On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 00:01 -0500, Peter Van Lone wrote: > - rant on - > html email is only evil 5-7 years ago. Or, today for systems and users > that measure storage and processor time, or bandwidth, in terms that > were prevalent 5-7 years ago. > > Today ... html email is required. It is still de-riguer on lists, etc > ... and I am used to it being "more polite". But html email is here to > stay, as is using the email system as "knowledge management" not just > sending/receiving small text messages. > - rant off -
You surely must be joking. The argument of more space/bandwidth has never been valid. The problem with HTML mail is that it performs all sorts of layout, partly wanted, partly unwanted. A HTML mail message that shows OK on the sender's MUA may be displayed ugly or actually unreadable on the recipient's MUA, due to (little) differences in how the HTML is rendered, window size, etc. A good example is HTML generated by Outlook (and other MS programs), almost always the font is way to small to be readable from Evolution. I don't care if that's Outlook's fault or Evolution's, if the message were sent as plain text, there would not have been a single problem.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Evolution-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list
