On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 1:40 AM, Linda Walsh
Aaron Kulkis wrote:
Same goes for HTML -- if they take the time to write something in HTML -- and it looks nice -- maybe you should listen to them for aesthetic ideas... flash graphics should stay off limits -- but pictures showing relevant design content or problems seem entirely appropriate. For those posting in HTML, they should be encouraged, privately, to also supply/send the message in plain-text as well as HTML.
Or, more often than not (99.999999995% of the time), the HTML is just a 300% overhead for absolutely NO benefit, not counting all of the stupid sparkly crap graphics that some morons seem to think improve their messages, while in fact, just guaranteeing that I will delete it for being a waste of space.
Reread what I said. You are not getting my message. I said HTML supported by pictures showing relevant design content or problems -- and NO flash (or flashy) graphics. I say what I mean and what I don't mean and then you throw out examples that I explicitly say are off limits. Are you dense, or just trying to provoke argument?
I really don't need 5-line messages that take 1 MB of disk space.
HTML doesn't take 1MB of space. it may be 3K, or 5K instead of 1K, but that's pinching pennies in this day and age.
100 % agree. The size comes from the graphics and the flash. Graphics I know for a fact are attachments. That is a different discussion than allowing html. ie. The list could allow multi-part mime encoded email with both plain text and html,.but not allow attachments. Or allow only one or two attachments, but not 20 or 30 like complex marketing emails use. I assume flash also comes in as an attachment, but I have never looked into how a raw email looks that has embedded flash. Greg -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org