don't like HTML email? here's your fix.

[David Gaskill]

On Wed, 29 Mar 2000 05:09:07 -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:

>  Economics of scale.  1 message with an extra 12k of crap isn't much.  400
>messages of an extra 12k is a lot.  Something approaching a Mb which is, what,
>15 minutes on your modem?  Now, multiply that per day and you get a nice sum
>of, oh, an extra $4-5/month for you. 

Actually I get less than a tenth the number of e-mails that you receive but 
nevertheless if I use Alexander's message not only can I get rid of all those 
bothersome clients but the 40 or 50 cents that I save will enable me to have one 
and possibly two extra cups of coffee every month! 
>
>    For what?  No added functionality at all and, generally, a complete
>waste.

But some of my clients like it. Some of my clients use of English is appalling but I 
don't tell them to go away and redraft the document before I will look at it. I find 
that if I am nice to my clients that they will pay me money.
 
>> The bandwidth and standards issue seems to be something of a holy war 
>> rather than a logical argument. The anti-html e-mail crusade appears to 
>> have as its objective the preservation of civilisation as we know it and 
>> the sanctity of standards. (Next perhaps "TCPIP is an abomination - all 
>> right-thinking citizens use Morse"). 
>
>    The point is just because it is there doesn't mean there is a use for it.
>There is a clear difference between TCP/IP and morse code, a clear
>technological advancement.  There is, quite simiply, NONE, when it comes to
>HTML in email.

Some might argue that the increased ability to format makes it easier for those that 
are not familiar with the conventions to read but whether or not that is true is 
beside the point. If somebody chooses to send me an e-mail with coloured text this 
doesn't seem to me to be sufficient grounds to refuse to read it and send him a rude 
message.  


David