In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Wolffe [W] wrote:'
W> I am not an advocate of bloatTML in email. If you have such a
W> strictly formatted message to put out, and HTML is the only way
W> to maintain the format, then put it on a web page and mail the
W> URL to your recipients. You have a better chance of it being
W> unchanged then.
This is one approach yes. I'd probably do so myself if I were in
Victors position. Not because of bloated mail, but because it would
more induce the recipient to view the text in their browser.
W> We had a problem at work with people sending out 2-3MB
W> attachments to large aliases via email. We (the system
W> administrators) kept advising against this since a 2MB email sent
W> to 100 people became a 200+MB file storage problem. The senior
W> staff (CEO and VP's) finally stepped in to assist after their
W> mail server crashed and was down for a few hours. Now the big
W> files are put in a single (read-only) webpage and a 100byte email
W> is sent announcing the update and its location.
I agree with this instance, yes. However, Victor's intended HTML
message amounts to be bytes greater than the plain text version.
It takes very little HTML markup to convert plain text to HTML
format with the only intention being to embed the font face and
size.
HTML mail comes in all sizes and fancy presentations. It even comes
with it's plain text version.
However, I personally don't really have a problem with it once it's
used sensibly by 'those in the know'. Those in the know here being
those who know the issues with HTML mail and realize that their
audience comprise those using clients that support it.
--
-=] allie_M [=- {List Moderator}
MUA: TB! v1.62 Christmas Edition ___ OS: WinXP Pro (SP1)
________________________________________________
Current version is 1.62 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
