ASCII e-mail vs iso-8859-1

From: Richard Erlacher <>
Date: Sat Jun 10 17:00:06 2000

That reduces almost trivially to a convenience versus self-flagellation
issue. After years of fiddling with pine and the like, whichever happened
to be on the system to which I had shell access, I'm glad there's a
convenient way to utilize the net. Without getting into the Windows versus
"other" debate, I must say it's a simple matter of using what's easy and
convenient as opposed to something not so easy and not so convenient.
Neither one does exactly what I want it to do, but one is close enough while
the other isn't. Apparently lots of others feel the same way, though I
imagine most Windows users have no other experience on the net.

I'd say it's easy enough for most folks to turn off the
fancier-than-plain-old-text mode and resort to simple text transmission.
Occasionally, however, since I do communicate with people who like to use
HTML, I sometimes forget and leave the mode in whichever state it was when I
answered the previous mail. Perhaps others have made that mistake as well.

The inconvenience of being incompatible with the HTML when I'm using a CP/M
system (which I certainly don't do on the net) is a price one pays for using
an old dog that can't seem to learn new tricks. Almost any 15-year-old long
obsolete SUN box can do it. If I want to use my old 8-bitter to do this,
inconvenient or not, it's my choice, don't you think?


----- Original Message -----
From: R. D. Davis <>
To: <>
Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2000 1:49 PM
Subject: Re: ASCII e-mail vs iso-8859-1

> On Sat, 10 Jun 2000, Dave McGuire wrote:
> > I agree 100%. Though I must point out that it has nothing at all to
> > do with "older" or "newer"'s primarily a "windows" or
> > "non-windows" issue.
> Hmmm, so this is an operating systems vs. a pseudo operating system
> issue. Thanks for the explanation.
> --
> R. D. Davis
> 410-744-4900
Received on Sat Jun 10 2000 - 17:00:06 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Oct 10 2014 - 23:33:01 BST