NEWS FLASH!

[I]

> On Sun, 17 Sep 2000 10:04:31 -0400, Larry Ebbitt wrote:
> 
> >Ralph Cohen wrote:
> >> 
> >
> >
> >> And, not having _any_ HTML capability in PMMail/2, limits
> >> its usefulness a little bit now, but undoubtedly even more so in the
> >> future.
> >
> >On the contrary, it imporves its usefulness.  It strips the 
> >garbage and leaves the part with any value, the text.  It
> >doesn't help the waste of my communications bandwidth, but
> >it does save my eyeball bandwidth.
> >
> 
> Wrong.  Removing functionality from a product does not make it more
> functional.  If you don't want to be able to read HTML email, than that
> is an option.  But if you can not read HTML emails, that is a loss of
> functionality or usefulness.

No, it depends on what the "functionality" is. PMMail also lacks the
ability to remotely start my car, which is a highly useful function, but
does not belong on an e-mail client.

PMMail also lacks the ability to browse HTML web pages, which is also very
useful (who's not using a browser nowadays?). Does that make PMMail and
inferior mail client?

Now back to HTML e-mail, that's starting the debate again whether HTML
e-mail is useful or desirable or maybe even detrimental. I'm not going to
wade into that, but I'll note that our company has moved to WinXX +
Outlook for nearly 4 years now. None of our customers or vendors or even
internally send HTML e-mail (or maybe that should read e-mail that uses 
any HTML features). Once in a while, I do encounter them, but it is
definitely a rarity, so no ability to read HTML e-mail would not be a key
consideration in our selection of our e-mail client.

And we're not a two bit operation, big enough to make part of the NASDAQ 
index, so we deal with some rather large companies from all over the
world.



Isaac