> <rant>
>
> Aaaaagghhh!
>
> html is for the WEB!
> If you want auto-virus-cookie-ad-uglyass mail, then just accept
> it as progress.
> I however, believe that email should be TEXT ONLY.
>
> The marketing droids are trying to push for the html email so
> they can put ADS
> in and TRACK their mails.
>
> </rant>

I respectably disagree.  HTML stands for 'Hypertext Markup Language' and is
not web-specific.  I've personally implemented a chat interface using HTML.
It's designed for document formatting, much as TEX or SGML.

When the Macintosh first came out, Windows users (who then had no choice of
fonts or styles) ranted on and on that no one needed multiple fonts or
boldfaced text.  And granted, there were a lot of style-deficit people who
created god-forsaken memos before they finally settled down.

Likewise, some now say that email documents have no need for fonts or
styles.  To these people, email should only be written in a fixed font
without embellishment.  Though there is a lot to say for minimalism, I
myself prefer to use occasional italic or boldface to emphasize words or
phrases.  These capabilities have been available in the publishing world for
some time, and now the tools are available for our use.

The argument against HTML formatting on the basis of the number of
characters in the letter is a specious one.  The difference for text
messages is not noticeable.  (Embedded graphics are another matter
entirely.)  Likewise, the use of HTML as a formatting tool does not in any
way translate to either tracking or ads.

If there are poor unfortunates who are actually paying by the byte for their
email, as David suggested, I would suggest that you get an ISP with a
reasonable fee structure.  There are many flat-monthly-fee services
available.

Coyote

--                      /\_/\     ____
Ron 'Coyote' Lussier   (     )    \ _/__
coyote@macromedia.com   \   /      \X  /  1991 Syncro Westy 'Francis'
1.650.481.4847           \_/         \/             San Francisco, CA