HTML-encoded mail == BAD

Mon Oct 27 07:24:30 PST 2003

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 06:41:18 -0800 
richard childers </ kg6hac <fscked at pacbell.net>> wrote:

> If you folks are having trouble reading messages that incorporate
> HTML, why not use a client that recognizes HTML instead of living in
> the 19th century?

Have you considered the assertion that HTML for email is just a Bad
Idea, and that it Shouldn't Be Done?  Have you made any effort to
consider why some might reasonably and rationally hold those views, and
on what grounds?  Have you considered that there are cases where plain
text may be significantly better, or to consider what those cases may
be?

When you have, this thread will cease being a troll.

Oh, and I do use a client that handles HTML just fine.  I've also
deliberately disabled or crippled those supports for the standard
privacy and security reasons.

-- 
J C Lawrence                
---------(*)                Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. 
claw at kanga.nu               He lived as a devil, eh?		  
http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/  Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live.