OT: HTML Emails -- Re: Other than frys where would you get server hardware

[Technomage]

Dazed_75 wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 7:31 AM, Judd Pickell <pickell at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>   
>> Not everyone wants to have change a setting while just trying to view their
>> emails. Although to be fair I use gmail so I don't have to be concerned
>> about it. But I am sure there are people on this list still using Pine or
>> equiv, since that is and can be done via commandline like ssh from a phone.
>>     
>
>
> Maybe those folks should just go back to using carrier pidgeons.
> Alternatives could include changing to using an email client that would
> support THEIR need to block or convert HTML to text.  Expecting the rest of
> the world to change to do what they want is just wrong and ain't gonna
> happen.
>
>   
Pardon me? it seems that the rest of the world has been heading toward 
visual media in e-mail for some time.
it has forced some of us into the problem of having to spend greater 
amounts of money for specialized technology in order to cope (have you 
any idea how much a fully speech synthesized computer system for the 
blind really costs these days?). there is a need for plain text and 
anyone that tells me I should learn to "live with it" has never been 
blind in their life and should try traveling in my shoes for about 6 
months to get a real feel for it.

now being forced to spend large sums of money just to be able to access 
the internet because of something not your fault is wrong at a much 
deeper level. so yeah, this point is a raw nerve for me.
>> I am curious, how many truly html based emails do we get on this list? I
>> would think lately we maybe recieving more, given the link structures in
>> some emails; so maybe it is a concern now?
>>     
>
>
> I don't know but I did change to using plain text for some time because of
> the desires of certain people here.  The loss of functionality was
> bothersome so I finally switched back to the rich text mode of gmail.
>
> I do understand that html CAN be used for harmful intent but then what
> can't?  If you want to fear technology, don't use it!
>
>   
I don't fear the technology. I seek to understand it. However, very few 
virii or other malware can be sent plain text (even scripts won't run 
automatically, making for a very nice filter in and of itself).

html was never standardized, which is why there are so many problems 
with it and its associated exploits (and the fact that windows still 
uses an auto execute protocol when opening e-mails in OE). I look at it 
this way: new technology is great if its designed correctly and properly 
debugged. if not, its a disaster waiting to happen.

btw, I work part time (self employed) helping people clean their 
machines of various malware and the largest problems I have seem all 
originate from html coded e-mails and improperly formatted websites with 
holes big enough to float in the entire US navy. Frankly, I would rather 
not have the work, but it does pay well (when it pays).

so no, I do not fear the technology. I do keep in mind that there are 
those who (through whatever means) seek to exploit it for criminal 
purposes ( take a hard long look at alt.2600.hackers for some examples 
of this).

In case you folks are wondering, I am using Mozilla t-bird ON WINDOWS 
(because my speech system is only supported there). Until Linux comes up 
with a way to have speech work better in X, I am rather stuck where I 
am, (though the command line is useful).