On Sat, Jul 15, 2000 at 07:35:25AM -0700, Mike & Tracy Holt wrote:
> As I've already said, I do prefer HTML myself but there is a difference
That's perfectly fine, but *ONLY* on personal mails, please!
> between HTML enabled and creating a web page to send to the list. HTML
> enabled gives the ability to underline a word for example where, as some
Okay, underlining a word is hard with ASCII only, but it is common to write
an underbar (_) before and after a word to make it appear as italics, like
so: _italics_, to make a word bold printed, put a star (*) before and after
the word: *bold*. No need for HTML there.
> that an email is HTML doesn't mean that it was written using Macromedia
> backstage and will be a 10 minute download, and that's what I compare to
Well, but it is always bigger because of the IMO unneccessary HTML-tags.
THat's the point.
> people who have a half page signature on every post or people who endlessly
There aren't actually that many people who have so huge signatures.
> even be mentioned?), the file is really no larger than a simple text file
> (except for a few instructional tags which are simply text themselves).
Yes, it is larger! About twice as big. And if you instruct your MUA to
send the mail as HTML *AND* plain text, it gets at least three times as big.
> regular modem (now dsl), and I always had the option of removing myself from
> one or more of the lists if I thought it was too much.
Just because some don't understand the netiquette and force their will upon
others? People sending out HTML junk should be banned, not the people who
refuse to use such nonsense.
Alexander Skwar
--
Homepage: http://www.digitalprojects.com
Sichere Mail? Mail an [EMAIL PROTECTED] fuer GnuPG Keys
ICQ: 7328191
PGP signature
