Chuq Von Rospach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 9/26/01 6:52 PM, "Russ Allbery" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> For small images, there's no reason not to just include the image in >> the message. You can then inline them just fine; > True but.... A growing number of corporate firewalls reject mail with > attachments. *shrug* A growing number of corporate firewalls reject mail with active content. Either way, you lose. Personally, I'd be willing to bet that the number of firewalls that reject attachments with .gif or .jpg extensions and the correct MIME types (making them as innocuous as content can possibly get in e-mail, really) is going to stay smaller than the number of firewalls that reject active content like <img src> tags. > So if you're running a list, you're cutting yourself off from those > users. I see this as becoming more of a problem over time, not less, > given how things are going. Either way, you're cutting yourself off from some users. So it's just a matter of reading tea leaves to try to guess which set is bigger. >> I think he's wrong about the percentage of deployed clients that are >> going to successfully receive such mail. That's because within that 2% >> of people who think about such things are firewall administrators who >> are watching things like > I sort of agree, but not completely. For the most part, those people are > using the corporate tools. You don't have a guy sitting and running ELM > making pollcy decisions for a corporation running Outlook Express. You > have Outlook Express people making decisions for sites running OE. I don't think what e-mail client the person is using has much influence on whether they decide to block active content. Actually, I take that back. If the administrator is running OE, I bet they're a lot *more* likely to block active content because they could get nailed by it themselves, whereas the person running ELM is probably thinking "if you run Windows, you get what you deserve" at least part of the time. > User tracking, by the way, is not by definition evil. But user tracking > can be abused -- and is. Right, it's basically the same as cookies. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
