[Asrg] "more readable"

gep2@terabites.com Fri, 20 June 2003 22:48 UTC

Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA13556 for <asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:48:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5KMm7p32297 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:48:07 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TUfv-0008Oq-Kq for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:48:07 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA13524; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:48:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TUfs-000468-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:48:04 -0400
Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TUfs-000465-00; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:48:04 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TUfp-0008MI-9G; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:48:01 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19TUer-0008GZ-Qw for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:47:01 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA13477 for <asrg@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:46:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: gep2@terabites.com
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TUep-00044u-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:46:59 -0400
Received: from h002.c000.snv.cp.net ([209.228.32.66] helo=c000.snv.cp.net) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19TUeo-00044r-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:46:58 -0400
Received: (cpmta 6645 invoked from network); 20 Jun 2003 15:46:57 -0700
Received: from 12.239.18.238 (HELO WinProxy.anywhere) by smtp.terabites.com (209.228.32.66) with SMTP; 20 Jun 2003 15:46:57 -0700
X-Sent: 20 Jun 2003 22:46:57 GMT
Received: from 192.168.0.30 by 192.168.0.1 (WinProxy); Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:45:47 -0600
Received: from 192.168.0.240 (unverified [192.168.0.240]) by nts1.terabites.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id <B0000024132@nts1.terabites.com>; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:12:55 -0500
Message-ID: <B0000024132@nts1.terabites.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: asrg@ietf.org
X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [Asrg] "more readable"
Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:asrg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/asrg/>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:12:55 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

>>  'Unnecessary' HTML (just P and DIV tags): 23

> This is not necessarily a valid measure of utility. It is often
the case that HTML is displayed using fonts which are different from
those used to display "ASCII" messages. Given that those fonts are often
variable pitch and given that variable pitch fonts are known to be (for
most people) much more readable, one can argue that there is utility in
sending HTML formatted messages even if that HTML doesn't include
special rendering of text. 

Most E-mail programs, if they have special font provisions at all, have the 
ability for the users to set their fonts to whatever settings they choose (size, 
color, typeface, whatever).  Again, the RECIPIENT should be able to set THEIR 
choice (e.g. they might be colorblind, and the sender's choice of colors might 
not be appropriate, etc etc.)

Likewise, a font which looks fine on the sender's machine might not even EXIST 
on the recipient's machine.  

If the recipient "feels there is value" in displaying incoming mail messages in 
(say) 18 point script, then THEY should set their mailer to that and it 
shouldn't be overriden by the sender.

> The utility comes from sending the message in a format which is likely to be 
easier to read as well as to be more readily understood by the reader.

I think you ought to let the READER be the judge of what the READER finds the 
most readable... based on THEIR screen, THEIR vision, THEIR color preferences, 
THEIR screen resolution, etc etc.

And if the reader chooses to give that permission to certain of their trusted 
senders, they ought to be able to do that if they wish.  But they shouldn't be 
subjected to the whims and nonsense chosen by some random spammer somewhere.

(such as a spammer who decides there is "utility and value" in putting some of 
their (perhaps legally required) message in 2-point white text on a white 
background...)

Gordon Peterson                  http://personal.terabites.com/
1977-2002  Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking!
Support the Anti-SPAM Amendment!  Join at http://www.cauce.org/
12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent".
12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America.



_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg