Re: Question "Text vs. HTML"
Re: Question "Text vs. HTML"
- Subject: Re: Question "Text vs. HTML"
- From: Brian McKee <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 15:44:45 -0400
On 9/20/05, Tudor Vedeanu <email@hidden> wrote:
> On 20.09.2005, at 20:30, Brian McKee wrote:
> > That plain text email compresses much better on it's way thru your
> > modem. A jpg won't (it's compressed already). The time difference between
> > the two is likely 10:1
> > Please stare at the screen for the next 20-30 seconds....by the
> > clock....
> > Now repeat for all ten emails you've got incoming.... still there?
> In most of the HTML emails I receive, all the pictures and graphics
> are loaded from an external server, they are NOT embedded in the
> message. Therefore, the message body is still plain text (it contains
> HTML code, but not pictures) and it is small. Modern mail clients
> give you the option to load images only if you want to. So this "big
> size" thing is really a misconception, if the email is properly
> built. It takes 3 seconds to load the message without graphics, I can
> read it just fine, and if I want to see it all, I just click "Load
> images" (in Apple Mail) and here it is.
so
now
I'm reading a what looks like
a plain text mail message
that's bigger than it needs to be
and is wrapped
around pictures I don't have yet-
because it's
better? And if I want the pictures
I can't get them because I'm downloading the rest of my email still...
And I've just
let whoever it is that wrote the email message know exactly who I am and where
I hail from....
No thanks.
But I tell you what - everybody else is probably sick of this argument by now.
Consider this my last post on the subject.
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Augd mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden