At 7:20 PM -0600 6/19/03, Vernon Schryver wrote:
Why don't you test that impression? This is a question that can be
measure, and I think makes sense. How much of that mail involves real
formatting? If you choose 50 messsages at random, how many use HTML
and of those, how many use any real text formating? (e.g. intentional
use of <em> or <b> as opposed to noise added by MUAs to all HTML
messages they create)
That turns out to be extremely difficult to detect. In particular
forwarded messages use lots of HTML formatting. That and lots of
other things, like links, image tags, font changes are *not*
gratuitous formatting. They make it easier for a user to pick out
which parts of the message come from where. Yes, we know there are
other ways (Eudora creates vertical bars for quoted text without
using HTML, and links show up as links, and attached images show up
inline anyway). But the fact of the matter is that HTML email is not
just fluff--it's a component of the UI that makes it easier for many
people to use email. Whether they deliberately make a piece of text
bold is not a determiner of whether they want their email formatted.
--
Kee Hinckley
http://www.messagefire.com/ Anti-Spam Service for your POP Account
http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society
I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept
responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate
everyone else's.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg