Re: Face: or X-Face:

[David Z Maze]

Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com> writes:

> as for the rest : I guess many would say x-face since its B&W and less
> bandwidth : although, frankly, times and bandwidths have changed - it
> depends if you want to appease those with very, very bandwidth. Even an
> x-face uses bytes - but can be very small (relatively) too.

I think in an era where most people are generating MIME mails with
duplicate text/plain and text/html parts and the HTML is pretty
groady, spending 2K for a picture in an otherwise compact plain-text
message isn't being that wasteful.  :-)

As far as Face vs. X-Face goes, to my knowledge only Gnus uses Face,
but its format is fairly obvious and I could imagine hacking it into
my favorite other open-source mail reader [1].  X-Face is a stranger
but more compact format, but there's at least one other mailer that
uses it (EXMH, IIRC).

  --dzm

[1] ...but that's mutt (sometimes starting Emacs, with spam-split.el
    turned on using nnml backed by AFS, is just too slow).  Maybe
    aalib deals with PNG files...