[wellylug] [Fwd: Govt guidance would guarantee our geek credentials (Green Party media release)]
brenda at wallace.net.nz
Mon Jul 12 12:39:34 NZST 2004
can i add that many people want to read their email on their phones and PDAs -
so html formatting is becoming even more of a bad idead.. in terms of extra
traffic when you're using GPRS, and also not being readable (most phones just
strip out the tags and give you the unformatted text)...
but the evils of html email pales in comparison to spam, -> we should fight
that battle first.
On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 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!
> 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)
> 2) It increases the likelihood of exploits because there is a lot of
> code required to handle the formatting, and because some features
> 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).
> 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
> In short, just because other people do it, doesn't mean you should.
> Sorry, way off-topic, but it's a pet peeve.
More information about the wellylug