Re: [SLE] Empty Trash

• Previous message: Graham Smith: "Re: [SLE] What to backup"
• In reply to: Carlos E. R.: "Re: [SLE] Empty Trash"
• Next in thread: Carlos E. R.: "Re: [SLE] Empty Trash"
• Reply: Carlos E. R.: "Re: [SLE] Empty Trash"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

To: suse-linux-e@suse.com
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 18:22:09 -0800

Carlos,

On Monday 08 November 2004 16:36, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> The Monday 2004-11-08 at 08:39 -0800, Randall R Schulz wrote:
> > > Then perhaps youˇd be happy to suply me with an all optical link
> > > from my home to the telco? I have only seen copper on my block. I
> > > have to use a modem and a telephone, and i have to pay each
> > > single minute of the connection, plus the full first minute in
> > > advance.
> >
> > I was not referring to the last mile. To my knowledge, no consumer
> > optical links are commercial available, at leat not in the States.
> > I'm referring to over-capacity in the so-called Internet backbone.
>
> I don't care much about the backbone, I do care about the last mile,
> because that it is my bottleneck ;-)

Really? The quantity of data received on the SuSE-Linux-E list is a
significant proportion of your link's capacity? You must be on one damn
slow link!

> > > p1 is the text part of the OP, p2 is the html part. See the
> > > difference?
> >
> > Here are the unabridged headers from your post (the one to which
> > I'm replying) as they reach me:
>
> I know that, you do not need to post them. Notice that some of those
> headers were added by your own machine, by the way.

OK. I guess it's "only" 1700+ bytes...

> > That's over 2000 bytes of overhead for each message! Adding a
> > little styled text isn't going to make anyone go broke if they can
> > already afford to subscribe to SuSE-Linux-E.
>
> The headers can not be avoided.

Yes, but that's part of the point. Complaints about "bandwidth" must be
evaluated in the context of the total amount of data that must be
transmitted to convey a message from the list server to one of its
subscribers.

> The important thing that I was pointing out is the size factor
> between both methods. The html part is about twice as big, and that
> one was a small email. After one or two top postings, it soon gets
> over 20 Kbytes.

Again, keep things separate. Bad posting style is not a technology
problem, it's a user problem. Many subscribers seem quite resistant to
putting thought into properly editing their posts.

And again, if we'd simply expect users to use modern software, multipart
messages that add a plain-text counterpart to a styled message would be
unnecessary.

> And, you should not forget that there are many people - me, for
> example - using plain text programs. Pine can show some html, but not
> all. Some X clients do not handle html well, or not at all. Even if
> we are on the 21th century, that is a fact.

That's another part of the point. Using antiquated software is _not_ a
reason to resist using a richer medium of communication. Not when it's
supported by bona fide standards.

> Thus, the list is designed for the minimun common denominator.

Which is silly, but nonetheless is a value judgement on the part of the
list administrator. We should keep in mind, too, that with a change in
proprietorship for SuSE as a whole, all these things are potentially
subject to change. Perhaps Novell is more enlightened than the old SuSE
folks. After all, isn't Germany part of "Old Europe?" (Sorry, I
couldn't resist... I hate Bush at least as much as any fundie hates the
devil, by the way.)

> > And again, I'm advocating styled text only, not full-blown HTML
> > mail, though I find that quite useful at times, too. I'll only view
> > such mail from known and trusted senders, of course.
>
> But I only complain about html mail, not styled mail - however, I
> have never seen such a thing. And the original poster used html.

Barely. But still the point applies. Electronic mail is simply one means
of communication. If HTML, with its embedded style, layout and images,
is a useful medium for communication--and I think we all agree it
is--then why should it be excluded from electronic mail?

Face it, there is _no_ valid reason not to. Just a lot of emotional crap
that is, apparently, a hangover from the early days of the internet
when there was no Web. It's just atavistic to reject a rich
communication medium. Think about it. Every objection we hear is either
unsubstantiated or blatantly emotional, or both. "There's no way in
freakin' hell that I'll ever let an HTML message anywhere near _my_
in-box!!!!!"

> Hey, you just said "I'll only view such mail from known and trusted
> senders". What about the list? Do you trust everybody on it? Because
> the issue here is using html on the list.

Is it? My issue is styled text, not HTML.

> > Honestly, I don't understand all the opposition to styled text in
> > email, but I've made my case and will not press it further.

Hmm.... I guess I'm a liar. I just couldn't resist!

> ˇBut it doesn't exist! I wouldn't care much about the ability to say
> "this is bold" or whatever... In fact, perhaps I would like it. But
> there is no such standard, I think; for example, Pine knows nothing
> of such "styled text". There is only html, and to be polite it means
> sending both plain text and html, the second one been twice as big.
> A small mail is not much, but some reach 60Kbytes. I know, I get a
> few newsletters and such every day. It is not only "font style" they
> use, but boxes, charts, logos, and who knows what. 60Kb for a page or
> two. :-/

(I wish English used the 'ˇ')

What doesn't exist? You're simply wrong, you know. There most certainly
is such a standard. Do you think I'd go on like this over a fantasy /
hallucination? <URL: http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1896.html>. <URL:
http://mango.human.cornell.edu/kens/etf.html> is a nice explanatory
page.

I guess I was just spoiled by Eudora. It has long had support for RFC
1523 and successors. Short of it's lack of threading, it's definitely
the best email client I've ever used. KMail is good, but it's not quite
as nice as Eudora...

> --
> Cheers,
> Carlos Robinson

Randall Schulz

-- 
Check the headers for your unsubscription address
For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com
Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com
Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

• Previous message: Graham Smith: "Re: [SLE] What to backup"
• In reply to: Carlos E. R.: "Re: [SLE] Empty Trash"
• Next in thread: Carlos E. R.: "Re: [SLE] Empty Trash"
• Reply: Carlos E. R.: "Re: [SLE] Empty Trash"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]