On Friday 10 December 2004 00:56, A. Rick Anderson wrote: > >>In other words 1%. For the > >>sake of debate, let's assume that every response from a Red Hat employee > >>is worth 10 times that of every other responder on the list. > >> > > > >How do you tustify that unscientific assumption? Stats please! > > I can't. I was conceding the point simply to move beyond that argument > as a meaningful point of discussion. If you don't concede the point, > then the argument that all email should be reduced to the text only mode > simply to support the 3/5 Red Hat employees who utilize Mutt or text Please reread what I've said. I do not want email in HTML. I've given any number of reasons why _I_ don't want HTML email. Some are security-related. Some relate to stealing my bandwidth. It takes time to download email and I'm processing a batch of 300+ right now, The bottom line is _I_ do not want HTML email. I don't care that other email clients will render it or even that the one I use can. A lot of other people have said they don't want HTML email either. Quite a few have maintained that HTML email is quite alright, but I've not noticed that anyone actually thinks it's better than plain text. I think you will find that the most experienced of the people on this list are counted amongst those who protest that they don't like HTML email. If you want help, best comply with their preferences. I'm not alone in not helping people who do post in HTML, but I'm probably the only person who tells them why. Probably, mutt can in fact render HTML - pine can, but that does not go to make HTML a good idea. -- Cheers John Summerfield tourist pics: http://environmental.disaster.cds.merseine.nu/
