HTML Links on Evolution

Sun Mar 7 12:35:51 UTC 2004

Scott Talbot wrote:

>On Sat, 2004-03-06 at 16:53, Youssef Makki wrote:
>  
>
>>Because some people like to use clients like Pine or mutt, I'd think
>>html email would look ugly. It also tends to make emails bloated, and is
>>the main reason why viruses spread on windows machines; not that it
>>affects most of us here, but still another reason to avoid it. Email was
>>intended to be in plaintext. Did I miss something?
>>
>>    
>>
>   Not much of this is true the "Bloat" you cite is rarely more than a <body> 
></body> set of tags maybe a </bold> here or their hardly enough to cause much 
>grief.  As for viruses there was one virus transmitted by HTML that only affected 
>IE (go figure!).
>Really, as long as it is kept simple there isn't much disadvantage
>unless you want to argue for the folks using PINE or whatever.  Can you
>imagine people griping about the bandwith wasted on color tv, cause my
>Black & white works fine?
>
>Maybe someone can grip about something better? as of now I'm out of this
>subject!
>
>Scott
>  
>
First of all for standard old-fashioned TV, the bandwidth requirements 
are virtually the same.

Most HTML email contains both the plain text message AND the expanded 
HTML one so right off you get 2X message size.  This equates to extra $ 
for byte costs in some countries and is difficult to read with a a 
text-only email client.  Then many HTML users like to send a fancy 
background or change fonts, etc.  Making it even larger.

BTW, I observe that the typical HTML emailer (one who emails ?) has not 
yet quite figured out how to operate the spell check or shift key.

Mike