HTML Rendering in PMMail/2

[Ralph Cohen]

Several points I'd like to make regarding HTML email.

1.  This discussion started because of a statement on PMMail's web page
that HTML rendering is a feature included in PMMail on all supported
platforms.  Now, I know that this isn't the case but since BSW should
certainly also be aware of that fact I was curious to know if perhaps
this represented a feature that is going to be incorporated into the
next release.  If not, then the false claim should be taken off the
site.  One other disturbing point about the site is that there is no
page devoted to PMMail/2.  There is a link on the site titled "Form and
Function" but that deals exclusively with the Windows version and there
is no OS/2 version equivalent.  Is anyone else curious how this appears
to conflict with the Press Release?

2.  Regarding the questions about what level of HTML needs to be
supported, I think that HTML 2.0 would be more than adequate for my
needs.  The HTML mail I get is not complex whatsoever.  It merely
includes links and basic formatting like line breaks and paragraph
breaks and the occasional bolded word or headline or simple table. 
There are no complex frames, javascript, style sheets or anything else
that needs more extensive support.

3.  Not liking HTML email will not make it go away.  Automatically
filtering all incoming HTML email into your trash folder will also not
make it go away.  As someone who has had the opportunity to use both
PMMail/2 and PMMail 2k, I have found that the ability to view HTML
email in the preview pane of PMMail 2k is extremely convenient.  I
imagine that some of the people complaining the loudest about HTML
email have not had such an opportunity so they literally don't know
what they're missing.<g>

4.  I agree that it is inappropriate to send HTML emails to mailing
lists and the like.  However, I also believe that certain types of
communications can benefit from minor HTMLization making them easier
for the recipient to to read and act upon.  It is extremely
unfortunate, however, that certain email programs default to sending
HTML messages without giving their users a clear choice or explanation
about the implications of HTML vs. text.

5.  I understand that email was originally intended to text only, but I
also also understand that copper telephone lines were originally
intended to carry voice only and not high speed data signaling like
DSL.  So what?  Pandora's box has been opened and there's not a
snowball's chance in Hell that we're ever going to be able to shove
HTML emails back into the box so we may as well deal with them as best
we can.  Denial isn't going to make it disappear.

6.  FUD.  It surprises me how much FUD is being floated around here
about the horror and impossibility of incorporating basic HTML
rendering in PMMail/2.  I've seen claims that to do so would take BSW
several years and inestimable amounts of money which would surely
bankrupt the company and inevitably lead to the downfall of Western
civilization.  To the best of my knowledge, BSW hasn't commented one
way or the other so why are people here so anxious to take on the role
of being their apologists?  I strongly urge these people to stop trying
to shield BSW and instead let them do what every other responsible
company needs to do - communicate with their customers.  Making
unsolicited and unfounded excuses for BSW does nothing but remove any
incentive for them to communicate with us.

Ralph Cohen

rpcohen@neurotron.com