SLUG Mailing List Archives
Re: [SLUG] Html Email Format part 2
- To: Alister Waller <alister@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [SLUG] Html Email Format part 2
- From: Matthew Dalton <matthewd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu Oct 19 11:39:12 2000
- Cc: slug@xxxxxxxxxxx
Alister Waller wrote:
> Can I ask why people use non-html enabled mail clients?? What is the benefit
> of this? Is this a linux geeky type thing??
> Seems strange when you look at what computers are capable of that a minority
> (I am taking a stab in the virtual darkness) still insist on using a text
> based mail reader. You mention bandwith, I am sure a lot of you download
> pictures and Mpeg 3's etc which hog a lot more of that than a few extra
> lines of text in an email.
I'd say it's more than just a few lines. Your posts with the winmail.dat
attachments are twice the size of everyone elses (your "backup" post was
6k, other recent posts are 2/3k). Imaging if every slug post doubled in
size -- it adds up. Now imagine that you're the guy paying for SLUG's
As someone already mentioned, some mailers send messages with both text
and html versions together, wasting even more bandwidth.
Computers are capable of quite alot these days, but I fail to see the
need to put "a few extra lines of text" in an email, just to make your
message come out in 10pt Arial instead of the default text mode font. I
mean, most people who send in html don't even use any of html's
features! They gain nothing from using html, except bulk. Then there are
those who think they're 'l33t because they have a textured backround,
fancy font and coloured text on their emails. Their 2k message weighs in
at 37k! Now who's wasting bandwidth?
As for pictures and mp3's - they are relatively bandwidth friendly. Just
compare the size of jpg's and mp3's to the size of their heavyweight
cousins bmp and wav! Yes they are far larger than your average html
mail, but many people have made it their business to make them less so.