Tim Kehres wrote: > These "rules" (netiquette pertaining to HTML postings) have been around > since almost before time began (at least in reference to modern email > usage). At the time they made a lot sense. In terms of current usage, not > as much, IMHO. When sending content that can be sent either way, it's > always a good idea to send the simplest format out, which would be plain > text, unless the message content would dictate otherwise. > > The majority of email clients today however are HTML aware, and the > percentage of people using such HTML-aware clients is only increasing. The > reasons are simple - it is easier to read (typically), and more information > can be conveyed effectively. Other lists that I'm subscribed to have made > good use of this capability by its members being able to send out queries or > replies, including screen shots (inline with the text and not a random > attachment). Being able to understand what is going on by the messages in > these environments is much more effective than any text only group I've been > involved with. > > Trying to hold back the tide at this point in terms of HTML usage within > email seems like an exercise in futility. Better to get more up to date > clients that can handle what has for all practical purposes become a defacto > standard in email. > > Anyway, just my 0.02 worth.... > > Best Regards, > > Tim Kehres > International Messaging Associates > http://www.ima.com > > P.S.: Please send any flames to me, and not the list. > P.P.S: It is also good netiquette to include non-null subject lines and to > trim the trailers. :-) > <snip>
I have no problem with HTML e-mail itself as all my mail clients are HTML capable. I (and probably many others) also have a problem with the sheer size increase of an e-mail from plain text to HTML. Thats my biggest complaint and I run a 100GB HDD. -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=unsubscribe https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
