Re:

From: GH <grasshacker(at)over-yonder(dot)net>
To: "Thomas T(dot) Veldhouse" <veldy(at)veldy(dot)net>
Cc: PostgreSQL-general <pgsql-general(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re:
Date: 2001-06-29 18:37:48
Message-ID: 20010629133748.A89057@over-yonder.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-sql

On Fri, Jun 29, 2001 at 12:27:40PM -0500, some SMTP stream spewed forth:
> I agree entirely. On all the mailing lists that I am on (10+), not one
> appreciates HTML, except the PostgreSQL lists, where I see a lot of it.
> Since PostgreSQL primarily runs on *NIX, I thought most would prefer text.

With what are you agreeing?
I appreciate HTML. I have to; it's my job. HTML e-mail is Whole Other
Vile Beast.
I generally consider HTML email an annoyance, and, honestly, most of
the time I ignore it. I feel like HTML does not belong in the "message"
part of an e-mail. If an HTML file needs to be attached, so be it, I
encourage that even. Especially in a public forum, the essence of what
you are communicating should be the focus, not the layout or the pretty
colors or (Universe forbid) the images.

gh

> Tom Veldhouse
> veldy(at)veldy(dot)net
>
> > Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> > >
> > > PS There is a lot of HTML email on this list. Is this generally
> considered good? Or should I convert my replies to text?
> > >
> > This is generally considered annoying, as lines >80
> > characters are :-P
> > Wasn't meant offensive - just couldn't resist.
> >
> > Jan

In response to

  • Re: at 2001-06-29 17:27:40 from Thomas T. Veldhouse

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2001-06-29 18:43:10 Re: (was: )
Previous Message Jan Wieck 2001-06-29 18:34:07 Re: no comment

Browse pgsql-sql by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2001-06-29 18:43:10 Re: (was: )
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2001-06-29 18:31:33 Re: