> >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. > > While this may be true, try reading your e-mail remotely via ssh and elm. > Using a graphical client is a little tough. Having all that extra text > for HTML is a waste.
Wow - people still use elm! :-) Anyway, there is a simple solution to this - use either POP3 and/or IMAP4 capable clients. SSL is supported on top of both protocols. > HTML e-mail is also a pain for digest people, especially if they pay for each > character that arrives. I've seen some lousy MicroCrap produced HTML e-mail > that took 100 lines to send a 5 line message. Yeah, I've got to agree here - Outlood Express has produced some of the worst stuff I've seen - but there are other good alternatives. Best Regards, -- Tim -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=unsubscribe https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
