Hi, > People need to get with the curve, html is neither evil nor bad, and > using it is absolutely proper. Wrong. HTML is wrong. It is a waste of bandwidth, the vast majority of spam uses it (so many anti-spambots kill it on sight) and more over you're expecting the person at the opposite end to have an html enabled and capable email client - which is not only damned rude (why should they?) but can lead to many problems. I have html disabled on this machine and unless it's from a very select few people, they go straight to /dev/null. > The recipients DONT have to read it if they choose not to, but to tell > someone to bugger off because you have to spend an extra 2 moments > formatting YOUR response back to the user, is really YOUR issue, not the > initial poster's. Wrong. If they bothered to format correctly in the first place, the extra 2 moments just vanish. See, 2 moments wasted just vanish because someone bothers to follow the guidelines. It doesn't matter how old they are, if they're good and valid, they stay. > Get over it, and get back to the issues at hand - HELPING USERS IN THE > COMMUNITY. And by informing them that their style of email is wrong, why it is wrong and more over how to correct it is not helping them how? TTFN Paul -- "It is often said that something cannot be libel if it is the truth. This has had to be amended to 'something cannot be libel if it is the truth or if the bank balance says otherwise'" - US Today
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
