From fracture@cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com Thu Dec 12 08:51:49 2002
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 12 Dec 2002 08:51:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com ([66.68.125.184] ident=root)
	by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05)
	id 18MWYr-0006Gj-00
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 12 Dec 2002 08:51:45 -0800
Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (asdf@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id gBCGwWG9066651
	for <lojban-list@lojban.org>; Thu, 12 Dec 2002 10:58:32 -0600 (CST)
	(envelope-from fracture@cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com)
Received: (from fracture@localhost)
	by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id gBCGwWrs066650
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 12 Dec 2002 10:58:32 -0600 (CST)
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 10:58:32 -0600
From: Jordan DeLong <fracture@allusion.net>
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Subject: [lojban] HTML mail (was Re: bridling hostility)
Message-ID: <20021212165832.GF65058@allusion.net>
References: <20021212162839.GB65058@allusion.net> <20021212112713.Q19615-100000@granite.thestonecutters.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="rMWmSaSbD7nr+du9"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20021212112713.Q19615-100000@granite.thestonecutters.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i
X-archive-position: 3485
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: fracture@allusion.net
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list


--rMWmSaSbD7nr+du9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 11:33:58AM -0500, Invent Yourself wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Dec 2002, Jordan DeLong wrote:
> > Could you not send html in mail?  (At least, if you expect it to
> > be read).
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 03:07:22PM +0100, And Rosta wrote:
> > [?]
>=20
> Yes, this speaks to the subject, doesn't it?
>=20
> The net is a wild and wooly place, and special, old-school requirements
> are surely the responsibility of the eccentric recipient only. HTML mail
> is not unreasonable in the year 2002, when most email clients are
> HTML-savvy.

Most mail clients are *not* HTML savvy.  And I know of no good ones
which are.  However the real issue is whether HTML is even desirable
for mail.  It was certainly not designed for it, and I certainly
don't feel like writing html when replying to things (not to mention
that the HTML one gets tends to be generated and ALL CAPS, non
standards-compliant and unreadable, not to mention it's 90% likely
to contain porn advertisements).

Not suprised to hear you support it though---what with all your
anti-standards "webdesign" outlook on the internet, which we've
discussed before.

--=20
Jordan DeLong - fracture@allusion.net
lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u
                                     sei la mark. tuen. cusku

--rMWmSaSbD7nr+du9
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQE9+MA4DrrilS51AZ8RAlLVAJ9fHIDgihCFF6U/1nQWOSFN3+1c0ACdEt7N
eKzRWS7ALcNcSo6VDqzMvto=
=uTiN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--rMWmSaSbD7nr+du9--