HTML-encoded mail == BAD

[Piotr T Zbiegiel]

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 10:39:24 -0700, "richard childers / kg6hac"
<fscked at pacbell.net> said:
> Say, refusing postings that have HTML, but including postings that have, 
> well, HTML.

Hello! McFly!

I thought Rick had already explained this in another post, but you simply
don't get it.  You are encoding your WHOLE MESSAGE in HTML! Have you ever
looked at the raw source of one of your messages?  Your messages are
multi-part MIME. (I quote your message headers: 'Content-Type:
multipart/alternative;' )  They include a text *and* an HTML version
effectively doubling the size of your message (That's a sin of bandwidth
to begin with!).  

Most mail readers automatically display the HTML version instead of the
text version.  Some readers let your turn this off and others do not. 
The point is that a malicious HTML encoded message could cause some
people's mail readers problems.  Spammers use it to see which email
addresses actually reach a human who opens the message in their mail
reader.  Hell, you could even compromise a machine with the right bit of
HTML and script.  Try going to www.crackmonkey.org sometime with IE.  

But I digress, the point is that the list policy is to defer HTML encoded
mail until a human can ensure it is relevant and then propagate it.  As
has been pointed out before, this maintenance is done on a volunteer
basis and I doubt there is someone stationed 24/7 to approve your posts. 
If you don't like it, you could simply post text-only messages to the
list you would get through immediately.  And regarding your charge that
some HTML mail gets propagated and yours doesn't, I've looked through
many recent posts and you seem to be the only one who insists on posting
multi-part encoded messages and then making conspiratory claims that you
are being censored somehow because your message is delayed 90 minutes! 
On a Saturday, no less!!  I don't know about you, but I'm sure the list
admins have something better to do on Saturday mornings than list
administration.

I apologize if this explanation of "HTML-encoded e-mail == BAD" is not
comprehensive enough but this argument has been discussed on every
technical list I've ever been part of.  If you want more info on the
topic there's www.google.com.  But in the end, it's the list policies
that rule and I happen to think (and I'm willing to bet most people on
the list would agreed) there is nothing wrong with them and I am willing
to work within those rules (simple as they are).  If you are not, that is
too bad.

Later
-- 
  Piotr T Zbiegiel