Bob Young wrote:
> -----Original Message----- From: news [mailto:news@...]On
> Behalf Of Duncan Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 6:30 AM To:
> email@example.com 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.
yeah. lets get rid of the minorities.
> 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
> 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.
this is about private emails. emails in mailing lists should be short
and concise. i wonder what the big archive-sites think about this..
> 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.
if you don´t like ascii graphics, then you don´t know the textmode quake
> Must we be constrained to communicate with each other via nothing
> more sophisticated than plain text forever and ever?
read Wittgenstein. plain text and very sophisticated.
> Regards Bob Young
firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list