No subject

From: <>
Date: Sun Feb 27 18:26:53 2005

-0600 (CST)
X-Authentication-Warning: majordom set sender to using -f
Received: from ( [])
        by (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA59582
        for <>; Sat, 5 Feb 2000 02:39:17 -0600
Received: (from spc_at_localhost)
        by (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA11126
        for; Sat, 5 Feb 2000 03:41:07 -0500
From: "Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner" <>
Message-Id: <>
Subject: Re: HTML in Email
Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2000 03:41:07 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <l03102802b4c17d70f57e_at_[]> from "Mike Ford" at Feb
04, 2000 11:16:33 PM
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Status: R

It was thus said that the Great Mike Ford once stated:
> OTOH I would not be willing to bet that some user on this list hasn't
> entered a message via toggle switches in octal. ;) They are just the ones
> to use HTML to prove a point. Actually it sounds a bit easier than the
> method Allison is using now. <ducking and running>

  Actually, this isn't the first time this topic has come up on this list.
The last time was .. wow! January of 1999 (hmmmm ... seasonal topic?). And
last time, Chuck McManis wanted HTML:

> Sheesh. Plain text really sucks. Y'all prefer that someone type _like
> to indicate a piece of underlined text? or my habit *bolding* with
> asterisks? This message "encoded" with HTML is roughly 5% larger than it
> in plain text. Wow, now that's a waste of resources.

  I responded in kind (and also in Postscript, morse code, and uuencoded

  -spc (I wonder what complaints about email we'll be bitching, uh,
        discussing, next year?)
Received on Sun Feb 27 2005 - 18:26:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Oct 10 2014 - 23:37:41 BST