HTML Links on Evolution

[AMAZING POWERS OF OBSERVATION]

     then switch ever one over to linux and use clam to take care of all
those bugs . i wouldnt even have xp in the house . what an abomination .
yet its your life . use the security of your firewall and screen the
mail and you will live a good long life 
On Sun, 2004-03-07 at 01:55, Youssef Makki wrote:

> Considering the implementations can't and won't be changed by tommorow
> morning, what do you suggest? The tv analogy labels the opinions in a
> wrong way. No, html is not disliked by some people because they insist
> on using emacs and mutt, and avoiding X. Html is disliked because today,
> for about the 3rd time this week, I had to clean off viruses and trojans
> from 2 family member's PCs.
> That also doesn't mean that html can't be used to make mail more
> presentable, or has no use. However, you're not sending presentations to
> mailing lists. This is exactly where the phrase 'simpler is better'
> applies. No, html mail doesn't consume more of my bandwidth, eat more of
> my cpu cycles, and doesn't hurt my eyes.
> Just imagine for a second that everyone on the list starts using Outlook
> Express templates in their postings, or adding smily's and avatars.
> Wouldn't that be appealing?
> 
> 
> > The primary problems (i.e. virii and 
> > backdoors in IE and OE) are not caused by HTML per se but rather by weak 
> > and insecure implementations thereof. Thus you are assuming a 
> > cause-and-effect relationship where such is not really the case. Yes, in 
> > the majority of cases (Windows users in particular) HTML mail is dangerous. 
> > But HTML itself is not the root cause of the problem.
> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20040307/6b513a3c/attachment-0002.html