Gentoo Archives: gentoo-amd64

From: Bob Young <BYoung@××××××××××.com>
To: gentoo-amd64@l.g.o
Subject: RE: [gentoo-amd64] Re: gcc compile failed after 2005.1-r1 instalation [OT- html posts]
Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 20:29:44
In Reply to: [gentoo-amd64] Re: gcc compile failed after 2005.1-r1 instalation by Duncan <>
-----Original Message-----
From: news [mailto:news@×××××××××.org]On Behalf Of Duncan
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 6:30 AM
To: gentoo-amd64@l.g.o
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 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? Regards Bob Young -- gentoo-amd64@g.o mailing list