Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 6th Dec 2007 16:27 UTC
Mac OS X Since my Cube could not run Leopard, and I did not have any other Macs, I was unable to delve into Leopard right away. Apple NL was kind enough to fix this problem for us, by generously loaning me a brand new MacBook with Leopard installed so I could review it for OSNews. Read on for the findings.
Thread beginning with comment 288991
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Stationary
by binarycrusader on Thu 6th Dec 2007 17:54 UTC in reply to "Stationary"
binarycrusader
Member since:
2005-07-06

When people tell me HTML email is evil, I always press them to tell me why. Except for embedded scripts, which are usually blocked these days, I don't know why "geeks" have a mission against it. If people are anti-HTML, they ought to close down their browsers and go back to elinks and USENET, after all, their browsers usually use the same rendering engine as their email client.


I'll tell you why. When I spend time in Australia, my bandwidth is metered. Most Australians don't have unlimited bandwidth. That means that HTML emails is actually costing me directly. It would be like telemarketers being allowed to call your cellphone in the US (they legally can't under most conditions).

The extra bandwidth that HTML email uses (more than double, since the original message is also usually present in plaintext form) wastes my bandwidth which I have a limited amount of.

I'd rather use that bandwidth for browsing, downloads, etc.

Likewise when I'm using a mobile connection where I get charged for bits I download I also don't want to be charged extra because of the wasteful practices of some people.

That is why HTML email is "evil"; though evil is the wrong in my opinion.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Stationary
by edogawaconan on Thu 6th Dec 2007 18:16 in reply to "RE: Stationary"
edogawaconan Member since:
2006-10-10

not to mention some people "love" to use "fancy" styles when writing mail.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Stationary
by Adam S on Thu 6th Dec 2007 19:10 in reply to "RE: Stationary"
Adam S Member since:
2005-04-01

I'll tell you why. When I spend time in Australia, my bandwidth is metered. Most Australians don't have unlimited bandwidth. That means that HTML emails is actually costing me directly.


Only if you download the images, which few email clients do by default now, including Mail.app, which is what we're discussing here, and Outlook, Windows Mail, Gmail, Live Mail, etc. In that case, you should also stop using *all* email, because attachments can be a real bitch.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Stationary
by binarycrusader on Thu 6th Dec 2007 19:11 in reply to "RE[2]: Stationary"
binarycrusader Member since:
2005-07-06


Only if you download the images, which few email clients do by default now, including Mail.app, which is what we're discussing here, and Outlook, Windows Mail, Gmail, Live Mail, etc. In that case, you should also stop using *all* email, because attachments can be a real bitch.


No, that isn't true. HTML email is a lot more bloated than plaintext. It's over double the size alone just for an HTML formatted message.

The arguments about stationary apply equally to the HTML and not just to the images.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Stationary
by andrewg on Thu 6th Dec 2007 19:28 in reply to "RE[2]: Stationary"
andrewg Member since:
2005-07-06

HTML email allows embedding "cid" images. The markup refers to the embedded cid images. Fortunately this kind of email does not occur frequently from what I can tell.

Reply Parent Score: 2