is those email clients that absolutely will not allow viewing HTML as plaintext (I mean OUTLOOK, OE) because spam is big money for those companies (not directly).
