Randall R Schulz wrote:
On Thursday 04 January 2007 22:31, Mike McMullin wrote:
...
Please don't ever send someone or anyone you might like, HTML
e-mail.
Why not? Typographic variation is an age-old aspect of textual
expression. There's no good reason to eschew it. Why should we be stuck
in the 1970s when it comes to written, on-line communication?
Because HTML are not readable in digests, mixed with plain text.
Because people writing HTML email makes assumptions about the
facilities available at the receiver -- namely, that the
typographical variation can be seen there. This means that the
introduction "my comments are in red" are not meaningful if I read
that email in a terminal window over a slow GPRS connection. Or in a
black-and-white PDA.
Because HTML emails tend to be much larger (again, not all of are on
broadband all of the time).
Because HTML emails can reference images and other stuff on the
Internet, leading either to dial-ups and privacy intrusion or
incomplete emails.
Because HTML emails are a prevalent intrusion vector for attacks.
Because HTML emails are slow-dog for many recipients who use
Outlook. (Not that I use that, but I care for the recipients of my
emails, too.)
That's enough reasons to allow (i.e., whitelist) HTML emails only
for communication partners that are important enough for other
reasons to override these arguments.
Emails are not a good representative of textual expression. In my
opinion, they have also many attributes of oral exchanges; its
informality not the least. And as with phone calls, I don't have
colors to tag important words either.
Plain text is sufficient to express yourself here. If it isn't, put
more effort in it, it will pay back in getting better answers.
My 0.03 EUR (inflation-adjusted),
Joachim
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Joachim Schrod Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Roedermark, Germany
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
