The Monday 2004-11-08 at 08:39 -0800, Randall R Schulz wrote:
Then perhaps you¡d be happy to suply me with an all optical link from my home to the telco? I have only seen copper on my block. I have to use a modem and a telephone, and i have to pay each single minute of the connection, plus the full first minute in advance.
I was not referring to the last mile. To my knowledge, no consumer optical links are commercial available, at leat not in the States. I'm referring to over-capacity in the so-called Internet backbone.
I don't care much about the backbone, I do care about the last mile, because that it is my bottleneck ;-)
p1 is the text part of the OP, p2 is the html part. See the difference?
Here are the unabridged headers from your post (the one to which I'm replying) as they reach me:
I know that, you do not need to post them. Notice that some of those headers were added by your own machine, by the way.
That's over 2000 bytes of overhead for each message! Adding a little styled text isn't going to make anyone go broke if they can already afford to subscribe to SuSE-Linux-E.
The headers can not be avoided. The important thing that I was pointing out is the size factor between both methods. The html part is about twice as big, and that one was a small email. After one or two top postings, it soon gets over 20 Kbytes. And, you should not forget that there are many people - me, for example - using plain text programs. Pine can show some html, but not all. Some X clients do not handle html well, or not at all. Even if we are on the 21th century, that is a fact. Thus, the list is designed for the minimun common denominator.
And again, I'm advocating styled text only, not full-blown HTML mail, though I find that quite useful at times, too. I'll only view such mail from known and trusted senders, of course.
But I only complain about html mail, not styled mail - however, I have never seen such a thing. And the original poster used html. Hey, you just said "I'll only view such mail from known and trusted senders". What about the list? Do you trust everybody on it? Because the issue here is using html on the list.
Honestly, I don't understand all the opposition to styled text in email, but I've made my case and will not press it further.
¡But it doesn't exist! I wouldn't care much about the ability to say "this is bold" or whatever... In fact, perhaps I would like it. But there is no such standard, I think; for example, Pine knows nothing of such "styled text". There is only html, and to be polite it means sending both plain text and html, the second one been twice as big. A small mail is not much, but some reach 60Kbytes. I know, I get a few newsletters and such every day. It is not only "font style" they use, but boxes, charts, logos, and who knows what. 60Kb for a page or two. :-/ -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson