[Mimedefang] Rewarding plaintext

[Kelson Vibber]

At 12:15 PM 10/16/2003, David F. Skoll wrote:
>The analogy is imprecise.  I don't expect e-mail to behave like regular 
>mail -- I can't e-mail my sister a present, and I don't expect e-mail to 
>take several days to reach the intended recipient

But in the digital realm, it *does* behave much like regular mail does in 
the physical realm.  Faster?  Electrons vs. airplanes, trucks and 
feet.  Can't send a present?  What if that present is a set of digital 
photos, or an e-book?  (Note, I'm not saying it's the best way to send it, 
just that it can be done.)

I really think the "mail" metaphor explains why so many people are using 
email for things it wasn't designed for - like file transfer.  If you need 
to send someone a physical object, you send it by mail.  If you need to 
send someone a file, and you don't have your own FTP server or web site, 
what do you do?  You can put it on a disk and send that by mail, or you can 
send it by e-mail.  It's an obvious choice.  It may not be the best choice, 
but it's the first thing most people will think of.

>What I'm saying is that pretty soon, the choice will be plain text or 
>nothing at all.
><snip>
>I won't be particularly disturbed when that day arrives.

But a lot of people will be, and there will be a strong drive to come up 
with something else.  If we're lucky, it'll be some sort of XHTML-Lite 
Email Edition, like Joseph suggested.  If we're not, it'll be Microsoft's 
New Proprietary Email Format (TM).

Maybe HTML mail is doomed - if it gets us something new that's open and 
serves the same purpose without being vulnerable to the problems full HTML 
support has, that's a good thing.  But I can't convince myself the future 
of email is 100% plain text, and I can't convince myself that it should 
be.  Every time I try, I feel like I'm starting to tell one of those 
stories about how I used to walk 30 miles to school, through the snow, 
uphill both ways.


Kelson Vibber
SpeedGate Communications <www.speed.net>