On 3/20/20 11:48 AM, Gerard E. Seibert wrote: > > Honestly, I fail to see why receivers of HTML based emails seem to > feel they have a right to get themselves into a hissy fit and dictate > what type or form of email is permissible? Who made them GODS? > > When I receive an email, I have two immediate choices to make; either > read it or don't read it. From there, I can choose to save or archive > the message, delete it or potentially forward or reply to it. I have > yet to understand this hatred of HTML email. Perhaps the recipient has > Autophobia. Maybe it is related to Trypophobia. Perhaps it is something > entirely different. In any case, who cares? > > Personally, I prefer basic plain text. However, working for a > municipality has caused me to use HTML quite frequently. The adage "A > picture is worth a thousand words" is certainly relevant to this. > > In any case, I have so many more meaningful and useful things to > accomplish, that I just do not have the time to waste on such a > frivolous and doomed from the start attempt at convincing others that > there is only one acceptable way to do things and it is mine. > > Don't like HTML; then don't use it. However, you don't have the right > to tell others what then can do. The last time I checked, there was no > RFC against it. Simply blacklist the sender, the site or whatever and > get on with your life. > But, when you are using a mailing list, the list owner has the right to decide what gets sent on THEIR mailing list.
-- Richard Damon
