No subject

[Tero Pesonen]

On Sat, 2011-08-13 at 16:08 -0500, Jordon Bedwell wrote:
> 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.

So, could you suggest a webmail that is not bad?