Sharpe, Sam J wrote:
On 25 Sep 2007, at 22:46, John Summerfield wrote:
John Russo wrote:
Do we really need graphic images in your email? HTML itself is bad
enough.
I appreciate that there are a large number of people who like their
email in text format and I don't wish to start a debate about which is
better, but I for one don't care what format people send email in. Some
people don't have complete control of their email - styled by policy,
filled with legal disclaimers at the mail relay level, mandatory clients
etc. Should they never send email for risk of offending someone?
If I don't want HTML email, graphics etc. I can block them. That doesn't
mean that everyone would find them undesirable and that they shouldn't
have been sent originally.
--
Sam
I've never, in ten years or so of email and news groups, in Linux and
OS/2 fora, seen anyone write in support of stealing my bandwidth or my
disk space by including HTML, let along graphics, before.
Apart from that, HTML constitutes a security risk, one that has in
previous days actually compromised Windows boxes. It's not for nothing
that kmail defaults to not rendering HTML.
If John can't control his email client (and i find it hard to believe
he's compelled to send HTML and graphics), then he can point out to his
management that it's unpopular with people whose help he seeks.
--
Cheers
John
-- spambait
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please do not reply off-list
_______________________________________________
rhelv5-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-list
