On Mon, 2004-12-06 at 23:26 -0800, Rich Burroughs wrote: > Thomas Cameron wrote: > > > Um, Evolution doesn't run on Windows. Not sure where the Windows user > > thing comes from. > > I'm guessing that the comment was made because Evolution seems to be > geared towards being an Outlook replacement. > > I don't even use Outlook on Windows, Thunderbird is much better. > > > So why is it that over 90% of the list should change their ways > > for the 7-8% who voluntarily choose not to handle HTML e-mail? > > It's not just about MUAs, and if you've followed any of the discussions > about HTML email you must know that. Using HTML causes the messages to > be unnecessarily larger. When you do that on a list this big then it > means wasted bandwidth for a lot of people, and wasted storage too. OK, so let's say that the size of the traffic on this list were doubled - heck, tripled! It would be up to, what, 45 megs? Over the course of a whole month? It's hard for me to get too excited about that. I *do* run my own mail server. I *do* pay for my own Internet connections (plural). If I look really, really hard, I can probably find a new 30GB IDE drive. More likely the smallest I will find these days is 40-60GB. So if I run my own mail server for my small business of, say 40 employees and every single one of them subscribes to this list and they never delete any of the messages, then it will take almost a year and a half to fill up that $50 drive. Big deal. The argument that "it costs more for HTML mail" is true, but it just isn't that significant. Bigger organizations spend more, true (my team just rolled out over 70 Linux MTAs at my place of employment for 180,000 users world-wide). But the cost of that storage and bandwidth is insignificant compared to other administrative and staffing costs. Those old arguments just don't hold up any more. Disk space and bandwidth is relatively cheap these days for most of the world. Thomas
