Re: text vs html posts on this list...

["Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday mindspring com>]

On Mon, 4 Oct 2004, Carlos Davila wrote:

> Also, apparently, not everyone uses email readers that support 
> html...that may have been a problem back in the days when only pine 
> or elm were around, but should this be a problem in 2004?

i might also point out that this philosophy is very much similar to 
the dreaded microsoft policy which says that, every time they come out 
with improved technology, you're expected to upgrade.  whether you 
like it or not.  "we have new features, you better start using them."

i use pine.  i *like* pine.  it does everything i want, including 
working nicely over a serial session.  why should i be told that, 
because it's 2004, i should somehow get with the program and replace 
it with a fancy, CPU-hog, graphical, HTML-aware mail client?

this "don't post in HTML" is not just a "cultural" thing.  in my 
opinion, it's inherently a good rule, as are rules like don't top 
post, keep your sigs short, minimize included text to that which is 
relevant, etc.

if you think something is just cultural or subjective, just start 
hijacking threads and see how long you last here. :-)

rday