I totally agree Ann. But life and trends being the way they are right now there is nothing we can do about html messages. I am not big on webmail for that exact reason yet I have it on my site for my friends who use asmodean.net to check their email? Why? because these friends of mine don't know better. I tease them about it. So am I advocating html and web usage for email? Probably if you look at it that way, but I don't like it. PS: Just as a smartass remark, there are more than just ftp, telnet, http, pop3 style traffic on the web, oops on the net. lol. But I'm sure you know that. As I said, smiling big as I'm being a smartass. -- If you perceive that there are four possible ways in which a procedure can go wrong, and circumvent these, then a fifth way will promptly develop. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ann Parsons" <akp@xxxxxxxxx> To: <speakup at braille.uwo.ca> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 12:06 PM Subject: Re: Reply to your enquiry > Hi all, > > Yeh, Raul, that's true, very true, but email is supposed to be email > and HTML is supposed to be kept where it belongs, on the web. Maybe > I'm a purist, but darn it all, the Net has four main parts to it: > ftp, email, telnet and html. The Net is not sononymous with the web! > The web is on the net, but all the net is not the web. I just want > some kind of separation folks! Email is email and should, if really > taken to its final outcome, be run by engines and software that are > accessed via email messages, not via the web. But I preach in vain, I > preach in vain. People yack about The Web when they mean The Net. > People *will* send email in HTML because they don't know any better > way to do it, and Billy-Boy gates perpetuates the myth. "They don't > make email the way they used to..." said in an old quavery voice.
