In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, jesus X says...
>
>JTK wrote:
>> Yep. Sure be nice if some "Open" mail/newsreader wouldn't be so afraid
>> to "innovate" and came up with a way to interface to these systems and
>> bypass all those godforsaken banner ads.
>
>The problem in doing this is authentication. Most webmail services are not
>simply a webpage accessing a POP3 server (like the webmail.pl script). Most are
>servers internal to the webmail provider that are securely accessed over the
>providers internal network, with the data queried by the database, framed in
>their custom content, and then passed to the user. The only way to "bypass" this
>is not a bypass at all.
Exactly my point.
> The solution would be to somehow strip the mail message
>content from the HTML. While this is somewhat easy to do for any one system (as
>long as the format of the page generated in the end doesn't change), it's
>impossible to create a single system to access all webmail sites. You'd have to
>recode it for every type of page, and recode it again every time they changed
>formats.
>
And that "recoding" could be a simple Javascript program or Perl program or hell
probably just a few regex's, one for each service. You seem to have no problem
interpreting the entire Maozilla GUI from ASCII text, why do you balk when such
scripting functionality could actually serve a useful purpose?
>> > Hotmail probably makes more on selling their user
>> > lists than banner ads, but they are an exception. If someone writes a
>> > client that can take someone's mail from a web service and bypass their
>> > revenue stream, they don't like or allow it.
>> How are they going to know, and if they even do, how are they going to
>> stop it?
>
>Just like AOL blocks some clients from accessing the AIM server, but not others.
>Authentication. Either active authentication where the client must provide
>'credentials' or passive where the server analyses the request itself for user
>agent strings, or other identifiers. It's quite simple actually.
>
It is, and it'd therefore be quite simple for the client to behave the right way
so that the server cannot tell the difference. What's the difference between me
typing this into this browser window, and having a newsgroup reader which new
how to send the same HTTP do it? None.
>> > It ain't Netscape corp or AOL
>> WHO'S RUNNING MOZILLA.ORG? DON'T WAIT FOR THE TRANSLATION, ANSWER THE
>> QUESTION!
>
>Mozilla.org is run by the "drivers" and "staff" which is comprised of
>volunteers. Some of them work for Netscape,
What percentages? And what's the heirarchy?
> some work for Redhat, some work for
>Billy-Bob's World O Beef, some work for themselves, some are unemployed or
>retired, etc.
>
>> <apologist_mode>
>> > AIM uses a proprietary standard for communications. No one other than
>> > AOL is allowed to use it to connect with AIM users if AOL doesn't want
>> > them to. Not Mozilla's open source equivilant, not Microsoft, no one.
>> <\apologist_mode>
>
>This is why I find that you are willfully ignorant. This is a fact.
OF COURSE IT'S FACT! But this fact doesn't make a very good excuse for why
there isn't an AIM client in Maozilla.
> AIM clients
>must authenticate themselves with the server. This authentication method changes
>at the will of AOL, without the need for the client to be updated, thus it works
>to filter out any undesired clients they choose. This is not apoligistic, it is
>fact.
A fact used by an apologist to attempt to excuse the fact that AOL runs the
show. Hence 'apoligistic'.
> Simply look to the fact that clients like MSN Messenger and Yahoo!
>Messenger are cut off, while clients like GAIM are not.
>
Exactly, and then shift your gaze to who's running things in Maozillaland.
Follow the money.
>--
>jesus X [ Booze-fueled paragon of pointless cruelty and wanton sadism. ]
> email [ jesusx @ who.net ]
> web [ http://burntelectrons.com ] [ Updated April 29, 2001 ]
> tag [ The Universe: It's everywhere you want to be. ]
> warning [ All your base are belong to us. ]
--
JTK
