On 3/12/99 8:19 PM, Rich Kulawiec <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote...
>On Thu, Mar 11, 1999 at 08:32:01AM -0500, Tom Neff wrote:
>> Unfortunately, it's been my experience over the years that just as some
>> users cannot change their mail agent, some administrators cannot grasp or
>> agree with this egalitarian principle, and will always give you the "well,
>> the idiots should get a real mailer [as defined this month] or they don't
>> deserve my list" argument.
>Given that the cost of the necessary computing hardware and software
>has dropped to an amazingly low level, I see nothing wrong with insisting
>that subscribers avail themselves of suitable resources to serve their
It's not even a matter of that. There are plenty of mailers which do not
violate standards that have a small RAM footprint. In fact, your argument
rather mirrors those who say it's okay to use HTML in email.
Only in a corporate setting can somoene truly say they have no choice.
Unfortunately, that's often where the offenders are.
Adam Bailey | Chicago, Illinois
email@example.com | "Logic is the art of going wrong with
firstname.lastname@example.org | confidence." - George Bernard Shaw
Finger for PGP | http://www.lull.org/adam/