[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bengt Richter) wrote: > On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 17:14:45 GMT, Roedy Green > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 08:32:09 -0500, l v <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote or quoted : >> >>>I think e-mail should be text only. > I think that is a useful base standard, which allows easy creation of > ad-hoc tools to search and extract data from your archives, etc. >> >>I disagree. Your problem is spam, not HTML. Spam is associated with >>HTML and people have in Pavlovian fashion come to hate HTML. >> >>But HTML is not the problem! > Right, it's what the HTML-interpreting engines might do that is > the problem.
You mean the same problem as for example using a very long header in your email to cause a buffer overflow? That is possible with plain ASCII, and has been done. >>That is like hating all choirs because televangelists use them. >> >>HTML allows properly aligned table, diagrams, images, use of >>colour/fonts to encode speakers. emphasis, hyperlinks. > All good stuff, but I don't like worrying about side effects when I > read email. Then you should ask people to print it out, and use snail mail. Exploits in email programs are not happening since HTML was added to them. >>I try to explain Java each day both on my website on the plaintext >>only newsgroups. It is so much easier to get my point across in HTML. > How about pdf? Ah, and that's exploit free? >>Program listings are much more readable on my website. > IMO FOSS pdf could provide all the layout benefits while > avoiding (allowing for bugs) all the downsides of X/HTML in emails. Amazing, so one data format that's open is better compared to another open data format based on what? -- John Small Perl scripts: http://johnbokma.com/perl/ Perl programmer available: http://castleamber.com/ I ploink googlegroups.com :-) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
