Gentoo Archives: gentoo-amd64

From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net>
To: gentoo-amd64@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-amd64] RE: [OT- html posts]
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 08:12:09
In Reply to: RE: [gentoo-amd64] [OT- html posts] by Bob Young
Bob Young posted <FAEEIJPAOFEMBBLKPMJEGEPIDOAA.BYoung@××××××××××.com>,
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 done. 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 change. -- 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