On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 12:15:49PM -0600, Derek Martin wrote: > 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
I agree, I was commenting on your assertion that streaming video uses more bandwidth than HTML email. > 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. No I'm not. I'm talking about when a subscriber to a ML sends an HTML message to that ML then *every* subscriber gets a copy. > 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... True, and some ML are similar when you consider non-trimming and HTML messages. > Your argument is, almost literally, a case of killing the messenger. Not sure what you mean, but a) I don't believe in violence and b) The Internet *is* the messenger, and I certainly don't advocate that. -- "If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing." --- Malcolm X
