Re: HTML for email

ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com Tue, 02 March 2021 16:17 UTC

Return-Path: <ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57E3C3A295F for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Mar 2021 08:17:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4VZrWWVJmkUg for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Mar 2021 08:17:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [98.153.82.211]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0BA123A2959 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Mar 2021 08:17:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01RW6P15ENIO001DLM@mauve.mrochek.com> for ietf@ietf.org; Tue, 2 Mar 2021 08:12:01 -0800 (PST)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01RVQNM60R7K005PTU@mauve.mrochek.com> (original mail from NED@mauve.mrochek.com) for ietf@ietf.org; Tue, 2 Mar 2021 08:11:55 -0800 (PST)
From: ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com
Cc: ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com, IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
Message-id: <01RW6P10VSKM005PTU@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2021 08:08:46 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: HTML for email
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Tue, 02 Mar 2021 15:55:16 +0000" <d0da909a-7c55-5493-4c32-537a9cd2f968@foobar.org>
References: <20210227190200.06ED46F10439@ary.qy> <4064.1614454347@localhost> <s1f0vo$ejp$1@gal.iecc.com> <59240886-320d-fae3-6b98-7b83dacaf5e7@network-heretics.com> <CAMm+LwhWCsG68GOws-Zm9TDcEZ4trGBhq7Dm-_0Ci8Ri7kDK=Q@mail.gmail.com> <603D2360.1070406@btconnect.com> <20210301183401.GI21@kduck.mit.edu> <20210301232237.GI30153@localhost> <20210301233255.GM21@kduck.mit.edu> <603E08A1.1010406@btconnect.com> <01RW6LH8U8A4005PTU@mauve.mrochek.com> <d0da909a-7c55-5493-4c32-537a9cd2f968@foobar.org>
To: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/O58BOCYmicUZbTCbWHzuUpKlDGk>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2021 16:17:06 -0000

> ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com wrote on 02/03/2021 14:08:
> > And like it or not, outside the IETF the HTML horse left the barn a
> > long time back.

> Bear in mind that even within the IETF, plenty of people view the entire
> HTML email debate as flogging the proverbial dead horse, and when it
> rolls around every several months, welcomes it in the same way that you
> might welcome an outbreak of cold sores.

> > We can chose to deal with or ignore it, but getting
> > it back in the barn is not an option.
> Looking at this from a different perspective, in the twenty-something
> years of discussion since Content-Type: text/html first appeared, have
> any actionable and viable suggestions emerged about how to deal with
> html email, other than stripping it off in the archived emails?

> Maybe the people who are upset about html email could form a working
> group, take the discussion there and write up an ID with observations
> and recommendations for html emails at the ietf?

Better idea: Create a list for the discussion. That addresses the immediate
goal of saving the poor dead horse from yet another beating, because when the
topic arises (again) we can redirect people to that list.

Whether or not a working  group materializes is then up to the participants. 

				Ned