Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

Hello Greg! On Saturday, February 05, 2005, 9:45 PM, you wrote: MDP>>> That's one. There are others. Downloading *anything* at the behest of MDP>>> an *email* is fundamentally a security breach - it's not the way email MDP>>> is supposed to work. >> ..."was" supposed to work, I'd say. Welcome to

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

Hello Thomas, On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 10:37:57 +0700 GMT(2/5/2005, 9:37 PM -0600 GMT), per mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Thomas Fernandez wrote: MDP>> That's one. There are others. Downloading *anything* at the behest of MDP>> an *email* is fundamentally a security breach - it's not the way email MDP>> is su

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

Hello Thomas, On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 10:18:57 +0700 GMT(2/5/2005, 9:18 PM -0600 GMT), per mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Thomas Fernandez wrote: > TB's user demography will probably have a higher percentage of > computer savvy users than most other mailers, yet it nannies the users > more. Why is that? This

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

Hello Marck, On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 19:37:16 + GMT (06/02/2005, 02:37 +0700 GMT), Marck D Pearlstone wrote: MDP> That's one. There are others. Downloading *anything* at the behest of MDP> an *email* is fundamentally a security breach - it's not the way email MDP> is supposed to work. ..."was" su

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

Hello David! On Saturday, February 05, 2005, 9:11 PM, you wrote: M>> How thoroughly do you filter, so that emails apparently from M>> Amazon _cannot_ be spoofed? > There is that... but we have to put a level of trust in someplace... I like to get my "ads" from Amazon. However, if they sent me a

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

Hello Geoff, On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 18:46:28 + GMT (06/02/2005, 01:46 +0700 GMT), Geoff Lane wrote: GL> I'm not saying for one moment that these things should not be GL> available for those who want it - just that you should have the option GL> to turn them off if you don't. Thanks, and I think

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

Hello Jernej, On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 19:40:35 +0100 GMT (06/02/2005, 01:40 +0700 GMT), Jernej Simoncic wrote: >> Thats the stuff I don't like either. Maybe a future TB function to download >> remote images should include a check that the URL does not contain an email >> address, or some other measure

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 at 02:22:58 +, MFPA wrote: M> Hi M> On Saturday 5 February 2005 at 2:29:09 PM, in M> , David Calvarese wrote: >> Even being able to take certain addresses as 'safe' to >> automaticly display the images for them. Like Amazon, I'm pretty >> sure their

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

Hi On Saturday 5 February 2005 at 2:29:09 PM, in , David Calvarese wrote: > Even being able to take certain addresses as 'safe' to > automaticly display the images for them. Like Amazon, I'm pretty > sure their emails are safe. How thoroughly do you filter, so that email

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

Hello Greg! On Saturday, February 05, 2005, 5:19 PM, you wrote, in part: > Now having said that I will also state I'm a text based email advocate > because I do understand that HTML email increases risk. I read all email > in plain text. I don't know of any statistics on TB users, but would > ten

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

Hello Alexander, Saturday, February 5, 2005, 1:59:42 PM, Alexander S. Kunz wrote: ASK>>> Could you name one, please. Talking about security, not privacy. ASK>>> Talking about pure HTML (not javascript, and not ActiveX, either). >> Giving away the IP address of the recipient when reading an HTML

RE: Remote Images in HTML mail?

Hello Tony, Saturday, February 5, 2005, 8:02:09 PM, you wrote: > A reminder of what Thomas Fernandez on TBOT typed on: > Saturday, February 05, 2005 at 15:17:35 GMT +0100 TF>> But then, I still fail to see why "sexually implicit" movies are so TF>> heavily regulated (how can they hurt anyon

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

Hello Marck D Pearlstone & everyone else, on 05-Feb-2005 at 20:37 you (Marck D Pearlstone) wrote: ASK>> Could you name one, please. Talking about security, not privacy. ASK>> Talking about pure HTML (not javascript, and not ActiveX, either). > Giving away the IP address of the recipient when rea

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

Dear Alexander, @5-Feb-2005, 13:44 +0100 (05-Feb 12:44 UK time) Alexander S. Kunz [ASK] in mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said to Thorvald: >> I am fully aware of the security risks of HTML emails. ASK> Could you name one, please. Talking about security, not privacy. Talking ASK> about pure HTML (not jav

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

Hello Thomas, A reminder of what Thomas Fernandez on TBOT typed on: Saturday, February 05, 2005 at 15:17:35 GMT +0100 TF> But then, I still fail to see why "sexually implicit" movies are so TF> heavily regulated (how can they hurt anyone?), like PG18, while TF> violent movies are often rated

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

Hello Chris, A reminder of what Chris on TBOT typed on: Saturday, February 05, 2005 at 14:53:36 GMT +0100 C> It can though. OK, I'll play along. C> 1) Your kid gets porn spam. Would you rather have the images show up C> right away or only after asked so he or she can delete it without C> s

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

On 05 February 2005, 18:08, Alexander S. Kunz wrote: > But it doesn't disqualify HTML email either just because one or the other > programmer screwed up and built code vulnerable to attacks. I have trust in > RITlabs to make their code as best as possible. ~~~ FWIW, I strongly suspect that Micros

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

Hello Geoff, A reminder of what Geoff Lane on TBOT typed on: Saturday, February 05, 2005 at 13:46:24 GMT +0100 GL> So, yes, displaying html images direct from the web in e-mail can hurt. You maybe, not me though. -- Tony. The Bat! 3.0.2.10 Registered Linux user #316959 :gento

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

On 05 February 2005, 14:07, Thomas Fernandez wrote: GL>> FWIW, I didn't claim it to be either a security or a privacy issue - GL>> just something that I don't want. > Others may want it. It is requested as an option only. GL>> However, there are known security issues with html images that can GL

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

On Saturday, February 5, 2005, 19:01:54, Alexander S. Kunz wrote: > Thats the stuff I don't like either. Maybe a future TB function to download > remote images should include a check that the URL does not contain an email > address, or some other measure to prevent web bugs. It doesn't have to be

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

Hello Geoff Lane & everyone else, on 05-Feb-2005 at 14:15 you (Geoff Lane) wrote: > FWIW, I didn't claim it to be either a security or a privacy issue - > just something that I don't want. Neither do I, but it doesn't disqualify HTML email as a whole. > However, there are known security issues

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

Hello Chris & everyone else, on 05-Feb-2005 at 14:48 you (Chris) wrote: > 2) Web bugs allow e-mailers to track who read what message when. This > is normally done be embedding an image with a source like this: > http://www.flybynight.com/scripts/[EMAIL PROTECTED]&msgid=AD57 Thats the stuff I don

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

Hi Alexander, On Saturday, February 05, 2005, at 2:08:06 AM PST, you wrote: >>> This and HTML mail as standard when you start a new mail. >> No, sorry, this would let many people go away. > Should be made configurable. Whats the problem with a switch that > defines the default editor? There al

RE: Remote Images in HTML mail?

Hello David, Saturday, February 5, 2005, 3:20:50 PM, you wrote: > If I recall Netscape/Mozilla mail used to have the option in the > address book for tagging contacts as 'This person prefers plain text > email' or 'this person prefers HTML email' or 'Send Both'. Something > along those lines wo

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

On Saturday, February 05, 2005 at 7:52:05 AM [GMT -0500], Alexander S. Kunz wrote: > This is a privacy, not a security issue. For that very reason the > wish to add a sender to a list of "trusted senders" from whom remote > images are allowed exists. Or a simple menu entry "download images > now".

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 at 14:33:26 +0100, Alexander S. Kunz wrote: ASK> on 05-Feb-2005 at 12:24 you (Marck D Pearlstone) wrote: >> Preferences..Viewer/Editor..Default message/text editor. ASK> D'oh - its already there... :-) ASK> What we need now is some solution for the remote images, as described

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

On Saturday, February 05, 2005 at 5:32:21 AM [GMT -0500], Thorvald Neumann wrote: > I am fully aware of the security risks of HTML emails. Others are not. If retrieving data from the Internet is toggled off for HTML mail, how does this make ThunderBird or Becky or any other similar clients insecu

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 at 12:48:31 +, Geoff Lane wrote: GL> On 05 February 2005, 10:46, Tony Boom wrote: >> To be honest, I'm easy either way. I have no problem with displaying html >> images direct from the web in email, it can't hurt can it? GL> ~~~ GL> I, for one, am very glad that TB won't

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 at 12:52:44 +0100, Jurgen Haug wrote: JH>>> yeah that would be nice, it would have made me convert some people JH>>> to TB! This and HTML mail as standard when you start a new mail. >> Preferences..Viewer/Editor..Default message/text editor. >> Enjoy. (Or shudder, as I do). J

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 at 22:02:41 +1100, Ian A. White wrote: IAW> Thorvald, IAW> On Saturday, February 5, 2005, 9:34:50 PM, you (Thorvald Neumann) wrote: TN>> Hæ! TN>> Saturday, February 5, 2005, 11:13, Alexander S. Kunz wrote: >>> Decide whats best for you, and let other people decide whats best

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

Hello Geoff, On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 13:15:35 + GMT (05/02/2005, 20:15 +0700 GMT), Geoff Lane wrote: GL> FWIW, I didn't claim it to be either a security or a privacy issue - GL> just something that I don't want. Others may want it. It is requested as an option only. GL> However, there are known

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

Hello Chris, On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 08:48:19 -0500 GMT (05/02/2005, 20:48 +0700 GMT), Chris wrote: C> 1) Your kid gets porn spam. Would you rather have the images show up C> right away or only after asked so he or she can delete it without C> seeing the images. I'm impressed about your kids. Dependi

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 at 11:08:06 +0100, Alexander S. Kunz wrote: ASK> on 05-Feb-2005 at 09:16 you (Thorvald Neumann) wrote: >>> This and HTML mail as standard when you start a new mail. >> No, sorry, this would let many people go away. ASK> Should be made configurable. Whats the problem with a sw

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 at 09:16:42 +0100, Thorvald Neumann wrote: TN> Hæ! TN> Saturday, February 5, 2005, 08:09, Jurgen Haug wrote: >> This and HTML mail as standard when you start a new mail. TN> No, sorry, this would let many people go away. TN> HTML should not be used for emails. I think he mea

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 at 10:33:53 +0100, Thorvald Neumann wrote: TN> Hæ! TN> Saturday, February 5, 2005, 10:25, Mic Cullen wrote: >> Sometimes it's extremely useful. Rarely, but when you need it, you >> really need it. TN> No, sorry. I do not see any sense in using HTML for emails at all. I see mo

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 at 10:33:53 +0100, Thorvald Neumann wrote: TN> Hæ! TN> Saturday, February 5, 2005, 10:25, Mic Cullen wrote: >> Sometimes it's extremely useful. Rarely, but when you need it, you >> really need it. TN> No, sorry. I do not see any sense in using HTML for emails at all. I see mo

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 at 08:09:50 +0100, Jurgen Haug wrote: MR>>> I don't think you can download images directly into the message pane, MR>>> but you should be able to open the attached HTML document into a MR>>> browser if you really want to see all the images. >> Yeah, I know that. He wants to be

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

Tony Boom @ 2005-Feb-5 5:46:23 AM "Remote Images in HTML mail?" > To be honest, I'm easy either way. I have no problem with displaying html > images direct from the web in email, it can't hurt can it? It can though. 1) Your kid gets porn spam. Would you rather have the

RE: Remote Images in HTML mail?

Hello Cristina, Saturday, February 5, 2005, 2:02:33 PM, you wrote: > On Sat, 5 Feb 2005, at 08:09:50 [GMT +0100] (which was 7:09 where I > live) you wrote: >> yeah that would be nice, it would have made me convert some >> people to TB! This and HTML mail as standard when you start a new >> mai

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

On 05 February 2005, 12:52, Alexander S. Kunz wrote: >> External images can be used for malevolent purposes. For example, as >> web beacons to track your usage, or for spammers to verify your e-mail >> address. So, yes, displaying html images direct from the web in e-mail >> can hurt. > This is a

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

Hello Marck D Pearlstone & everyone else, on 05-Feb-2005 at 12:24 you (Marck D Pearlstone) wrote: > Preferences..Viewer/Editor..Default message/text editor. D'oh - its already there... :-) What we need now is some solution for the remote images, as described in https://www.ritlabs.com/bt/view.p

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

Hello Alexander, On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 13:52:05 +0100 GMT (05/02/2005, 19:52 +0700 GMT), Alexander S. Kunz wrote: >> External images can be used for malevolent purposes. For example, as >> web beacons to track your usage, or for spammers to verify your e-mail >> address. So, yes, displaying html ima

Re[2]: Remote Images in HTML mail?

Hello Jurgen, On Sat, 5 Feb 2005, at 08:09:50 [GMT +0100] (which was 7:09 where I live) you wrote: > yeah that would be nice, it would have made me convert some > people to TB! This and HTML mail as standard when you start a new > mail. Each time I show collegues TB! (am the only one using that

RE: Remote Images in HTML mail?

Hello Alexander, Saturday, February 5, 2005, 1:52:05 PM, you wrote: > This is a privacy, not a security issue. For that very reason the wish to > add a sender to a list of "trusted senders" from whom remote images are > allowed exists. Or a simple menu entry "download images now". :good: that's

RE: Remote Images in HTML mail?

Hello Roelof, Saturday, February 5, 2005, 1:43:15 PM, you wrote: > On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 12:46:44 +0100GMT (5-2-2005, 12:46 +0100, where I > live), you wrote: JH>> But I didn't buy TB! to communicate with TB!-users. > Neither did I and I still haven't decided whether it's an advantage or > a disa

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

Hello Geoff Lane & everyone else, on 05-Feb-2005 at 13:48 you (Geoff Lane) wrote: > External images can be used for malevolent purposes. For example, as > web beacons to track your usage, or for spammers to verify your e-mail > address. So, yes, displaying html images direct from the web in e-mai

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

On 05 February 2005, 10:46, Tony Boom wrote: > To be honest, I'm easy either way. I have no problem with displaying html > images direct from the web in email, it can't hurt can it? ~~~ I, for one, am very glad that TB won't display external images, and it's the main reason why I was prepared t

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

Hello Thorvald Neumann & everyone else, on 05-Feb-2005 at 11:32 you (Thorvald Neumann) wrote: > I am fully aware of the security risks of HTML emails. Could you name one, please. Talking about security, not privacy. Talking about pure HTML (not javascript, and not ActiveX, either). -- Best reg

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

Hallo Jurgen, On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 12:46:44 +0100GMT (5-2-2005, 12:46 +0100, where I live), you wrote: JH> But I didn't buy TB! to communicate with TB!-users. Neither did I and I still haven't decided whether it's an advantage or a disadvantage that it enables me to do so. ;-) -- Groetjes, Roelo

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

Hello Thorvald, On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 10:33:53 +0100 GMT (05/02/2005, 16:33 +0700 GMT), Thorvald Neumann wrote: >> Sometimes it's extremely useful. Rarely, but when you need it, you >> really need it. TN> No, sorry. I do not see any sense in using HTML for emails at all. Thanks for your opinion. I

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

At 13:05 [GMT+0100] on Saturday February 5 (actual time - 8:05pm on Saturday in Perth, Western Australia), you wrote: >> No, I don't want the world to see it. Thorvald> A website does not imply it's accessible to the whole world. This is getting ridiculous, but if I want people (of var

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

Hæ! Saturday, February 5, 2005, 12:50, Mic Cullen wrote: > No, I don't want the world to see it. A website does not imply it's accessible to the whole world. -- Kveðja, Thorvald Neumann | | The Bat! v3.0.2.10 Professional & K9 v1.28 | Windows 2000 SP4 (v5.0.2195)

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

At 12:52 [GMT+0100] on Saturday February 5 (actual time - 7:52pm on Saturday in Perth, Western Australia), you wrote: Jurgen> And better support for HTML mail. But I think they're working on that. Indeed - being able to save a template as HTML would be a real time-saver for me. (Even if it onl

RE: Remote Images in HTML mail?

Hello Marck, Saturday, February 5, 2005, 12:24:38 PM, you wrote: JH>> yeah that would be nice, it would have made me convert some people JH>> to TB! This and HTML mail as standard when you start a new mail. > Preferences..Viewer/Editor..Default message/text editor. > Enjoy. (Or shudder, as I do

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

At 11:33 [GMT+0100] on Saturday February 5 (actual time - 6:33pm on Saturday in Perth, Western Australia), you wrote: >> If I send out a weekly schedule to the people I work for/with, being >> able to >> colour-code the different sports/teams I'm covering that week is >> incredibly >> u

RE: Remote Images in HTML mail?

Hello Tony, Saturday, February 5, 2005, 11:46:23 AM, you wrote: > To be honest, I'm easy either way. I have no problem with displaying html > images direct from the web in email, it can't hurt can it? > It's just so many people are against it. so many people *on here* are against it. But I

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

Dear Jurgen, @5-Feb-2005, 08:09 +0100 (05-Feb 07:09 UK time) Jurgen Haug [JH] in mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said to David: >> Yeah, I know that. He wants to be able to open the images right in >> the menu pane like Thunderbird or Pocomail does. JH> yeah that would be nice, it would have made me conv

Re: RE: Remote Images in HTML mail?

Hæ! Saturday, February 5, 2005, 11:45, Jurgen Haug wrote: > so you tell me you know better than me what is going on in the kind > of industry *I* am working? Read my sentence again. I did not say that. It's your interpretation. -- Kveðja, Thorvald Neumann | | The Bat! v3.

RE: Remote Images in HTML mail?

Hello Thorvald, Saturday, February 5, 2005, 11:37:16 AM, you wrote: > Hæ! > Saturday, February 5, 2005, 11:19, Jurgen Haug wrote: >> b) professionally, in the industry I'm working, like it or not, HTML >> mail is a must. > Sorry, I disagree. > I am using emails professionally since 1994. > A

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

Hello Jurgen, A reminder of what Jurgen Haug on TBOT typed on: Saturday, February 05, 2005 at 11:20:36 GMT +0100 JH> And if even so, so what? To be honest, I'm easy either way. I have no problem with displaying html images direct from the web in email, it can't hurt can it? It's just so

RE: Remote Images in HTML mail?

Hello Thorvald, Saturday, February 5, 2005, 11:32:21 AM, you wrote: > Hæ! > Saturday, February 5, 2005, 11:14, Jurgen Haug wrote: >> exactly. but for some this is a religious matter, I guess. > No, it is not. [snip] > The people who created Outlook should be crucified IMO. no comment necess

Re: RE: Remote Images in HTML mail?

Hæ! Saturday, February 5, 2005, 11:19, Jurgen Haug wrote: > b) professionally, in the industry I'm working, like it or not, HTML > mail is a must. Sorry, I disagree. I am using emails professionally since 1994. And I have never seen an industry/company where HTML is a *must*. -- Kveðja, Thorv

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

Hæ! Saturday, February 5, 2005, 11:13, Alexander S. Kunz wrote: > Decide whats best for you, and let other people decide whats best for > them... Yes, sure. But I hate to see TB having the HTML mode on as a default. Because I am "educating" my clients to use plain text emails, preferably with T

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

Hæ! Saturday, February 5, 2005, 10:47, Mic Cullen wrote: > If I send out a weekly schedule to the people I work for/with, being able > to > colour-code the different sports/teams I'm covering that week is > incredibly > useful, so that what I'm doing and for whom and when can be very qu

Re: RE: Remote Images in HTML mail?

Hæ! Saturday, February 5, 2005, 11:14, Jurgen Haug wrote: > exactly. but for some this is a religious matter, I guess. No, it is not. I am fully aware of the security risks of HTML emails. Others are not. I am quite glad TB does not allow those "features" to be "used". The people who created O

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

Hello Jurgen Haug & everyone else, on 05-Feb-2005 at 11:19 you (Jurgen Haug) wrote: > ASCII-evangelists LOL!! -- Best regards, Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.de - ICQ 238153981) The errors to avoid are those that eliminate opportunities to try again. -- Lazar Goldberg

RE: Remote Images in HTML mail?

Hello Tony, Saturday, February 5, 2005, 11:10:27 AM, you wrote: > A reminder of what Jurgen Haug on TBOT typed on: > Saturday, February 05, 2005 at 10:46:19 GMT +0100 JH>> we will see what Ritlabs will do in future. > Can you imagine what TBOT AKA "The Cartoon Network" would be like if TB

RE: Remote Images in HTML mail?

Hello Alexander, Saturday, February 5, 2005, 11:08:06 AM, you wrote: > Hello Thorvald Neumann & everyone else, > on 05-Feb-2005 at 09:16 you (Thorvald Neumann) wrote: >>> This and HTML mail as standard when you start a new mail. >> No, sorry, this would let many people go away. > Should be m

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

Hello Thorvald Neumann & everyone else, on 05-Feb-2005 at 10:33 you (Thorvald Neumann) wrote: >> Sometimes it's extremely useful. Rarely, but when you need it, you >> really need it. > No, sorry. I do not see any sense in using HTML for emails at all. Decide whats best for you, and let other pe

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

Hello Jurgen, A reminder of what Jurgen Haug on TBOT typed on: Saturday, February 05, 2005 at 10:46:19 GMT +0100 JH> we will see what Ritlabs will do in future. Can you imagine what TBOT AKA "The Cartoon Network" would be like if TB! had full blown html capability? -- Tony. The Bat! 3

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

Hello Thorvald Neumann & everyone else, on 05-Feb-2005 at 09:16 you (Thorvald Neumann) wrote: >> This and HTML mail as standard when you start a new mail. > No, sorry, this would let many people go away. Should be made configurable. Whats the problem with a switch that defines the default edito

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

At 10:33 [GMT+0100] on Saturday February 5 (actual time - 5:33pm on Saturday in Perth, Western Australia), you wrote: Thorvald> Saturday, February 5, 2005, 10:25, Mic Cullen wrote: >> Sometimes it's extremely useful. Rarely, but when you need it, you >> really need it. Thorvald> No, sorry. I do n

RE: Remote Images in HTML mail?

Hello Thorvald, Saturday, February 5, 2005, 10:33:53 AM, you wrote: > Saturday, February 5, 2005, 10:25, Mic Cullen wrote: >> Sometimes it's extremely useful. Rarely, but when you need it, you >> really need it. > No, sorry. I do not see any sense in using HTML for emails at all. we will see w

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

Hæ! Saturday, February 5, 2005, 10:25, Mic Cullen wrote: > Sometimes it's extremely useful. Rarely, but when you need it, you > really need it. No, sorry. I do not see any sense in using HTML for emails at all. -- Kveðja, Thorvald Neumann | | The Bat! v3.0.2.10 Profession

Re: RE: Remote Images in HTML mail?

Hæ! Saturday, February 5, 2005, 09:31, Jurgen Haug wrote: > HTML *is* used for eMails. But this should not be a general habit. -- Kveðja, Thorvald Neumann | | The Bat! v3.0.2.10 Professional & K9 v1.28 | Windows 2000 SP4 (v5.0.2195)

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

At 09:16 [GMT+0100] on Saturday February 5 (actual time - 4:16pm on Saturday in Perth, Western Australia), you wrote: > Saturday, February 5, 2005, 08:09, Jurgen Haug wrote: >> This and HTML mail as standard when you start a new mail. > No, sorry, this would let many people go away. > HTML shoul

RE: Remote Images in HTML mail?

Hello Thorvald, Saturday, February 5, 2005, 9:16:42 AM, you wrote: > Hæ! > Saturday, February 5, 2005, 08:09, Jurgen Haug wrote: >> This and HTML mail as standard when you start a new mail. > No, sorry, this would let many people go away. > HTML should not be used for emails. HTML *is* used

Re: RE: Remote Images in HTML mail?

Hæ! Saturday, February 5, 2005, 08:09, Jurgen Haug wrote: > This and HTML mail as standard when you start a new mail. No, sorry, this would let many people go away. HTML should not be used for emails. -- Kveðja, Thorvald Neumann | | The Bat! v3.0.2.10 Professional & K9 v