Vernon Schryver <vjs(_at_)calcite(_dot_)rhyolite(_dot_)com> writes:
There would be still absolutely no excuse for HTML. Even if the
ietf-announce traffic were safe, by sending HTML you are strongly
encouraging people to misuse misdesigned browswers as their MUAs and so
causing them to be vulnerable to bad traffic from other sources.
I can read HTML mail just fine and I'm not using a browser as my MUA. It
is, however, unnecessarily slow since it has to render.
Yes, I'm wondering how many people complaining about ietf-announce
actually subscribe to it, or would subscribe to it in any case.
I'm subscribed to ietf-announce. I would prefer that the I-D traffic go
to a separate mailing list. I've considered splitting it out that way
myself in the past, since generally I'm only interested in the non-I-D
traffic (which includes RFCs, last calls, meeting announcements, working
group formation notices, and status notifications, all of which I am
interested in reading).
--
Russ Allbery (rra(_at_)stanford(_dot_)edu)
<http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>