Without getting into the tired dispute about HTML vs non-HTML mailers...

If the issue is one of bandwidth consumption or fitness for a large
list, why not get netbsd.org to filter or convert the HTML?  And/or
possibly send a civil message back to the sender that "netbsd-help does
not accept HTML email.  Your message has been converted to plaintext"?
This would get your message across without wasting anybody's time
educating the public.  It seems to be a recurring problem on this list,
so I'm frankly amazed nobody has devoted the time to solving it.

If the issue is one of standards-compliance, maybe you should alert the
authors that there's a bug in their implementation.  Bugs happen, and no
programmer can fix a bug of which he or she remains unaware.  For
example, if it's an MS product, hit one of the newsgroups and report the
problem. =20

My Humble Opinion
-Dave

-----
This message or posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and
confers no rights.
Any opinions or policies stated within are my own and do not necessarily
constitute those of my employer.
I reside in Washington, USA, where Title 19 declares that sending me
Unsolicited Commercial Email can result in a $500 fine.
Harvesting of this address for purposes of bulk email (spam and UCE) is
expressly prohibited unless by my explicit prior request.  I retaliate
viciously against spammers and spam sites.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Mueller [mailto:tmueller@bluegrass.net]=20
> Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 5:37 AM
> To: netbsd-help
> Subject: Re: Comcast - web & mail
>=20
>=20
> > Bruce,
>=20
> > Look at your message below, and notice the apostrophes.  On=20
> my system,=20
> > I see "Comcast_s site".  You're talking to knowledgeable=20
> people, and=20
> > you're sending them HTML from a closed-source (Microsoft=20
> Outlook IMO,=20
> > Build 9.0.2416, to be exact) email client.  In fact, you're=20
> not even=20
> > sending them proper ascii!  They're not going to be as=20
> friendly as you'd like.
>=20
> > The HTML issue is: many people don't have HTML-rendering email=20
> > clients, and a lot of them think HTML has no place in the=20
> email world. =20
> > There's some sense in that, if you think about archiving, scanning,=20
> > indexing, stuff like that.  Text-based tools are faster,=20
> the email is=20
> > smaller. Plus, a lot of HTML-producing emailers don't even produce=20
> > correct HTML, so even if everyone has standards-compliant readers,=20
> > they'd still be hosed. Plus plus, the technical world is=20
> moving away=20
> > from ascii (which HTML uses) toward other encoding systems=20
> that render=20
> > *all* languages, with standard ways to convert back and forth.  The=20
> > HTML people show their unawareness or their arrogance,=20
> depending on one's point of view.
>=20
> > Suggestion: Get Pegasus or Eudora and tell me what you think.
>=20
> I don't remember apostrophes looking like underlines but have=20
> seen messages with screwy apostrophes using various=20
> upper-ASCII characters and not really=20
> looking like apostrophes.  I wish they'd stick with the plain=20
> old ASCII-39 apostrophe.
>=20
> HTML email may be good for newsletters containing Internet=20
> links, but HTML attachments on a list like this are just=20
> useless bloat.  There was another message on this list,=20
> different subject, with an HTML attachment that contained=20
> nearly 200 lines of formatting information, maybe good for a=20
> web site or printed document but too much bloat here.  On an=20
> active emailing list, where time is a consideration, plain=20
> text is by far the most efficient format for getting through=20
> a lot of messages.
>=20