bz <bz+csm@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote:

Making it more readable, highlighting parts of it, influencing the way
it is interpreted.


In my view, you can talk about 'executing programs' as soon as
interpreting data goes beyond changing or visualizing it.


Yes, that's true.


Maybe you would be unemployed if all computer users were clueful.


'Seldom' is the best you can get. Computer programs are always
error-prone.


Well, all this is not HTML's fault. It's the fault of how people
interpret and use it.


That's, as you said, because of clueless use.


No, and again, that isn't HTML's fault.


Yes, but again, you might need to find another job, if those problems
weren't present.


Sure, but that's okay. I notice it in the address bar of my browser at
the latest. But your point is true. In a larger scale, that can surely
be abused. My point, however, is that it isn't HTML's fault. Used
properly, HTML emails are useful.


But if the plaintext part is totally unreadable (e.g. each paragraph in
one long line, as Outlook tends to format the plaintext parts), then I
prefer to read the HTML part, which is well readable in most cases.


Depends. You will have lots of customers and allies, who don't have a
clue about electronic data processing. They usually use Outlook, and
they usually send HTML mails. Some of them even prefer email over other
media. Sad, but true.

Not viewing the HTML parts automatically is a good idea. Dropping mails
unread just because they contain an HTML part is a bad idea. You may
want to drop emails, which _only_ contain an HTML part, though. I
haven't seen many clients do or even allow that, but for example AtMail
does.


I get quite a few customer requests via email. Not my fault, I have a
telephone, but still some customers prefer that way.


I don't initiate 'serious business' via email, but some people seem to
prefer it over other media. And I've also never said anything about the
quality of the email medium. I just say that IMO there is nothing wrong
with HTML emails.


True.


Improvements often come with problems, at least with more complexity.


Regards,
Ertugrul.


--
http://ertes.de/

Ertugrul =?UTF-8?B?U8O2eWxlbWV6?= <es@ertes.de> wrote in news:fva61c$gg3$01
$1@news.t-online.com:

If there were no malware, worms, viruses, trojans, bots, spam, phishing,
etc., then I could do more of what I was originally hired for, to help
researchers with their computer needs.
And they could spend their time doing science rather than figuring out why
their computer is acting strange.

I was busy enough, long before the internet existed.

When I finally convince a user to stop using HTML for e-mail, their
problems get much less frequent.

As for text being hard to read, if in thunderbird you turn on
mail.wrap_long_lines
and
view_source.wrap_long_lines

you should be able to read the text without horizontal scrolling.

Sometimes to reply, you will need 'rewrap' the quoted text.




--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

bz+csm@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

bz <bz+csm@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote:

True.


I don't do horizontal scrolling, but I'd need to reduce my window
width. For an HTML mail, I just enforce:

p { max-width: 80ex; }


Regards,
Ertugrul.


--
http://ertes.de/

bz <bz+csm@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote:

You're missing the context. We were talking about how the messages have
to be formatted, not about how they are transferred.


Regards,
Ertugrul.


--
http://ertes.de/

Ertugrul =?UTF-8?B?U8O2eWxlbWV6?= <es@ertes.de> wrote in
news:fvmn9v$krg$00$1@news.t-online.com:

You missed my point.

The contents of each message is text.
Plain ASCII text.
ALL 'attachments' end up as part of the 'DATA' portion of the message and
are transmitted as plain ASCII text.

If you want to communicate most reliably, you will stick to plain ASCII
text. If you want to communicate most economically, you will stick to
plain ASCII text. If you want to communicate most safely, you will stick
to plain ASCII text.

Any encoding, such as mime and HTML simply add hazards and complexity.
They add 'bling' but they most often prove to be an unnecessary and
unneeded conduit for infection and a reliable sign of spam.

That is not to say that they are not valuable for languages that can not
be represented in plain ASCII, but there is no reason for me to need to
send or receive such messages.





--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

bz+csm@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

bz <bz+csm@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote:

Ah okay, so your reply was actually to something different than what you
quoted. However, the complexity added by MIME is tolerable in my
opinion. Almost every invention makes things more complex.

I admit that HTML does add quite some complexity, which is quite more
than that added by MIME. But other standards are much more complex, and
you really shouldn't always take Microsoft's implementations as
examples.


You don't need MIME for messages in other character sets than ASCII.


Regards,
Ertugrul.


--
http://ertes.de/