1 |
Bob Young posted <FAEEIJPAOFEMBBLKPMJEGEPIDOAA.BYoung@××××××××××.com>, |
2 |
excerpted below, on Mon, 12 Dec 2005 14:59:26 -0800: |
3 |
|
4 |
> don't really have any more to say on the subject, I've presented my |
5 |
> opinion; unfortunately I was unrealistic in expecting that there would be |
6 |
> more people willing to possibly question "conventional wisdom." I think that |
7 |
> in many people's minds, html email is automatically associated with |
8 |
> Microsoft, and therefore regardless of what the actual facts are, it is |
9 |
> therefore completely and unquestionably evil, bad, and must *never* ever, |
10 |
> ever, be allowed. |
11 |
|
12 |
It could be associated with MS in many people's minds, but if I'm not |
13 |
mistaken (and I wasn't using them at the time so I don't know for sure, |
14 |
but...), it was Netscape that popularized HTML mail, and MS was simply |
15 |
following along -- they had to match the feature if they wanted to |
16 |
compete, and compete they surely did, "cutting off the air supply", as |
17 |
they said. |
18 |
|
19 |
Anyway, I've never been one to be as gung ho about Netscape as many seem |
20 |
to be -- I still use Konqueror rather than Mozilla/Firefox, and actually |
21 |
beta tested IE/OE 4-5.5, and believe the unification with the file browser |
22 |
(tho preferrably not the shell, why the file browser is the shell is |
23 |
another question entirely) a generally useful thing, thus, perhaps part of |
24 |
my fondness for KDE/Konqueror. Whoever it was that came up with HTML mail, |
25 |
I'm sure they never realized the scourge they were unleashing. Had |
26 |
scripting and Active-Hex never been a part of it, it might have been fine. |
27 |
|
28 |
As I've said, HTML mail is something I personally blacklist, and I believe |
29 |
that's the best policy, for all sorts of reasons already given. However, |
30 |
that's regardless of it being "conventional" wisdom or not. Of course, |
31 |
given that it /is/ accepted/conventional wisdom, I can naturally be a bit |
32 |
more forceful with it than I'd be otherwise. |
33 |
|
34 |
As for others, as I've said, they can post HTML format if they want, and |
35 |
indeed, I'd argue they have the right to do so. I just don't have to deal |
36 |
with it, and because it /is/ conventional wisdom, I can ask that it not be |
37 |
done. |
38 |
|
39 |
BTW, in regard to MS policy, on their newsgroups, at least while I was |
40 |
active there, thru the release of IE/OE 5.5, HTML was generally soft |
41 |
peddled in their groups, too. It wasn't the big deal it is on FLOSS |
42 |
lists/groups, but the general policy was keep it minimal, except for the |
43 |
groups specifically dedicated to "HTML Stationery", where experimenting |
44 |
with the limits of the format was encouraged. However, I never became a |
45 |
regular in those groups, and might have visited them twice. Note that |
46 |
this was of course the policy of the group regulars, including but |
47 |
not limited to MSMVPs. Thus, it wasn't specifically MS policy, altho if |
48 |
they wanted to, they certainly could have changed it and enforced the |
49 |
change. |
50 |
|
51 |
-- |
52 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
53 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
54 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman in |
55 |
http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html |
56 |
|
57 |
|
58 |
-- |
59 |
gentoo-amd64@g.o mailing list |