jordon at envygeeks.com
Sat Aug 13 21:23:41 UTC 2011
On 08/13/2011 03:57 PM, Tero Pesonen wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-08-13 at 15:41 -0500, Jordon Bedwell wrote:
>> On 08/13/2011 03:38 PM, Tero Pesonen 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
>> The irony is getting thicker.
> Not really. It is much better that the client of a user who insists on
> using fancy formatting on their email is also, even if silently, sending
> a plaintext version with so that I need not see the HTML one. And it is
> also good that, in case such plaintext part was not provided, my mail
> client can try and make it look as if it had been formatted in plain
> text (with varying levels of success), so that I can reply to it in a
> meaningly manner.
Yes really, you defended a multi-part message which is worse then plain
HTML because it takes up more space than either one alone, it's both
combined so it's an absolute waste. The entire justification of sending
plain text is bandwidth restrictions... Instead of just choosing the
lesser evil (in this case plain HTML) you defend just flat out being
evil by sending both in the same email, which just makes it pointless to
even argue for plain text when you ignore the justifications for it. I
think they call that blind defence. You don't know why you're fighting
for it but damn are you fighting for it!
More information about the ubuntu-users