Re: HTML List Abuse (was: "please ignore: this is only a test")
so you're saying the person is reading this on a two-line 80s electronic pager then? Actually, it's gmail that is doing that. People using pure-text
interfaces are posting only 7-bit ASCII.
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 10:47:08PM -0500, brian carroll wrote:
so you're saying the person is reading this on a two-line 80s electronic pager then?
Many people concerned with security use text-only MUAs, as that works well over low-bandwidth mobile links and gives less attack surface against compromises. The less complexity, the less lines of codes and code complexity and easier to debug. E.g. by not discarding HTML-only (but giving preference to plain text in multipart messages) I'm running risk for having this system compromised, even if I render via a text browser like links. That's ok, I consider this system sacrificial. Rendering rich content in a GUI is courting disaster. You will get nailed, and be it just malware from spam. You can assume that people who care know this, so text-only correlates with old hands and/or high clue.
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 5:02 AM, Eugen Leitl
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 10:47:08PM -0500, brian carroll wrote:
so you're saying the person is reading this on a two-line 80s electronic pager then?
You can assume that people who care know this, so text-only correlates with old hands and/or high clue.
There's the gmail webmail abomination. Then there's stuff your schizo friends use to really process mail... http://notmuchmail.org/notmuch-mutt/ Yes, you can fork binary attachments off to a rendering app... that's fine. That utility aside, I've never personally seen an html mail that added anything useful over a text version of same and it just makes life with mail harder. 80's pager? No. 80x25 console (xterm), portable device, etc... perhaps.
participants (3)
-
brian carroll -
Eugen Leitl -
grarpamp