1 |
-----Original Message----- |
2 |
From: Eric Bliss [mailto:eric@×××××××××××.net] |
3 |
Sent: Friday, December 09, 2005 5:55 PM |
4 |
To: gentoo-amd64@l.g.o |
5 |
Subject: Re: [gentoo-amd64] [OT- html posts] |
6 |
|
7 |
>On Friday 09 December 2005 04:17 pm, Bob Young wrote: |
8 |
>> Thank you, that's exactly the point, the major objection is on a *mailing |
9 |
>> list*, the content is much more well defined, each and every message is |
10 |
>> thousands of times less likely to be spam or malware, than any randomly |
11 |
>> selected non-list email. |
12 |
|
13 |
>Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that people have their mail systems |
14 |
set |
15 |
>to kill ANY HTML mail that they receive. And again, I ask - once you |
16 |
realize |
17 |
>that many people are being aggressive in what they block (I for instance, |
18 |
>never allow my e-mail client to run dynamic content or graphics - or even |
19 |
>render HTML until I tell it to.), what are you going to be using HTML |
20 |
for??? |
21 |
>Fonts??? Text Alignment??? It's just not worth the trouble. It doesn't |
22 |
>serve any useful purpose to send HTML that won't be rendered to people who |
23 |
>are likely to delete your e-mail just because it has HTML. |
24 |
|
25 |
That's the point, sure many people are tossing out *all* html messages, that |
26 |
doesn't mean such a coarse, blind filtering policy is either justified, or |
27 |
best. My point is that email from a mailing list is much less likely to be |
28 |
spam or malicious, so just automatically banning html from all list messages |
29 |
seems heavy handed, simplistic, and lazy. I understood Duncan's point about |
30 |
"ruthless filtering," and was going to respond to it, but I accidentally |
31 |
deleted the message. Everyone is of course free to "filter" on whatever |
32 |
criteria they deem fit. I just think that the presence or absence of html |
33 |
isn't a very accurate filter criterion. Obviously not all messages need to |
34 |
be in html, and I'm not advocating that every message be sent in html. If |
35 |
plain text serves the purpose adequately, then post the message as plain |
36 |
text. I just think that allowing html posts as an *option* wouldn't be the |
37 |
major catastrophe that the all the hyperbole surrounding html email would |
38 |
lead one to believe. Further more I'd urge people to give some thought as to |
39 |
*why* are they filtering out *all* html messages, and honestly consider |
40 |
whether such a broad filter policy is really necessary. Are they doing so |
41 |
just because of a general "html email is bad" bias without really |
42 |
understanding the hows, and whys behind such an opinion, and whether or not |
43 |
it actually applies to their specific circumstances? |
44 |
|
45 |
|
46 |
>> This is disappointing. Just blowing off all opposing arguments any, and |
47 |
>> saying it must be done this way, "because we say so" regardless of the |
48 |
>> facts, or validity of opposing argument, is something I'd expect from a |
49 |
>> Microsoft mindset. |
50 |
> |
51 |
|
52 |
> There may be nothing wrong with HTML e-mail in other |
53 |
>contexts, but as you were saying, the issue here is HTML on this list. |
54 |
>Following the rules of the community isn't something that's limited to |
55 |
>e-mail. "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" is a statement |
56 |
>seen on just about any business you visit. When you're asking for service, |
57 |
>there are rules you should follow depending on what you're asking for. On |
58 |
>FLOSS lists, one of these rules is "Don't use HTML". |
59 |
|
60 |
I understand that it's a *policy* of the FLOSS community, and that requiring |
61 |
one to "follow the rules" when requesting help is valid. I'm just |
62 |
disappointed that any hint of suggesting that *maybe* such a strict policy |
63 |
isn't completely justified is treated as insane. Any suggestion that *Maybe* |
64 |
things have changed a little bit since the time when the policy was first |
65 |
created, and that *maybe* some modification, or updating of the policy, |
66 |
*might* be in order, is treated as heresy, and blown off as coming from |
67 |
someone who "doesn't respect the community." It's clear that "html email is |
68 |
bad" has been so often repeated, that it's now taken as an absolute fact |
69 |
that can never ever be questioned. |
70 |
|
71 |
I don't really have any more to say on the subject, I've presented my |
72 |
opinion; unfortunately I was unrealistic in expecting that there would be |
73 |
more people willing to possibly question "conventional wisdom." I think that |
74 |
in many people's minds, html email is automatically associated with |
75 |
Microsoft, and therefore regardless of what the actual facts are, it is |
76 |
therefore completely and unquestionably evil, bad, and must *never* ever, |
77 |
ever, be allowed. Therefore people *automatically* speak against the |
78 |
terrible, horrible, evil, consequences of allowing *any* html email |
79 |
whatsoever, under any circumstances. |
80 |
|
81 |
>Nothing personal here, just trying to better explain WHY some of us are so |
82 |
>opposed to HTML in e-mail. |
83 |
|
84 |
I've never thought it was "personal," I do however believe it's emotional, |
85 |
and for that reason, I don't see any point in continuing. Many just "know" |
86 |
that html is bad, and while there may in fact be some negative aspects |
87 |
regarding html email, nobody is willing to even entertain the possibility |
88 |
that posting in html might be okay in some cases. If nobody is actually |
89 |
willing to admit that it's even *possible* that a contrasting viewpoint |
90 |
might have some validity, there is really no point continuing the debate, as |
91 |
there is no possibility of reaching any common ground, as none exists. |
92 |
|
93 |
-- |
94 |
Regards |
95 |
Bob Young |
96 |
|
97 |
-- |
98 |
gentoo-amd64@g.o mailing list |