Can you plase pleaes stop this Virus Thread.
-jeremy
On Fri, 12 May 2000, Vernon Schryver wrote:
> > From: chris d koeberle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > ...
> > Indeed, I don't think any of the people who are complaining about the
> > "HTML in e-mail" issues would complain about someone sending an e-mail
> > with an HTML file as an attachment. At least, not as I understand their
> > arguments against it.
>
> Just as with sending any active MIME attachment including binary UNIX
> programs, it depends on the attached HTML file and who sent it.
>
> As as been pointed out repeatedly and as demonstrated with a concrete
> example Saturday morning, attached HTML can be a significant security
> problem. I doubt that (probably porn) HTML spam was much of a security
> threat, but if you think about it for a little, you can surely see how
> such things can be real security problems.
>
> The practice of sending both HTML and cleartext of supposedly the same
> message reflects very poorly on those who do it intentionally and on those
> who cause MUA's to trick others into doing it unintentionally. Never mind
> the security issues, but consider only the wastes of disk space, CPU
> processing, network bandwidth, and the inevitable differences between the
> two versions. If the two messages were the same, then there would be no
> excuse for sending both. If they differ, then one must be wrong, and
> sending both is worse than a waste.
>
>
> Vernon Schryver [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
