Using html email is somewhat like asking to borrow my phone and calling Afhganistan. Rude at best. (I learned that right here last year)....
Lee On Tuesday 11 June 2002 10:17 am, you wrote: > On Tue, 11 Jun 2002 15:16:00 +0100, John Richard Smith > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tuesday 11 June 2002 11:41, you wrote: > > > On Tue, 11 Jun 2002 11:25:28 +0100, John Richard Smith > > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I perfer netscape, but cannot be bothered to install it. > > > > > > > > So I use kmail, the composer has limited > > > > character set usage,(I do not mean fonts) > > > > no undelines ,bolds,etc etc., > > > > which I surely miss. > > > > > > You want the ability to write HTML e-mail? I doubt this will ever > > > happen in Kmail. HTML e-mail is an abomination and should never > > > have been invented. Standard, plain text e-mail is far more secure > > > (no scripting, etc.), smaller and faster. Why are M$ Outlook and > > > Outlook Express the only apps that can transmit and activate e-mail > > > virii and worms? Because they incorporate rubbish features like > > > HTML mail. Kmail does the sensible thing and only implements read > > > (not write) support for HTML mail. > > > > > > For more info, take a look at > > > http://www.betips.net/etc/evilmail.html > > > > I just wonder whether that is really is true. Linux OS's were quite > > happy to distribute Netscape with full HTML capability , and still > > does. So Netscape is an insecure linux app then. > > Well, it isn't nearly as bad as Outlook/Outlook Express. It handles HTML > and some JavaScript, but not VBScript or ActiveX (which are _really_ bad). > But you do have a point. For years, Netscape was included in distributions > simply because it was the only decent Web browser for GNU/Linux. I know for > sure that Mandrake were never comfortable distributing it, and they were > waiting for Mozilla to mature so that they could dump it. With Mandrake > 8.2, this has been achieved. > > Tell me, why do so few e-mail apps allow HTML mail to be written? There is > a reason for that, you know. > > > In anycase the emails without character, merely plain text looks > > awful. It makes the presentation look cheap and nasty. That's all > > right for "Readme" files , no one cares, but an email is becoming the > > standard means of communication around the world, and you therefore > > condem Linux users to poor looking text and presentation. No finess. > > people want nice looking fonts and character sets. I think kmail > > would be well advised to consider adding write and well as read > > HTML , it is the users right to decide what they want , Surely that > > should be the users choice, not the distro's dictat. > > Yeah, people also want an OS that doesn't require a login and has no user > permissions. If we gave them that, GNU/Linux would be just as terribly > insecure as Windows. There is some trade-off between user friendliness and > security. Given the choice, I would take security and privacy over user > friendliness almost every time. If you want pretty colours with bells and > whistles, and you don't care about who has your credit card number and > personal data, go and use Windows. Sorry if I sound rude, but that is the > truth. > > Have you read the link I gave above? Here it is again: > http://www.betips.net/etc/evilmail.html. After reading it, read these: > > http://www.winterspeak.com/columns/080801.html > http://www.kamat.com/vikas/blog.php?date=8/10/2001 > http://email.about.com/library/weekly/aa121100a.htm > > There are plenty of reasons why you shouldn't use HTML e-mail. Not only is > it horribly insecure since it allows the embedding of scripts and other > undesirable things, it also takes up far more space than plain text e-mail. > Think about this: _billions_ of e-mail messages whizz around the Internet > all the time, and that number is increasing exponentially. Think of all the > bandwidth that is taken up to transmit all those, and think of the space > they take up in people's inboxes (and remember, many people have inboxes of > only a few MB) and archives. If all this e-mail was HTML, they would be > many times larger, and the Internet would be brought to a standstill due to > overload (I am _not_ exaggerating). Furthermore, the enhanced capabilities > of HTML would encourage people to include pictures and multimedia in their > messages, further inflating the size and bandwidth consumed. Now, imagine > the average Internet user, working off a dial-up modem and downloading at > 4Kb/s (I know the maximum is 56Kb/s but very few people get anywhere near > that). This probably describes over 95% of Internet users today. It would > take _much_ longer for this person to download an HTML mail versus a plain > text one. Many people pay for their Internet access by the minute, or by > the megabyte. > > If you're still unconvinced, search the list archives for "HTML mail", > "HTML e-mail" or some variant thereof. There have been some lively > discussions on this topic in the past. > > Besides, what can't be said in plain text e-mail? Do you lack the necessary > communication skills to use simple words? Did Tolkien write using fancy > fonts and colours? My point is that HTML mail is simply unnecessary. Do you > want /italics/, _underlining_ or *bold* fonts? Do you want a smiley face > :-) ? It all can be done in plain text. -- Registered Linux user #223705 The best indication that there is intelligent life elsewhere is that they haven't contacted us. "If you think education is expensive, try ignorance" - Derek Bok
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
