On Sun, May 18, 2003 at 03:25:42PM +0100, Matt Ryan wrote: > Neil McGovern wrote: > > These are all valid points, however, I still don't want to read HTML > > e-mail in mutt. > You are figting a losing battle.
Unfortunatly, this may be so, but the latest trend I personally have seen is away from HTML e-mail. > then you are highly unlikely to get them to change it. I disagree. Once I've explained why I don't like HTML e-mail, people normally see 'my side' and switch. > Some devices (cable TV email?) may not even be able to > turn it off. Whatever the arguements are for running a lean mean email > client its probably going to have to cope with HTML email or you are going > to have to limit who you interact with! I don't have a problem with those who CAN'T send in plain-text. I just prefer not to receive HTML e-mail. > Yes, but then if the majority of clients can send/recive HTML email, who has > the compatibility problem? The same train of thought will bring down W3C and HTML guidelines, and in fact, the principal that gcc/debian/java/... works on all platforms. The majority of people use MS Windows. Thus, why should linux be supported? On the whole bandwidth issue, I know it's been flogged to death but here's a prime example: An ex-lecturer (one which was, ironically, meant to be teaching good programming techniques) sent us a Microsoft Word HTML formatted *one-line* e-mail that totaled over 100k. Following that trend, and using a 56k dial-up, do you really want to spend your time downloading a message that says "Thanks for your message" for 3 minutes? Neil -- 16 Channels in mode 4 I disclaim everything I can under English law. gpg key - http://www.halon.org.uk/pubkey.txt ; the.earth.li 8DEC67C5
