Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 20:40:20 -0800 () From: Rick Hamell <hamellr@dsinw.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: RFC 822 misconceptions Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.3.95.981104202220.-178423D-100000@direct-source.com.direct-source.com> In-Reply-To: <36411F32.3279B807@stratos.nospam.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > It's called common curtesy. Greg's suggestions are based on > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > I agree with this point, at least. Sending mail to a mailing list > is sort of like writing a letter to the editor of a newspaper, or > submitting prose to a literary magazine. Editors usually impose > formatting rules that make the writing clearer and easier to read -- > not flashier. Exactly, I just happen to think it extends to personal E-mails also. And E-mail in general! I'm not anti HTML formated E-mail, I just suffer from NIMBY syndrome in regards to it, because it's easier for me to read messages without HTML! > > > formating that all E-mail readers can read, AND still allow the recepient > > to read the message. It's one more step in helping 'us' (the Unix > > crowd,) keep Microsoft from taking over the Internet. If you wish to > > Okay, I am getting annoyed by this. First of all, Microsoft did not > invent HTML. Secondly, unlike Microsoft Word documents, HTML is an open > standard. I'm using Netscape as I write this (I normally use Mutt), and > just shut off HTML formatting by default. You may do that, but the 'normal' computer user does not know how to do that. Having just installed Netscape 4.05 on my parent's computer yesterday, I know that HTML in e-mail is automatically on. I'm also pretty sure that IE and Outlook also do it by default. BTW, from somebody else's comment about Netscape being the first to do HTML messages, I'm pretty sure Outlook was the first by several months, as I remeber imagining this exact argument. > Internet users /like/ HTML-formatted messages: not because it's HTML > (since the overwhelming majority of Internet users don't even know what > the hell HTML means), but because it lets them do really cool things like > changing fonts and using colors. Which to me personally... is annoying as hell! E-mail is email. I don't need to see for instance this message highlighted in green for your parts, and red in mine. It makes no real sense! I don't need to have a dancing baby in my e-mail, with a pretty little background. > place this issue among the great moral debates, I have no problem in > deferring to the non-hacker majority. I don't feel threatened by an open > standard. Ok, perhaps my personal feelings are hurt by the 'make it so every idiot with a TV can surf the net while watching Rambo II' attitude 'we' seem to have now. I don't feel threatened by an open standard either. I feel threatened by the 'make it easy' crowd. Which is predominantly Microsoft, no matter how you argue it. IF, there were an open standard in E-mail that let me bold type face and change text, AND could be used on multiple computers/operating systems without... then I might use it, especially if it was wide spread enough that everyone else could too. I'm going to do some research on this "text/enriched" you talk about, as it's honestly the first time I've heard of such thing. (Though I suppose if I'd thought about it.... :) *sigh* Anyways, sorry for one and all to waste bandwidth on such a stupid argument. But... my opinions are my opinions, and I'll still bounce HTML formated E-mail back to you with a polite request to turn it off so that I can read it. :) Rick To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.WNT.3.95.981104202220.-178423D-100000>