On Mon, 4 Oct 2004, Carlos Davila wrote:
Also, apparently, not everyone uses email readers that support html...that may have been a problem back in the days when only pine or elm were around, but should this be a problem in 2004?
i might also point out that this philosophy is very much similar to the dreaded microsoft policy which says that, every time they come out with improved technology, you're expected to upgrade. whether you like it or not. "we have new features, you better start using them."
i use pine. i *like* pine. it does everything i want, including working nicely over a serial session. why should i be told that, because it's 2004, i should somehow get with the program and replace it with a fancy, CPU-hog, graphical, HTML-aware mail client?
this "don't post in HTML" is not just a "cultural" thing. in my opinion, it's inherently a good rule, as are rules like don't top post, keep your sigs short, minimize included text to that which is relevant, etc.
if you think something is just cultural or subjective, just start hijacking threads and see how long you last here. :-)
rday
