Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship

Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: gentoo-amd64
Lists: gentoo-amd64: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
To: gentoo-amd64@g.o
From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@...>
Subject: RE: [OT- html posts]
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 01:07:13 -0700
excerpted below,  on Mon, 12 Dec 2005 14:59:26 -0800:

>  don't really have any more to say on the subject, I've presented my
> opinion; unfortunately I was unrealistic in expecting that there would be
> more people willing to possibly question "conventional wisdom." I think that
> in many people's minds, html email is automatically associated with
> Microsoft, and therefore regardless of what the actual facts are, it is
> therefore completely and unquestionably evil, bad, and must *never* ever,
> ever, be allowed.

It could be associated with MS in many people's minds, but if I'm not
mistaken (and I wasn't using them at the time so I don't know for sure,
but...), it was Netscape that popularized HTML mail, and MS was simply
following along -- they had to match the feature if they wanted to
compete, and compete they surely did, "cutting off the air supply", as
they said.

Anyway, I've never been one to be as gung ho about Netscape as many seem
to be -- I still use Konqueror rather than Mozilla/Firefox, and actually
beta tested IE/OE 4-5.5, and believe the unification with the file browser
(tho preferrably not the shell, why the file browser is the shell is
another question entirely) a generally useful thing, thus, perhaps part of
my fondness for KDE/Konqueror. Whoever it was that came up with HTML mail,
I'm sure they never realized the scourge they were unleashing. Had
scripting and Active-Hex never been a part of it, it might have been fine.

As I've said, HTML mail is something I personally blacklist, and I believe
that's the best policy, for all sorts of reasons already given.  However,
that's regardless of it being "conventional" wisdom or not.  Of course,
given that it /is/ accepted/conventional wisdom, I can naturally be a bit
more forceful with it than I'd be otherwise.

As for others, as I've said, they can post HTML format if they want, and
indeed, I'd argue they have the right to do so.  I just don't have to deal
with it, and because it /is/ conventional wisdom, I can ask that it not be

BTW, in regard to MS policy, on their newsgroups, at least while I was
active there, thru the release of IE/OE 5.5, HTML was generally soft
peddled in their groups, too.  It wasn't the big deal it is on FLOSS
lists/groups, but the general policy was keep it minimal, except for the
groups specifically dedicated to "HTML Stationery", where experimenting
with the limits of the format was encouraged.  However, I never became a
regular in those groups, and might have visited them twice.  Note that
this was of course the policy of the group regulars, including but
not limited to MSMVPs.  Thus, it wasn't specifically MS policy, altho if
they wanted to, they certainly could have changed it and enforced the

Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman in

gentoo-amd64@g.o mailing list

Re: [OT- html posts]
-- Eric Bliss
RE: [OT- html posts]
-- Bob Young
Lists: gentoo-amd64: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
RE: [OT- html posts]
Next by thread:
Re: [OT- html posts]
Previous by date:
Re: Video cards
Next by date:
Re: Re: initio seen, mt -f doesn't work

Updated Jun 17, 2009

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-amd64 mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.