> Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 13:51:35 +1000 (EST)
> From: Bruce Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: HTML email
> [...]
> tytso> I wonder how many people are still using plain-text,
> tytso> non-HTML enabled mail readers? ...
>
> Just a quick survey on the last 513 messages seen in the IETF list, based
> on X-Mailer header:
> [...]
>
> Most of these do natively understand HTML email to a certain extent, or
> can be configured to pass HTML email to an outside viewer, and a small
> number send HTML email by default (based on personal experience). I don't
If I count correctly, your list contains 284 samples. I suspect that
a good number of the remaining 229 mail messages were created by older
mailers that don't generate an X-Mailer header.
I assume this message doesn't contain an "X-Mailer: Berkeley Mail forever"
header.
(Ok, ok. I have been known to use vi as my HTML editor, too...)
-tjs
And, from NANOG (I deleted most of the headers, but I didn't see an
X-Mailer:):
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Please Format Your Posts
> Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 22:13:09 -0700
>
> I know that I am old & curmudgeonly now, but surely I cannot
> be the only NANOG person who uses UCB Mail on occasion?
>
> Or is it a lost cause to expect people to be concerned about
> the number of characters on a line, when they are arguing
> that we shouldn't worry about the number of globally-known
> routing prefixes?
>
> Sean. (who could buy a fancy email system,
> but doesn't want one at home
> and who could buy a big-iron router,
> but doesn't want one at home)
