From: Tim Roberts <timr@pr...> - 2002-01-08 21:27:40
On Tue, 8 Jan 2002 06:52:57 -0500, Tim Payne <tpayne@...> wrote:
> You should look into using a mail client that automatically strips html
> messages to plain text if html is a problem for you. I don't like it
> either, but more and more people are using html-enabled clients like
This advice is useless to those of us who read the digest version of the list.
- Tim Roberts, timr@...
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
> On Tue, 8 Jan 2002 06:52:57 -0500, Tim Payne <tpayne@...> wrote:
> > You should look into using a mail client that automatically strips html
> > messages to plain text if html is a problem for you. I don't like it
> > either, but more and more people are using html-enabled clients like
> > Outlook.
Not wishing to get into a flame war, but many people on the net strongly
object to HTML e-mail, and it's banned from many lists. That's why
HTML-enabled clients have an option to turn it off.
Text is the universal format readable on all mailreaders. It's adequate
for expressing all thoughts. Emphasis can be done with *bold*,
_italic/underline_, or SHOUTING. If the message needs to be HTML for
another purpose (e.g., so it can be pasted into a web page without
reformatting), it wants to be an attachment with a text summary.
If those aren't convincing enough reasons, some people will assume that
an HTML message is spam and delete it. Maybe they'll give it a quick
glance first, but, not finding the beginning of the text among the sea
of style definitions and tables, they'll just give up and delete it.
-Mike (Iron) Orr, iron@... (if mail problems: mso@...)
http://iron.cx/ English * Esperanto * Russkiy * Deutsch * Espan~ol