Tony, [T] wrote: > Now you are mainly talking about spam I think? I tackle spam by > other means.
The let them come approach? How about approaching it from a broader POV. If the spammers have less addresses to spam, then they'll likely use less Internet bandwidth sending spam. The bandwidth being used by spammers is staggering. Handing them your address and then filtering as it comes may work for your system, but is not such a good idea for the the wider Internet. It's the same sortof reasoning as the one you gave for viruses. We have a responsibility not only to our systems, but to not send the viruses to other systems. > And I have my reason to believe that they don't bother checking who > clicks. They do. It's one of their means of finding addresses to add to their golden lists. At times, all that is fetched is a pixel of data. You don't even see it in the message. > 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. No. We're speaking of image fetching. > Optional is the keyword I guess. Agreed. I'm sure it would be optional if it were worth RIT's while. If TB! were using IE for rendering then it would be a relatively simple thing to block the downloading of images or other remote data. It's a different matter if TB! does it's own rendering and is currently incapable of fetching remote data. More coding would have to be done. More than that needed for blocking. Not to mention the security issues that would have to be embraced and supported. It'd be better to use IE and let MS deal with the renderer security issues. But who wishes to use IE for rendering? That makes IE a requirement for reading HTML mail. Then one may say, make *that* optional so one can choose rendering method (internal vs IE). It's all a mess of debate and not simple. At the moment, each HTML message has an HTML icon in the attachment area. Open that attachment and the message opens in your browser. > 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. Hmmm. This shouldn't be the case. It should open and I confirm your problem. Seems like a bug. Can anyone else confirm this. I'll bring it up on TBBETA. > 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.... We're not really speaking of following or not following a standard anyway. We're speaking of supporting or not supporting the retrieval of remote data in HTML messages. -- -=[ Allie ]=- (List Moderator and fellow end-user) PGPKeys: http://key.ac-martin.com Running The Bat! v2.11.04 on WinXP Pro (SP1)
pgp1amijpG7UK.pgp
Description: PGP signature
________________________________________________ Current version is 2.11.02 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
