stop posting in html

Luis Villa
01 Apr 2002 09:39:40 -0500

On Mon, 2002-04-01 at 05:45, wrote:
> On 31 Mar 2002, Luis Villa wrote:
> > OK, so... this is probably a really, really bad flame-war to restart,
> > but... when even Pine* and Mutt very cleanly handle HTML emails,
> > what's the big deal with HTML mail? I mean, is it really that hard to
> > upgrade to a newer version of pine? When I was stuck with using a
> You're not getting it. The point of HTML in email is that it has no point.  

You're not getting it either. The point is not that it has no point
(unless you're claiming that HTML email is somehow inherently bitless in
a way that the exact same content in plain-old-text isn't.) The point is
that it has no /cost/. If you're reading email in the same century I am,
HTML email might have no benefits [it rarely does, we're agreed on that]
but it also has no costs, except for the bits wasted in yelling about
it. If every person who ever sent you HTML mail recanted because of the
bitching and said 'oh, I'm sorry, I'll only write plain text from now
on' it would change the bitness level of your inbox exactly zero- they'd
still send you idiotic shit, it would just be harder to filter out. So I
still don't see what this dumb quest to rid the world of HTML email buys
anyne- there is no cost to it, and if you got rid of it, you still have
the same level of shit in your inbox, so there aren't any benefits to
getting rid of it either.

[And, FWIW, I frequently use HTML tables in email for reports and
statistics that would be a PITA to write and difficult to read in plain
text, so it very much has a point.]

Oh, and if you're worried about 'attack angles' via email, you need a
real operating system.

> > Luis (honestly mystified why someone who uses mozilla to read mail cares
> > about HTML mail)
> You use Mozilla to read your email? You probably cut butter with a mallet,
> too.

Um, no... the person who originally complained about the HTML email uses
moz. Read the headers. [Unless your client is incapable of that recent,
mid-80s innovation.]

> The amount of things you get consistently wrong makes me doubt about
> Ximian. (In case you're representative of it). This not as a flame, but as 
> an observation.

Ah, yes. We're just a bunch of clueless fuckwits over here. Thanks for
noticing. :) 

Luis [impressed at the number and density of idiotic generalizations
about groups of people that someone can pack into an email that doesn't
mention race, religion, or politics]