[wellylug] [Fwd: Govt guidance would guarantee our geek credentials (Green Party media release)]

[Damon Lynch]

On Sun, 2004-07-11 at 17:38, jumbophut wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 11:56:28 +1200, Damon Lynch  wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, 2004-07-10 at 11:26, Ian Beardslee wrote:
> > 
> > > Of course who in their right mind sends HTML email anyway?  Before anyone
> > > leaps - and those that use Outlook Express can't really be considered in
> > > their right mind :-)
> > 
> > New Scientist does.  UN News does.  Human Rights Network does.  Oxfam as
> > well.  Lots of organisations do.  Newsletters can be a lot easier to
> > read when they're appropriately formatted.
> > 
> 
> So send a link to a web page!

I like getting them in my e-mail, and I want the choice.  I'd rather
read something nicely formatted with headings and good use of colour
than not.  Especially if it is of some length and the content structure
relates naturally and sensibly to headings and so forth.

> 
> There are number of good reasons not to send HTML e-mail:
> 
> 1) It increases traffic because of all the tags (no big deal if you
> only have a few, but it makes a difference to ISPs)

And?  So do a lot of different activities.  Isn't that what we pay them
for?

> 
> 2) It increases the likelihood of exploits because there is a lot of
> code required to handle the formatting, and because some features
> (e.g. javascript, ActiveX) are inherently dangerous.

I'm not aware of any reason why HTML e-mails need these features to do
their job, which is to look good and make the content more accessible.

> 
> 3) People still use e-mail clients which don't support HMTL (one
> imagines that people who have need of UN/HRN/Oxfam services fall into
> this camp).

Provide them a choice.  Simple.  That's what any sensible organisation
would do, should they choose to offer HTML as one option.
  
> 
> 4) It's the number 1 sign that an e-mail is spam, and greatly
> increases the likelihood that a Bayesian filter will send it to
> oblivion.

In your filters, perhaps that is so.


> Sorry, way off-topic, but it's a pet peeve.

Do you believe non-fiction books should be one continuous stream of text
in one type face and font size, with perhaps the only exception being
blank lines?  Do you believe that because there are plenty glossy
magazines with junk portrayed as glamour, that all printed text in that
production format is therefore rubbish?

Please understand not everyone feels the way you do about this format.

Damon