HTML-encoded mail == BAD

[richard childers / kg6hac]

[Approved with misgivings, despite the poster's apparent inability or
unwillingness to admit to understanding a distinction between other's
difficulty reading his messages that he persists in posting using HTML
markup vs. his self-inflicted choice to cause his messages to be delayed
for human intervention every time he posts in HTML markup to a
BayLISA-sponsored mailing list.  I'm not sure how much clearer I can be
on the matter. -- postmaster at baylisa.org]

I'm puzzled.

If you folks are having trouble reading messages that incorporate HTML, 
why not use a client that recognizes HTML instead of living in the 19th 
century?

-- richard


Piotr T Zbiegiel wrote:

>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
>  
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.baylisa.org/pipermail/baylisa/attachments/20031027/55920800/attachment.html>