On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 11:44:17PM +1300, Chris Bannister wrote: > On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 07:43:12PM -0600, Derek Martin wrote: > > Same arguemnt as above. Also this is mostly not interesting > > anymore. When you compare this to the amount of bandwidth consumed > > by things like streaming video, it's a drop in the bucket. > > Streaming video is specifically requested. I rec a lot of HTML email I > don't request. There is a big diference.
So? For the purposes of deciding whether or not HTML provides useful formatting in e-mail messages, this is neither relevant nor interesting. It also takes nothing away from my assertion that with better clients generating reasonable HTML, this is pretty much a non-issue, as the necessary bloat for reasonable formatting is generally negligible. The vast majority of e-mail I receive at my various mail addresses is e-mail I didn't request, HTML or not. Once again, what you're really talking about is spammers sending web pages as e-mail messages, i.e. spam, which is an entirely separate issue. If you have a mailbox on the internet, anyone can send you as much data as they feel like... regardless of whether HTML is a popular or useful format for e-mail. Your argument is, almost literally, a case of killing the messenger. -- Derek D. Martin http://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02 -=-=-=-=- This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result in undeliverable mail due to spam prevention. Sorry for the inconvenience.
pgpaOrAibgiO5.pgp
Description: PGP signature
