> Bruce, 

> Look at your message below, and notice the apostrophes.  On my system, I
> see "Comcast_s site".  You're talking to knowledgeable people, and you're
> sending them HTML from a closed-source (Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build
> 9.0.2416, to be exact) email client.  In fact, you're not even sending
> them proper ascii!  They're not going to be as friendly as you'd like.  

> The HTML issue is: many people don't have HTML-rendering email clients,
> and a lot of them think HTML has no place in the email world.  There's
> some sense in that, if you think about archiving, scanning, indexing,
> stuff like that.  Text-based tools are faster, the email is smaller. 
> Plus, a lot of HTML-producing emailers don't even produce correct HTML, so
> even if everyone has standards-compliant readers, they'd still be hosed. 
> Plus plus, the technical world is moving away from ascii (which HTML uses)
> toward other encoding systems that render *all* languages, with standard
> ways to convert back and forth.  The HTML people show their unawareness or
> their arrogance, depending on one's point of view.  

> Suggestion: Get Pegasus or Eudora and tell me what you think.  

I don't remember apostrophes looking like underlines but have seen messages
with screwy apostrophes using various upper-ASCII characters and not really 
looking like apostrophes.  I wish they'd stick with the plain old ASCII-39
apostrophe.

HTML email may be good for newsletters containing Internet links, but HTML
attachments on a list like this are just useless bloat.  There was another
message on this list, different subject, with an HTML attachment that
contained nearly 200 lines of formatting information, maybe good for a web site
or printed document but too much bloat here.  On an active emailing list, where
time is a consideration, plain text is by far the most efficient format for
getting through a lot of messages.