The policy on our list is simple, if some sends in HTML it is returned with
a request to the user to re-submit without using HTML. I get one or two HTML
messages a week on a list with a daily traffic in the region of up to 100
messages coming to myself the moderator. I do not have the time to re-edit
the junk out so include instructions in the mail back on how to change over.
Sending back to the user the garbaged message that I receive is normally
enough to convince them to drop HTML.

Best regards, Adrian Miller (On behalf of Adaptec Software Products Group)
Please reply to me in this newsgroup or via the Adaptec CD-R list
Adaptec CD-R community - http://www.cdrcentral.com
Adaptec CD-R Info Grid -
http://www.adaptec.com/products/overview/cdrgrid.html


----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Clark" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, November 19, 1999 9:51 PM
Subject: Has Microsoft destroyed mailing lists?


> It's a pretty easy question. Microsoft Outlook and Internet Mail
> Service appear to default to two states:
>
> * HTML mail
> * When replying, you are given a blank space at the top in which to
> write, followed by the entire previous message.
>
> Microsoft Hatemail also does the reply-to-everything by default.
>
> These two trends significantly worsen the experience of reading
> mailing lists. We have to wade through unnecessary duplications (up
> to *seven levels deep*, in my experience), and people without
> HTML-compatible mailers, and everyone on DIGEST who isn't receiving
> MIME also, see garbage.
>
> Microsoft mailers are defaults in Windows and Macintosh, and they're
> free, so it's hard to persuade people that software like Eudora,
> which is better-behaved but costs money, is worth it.
>
> Is it excessive to blame Microsoft for destroying the enjoyment of
> today's mailing lists?
>
> (I am quite aware that people can and do turn off HTML and avoid
> quoting the whole preceding message. But don't try to kid me: We know
> from experience as listowners that *maybe* one in ten does so.)
>
> --
>            Joe Clark
>            [log in to unmask]
>            <http://www.joeclark.uni.cc> (updated 1999.11.03)