Re: OFFLIST: No HTML, please
| From: | <li_sasxsek@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Tuesday, November 7, 2006, 2:12 |
|---|
> On Sun, Nov 05, 2006 at 10:43:55PM -0500, Paul Bennett wrote:
> > On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 22:22:16 -0500, Mark J. Reed
> <markjreed@...> wrote:
> >
> > >I agree that HTML-only messages, or messages that can only be
> > >understood in their HTML form, are clearly bad;
> > > But multipart/alternative messages with a meaningful text/plain
> > >alternate should be perfectly acceptable.
> [...]
>
> Agreed. If the text/plain alternate is of equivalent content,
> then I see
> no major problem with HTML + text emails. As long as it's not
> like what
> spammers do (provide an innocuous text/plain message to fool
> filters and
> put the spam content in (obscured) HTML).
>
> (Although personally, I never bother to read HTML mail.)
>
Alright! This just hit one of my big sorespots. I absolutely
hate/loathe/despise/detest/abhor HTML e-mail!!! It's extremely
irritating to reply or forward to HTML e-mails for those of us (the
overwhelming majority) using MS Outbreak. It completely messes up all
formatting and makes difficult to reformat to get the quotes put back
together properly, even moreso when switching the outgoing format back
to "plain" text. That and having to look at all that cutesy stationary
(especially when animated) makes me want to projectile vomit. These are
just the usage issues so I won't go into the security concerns that make
it even less appealing. HTML was intended as a companion to HTTP for
"the web" and never intended for messaging. If you must have the
colors and stuff, at least use Rich Text (RTF) and leave HTML for the
WWW where it belongs.
I could also go into a long tirade about webpages too but I'll save that
for later when someone starts evangelizing Flash (thank {insert higher
power here} for Flash Block, and Adblock).
Replies