No subject

[Tero Pesonen]

On Sat, 2011-08-13 at 17:11 -0500, Jordon Bedwell wrote:
> On 08/13/2011 05:05 PM, Tero Pesonen wrote:
> > On Sun, 2011-08-14 at 00:37 +0300, Tero Pesonen wrote:
> >> On Sat, 2011-08-13 at 16:23 -0500, Jordon Bedwell wrote:
> >>> Yes really, you defended a multi-part message which is worse then plain
> >>> HTML because it takes up more space than either one alone, it's both
> >>> combined so it's an absolute waste.  The entire justification of sending
> >>> plain text is bandwidth restrictions... 
> > 
> > You should then consider requesting people here to trim their replies
> > more carefully by removing unnecessary quoted text and the list
> > signature, as well as by ridding their messages of long personal
> > signatures which some people now see fit to apply to all outgoing list
> > mail. That would save quite a bit of bandwith and disk space at your
> > end.
> 
> Who said anything about me specifically?

You said saving bandwith was the entire justification for plain text; it
is not the justification for me, as my earlier reply explained. Nor is
to other users whom I know to prefer plaintext. So in case yours was
meant to be a universal statement, let me opine that that no, bandwith
restrictions are not the only justified reason to send plaintext. 

Tero Pesonen