On 15 May 2002 at 23:13, Deborah Shaw wrote, in part:
> Actually, I pay much less attention to HTML mail. I open, see that it's
> HTML, close, delete. I don't have time to examine it to pick the message out
> of the artwork, and I won't take the time.

You pay no attention to HTML e-mail because you see the HTML.

> In addition to the reasons already mentioned, HTML e-mail is often
> illegible. When you send plain text, people can choose a typeface and point
> size that's comfortable for them to read. When you send HTML mail, you force
> them to deal with your choices combined with however their e-mail programs
> interpret them.

It does take some talent to actually enhance a message with HTML, and most
do not have that talent.   Yellow characters on a white background is
almost always displayed poorly, but my least favorite is enhancement is
purple characters on a black background.  I can't read it on a monitor and
I can't print it without emptying a print cartridge.  But HTML-enabled
software has the potential of displaying the message the way the reader
wants ... especially if the writer uses good techniques such as relative
font sizes.

> I'm steal---, er, quoting from Bill Blinn's FAQ here:
>    For more information about the evils of HTML coding, see
>    Gerald E. Boyd's explanation <http://www.expita.com/nomime.html>
>    of why "pretty" e-mail is a bad thing and how you can keep your
>    e-mail program from sending all that junk.
>
> Wayne, I beg you, go to that URL. If you don't read the whole thing, at
> least read the four reasons why it's wrong to send HTML.

I have.  The author should go into politics. ;-)  The four reasons are,
IMHO, filled with lies and half-truths, while being technically accurate in
most respects!

On point 1: (the recipient software may be woefully out of date) It's hard
to believe the author understands the present day situation when s/he
starts by mentioning "Usenet" News and ends by saying HTML/MIME is bad
because you can attach proprietary-format files (.doc).  Yet even the
author admits "...this makes your E-mail interesting and pretty to look
at..."!

On point 2: (HTML/MIME messages are larger). If your software is HTML/MIME
enabled, it doesn't matter.  If your software is woefully out of date,
there's a lot of extraneous trash getting in the way of viewing the
message.

On point 3: (HTML/MIME messages can carry attachments).  This is so
ludicrous. E-mail was carrying executable payloads before MIME or HTML were
invented.  Still are!  A Microsoft e-mail program will still send in-line
attachments with no MIME and base64 encoding.  No MIME; no HTML; just bad.
MIME is just a standard for attachments, not the cause of viruses.  HTML is
just a standard language for better display of information; that rendering
software might run embedded programs/scripts is implementation problem, not
an "HTML is like tobacco" (see below) problem.

On point 4: (many viruses are carried via HTML/MIME). This is just a rehash
of point 1.

Although I don't agree with some of what is written after point 4, the
author does make one excellent point and come close to making a second!

First, the author states it is good policy to omit HTML/MIME in posts to
mailing lists, as the mailing list participants may expect and want plain
text. I agree whole-heartedly with this.  Less than 10% of the lists
operated at my institution welcome HTML/MIME.  None of the professional
lists that I view welcome HTML/MIME.

Second, an exception to the author's no-MIME rule is use of authentication
technologies such as PGP, etc.  Current e-mail is too easily forged.  Alas,
I don't know how we can overcome this problem.

> HTML is like tobacco. You're not going to offend anybody by not indulging,
> but you might if you do.

Good one!  "HTML is like tobacco".  Seems cool to the ill-informed, but
really is ugly and hurts you in the long run.  Very good.

Thanks for all of the responses, wayne


Wayne T. Smith                         Systems Group - UNET
[log in to unmask]                 University of Maine System