> 2) the costs of the increased bandwidth are minimal to non-existant
> for most users.
Remember, though, that anytime an ISP has to increase bandwith, they could have waited
longer if it weren't for HTML E-mail.
> 3) the costs of the extra CPU time are minimal to non-existant for
> most users.
I was referring to server CPU time. It easily takes over 10 times as long to process
an HTML E-mail, if virus scanning is used. If there is enough traffic to even
slightly slow down SMTP and/or web messaging, it will start to directly affect the end
user.
> 4) if you don't routinely use HTML, you probably will never be
> familiar with many of it's features and capablilities, and will
> always be a bit uncomfortable with it.
That's a drawback of it! Most people *don't* routinely use the HTML features in their
E-mail, and therefore waste a lot of its potential.
> 5) you should probably have all of your e-mail scanned anyway,
> whether or not you use html to send mail.
There is virtually no need to scan text E-mail. I haven't heard of a single mail
client (not even Microsoft!) that will attempt to execute a text E-mail, or save it in
a non-text format.
> 7) there's a lot more creativity possible with html than with plain
> text, so why deprive yourself and others?
I'm not saying not to use HTML. I'm saying that Microsoft shouldn't force people to
use it. It's kind of like if I sent this response as a Word document. For this
E-mail, I'm not going to take the time to use bold/italics/colors/etc., so why should
I use it?
If someone is going to use the HTML features, great! But, if they are just sending a
plain text E-mail (like this one), why bother sending an HTML version that is
identical to the plain text one?
--
-Scott
Declude: Anti-virus and Anti-spam solutions for IMail. http://www.declude.com
--
Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
to be removed from this list.
An Archive of this list is available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/
