1. RE: Mangling of mails
> (Why someone wants to send both HTML and plain text version of an
email
is beyond me ...)
It's so that people with text-only e-mail viewers can still read the
e-mail without all the garbage. I guess it's not working...
~Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: jbrown1050 at hotpop.com [mailto:jbrown1050 at hotpop.com]
Subject: Re: Mangling of mails
On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 08:46:01PM +0100, Juergen Luethje wrote:
>
> Concerning spreading viruses by mail, HTML and attachments carry the
> highest risk. I think attachments sometimes can be useful on this
list,
> but from my point of view, HTML-mail could be completely banned.
> I think this can be checked by a program and handled appropriately,
> without cutting off lines of the text.
I think that MIME as multi-part attachements are a bad idea.
I.e. have both text and html versions of the message in the same email.
While this is not as big a risk for viruses perhaps (tho it could be,
since there is HTML in the email), it just plain wastes bandwidth.
Hence my modifed signature, which has the '*' in it, and is also against
"unneeded MIME" - MIME is good for file attachements, not so good for
multipart
emails. (Why someone wants to send both HTML and plain text version of
an email
is beyond me ...)
>
> >> Not amused,
> >> Juergen
> >>
> > Second, either,
> >
> > -- Euler
Third,
jbrown
>
> --
> /"\ ASCII ribbon | while not asleep do
> \ / campain against | sheep += 1
> X HTML e-mail and | end while
> / \ news |
2. RE: Mangling of mails
Well for one, HTML makes it easier to display some diagrams like tables
and also allows you to add inline images. It has the *potential* to a
lot more complicated (and possibly useful) things that HTML supports -
inline frames, videos, ActiveX - but those are unconventional, not
widely supported, and huge security flaws.
*sigh* In a perfect world. . .
~Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: jbrown1050 at hotpop.com [mailto:jbrown1050 at hotpop.com]
Subject: Re: Mangling of mails
On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 09:38:12PM -0500, thomas at columbus.rr.com wrote:
>
> > (Why someone wants to send both HTML and plain text version of an
> email
> is beyond me ...)
>
> It's so that people with text-only e-mail viewers can still read the
> e-mail without all the garbage. I guess it's not working...
>
> ~Tom
>
But why have HTML emails in the first place?
For reference, Mutt can handle multipart emails fine, and I added an
entry
to the config file so I can read HTML emails (by converting to plain
text
first), however I haev a low bandwidth connection so I don't like
wasting
my bandwidth space like that.
<snip>
jbrown
--
/"\ ASCII ribbon
\ / campain against
X HTML in e-mail and
/*\ news, and unneeded MIME
TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
