1 |
-----Original Message----- |
2 |
From: news [mailto:news@×××××××××.org]On Behalf Of Duncan |
3 |
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 6:30 AM |
4 |
To: gentoo-amd64@l.g.o |
5 |
Subject: [gentoo-amd64] Re: gcc compile failed after 2005.1-r1 instalation |
6 |
|
7 |
Clemente Aguiar posted |
8 |
<6A0C419392D7BA45BD141D0BA4F253C78B26@×××××××××××××××××××××××××.pt>, |
9 |
excerpted below, on Thu, 08 Dec 2005 12:02:31 +0000: |
10 |
|
11 |
> How can I solve this problem?<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 |
12 |
> Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Mensagem</TITLE> |
13 |
|
14 |
First, please turn off HTML. Many on FLOSS (Free, Libre, and Open Source |
15 |
Software) type lists consider HTML posts the mark of spammers and malware |
16 |
authors, and may kill filter it or simply refuse to reply. I reply, but I |
17 |
make it a point of asking folks to please turn it off, and may not reply |
18 |
(and indeed, killfile) future posts if the HTML remains. |
19 |
|
20 |
I know that many share this opinion, and although I don't want to start a |
21 |
flame war, I do think there are some valid counter points in favor of html. |
22 |
Everyone is of course free to filter content based on his or her own |
23 |
preferences. However most of the reasons given against posting html aren't |
24 |
really all that strong. In fact the only thing http://www.emailreplies.com/ |
25 |
suggests is that recipients "*might* only be able to receive plain text |
26 |
emails." It goes on to note: "Most email clients however... are able to |
27 |
receive HTML and rich text messages." It's pretty rare that a modern email |
28 |
client can't deal with html. I would argue that the very few desktops not |
29 |
using some flavor of GUI should not force a limiting "least common |
30 |
denominator" type policy. |
31 |
|
32 |
Even the two reasons listed in the above reply don't stand up very well to |
33 |
logical reasoning, it's obvious the OP was neither a spammer nor a malware |
34 |
author, filtering all html email on the basis of those two reasons alone is |
35 |
akin to throwing out the baby with the bath water. |
36 |
|
37 |
The other common reason given against html is storage space/bandwidth |
38 |
issues. This is a weak argument also; in cost per megabyte storage is |
39 |
dirt-cheap. Premium NNTP providers are advertising retention times of 90 |
40 |
days or more for large *binary* groups, where a single post can be several |
41 |
hundred megabytes. If a few extra Kbytes here or there in an email message |
42 |
is really causing a problem for someone, then an upgrade should probably be |
43 |
priority. Most messages are much larger than they need to be anyway because |
44 |
people don't trim quotes. |
45 |
|
46 |
Lastly there are some things that are just easier to communicate in a html |
47 |
format, diagrams and tables come to mind, we've all seen ASCII diagrams of |
48 |
various things and had to stare at them trying to decipher what was the |
49 |
author actually trying to communicate. Even in a mostly text message, bold, |
50 |
italic, enlarged/reduced, or colored text used for emphasis or de-emphasis |
51 |
can make communication much more clear. In short I just think that there is |
52 |
this "knee-jerk" reaction to html email in the FLOSS community, and it isn't |
53 |
justified by an objective evaluation. |
54 |
|
55 |
Must we be constrained to communicate with each other via nothing more |
56 |
sophisticated than plain text forever and ever? |
57 |
|
58 |
Regards |
59 |
Bob Young |
60 |
|
61 |
|
62 |
|
63 |
|
64 |
-- |
65 |
gentoo-amd64@g.o mailing list |