> On Friday 07 December 2001 09:23, you wrote:
> > I find it incredibly impolite when people have a choice of doing
something
> > that will work for everybody and still stubbornly choose to do something
> > that annoys a lot of people. I know that MUTT can send messages with
PGP
> > signatures just appended as text at the end of a text body of a
message - I
> > have a friend that has it do just that.
> >
> > Your argument about standards doesn't hold. Most software doesn't
support
> > SOME standard. If I start sending HTML mail, people will complain about
> > how they can't read it, even if they use otherwise excellent software
for
> > reading their mail. (Incidentally, does mutt support HTML mail?)
> >
>
> Your HTML argument make no sence... Its not standard, and it bloats the
> emails sent with it.
well it is a standard, it just has no rfc that i know of
not having an rfc doesnt mean that its not a standard. iirc its called
being a "de facto standard"
i would definately argue that since there are more instances of mail clients
in use that understand html embedded emails than there are ones which dont
on another note:
i use OE, have no problems with it other than how it handles email's signed
in that particular manner. in those cases i just read the .txt file that it
lists as one of the 2 attachments. tad bit annoying yes, but not really
that big of a deal.
my own philosophy is use whatever you want, but dont b*tch when its
something that isnt really all that important.
Casey
