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

Tue Jan 15 03:14:31 UTC 2019

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 at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong
>Sent: Monday, 14 January, 2019 15:22
>To: Valdis Kletnieks
>Cc: nanog at 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 at 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