On Tue, 2004-12-07 at 18:23 +0800, John Summerfield wrote: > On Tuesday 07 December 2004 18:00, Thomas Cameron wrote: > > The first time someone fires up 'yum update,' they will find that their > > e-mail traffic is just a drop in the bandwidth bucket. The argument > > about HTML mail taking up too much space/bandwidth just don't hold up > > any more. Relative to web browsing and software updates, e-mail is > > inconsequential. > > I can choose or to run "yum update" or not; if I choose to do so, it's because > I expect some benefit to me from doing so. OK. > In fact, I've not done so because my FC system is currently not important > enough to me. That is your prerogative, but on behalf of all the people that have to react to attacks after lazy sysadmins allow their systems to be compromised, please make sure your system is not publicly accessible. > On the other hand, I - and many others - volunteer our time. Exactly - you *choose* to be here. You *know* that people, especially people new to the list, are going to make mistakes. If a volunteer on this list can't deal with that, then perhaps this is not the place to volunteer (that is not directed at anyone in particular)? > We have asked for people to _not_ post HTML to this list, for reasons that > seem good to us. I have never said that I think you should not ask people to post in plain test. In fact, I advocate plain text myself. The *only* thing I take issue with is when someone uses a newcomer's innocent mistake to publicly shred that newcomer. Gentle persuasion is great - public humiliation hurts the community far more than it helps. > I have no concerns about HTML between consenting adults, but I do not consent. That's fine - I have no problem with you preferring plain text. I am right there with you. I just ask that if you get an HTML e-mail you (and everyone else) react calmly and rationally and realize that it's not worth getting all worked up over and flaming some poor newcomer. That's all. Thomas
