On 17/05/18 09:33, Werner Koch wrote: > and remember that mail is serious work and not for amusement.
I think you're screaming into the wind there... ;-) More seriously though, properly marked-up text is demonstrably easier to read. That's why people submit academic papers in Latex instead of courier monospace with hand-drawn equations. At Patrick's suggestion I have moved to "Simple HTML" in my tbird, but even that requires noticeably more effort to scan and parse compared with "Original HTML" with disabled remote content. Featurism is absolutely a problem. But not all features are featurism. Simple markup (like the original markdown, not its increasingly featureful descendants) does make an important difference. The real trick is knowing where to draw the line. Turing-completeness in a document format is a fundamentally bad idea, but things like CSS that allow for hidden content can be problematic in certain contexts and not others. Like most things in security, "it depends". I completely understand where you're coming from, I'm a vim-loving unix beardie at heart too. But I don't think an insistence on text/plain asceticism is tenable in 2018. HTML mail is unfortunately going to be around for a long time. So mail clients (no more or less than web browsers) have a responsibility to sandbox untrusted content. Plaintext is a workaround, not a solution. -- Andrew Gallagher
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
