First of all you left off what was above and below what you posted. The page was not made for this list, it was an explanation of why we do not read unknown HTML mail at my company. On Tue, 2004-12-07 at 04:43 -0500, Sean wrote: > On Tue, December 7, 2004 3:48 am, Timothy Payne said: > > > Please do not post in html > > Why? http://www.tmpco.com/textvshtml.html > > Thank you > > > > Hey Timothy, > > HTML permits scripts (Java and Java scripts) > HTML permits tag images > HTML can set cookies that other sites might inspect > HTML facilitates 'active content', goodness what does active imply. > - HTML doesn't require the use of these things and all of them > can be configured away by the recipient. Permits is not the same as require, and judging by this list many people can't even configure their mailer to send text only. So for the average computer user this applies. > HTML is not a universal WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get) > HTML and the 'equivalent' text of a MIME message may not be equal > HTML can Carry mixed character sets unnoticed by the sender > - Why are any of these a concern? Because what you read or send may not show up as it was intended. > HTML permits volatile external content references > - In fact many plain text messages provide links to external content, > in fact *your* plain text message included a URL to external content! > This "reason" doesn't pass the smell test. You don't think someone can add code to an HTML message to fetch outside data? My link had to be clicked on, it was not coded into the message to display when opened. HTML can carry text that is problematic to index / search > - Huh? The entire web is based on HTML and google indexes it just fine Yes, Google indexes text, and the pages with the best text are ranked higher, second is links. And I'm sure they have spent millions doing that, because that is their business. > HTML facilitates spammers > HTML facilitates spyware > HTML rich content hobbles off line interaction. > - How? I receive HTML email from family members, no problem. Like I said you left off important items from the page. I said if you don't know the sender delete the message. > HTML facilitates virus payloads (at work some of must use WindowZ) > - Sucks, but is not the senders problem, its yours and your companies. > In fact, viruses infected files can be attached to plain text > messages just as easily, a properly configured client won't be > at risk in either case. It's not what's attached to the email, it's what is coded inside. > > HTML permits you to get fired by triggering pornographic references > "censorware" to catch employees trying to access "bad" sites > that corporate filters trigger, i.e. trigger HTTP proxy > (porn, hate sites, hacking sites, etc) > - This is just laughable You don't think an HTML email can make a call to another site for data? > HTML messages are 2 to 50+ times larger than the equivalent text > - This seems like the only issue that has any real weight behind it > and since the list is voluntary.... If this is such a big problem > why doesn't RedHat filter HTML email rather than putting up with all > the bandwidth consumed talking about it? In fact, why respond > on-list asking people to stop posting in HTML if this is the issue? It is customary to post to this list in plain text. Just like the fact that I remove my shoes when I enter the Buddhist Monastery I attend. If I did wear my shoes I would be reminded about it, but if I refused I would not be kicked out or yelled at. > I don't particularily like HTML messages, but the reasons you cite don't > really stand up to inspection. In fact, a counter argument could be made > that HTML messages could include content using colour and images to > explain solutions much better!. > > Cheers, > Sean > Before posting what you disagree with, BTW you did not include the authors name, I spoke with several people first. One of which has a PhD and runs a computer research lab at a major University, and every one agreed with what was written. These are my opinions, not of the author. Tim...
