Saturday, December 01, 2001, 11:23:43 AM, Peter Smitt wrote: > I agree wholeheartedly. My experience is that 99% of the people who > use html in their mails even don't know that they do so. They are just > the victims of the default options of Outlook. Spammers use html > deliberately, but I don't feel obliged to support them. The Bat! > shouldn't become an Outlook clone, it is just the difference that > makes it an attractive and safe alternative. No use for wasting > resources for an option that is deliberately used only by a few > percent of the population. Let them muddle with Outlook.
FWIW, I'm currently trialling TB as a replacement for Outlook. This is because Outlook is the target for too many virus attacks to be safe. I'm probably not an average Outlook user -- because I set all my defaults to plain text. I see no reason to send bloat that adds no value to the content. However, there are times when I want to include lists or pictures in a message. TB does a pretty good job of foiling some of spammy's tricks. For example, TB doesn't show off the page graphics (preventing "auto-verification" your email address). It's a safe alternative to Outlook because it doesn't use the MS address book and because it restricts attachments and off-page resources. Adding a limited HTML composition ability would not compromise this. Personally, I feel that the *option* of using HTML would add value to TB. (... but plain text should be the default:-) -- Geoff Lane Cornwall, UK [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- ________________________________________________________ Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Latest Vers: 1.53d FAQ : http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com
