Guys, can we move this to social@ please? On 11/2/05, Steve Kopischke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > on 11/02/05 08:57 'mark' wrote: > > > Randomthots wrote: > > <snip> > > > >> What *I* get annoyed at is the attitude that just because some people > >> in the world pay for Internet by the byte, that it's somehow wrong in > >> principle to *ever* use technology like html e-mail. What if I want > >> to send a nicely formatted message -- complete with pictures of the > >> kids -- to my sister in Washington? We both have fast, > >> all-you-can-eat access, decent computers, and up-to-date technology. > > > > > > Hey, great way to spread viruses and worms! Go for it! Of course, > > unless I know the person sending me the email, and they tell me what > > the picture is, I won't even look at a graphic - most damn spams are > > HTML, and (unless you've got your mailtool set to deny), will d/l a > > picture, or a worm, from a Website.... > > > > To be blunt, I don't give a s**t what it looks like, what I care about > > is what you have to *say*. All style and no content is the definition > > of vapid and shallow. > > <snip> > > > > mark "all* my email is ascii plaintext" > > > Yikes, mark - what got your undies in a bundle? Just because a rather > Luddite approach to e-mail formatting is right for you, don't presume > that it is right to everyone. > > I, too, prefer to be able to include a bit of HTML formatting in *some* > e-mail messages. Sometimes, a bit of style can carry the content's > intended meaning much more easily than a clumsy smiley. Also, a number > of the e-mail newsletters I receive are formatted to resemble the Web > pages that spawned them. A nice bit of brand bundling that actually > makes the messages easier to read. > > SJK > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
-- - Chad Smith
