Is it fair to say that html gives one (the writer) more tools with which to add "nuance" (and we ALL know how important that is) to the thoughts expressed in text (for the reader), as opposed to iChatting/iSighting, in hopes of reducing misunderstanding, enhancing meaning, embellishing the context, jazzing-up the message . . . all that great stuff.
Well beyond even the most elegant smilies . . . or even the greatest similes.
Just asking.
True. The problem with HTML email
downloading is that it contains images which are not usually sent with the text. Instead, As I understand it, the image is
sent when the message is actually
displayed as HTML. At that point, your email programs HTML interpreter 'sees' the HTML tag calling for an image. That results in a request being sent to where ever that image is stored and it is sent back for display. Now, as
tacit has graciuosly pointed out, that image could be nothing more than a 1 pixel by 1 pixel, transparent gif. The sole purpose of the image is to get a response from your computer that will tell the SPAMmer that yuors is a valid address that might be worth trying to compremise. Especially since it appears that you will open almost any message!
Sometimes the graphic is simply a nusance, sometimes it may be a carrier of malware, so far, only for Windows types. But why tempt fate
and advertise your address?!
Just to see a Flash movie? I don't
think so...
On the positive side, newer email programs will allow the user to see all the 'styling' of HTML but
allow the image tag to perform it's 'magic!'
