I still think sending it to dev/null is a good idea. Phil Burton wrote: > > Ascii text conveys information. If one needs > expressiveness, then create a web page. There are many here > who use plain text mail programs -- as I do, because I do > not care to read my mail in Netscape nor KDE. It's not that > I cannot read HTML mail, but the expressiveness is wasted on > me. Besides, it is not considered good netiquette when > attachments are sent over a public mailing list. If you use > plain text mail, then the HTML is an attachment. > > Phil > > On Fri, 14 Jul 2000, John Glasscock wrote: > > � A correspondent made a plea, not an unreasonable one but one with which > � I may not entirely agree, that messages be posted in text only and not > � in HTML. > � > � I, for one, find that with HTML one can be more expressive and > � informative in conveying important information. I also believe that > � those who limit themselves strictly to text are not able to benefit from > � the richness that the web and discussion groups have to offer. My > � analogy is the difference between color TV and black-and-white TV, or a > � book devoid of illustrations v. a plain typewritten page. > � > � Personally I don't understand the reluctance to embrace HTML. However, > � I am prepared to be guided by the members of the list who may feel > � strongly about this issue one way or the other. If you would like to > � send your comments to me over the next 5 days, I will summarize and post > � the results of this inquiry.
begin:vcard n:#179293;Roman x-mozilla-html:FALSE adr:;;;;;; version:2.1 note:Roman - Register Linux User #179293 fn:Roman - Register Linux User #179293 end:vcard
