On Sat, 2008-01-26 at 22:10 +0000, Jon Grant wrote: > I don't think there is any noticeable difference in Thunderbird loading > my mailbox or email msg which are in HTML (CPU increases in last decade > eliminated any conversion time cost). Perhaps this is just mutt "not > being very good"? ;) If it is, why not just swithc to a "better" client?
In technical terms, there shouldn't be vast difference between loading plain text mails and loading HTML mails - for the most part, that information comes from an index, so the actual size/content of a mail is inconsequential. Ditto the actual on disk storage: in terms of file size, sure, HTML is bigger. In terms of file system blocks, it's less clear - for the most part, HTML mails take the same number of blocks in storage. And in terms of bandwidth: to be honest, unless you're blocking spam mails based on envelope, it's irrelevant anyway, because hams make up such a small proportion of overall mail. I don't think the pure technical argument is persuasive. The practical argument is much more relevant - in terms of the HTML actually emitted - but on technical grounds, I actually think HTML wins the theory. Cheers, Alex. _______________________________________________ Fsfe-uk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-uk
