HTML Links on Evolution

[Gertjan Vinkesteijn]

AMAZING POWERS OF OBSERVATION wrote:

>      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.
>>
>>/
>>
Please don't top post pls. Salam/shalom

-- 
mailto: vinky at xs4all.nl
homepage: gershwin.xs4all.nl