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 289015
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Stationary
by binarycrusader on Thu 6th Dec 2007 19:11 UTC 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[4]: Stationary
by Adam S on Thu 6th Dec 2007 19:14 in reply to "RE[3]: Stationary"
Adam S Member since:
2005-04-01

Correct, but you're generally talking about bytes or kilobytes more at most - only the actual markup. It would only be inline images that make any significant size. If that's your concern, make it a mission to abolish attachments that are unnecessarily large. PDFs, Word docs, hell, even most spreadsheets could probably be expressed in plain text files, and that would save you several cents more!! ;)

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Stationary
by binarycrusader on Thu 6th Dec 2007 19:18 in reply to "RE[4]: Stationary"
binarycrusader Member since:
2005-07-06

Correct, but you're generally talking about bytes or kilobytes more at most - only the actual markup. It would only be inline images that make any significant size. If that's your concern, make it a mission to abolish attachments that are unnecessarily large. PDFs, Word docs, hell, even most spreadsheets could probably be expressed in plain text files, and that would save you several cents more!! ;)


Megabytes in some cases if you've seen some client's horrific HTML. It's almost always kilobytes; remember that HTML messages almost always include a full copy of the original in plaintext format due to mail client behaviour. So it isn't just the markup.

As far as attachments, I can live with that as its usually date I intend to parse.

HTML formatting, on the other hand, generally provides no benefit to me.

I would rather someone attach a PDF or send a link to one then send me the entire message HTML formatted if it's a large enough message. PDFs are compressed ;)

The attachments thing is totally unrelated and is not an equivalent point of argument.

The HTML formatting is not necessary to transport the message.

Attachments are necessary for the data they contain.

While I'm all for getting rid of useless attachments, I can live with those since they can be dealt with in a fairly automated fashion. Dealing with HTML email is not so easy.

Edited 2007-12-06 19:18

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Stationary
by Soulbender on Fri 7th Dec 2007 04:45 in reply to "RE[3]: Stationary"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

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.


Yes, because sane email programs send you both plain text and the html.
The argument that it eats up bandwidth is bullshit though. It's not 1990 anymore, the few Kb email takes is a drop in the ocean compared to the bandwidth taken up by , for example, browsing osnews or youtube or myspace etc etc.
It's not mine or anyone else's problem that your ISP is screwing you by metering your bandwidth.
Sure, HTML mail can suck badly when people go overboard but so can anything else. It's not an HTML mail problem, it's a people problem.

Reply Parent Score: 3