On Jul 1, 2010, at 10:47:11, Florin Iucha wrote: > On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 09:54:11AM -0500, Justin Krejci wrote: >> I also don't see what is so bad about HTML mail in principal. > > .,,. > ,;;*;;;;, > .-'``;-');;. > /' .-. /*;; > .' \d \;; .;;;, > / o ` \; ,__. ,;*;;;*;, > \__, _.__,' \_.-') __)--.;;;;;*;;;;, > `""`;;;\ /-')_) __) `\' ';;;;;; > ;*;;; -') `)_) |\ | ;;;;*; > ;;;;| `---` O | | ;;*;;; > *;*;\| O / ;;;;;* > ;;;;;/| .-------\ / ;*;;;;; > ;;;*;/ \ | '. (`. ;;;*;;; > ;;;;;'. ; | ) \ | ;;;;;; > ,;*;;;;\/ |. / /` | ';;;*; > ;;;;;;/ |/ / /__/ ';;; > '*;;*/ | / | ;*; > `""""` `""""` ;' > > In principle, I don't see what's wrong with ponies in e-mail, as well. > > >> Perhaps >> various composers/implementations would be better but the principal I think >> is very useful and effective and has made a lot of communication much easier >> (for good or ill) for more people using the internet. > > Why? > >> Using HTML email is a >> lot easier for people to communicate than plain. > > How? > >> People are not interested >> in > > References? > > Or at least do you have a compelling argument on why it works for you? > > I have asked last month for real-world examples on how HTML e-mail is helping > people get the job done, have fun, whatever... And I got no positive answers. > > I'm still waiting. I'm genuinely curious. > > Cheers, > florin I'm a proponent for plain-text, fixed-width fonts in email, but we have many users who refuse to use such things, specifically a fixed-width font. Our solution for things like tables in email is to do one of a couple things: 1) Send the email as a plain-text fixed-width format. This works well for clients that are configured properly. 2) Provide an HTML version that builds a table and displays the same data. 3) Provide an CSV to display the data the user can open in any spread-sheet program. IMHO, it would be easier if users would just use the plain-text, fixed width configuration by default. This is much easier to generate. --- Eric Crist