Hello Roelof, <.....>
T>> It makes me wonder why TB! doesn't fully render HTML then. T>> I mean the HTML with little red crosses where pictures should be. RO> Generally that's because the pictures aren't sent with the message. TB RO> only shows attached pictures. T>> I remember something written about this somewhere. (not sure where) T>> It was partly security related. But if TB! renders it's pages with T>> it's own engine I see no danger fetching the pics online. RO> It's rather unpleasant when you're using a dial-up connection to have RO> your mail client dialing out while the only thing you want to do is RO> reading locally stored messages. Many people are on always-on connections nowadays so I think it should at least be an option. TB! could even cache the pictures even before the user opens the message RO> <.....> Now when your mail RO> client starts behaving like a browser.... RO> On-line pictures can be used to check whether you're reading your mail RO> (display the linked picture on screen) or not. That's a privacy issue. Now you are mainly talking about spam I think? I tackle spam by other means. And I have my reason to believe that they don't bother checking who clicks. RO> Apart from that, even though TB doesn't use IE for HTML rendering, it RO> doesn't mean that its HTML rendering engine is bug free. It's those RO> bugs that are additional safety risks. If you mean java kinda stuff yes I agree. But I think it's far less the case for the more 'classic' HTML And I'm looking for the basic HTML rendering. RO> Restricting TB to embedded HTML RO> without opening any links to the evil bad world outside of your RO> computer is the best safety precaution. Safety/userfriendlyness is always a tradeoff. Optional is the keyword I guess. Blocking java(script) goes a long way in security RO> The final point, TB enables you to open the message in IE (or whatever RO> browser you're using), so you can see on-line pictures. But because RO> you didn't see them in TB, you're aware of them being on-line and thus RO> you know that there might be some safety issues. Understood. Unfortunately none of them open in my browser. The browser opens but the URL field stays empty; so nothing loads. Saving the HTML to file 1st does work. But is not very elegant. T>> Many non-spam newsletters come in HTML format nowadays RO> Though they come in HTML that doesn't mean they have to point to RO> on-line pictures. On-line pictures are a terrible waste of bandwidth. RO> Suppose that every message is read (viewed) twice. That's not RO> unreasonable for an average. Embedded pictures have to be downloaded RO> once and on-line pictures have to be downloaded twice (causing traffic RO> for both the sender and the recipient). But very often the pictures stay in the browser cache between views. RO> Therefore it's rather shortsighted for a sender to use on-line RO> pictures. Considering that most of those senders have qualified IT RO> employees, you might expect them to use embedded pictures, unless RO> they're having other intentions and then TB's behaviour is no more RO> than prudent. Qualified IT employees.... Breek me de bek niet open :) Nowadays that very often means press an install button. Check if it works in MS Outlook/MSIE. Yes? Great. Afterall the only browser is MSIE and noone uses anything else then Outlook. It all boils down to standards/netiquette. Unfortunately they get broken very often. Then teh user has to decide; stick to standards and missout on large part of internet or follow the flow.... -- Best regards, Tony Perfection of means and confusion of ends seem to characterize our age ________________________________________________ Current version is 2.11.02 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
