Kevin Krammer posted on Thu, 13 Dec 2012 10:34:56 +0100 as excerpted:
> On Thursday, 2012-12-13, Duncan wrote:
>
>> First, a quick request. Please refrain from posting HTML to the kde
>> lists[.] Plain text is good. =:^)
>
> This could be a problem of your setup. The mail of Burgess Wong contains
> both a plain text version and a HTML version (multipart/mixed).
>
> This allows the recipient's mail reader to display whatever its user
> prefers, in my case the plain text version. Seems your mail reader
> thinks you prefer the HTML version.
My client is actually showing both, as text, one after the other (without
a separator, not even so much as a line feed, so the plain text sig is
immediately followed on the same line by the opening html tag, which I'd
call a bug, but...). That means it's showing the raw/ugly HTML code, but
I do see all text parts, which can be critical. (I've seen buggy mail
composers that send a blank "plain text" part, fooling many clients that
display only one into displaying a blank post until the HTML or raw-text
view is chosen. That problem's avoided if all text parts are displayed.)
If it's worth the bother both to post and to ask others to read, I
believe it's worth sending in plain text. If it has to be dressed up in
HTML, that's an indication that the sender themselves didn't think the
message was worth the trouble in plain text -- they had to dress it up in
fancy HTML to make it look presentable. Of course that's assuming
they're not deliberately taking advantage of the HTML to try to avoid the
anti-spam filters (some spammers hide text intended to fool the anti-spam-
filters in HTML sections not normally shown to the reader) or to
propagate spyware (webbugs being a rather common technique) or malware.
It also ignores those who simply aren't aware, but that's why I make the
request, as I've found many quickly comply once they're made aware of the
issue.
Thus, if I'm already attempting to answer their question and the message
text wasn't plain text only, I address both the plain-text/html point,
and the question. (I make it a point not to reply ONLY to mention the
HTML. If I don't believe I might have something potentially helpful in
response to their question, I don't reply at all), I do try to make the
request for plain text only. They're always free to ignore it, of
course, just as I'm always free to killfile them if I find they are doing
so[1]. But most of the time people simply weren't aware, and once
they're asked and thus are made aware, they're happy to switch. =:^)
---
[1] I've been known to compare posting in HTML to sliming one's hand with
snot, then offering to shake someone's hand with it. It's unsanitary,
and just because the other person happens to be wearing metaphorical
gloves in the form of a client that doesn't actually act on the HTML,
doesn't make the act any less offensive; neither does society's
unfortunate acceptance thereof, tho it does mean it's not necessarily
being intentionally rude. But once the request has been made and the
person becomes aware of their sliming-n-shaking behavior, continuing it
does mean I take further protective measures, including killfiling,
should it come to that. Fortunately it very seldom does.
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
___________________________________________________
This message is from the kde mailing list.
Account management: https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde.
Archives: http://lists.kde.org/.
More info: http://www.kde.org/faq.html.
