But banning! isn't that a little heavy-handed. For example, I might
want to post a rather longish document with internal content links at
the top of it. That seems innocent and useful enough !
Russell McOrmond wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Sep 2002, Raja Guha wrote:
>>But why such hatred of html email?
> Accessability (IE: not available to all) and security (A number of
> exploits exist that use HTML and abuse poorly written clients) are the two
> top reasons.
Accessability:
-------------
HTML works fine on Mozilla 1.0(downloaded and default compiled) on SuSE.
It is concieveable that there are character-based readers which use lynx
code to display text html accurately (e.g. less handles html automatically.)
And there are filters (html2txt) that convert HTML to text which may be
invoked automatically by the clients mail handler.
As a last resort, as sayan, a client may simply ban it from his desktop
using various "spam guard" software or preference settings on the
mail-reader.
Security:
--------
By your logic my ISP should ban all anonymous FTP - in which case I
could never have downloaded Mozilla and would never have had the
opportunity for such fine debates!
The admin may install virus checkers, etc. that WARN the receivers.
e.g. Yahoo will allow you to download infected attachments even when
their checker has detected a virus. This is right and proper, as Yahoo
does not KNOW that I will not be affected by the virus (as I am running
Linux!) or that I am a anti-virus programmer (hypothetically!) and
people mail me virii for my collection.
Accessability, security - these should be the resposibility and CHOICE
of the end-users - both the senders and the receivers. Html is a
commonly accepted means of creating complex documents. Email and lists
are common forms of exchanging info and documents. Html should be
always be allowed unless there is some other absolute imperative.
-------------
The only legitimate reason could be that it affects the mail-server in
some fashion. Then it could be said to be harmful for all as it could
disrupt service, cost time, and effort of the admin, etc.
To ban at the source (or rather at the exchange-point) seems
over-cautious at best. Protection from our own selves! - is this what
we lugers (other than sayan ;) ) need?
To ban an entire class of technology that MOST users can successfully
handle, in the guise of benificial services to these same users ... in
my humble opinion - that is not "the Open Source way"!
Sayan, just configure your mail server to filter your html mail through
html2txt and we can avoid this needless "protection". ( You must really
love this list if you are replying to it, in your state! Hoping for an
earlier recovery - keep us posted. I realize how utterly terrifying
your experience must have been.)
--
Raja Guha
---------
Razors pain you;
Rivers are damp;
Acids stain you;
And drugs cause cramp.
Guns aren't lawful;
Nooses give;
Gas smells awful;
You might as well live.
-- Dorothy Parker
--
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the body
"unsubscribe ilug-cal" and an empty subject line.
FAQ: http://www.ilug-cal.org/help/faq_list.html
