Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 13:53:44 -0700
Reply-To: Tobin Copley <tobin.copley@UBC.CA>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Tobin Copley <tobin.copley@UBC.CA>
Subject: Re: MIME Message!--should be a non-problem!!
In-Reply-To: <NDBBLJMIKKPIIGCCAEOBEEHICLAA.coyote@macromedia.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
At 4:29 PM -0700 5/23/00, Ron 'Coyote' Lussier wrote:
>Listen, bub. [yada, yada. etc., etc., justify, so on and so forth]
Jeez, folks, we're talking about "standard" this, bandwidth waste
that, bemoaning that this HTML thing is a fait a complit, shrugging
shoulders and wasting even more bandwidth. I really don't care about
corporate politics and conspiracy theories, either. Not my bag.
Look: HTML takes a lot more bandwidth than plain text. Sure, Ron,
Outlook writes "extremely inefficient code", whatever, I don't care,
that doesn't really sell me on your argument. Fact is, *Outlook*
writes very voluminous HTML code, and *Outlook* is what most of the
HTML bandwidth wasters on this list use. You point out Outlook
writes crappy code, that HTML needn't be so inefficient, but what are
*you* using? Outlook. Exactly.
Hey pals, love you and all, and I'm not trying to pick on Ron
personally here, but we're not all running Windows and sitting on a
T1, DSL, or cable modem line. Where I'm sitting right now, on little
Bowen Island, I've got a 56K modem on an analog line that I'm usually
lucky to get anything close to a 28,000 bps connection on. Often I'm
down well below 20K. Don't tell me to get better hardware or find a
better ISP, 'cause that ain't where the problem lies. I'm in a
remote location, as far as communications are concerned. No cable,
DSL, or fibre here. Digitally switched phone lines? Nope. We're
all on old analog switches, run through old overloaded wire lines,
through a 4 mile ancient underwater cable to the nearest "central
switch", which (helpfully) is piggy-backed on several other switches
(which are also analog), and only then does my phone finally hit a
digital line.
So: downloading HTML mail adds significantly to my time. My time is
worth something. Therefore, it costs me money. Sometimes, it even
pisses me off. And I *know* I'm not the only one on this list in
this situation. Lotsa folks are in remote locations, or have noisy
phone lines, or are pulling down list mail on a 14.4 kbps modem, so
let's consider them, huh?
The Type2 list (for 68-79 VW buses) has run for *years* with the
server removing anything that is not text-only. It works really
well, and everyone gets the content they signed up for, fast, and
without HTML junk, attachments, hotmail ads, or anything like that.
I doubt anyone could convince me that HTML email enhancements are
really necessary when discussing vanagons. Making text blue in
helvetica 10 point doesn't add anything. The Type2 list admins have
set their server up so that it:
- strips HTML encoding out of messages before propagating them
- knocks off those irritating banners at the bottom of messages from
web-based mail like hotmail, yahoo, etc.
- strips off *all* attachments, saving listees from collecting those
wonderful winmail.dat and yadayada.vcf files. Also saves the server
from sending that stupid 800K joke .gif from the newbie to 800 people.
- refuses mail without subject lines
- adds a one-line "to unsubscribe send message with [whatever] to
[whatever address]" banner at the bottom of *every* list mail message.
- and a whole lot of other stuff.
It's pretty clear from the discussion on HTML email here (especially
among HTML mail advocates) that we have a number of people on this
list who are pretty computer savvy, or at least think they are. If
Type2 can do such a good job getting maximum value/bandwidth to their
listees, why can't we? Heck, maybe a little streamlining in the
list's processes would remove the need to upgrade gerry, at least for
the foreseeable future...
Disclaimer: I'm no techie, I just know an inefficient use of
resources when I see it, and can appreciate a smart use of existing
resources (eg, Type2). No personal flames here, more a comment on a
general (and entirely preventable) problem.
I've stayed out of this up to this point, and it's also the last I'm
gonna say on this using list bandwidth. Apologies to all who wasted
5 seconds downloading this, but just be thankful I didn't encode it
in HTML.
:-/
T.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tobin Copley Bowen Island, BC, Canada tobin.copley@ubc.ca
'82 westy 1.6L NA diesel ("Stinky")
'97 son Russell =============
'99 daughter Margaret /_| |__| |__|:| clatter
1995: 'Round US, Mexico, Canada 15,000 mi O|. .| clatter!
1996: Vancouver to Inuvik, NWT 7,400 km ~-()-==----()-~
Previous buses: '76 westy deluxe (Daisy), '76 westy standard (Mango)
http://www.sfu.ca/~tcopley/vw/
|