Neil Cherry wrote:

> Maybe it's a problem with a particular OS vendor who has decided that
> such standards need to be updated to match their needs and as such they
> are no longer following the standards have called it their own.

I'm using products of a certain OS vendor (not on this email account
though) and I don't think you'll find much wrong with my emails. We can try
that if you want... I'd be interested to know if there actually are
problems with my emails WRT standards.

> Let me start with when HTML first started appearing in email I thought
> it was a good thing but now I know it's a bad thing (sorry I'm having a
> little fun with words)! 

You didn't say why you "know" that. I seem to not yet "know" that... was
that some kind of extrasensorial experience? What do I have to do to see
the light? :)

> I would say to most of the HTML and all of the mime encoded email, I
> receive is SPAM or virus (?). The SNR of HTML ratio is about 1%. The SNR
> of plain text messages, around 85% (I use news groups too). 

This must be the selection of senders you receive. I almost don't receive
any spam on my "real" email accounts (not counting the ones I use for
public lists, web site registrations and newsgroups), and most of the
significant email I receive on these accounts is HTML. WRT viruses, I think
they usually come as attachment -- whether to HTML formatted email or text
mode emails doesn't really matter. AFAIK there's nothing inherent in HTML
that opens you to viruses. Unless you are willing to forgo all attachments,
you need to deal with this issue whether or not you format your email in
HTML.

It seems that the SNR of the different formats is a very individual
criterion, and depends a lot on how people treat their email addresses and
select their partners. Of course, if you let everybody know you prefer text
mode, people write to you in text mode and the only HTML messages you
receive are spam. (I have a few people in my address book that are marked
for "text only" and emails to them get automatically created as text only
emails... Doesn't say anything about characteristics of text or HTML mode,
but about individual preferences.)

> In a business setting I hate mime and HTML even more as it leads to top
> post (another rant). 

Why is that? IMO there is nothing inherent in HTML that leads to top posts.
For example the Eudora email client (one of the traditional ones on
Windows) does not encourage top post in HTML mode. 

There is something inherent in the way Microsoft Outlook formats replies
that encourages top post, but that's independent of whether you use it with
HTML or text only messages.

> Responding to various points in a message about 40 pages long is
> impossible. Trimming it to make sense is just as difficult! 

I didn't understand that... are you saying that 40 page emails are too
long? If so, I tend to agree -- but again, I don't see a point here that
affects the question of email format. I think that a well-structured 40
page HTML email is probably easier to read than a 40 page text-only
document (and, everything else being equal, the 40 pages HTML probably need
some 50+ pages text only), but if the 40 pages are not really necessary,
they should be avoided in either format. If they are necessary -- well,
then you better use all you have at your disposal to make them /readable/.

> It is my opinion (and that's all it is) that Microsoft has done more to
> ruin written communications by "extend & embrace" through introduction
> of non-standard HTML & mime as standard parts of their products. It
> seems to me they have made it easy to be lazy rather than follow the
> lessons learned with the text era communications. Also their loose idea
> of security has lessened the value of HTML & mime.  

All Microsoft email clients support text only mode, and probably most X
email clients support HTML. So how does that relate to the question whether
to choose either mode? This is an argument about whether or not to choose
Microsoft products, but not about HTML vs. text mode for emails.

If I understand your argumentation, it seems to go like "Microsoft products
don't implement standards well, encourage top post, are generally insecure,
and I don't like their overall attitude. Since Microsoft's email clients
come pre-configured to send out HTML messages, HTML messages are bad."
Pardon me if I find this lacking some logic :)

Gerhard
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist