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