Kenneth Porter wrote: [D. Skoll] >> Except UTF-8 penalizes those character sets that need two, three, ... >> bytes to encode many of their characters. For this reason, I expect all >> the weird and wonderful legacy encodings to survive.
> Given that we have to suffer the proliferation of bad (ie. verbose) HTML > in email, is tripling the size of the payload that high a cost? :-) You have a point, but I don't think people will see it that way. > (It might be interesting to see how much no-op HTML markup is in the > average message.) Oh, tons. Tons and tons. We actually strip HTML parts if there's a multipart/alternative with text/html and text/plain; I reckon we're saving about 25% of our e-mail storage. (It would be more like 70% if it weren't for large attachments.) Regards, David. _______________________________________________ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list [email protected] http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
