On Wed, 2002-09-18 at 03:19, Raja Guha wrote:
> But banning! isn't that a little heavy-handed.
i guess not. most people on the list who have written on this matter
have been against html mail. so it is a de facto choice already. what
harm can there be in making it de jure, especially if some people
continue to flout that norm out of absent-mindeness, carelessness or
whatever? indeed, even they should welcome the move if they are honestly
unable to configure their MUA-s properly - isn't it better to have your
occasional html mail bounced by a software, without anyone knowing about
it, than to be chidden again and again publicly on the list? i have been
guilty of the same error in the past (though not more than a couple of
times, i suppose), and may be again; it's only human to make mistakes,
right?
wrong. no, i won't be making the same mistake again, thanks to the new
policy. i feel relieved by the thought.
> It is concieveable that there are character-based readers which use lynx
> code to display text html accurately (e.g. less handles html automatically.)
no, it doesn't. a script called lesspipe.sh does, though not
'automatically'. i mean it doesn't interpret html on its own. it
determines the target filetype with /usr/bin/file, (and if the type is
found to be html) takes a text dump with the help of lynx, and reads
that temporary file. what sometimes makes lesspipe's invocation
transparent is the fact that on some boxes /usr/bin/less is a symlink to
/usr/bin/lesspipe.sh.
> Accessability, security -
^
that is 'accessibility' (irrelevant point, but couldn't help pointing it
out after it survived through three or four iterations of this thread. i
hope this doesn't hurt anyone's feelings).
> these should be the resposibility and CHOICE
> of the end-users - both the senders and the receivers.
but most end users here seem to dislike html mail. isn't it the
democratic method to turn the wish of the majority into law?
> 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.
i don't see why. an email is hardly ever a complex document. if you want
to send me something really complex, why don't you send it as an
attachment? i have been on this list for some time, and i don't remember
reading any mail complex enough to merit html tags, or even an
attachment. certainly nothing long enough for 'internal links' to be
worth their trouble.
> 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?
yep, maybe we do. it's like keeping the fridge door locked though the
key be with you. what's the use, if you can always open it? nothing,
except preventing yourself from taking a snack absent-mindedly when you
really, really want to be on a diet.
believe me, it happens to people :-)
> To ban an entire class of technology that MOST users can successfully
> handle,
maybe they can, but they don't want to, it seems. and that is good
enough for me.
> in the guise of benificial services to these same users ... in
> my humble opinion - that is not "the Open Source way"!
the "open source way" is about choice. on this list, the majority choose
to reject html.
> Sayan, just configure your mail server to filter your html mail through
> html2txt
yep, you do that, so none of your mails are rejcted by the server :-)
> Hoping for an
> earlier recovery - keep us posted. I realize how utterly terrifying
> your experience must have been.)
sayan, take a test. can you see the points i make above?
you can?
good news, friend. your eyes are in fine shape :-)
- t.
--
cogito, ergo es.
--
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
