No subject

[Jordon Bedwell]

On 08/13/2011 04:03 PM, Tero Pesonen wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-08-13 at 21:55 +0100, Colin Law wrote:
>> On 13 August 2011 21:38, Tero Pesonen <mail at tpesonen.net> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 2011-08-13 at 20:58 +0100, Colin Law wrote:
>>>> On 13 August 2011 20:34, Jacob Mansfield <cyberjacob at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> please do not post to the list in HTML. especially if you use size 30 font.
>>>>> Jacob Mansfield
>>>>
>>>> @Jacob, was not your post in html?  Two small fonts admittedly.
>>>
>>> That message had both plaintext and HTML parts. So it allows the reader
>>> to display it in the preferred format. Most email clients should allow
>>> you to select which part to display if both are present. At least the
>>> client should allow you to display HTML messages as converted to
>>> plaintext.
>>
>> Since one of the objections to html is that it consumes bandwidth then
>> sending both could be considered worse than just html.  Unfortunately
>> gmail does not (as far as I can see) allow me to display the text
>> version when both are supplied.  
> 
> Webmails are rather poor mail readers. (they don't really excel at
> anything for that matter). I suggest you access your Gmail through an
> IMAP client. GMail allows that.

That's rather general and can be considered an assumption not fact.