Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 6th Dec 2007 16:27 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 289019
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-06
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