I tend to agree. Also the purist in me insists that email is a *text*
protocol, not an HTML one. And I too dump every HTML message I get because
ELM doesn't handle them, it just spews them out raw.
Elm users, if you get annoyed by getting two copies every time someone does
a group reply, I think you could set a filter up that searches for your
address in "To" AND the list's address in the "cc" header and redirects those
messages to /dev/null. I haven't tried this, nor have I given the headers of
a list reply to a message of mine close scrutiny so I might be wrong.
> Hmmmm... seems to me, running Pine as I do, that the "reply to"
> issue, in my particular case, breaks down to laziness on my part:
> Two keystrokes to set up a reply vs. replacing the Original Sender's
> name with the list name. And I'm sure I could automate it but... why?
>
> If I had my druthers, I'd vote for the "old" way, however it's
> almost a non-issue with me, and it even provides for a little
> 'breathing room' right before I blast off a piquant reply that, in
> the fulness of time, may or may not have been a little rash.
>
> NOW, FURTHERMORE:
>
> In all this discussion of the New Classiccmp regime... I would
> like to weigh in with Allison on the issue of HTML and Binary
> attachments propagated to this List.
>
> I belong to 6 other lists besides this one, and four have some kind
> of HTML filtering and binaries-rejectors. I dislike, and delete
> unread, HTML stuff, because this is an ASCII list and I engage it
> with an ASCII mailreader. Yes, I have PPP accounts and Netscrape and
> all the rest, but my central (and voluminous) corespondence is
> carried on Pine under a Unix shell account, and I ain't changin' it.
>
> [I offer Kevin Murrel's post above as a non-rancorous example]
>
> IMHO, it does little or no good to try and 'police' the issue
> case-by-case, due to the influx of new members and existing members
> forgetting or not caring. Most folk here are pretty sensitive to
> this, I have found, once made aware that HTML is displayed in it's
> raw state for many of Us. And I think it's much prettier cooked. It
> does seem to be a losing battle in the long run.
>
> If this instance of majordomo has such filters, I, for one, would
> like to see them energized....
>
>
> Cheers
>
> John
>
--
Jim Strickland
jim_at_DIESPAMMERSCUMcalico.litterbox.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
BeOS Powered!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Thu Feb 03 2000 - 11:34:03 GMT