RE: (Netflix/GlobalConnect a/s) Scheduled Open Connect Appliance upgrade is starting

["Keith Medcalf" <kmedcalf () dessus com>]

Whenever someone has a "experience" while reading an e-mail message or viewing a web page, one has to wonder what sort 
of drugs they are on ...  It is the LSD that provides the "experience", not whether you are viewing an e-mail message 
or a web-page-over-SMTP ...

Please experience the wonders of the top-quote.  See your local psychedelic distributor if you are somehow not 
"experiencing" anything ...

---
The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a lot about anticipated traffic volume.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces () nanog org] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong
> Sent: Monday, 14 January, 2019 15:22
> To: Valdis Kletnieks
> Cc: nanog () nanog org
> Subject: Re: (Netflix/GlobalConnect a/s) Scheduled Open Connect
> Appliance upgrade is starting
>
>
>
> > On Jan 13, 2019, at 12:11 PM, valdis.kletnieks () vt edu wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 20:55:54 +0100, Christoffer Hansen said:
> >
> > > (*it is frustrating when content parity between HTML and PLAINTEXT
> > > sections is e-mails is inconsistent. :/ )
> >
> > Back when we were designing MIME,  somebody (Vernon Schryver?)
> stated
> > that multipart/alternative with text/plain and text/html was
> *always* incorrect.
> > If the two parts are semantically equal, then one is superfluous
> and doesn't
> > need to be sent. (Remember bandwidth costs in 1992...)
> >
> > If the two parts aren't semantically equal, then one part is
> deficient at best
> > and actively misleading at worst, and should not be sent.
>
> This involves a number of erroneous assumptions, IMHO…
>
> 1.     All recipients have the ability to consume either form.
> 2.     HTML cannot offer a better experience to some recipients while
> remaining semantically
>       equivalent to the plain text content.
> 3.     The improved recipient experience afforded by HTML has no value
> beyond what can be
>       done in plain text.
> 4.     The cost of bandwidth will remain fixed at 1992 levels.
>
> While I’m not a huge fan of the various forms of rich text for most
> emails, I do acknowledge that they do sometimes have merit and that
> in those cases, having a plain-text alternative included in the
> message for backwards compatibility with less capable or automated
> email consumers is, IMHO, preferable to not having it and consumes
> very little bandwidth by today’s standards.
>
> Owen