Hello Jeff, Saturday, December 11, 2004, 12:11:18 AM, you wrote:
JC> On Friday, December 10, 2004, 11:59:35 PM, Robert Menschel wrote: JC>>> But "Get a capable html e-mailer" could also be generic JC>>> text for non-MIME or non-HTML capable mail clients to see. ... >> I know that my company would never think of saying anything like that >> to any of our customers nor our vendors. JC> I've seen similar portions of messages with less rude wording JC> but similar meaning, e.g., "this message can only be properly JC> viewed with an HTML-capable program" or something similar. Yes, the measure of rudeness is a major decision factor. As much as I would rather receive all email in plain text format, with a link to a web page if graphics or other special effects were desired, we must be able to receive emails that have embedded HTML, and even newsletters that come in ONLY HTML, with statements like you give. But IMO any HTML-Only email which actively insults the recipient, or has the audacity to command the recipient to use an HTML-email client, is doomed here to the bit bucket. I process dozens of newsletters here, most of which include HTML formatting. All but one or two provide reasonably text along with their HTML. All that use significant HTML suggest (repeat: suggest, not demand) that their newsletter can be better read using their web site, with link provided, or with an HTML email client. The only emails I've ever seen come through that are insulting or demanding in this way have been spam, scam, and phish. So again, yes, we cannot block emails on any and all types of messages which imply that the message is in HTML. However, we can /judiciously/ include rules which test for the more obnoxious such statements, and score them accordingly. I expect that in my three domains > Get a capable html e-mailer on a line by itself, will score somewhere between 50% and 90% of my spam threshold. Bob Menschel
