jwsmobile <j...@jwsss.com> wrote:
On 7/7/2015 12:43 PM, Sean Conner wrote:
It was thus said that the Great jwsmobile once stated:
sending live URL's in the text that don't require a multi step copy
paste, or even save email edit, feed to lynx would be nice. Html email
does that.
There are some on this list (such as I) that do not use a graphical email
client, but a text-mode email client. [1]
-spc (And the etiquette for this list is inline or bottom posting, not
top)
[1] To even look at a attached PDF, for example, I have to save it
first, then download it to view it.
Most of us have either browser embedded PDF viewers, or Adobe associated
with PDF's and are one click away.
Yes, I do check my email on the server using a command line program
[2].
[2] mutt. I was forced to upgrade a decade ago because elm was no
longer maintained and non-Y2K compliant (I think that's why I
switched).
I just don't see inconveniencing an entire list because a few people
want to run on internet connected 286 machines, with attached ASR33's.
And to say that should carry much weight on selecting the format of the
email is pretty inconsiderate to everyone.
If there were a technical reason to keep it in a simple format that
would be fine, but as Al K pointed out quite some time ago, Google
already indexes all of this quite fine as it and most search engines do,
so the list is text searchable.
As far as email browsing, I have used thunderbird and prior to that the
same facility in the combined netscape. The way of all emails seem to
be towards letting some great and wonderful company such as your ISP,
Google, Yahoo, or heaven forbid AOL keep all of your email, and present
it, and even thunderbird has gone into "we don't support it anymore"
status with Firefox.
So archiving my own email may end up in the same state as your argument
for text archiving. However the format of the email won't be an issue
in my case.
I just can't figure out how Jay manages to keep putting up with us at all.
(I was going to reply to this message because when I read it first, it seemed
to contain some points which I thought I might have a different opinion on.
So I read it again to clarify my thoughts. The more I re-read it, the less
sense it made to me and I eventually decided I can't disagree with any of
these points because I can't really figure out what they are. I guess I am
losing my marbles. My congratulations to those who managed to make enough
sense of it to make considered, insightful replies.)
Regards,
Peter Coghlan.
