Re: HTML Mail with links to Graphics

[Thomas Fernandez]

Hello Barry,

On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 19:38:43 +0100 GMT (04/07/2008, 01:38 +0700 GMT),
Barry wrote:


B> Well, I've disabled/removed ASS and it hasn't made any improvement at all,
B> downloading links in HTML mail slows to a crawl, almost to the point of
B> freezing TB!, clicking on any part of TB's window causes the mouse pointer to
B> change to an hourglass and most times "not responding" pops up in the Title
B> Bar. After a while the links complete loading and then everything gets back
B> to normal.

B> So, for now,  I'm not convinced that ASS has anything to do with it.

The behaviour that TB! freezes while the pictures are downloaded has
been confirmed on the beta list. You will notice this only when the
downloading takes a long time, for example slow connection or
many/large pictures.

With the current beta, I cannot confirm it any more, so it looks
fixed. Please wait for the next release.

-- 

Cheers,
Thomas.

The "save" icon on Microsoft Word shows a floppy disk, with the
shutter on backwards.
http://thomas.fernandez.hat-gar-keine-homepage.de/

Message reply created with The Bat! 4.0.24.23
under Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2






Current version is 4.0.24.0 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: HTML Mail with links to Graphics

[Barry]

On 03/07/2008 18:41:11, Rick wrote:
>> Hi Barry,
> 
> B>> However, I've noticed that retrieving the graphics quite often slows
> to a B>> crawl, the connection manager regularly reports download speeds
> for the URL B>> 'links' as low as 15-30 cps, with TB! 'not responding'
> until the graphics or B>> whatever have been downloaded in full.
> 
> B>> I suspected AntiSpamSniper for a while but switching that off didn't
> seem to B>> make any difference.
> 
>> AntispamSniper definitely slows the process down, at least for me.
> 
> B>> Can any one suggest any way that I might improve the speed of this
> process.
> 
>> Not really, except don't use AntispamSniper, which I am considering.
> 
> Hmmm I LIKE antispamsniper. I used antispam servant until it turned
> into adware even when you paid for it
> 

Well, I've disabled/removed ASS and it hasn't made any improvement at all,
downloading links in HTML mail slows to a crawl, almost to the point of
freezing TB!, clicking on any part of TB's window causes the mouse pointer to
change to an hourglass and most times "not responding" pops up in the Title
Bar. After a while the links complete loading and then everything gets back
to normal.

So, for now,  I'm not convinced that ASS has anything to do with it.


-- 
Best regards
Barry
barryh'at'kentra'dot'co'dot'uk

Using TheBat! version 4.0.24
and AntispamSniper 2.8.1.1



Current version is 4.0.24.0 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: HTML Mail with links to Graphics

[Rick]

> Hi Barry,

B>> However, I've noticed that retrieving the graphics quite often slows to a
B>> crawl, the connection manager regularly reports download speeds for the URL
B>> 'links' as low as 15-30 cps, with TB! 'not responding' until the graphics or
B>> whatever have been downloaded in full.

B>> I suspected AntiSpamSniper for a while but switching that off didn't seem to
B>> make any difference.

> AntispamSniper definitely slows the process down, at least for me.

B>> Can any one suggest any way that I might improve the speed of this process.

> Not really, except don't use AntispamSniper, which I am considering.

Hmmm I LIKE antispamsniper. I used antispam servant until it turned
into adware even when you paid for it

-- 
Rick
Dare we hope? Vote for hope in 08

v4.0.24.25 on Windows XP 5.1 Build  2600
Service Pack 2

 



Current version is 4.0.24.0 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: HTML Mail with links to Graphics

[Neal Laugman]

Hi Barry,

B> However, I've noticed that retrieving the graphics quite often slows to a
B> crawl, the connection manager regularly reports download speeds for the URL
B> 'links' as low as 15-30 cps, with TB! 'not responding' until the graphics or
B> whatever have been downloaded in full.

B> I suspected AntiSpamSniper for a while but switching that off didn't seem to
B> make any difference.

AntispamSniper definitely slows the process down, at least for me.

B> Can any one suggest any way that I might improve the speed of this process.

Not really, except don't use AntispamSniper, which I am considering.

-- 
Neal
  Using TheBat! v4.0.24.25 on Windows XP Service Pack 3
  AntispamSniper 2.8.1.1  OTFE enabled  



Current version is 4.0.24.0 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

HTML Mail with links to Graphics

[Barry]

Hi

Since using V4 I've been allowing myself to receive some HTML mail in full
using the URL manager to allow only known senders.

However, I've noticed that retrieving the graphics quite often slows to a
crawl, the connection manager regularly reports download speeds for the URL
'links' as low as 15-30 cps, with TB! 'not responding' until the graphics or
whatever have been downloaded in full.

I suspected AntiSpamSniper for a while but switching that off didn't seem to
make any difference.

Can any one suggest any way that I might improve the speed of this process.

Apart from blocking HTML!



-- 
Best regards
Barry
barryh'at'kentra'dot'co'dot'uk

Using TheBat! version 4.0.24
and AntispamSniper 2.8.1.1



Current version is 4.0.24.0 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[2]: Replying to HTML Mail

[Lawrence Johnson]

Thursday, September 15, 2005, 4:16:25 AM, you wrote:

>> It's a new option in TB and is caused by you replying to HTML mail.
>>   Options -> Preferences -> Viewer/Editor -> Reply to HTML in plain text

> This option does not solved the problem. I have already talk about this 
> problem
> in the past. I have put a ticket on this problem in ritlabs bugtrack.

The option fixed it for me, for which I am grateful.

-- 
 Lawrence Johnsonmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]




Current version is 3.60.7 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Replying to HTML Mail

[wilwilwil]

> LJ> Has anyone seen this before and is there something about the senders
> LJ> email that causes this?
>
> It's a new option in TB and is caused by you replying to HTML mail.
>   Options -> Preferences -> Viewer/Editor -> Reply to HTML in plain text
> You can check or uncheck this option and TB will behave accordingly.
> Default is unchecked and that causes the behaviour you described.
>
This option does not solved the problem. I have already talk about this problem
in the past. I have put a ticket on this problem in ritlabs bugtrack.

--
Wil
(hope delimiter is ok via webmail)


Current version is 3.60.7 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Replying to HTML Mail

[Roelof Otten]

Hallo Lawrence,

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 22:54:21 -0500GMT (15-9-2005, 5:54 +0200, where I
live), you wrote:

LJ> Has anyone seen this before and is there something about the senders
LJ> email that causes this?

It's a new option in TB and is caused by you replying to HTML mail.
  Options -> Preferences -> Viewer/Editor -> Reply to HTML in plain text
You can check or uncheck this option and TB will behave accordingly.
Default is unchecked and that causes the behaviour you described.
  
-- 
Groetjes, Roelof

Blessed are the pessimistic, for they hath made backups.

The Bat! 3.61.04 beta
Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2
1 pop3 account, server on LAN
OTFE enabled
P4 3GHz
2 GB RAM


pgpIRgTkTz4IH.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Current version is 3.60.7 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Replying to HTML Mail

[Lawrence Johnson]

I noticed that when I reply to some received mail, it displays in the
editor awkwardly as one huge unedittable block.  I can't select the parts of
the mail I want to retain in my reply.  The block is either present or
not.  My signature appended to the end appears in some strange, almost
colorless font.

It seems to be determined by the content of the mail to which I am
replying.  Mail from certain select people always cause the reply to
look wonky in the editor.  Replying to other mail looks perfectly normal.

Has anyone seen this before and is there something about the senders
email that causes this?

-- 
Best regards,
 Lawrence Johnson  mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]




Current version is 3.60.7 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[Chris]

Thomas Fernandez @ 2005-Feb-5 10:18:57 PM
"Remote Images in HTML mail?" <mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> And if I whitelist the LH newsletter and then someone sends me a
> webbug from that address (not difficult to fake a From header), it
> is *my* risk. People who don't want to take that risk will leave
> their whitelist empty, but they shouldn't tell me whether I am
> allowed to make my own decisions or not.

That's why the whitelist for displaying images could be by URL or
address or both. I prefer both. For example, ONLY display images in
messages FROM Amazon.com AND that come FROM http://www.amazon.com OR
http://images.amazon.com

-- 
Chris
Quoting when replying to this message is good for your karma.

Using The Bat! v3.0.1.33 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2
Accessing a POP3 mailbox.

Duct tape is like the Force. It has a light side, a dark side, and it
holds the universe together.


pgp6dwqwSANG2.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[David Calvarese]

On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 at 11:22:51 -0600, Mary Bull wrote:

M> How thoroughly do you filter, so that emails apparently from
M> Amazon _cannot_ be spoofed?

 There is that... but we have to put a level of trust in someplace...

MB>>> I like to get my "ads" from Amazon. However, if they sent me an
MB>>> attachment, I would become quite wary.

>> Y

MB> I'm not too good at "geek speak." But I'm assuming that "Y" means
MB> "Why."

Actually, it's cause my latop is going to pot and randomly clicks the
left mouse button and the cursor was over the send icon. :)

MB> David--this is getting a little OT. Want to continue on tbot?

Sure, that might be a good idea. :)

-- 
Best regards,
 David

Using The Bat! v3.0.2.10 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2






Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[Mary Bull]

Hello David!

On Sunday, February 06, 2005, 10:48 AM, you wrote:

M How thoroughly do you filter, so that emails apparently from
M Amazon _cannot_ be spoofed?

>>> There is that... but we have to put a level of trust in someplace...

MB>> I like to get my "ads" from Amazon. However, if they sent me an
MB>> attachment, I would become quite wary.

> Y

I'm not too good at "geek speak." But I'm assuming that "Y" means
"Why."

So: In case it was a spoofed From address, with a malware attachment,
I would scan it from my Desktop.

I have shortcuts to my "protection applications" on the Desktop.
Quicker access than in the e-mail.

I have never received an attachment from either Amazon.com, Amazon.uk,
or Amazon.de--have accounts at all three places.

So a mail from them with an attachment would feel more suspect to me
than one without.

David--this is getting a little OT. Want to continue on tbot?

-- 
Best regards,
Mary
The Bat! 3.0.2.10 on Windows XP 5.1 2600 Service Pack 2








Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[David Calvarese]

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 at 21:29:57 -0600, Mary Bull wrote:

M>>> How thoroughly do you filter, so that emails apparently from
M>>> Amazon _cannot_ be spoofed?

>> There is that... but we have to put a level of trust in someplace...

MB> I like to get my "ads" from Amazon. However, if they sent me an
MB> attachment, I would become quite wary.

Yes, attachments are an entirely different matter. :)  Must be careful
unless you know that someone is sending you an attachment and what it
is...  And even then, a modicum of safety precautions are needed. :)

-- 
Best regards,
 David

Using The Bat! v3.0.2.10 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2






Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[David Calvarese]

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 at 21:29:57 -0600, Mary Bull wrote:

M>>> How thoroughly do you filter, so that emails apparently from
M>>> Amazon _cannot_ be spoofed?

>> There is that... but we have to put a level of trust in someplace...

MB> I like to get my "ads" from Amazon. However, if they sent me an
MB> attachment, I would become quite wary.

Y

MB> I would save it to my Desktop and run F-Secure, TDS-3, SpyBot and
MB> Trojan Remover over it, before opening it.

MB> And then I would expect F-Secure to catch any "archived" mal-code that
MB> did try to pop up when I opened it.

MB> But, my first line of defense is the Mail Dispatcher.

MB> I download no e-mail the address of which I don't recognize or which I
MB> am not expecting.

MB> I hope that I am not too naive and trusting. I don't know what further
MB> I can do to protect myself.

MB> I do not click on any attachment that my sister who uses Outlook
MB> Express-HTML sends me, unless she has sent a previous mail saying what
MB> it is. I read her mails in plain text, also.

MB> And I long ago stopped her from sending me those commercial greeting
MB> cards. I told her I was deleting them unopened.

MB> She hasn't cut me out of her will, yet, so I reckon I'm managing okay
MB> even though she uses a client I don't trust. :)



-- 
Best regards,
 David

Using The Bat! v3.0.2.10 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2






Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[David Calvarese]

On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 at 06:38:24 -0500, Allie Martin wrote:

AM> Fernandez wrote:

GL>>> That said, you can retrieve the entire message, external images and
GL>>> all, even in 1.62. All you have to do is double-click the icon for the
GL>>> HTML page to open it in your default browser. So, if you want to
GL>>> subscribe to newsletters that you trust and that contain external
GL>>> images, you can even with TB 1.x

>> Yes we all know that, it'll open the browser. But this is not the
>> topic of the discussion.

AM> The interesting thing too is that if you open the message in your
AM> browser, the risks are still there in terms of security and privacy.

Yes, that is definately true.  Personally, out of all the suggested
approaches, I favor the button (that is OFF each time you open an HTML
message) that allows you to click it and toggle display of remote
images for that message (and that message only).

-- 
Best regards,
 David

Using The Bat! v3.0.2.10 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2






Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[Mary Bull]

Hello Mary!

On Sunday, February 06, 2005, 6:47 AM, you wrote:

>>  It's a lovely day here, a bit chilly at the momnent, but I'm
>> off to rake up the last two of the ten beds in the garden. I tend to
>> take about two hours for each one as there are a lot of stones and I
>> want to do it well. .

> Your day's work is cut out for you!

I apologize to the list. I did change Richard's address in the To
field to his private address.

But, somehow TB!'s technology overwhelmed me and changed it back. I'm
very sorry and will do my best not to let it happen again.

-- 
Best regards,
Mary
The Bat! 3.0.2.10 on Windows XP 5.1 2600 Service Pack 2








Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[Thomas Fernandez]

Hello Tony,

On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 12:23:02 + GMT (06/02/2005, 19:23 +0700 GMT),
Tony Boom wrote:

TB>  Like Thomas said, the users on this list are the elite of email users,
TB>  maybe a version of TB! just for us with a secret, non documented option
TB>  for true full blown html ability... Just for us, to reward us for years of
TB>  loyalty in the face of beta testing adversity :)

I don't think Ritlabs will have a problem to create an *undocumented*
feature. ;-)

-- 

Cheers,
Thomas.

The trouble with doing something right the first time is that nobody
appreciates how difficult it was.

Message reply created with The Bat! 3.0.2.10
under Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600Service Pack 2





Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[Mary Bull]

Hello Richard!

On Sunday, February 06, 2005, 2:34 AM, you wrote:

>  It's a lovely day here, a bit chilly at the momnent, but I'm
> off to rake up the last two of the ten beds in the garden. I tend to
> take about two hours for each one as there are a lot of stones and I
> want to do it well. .

Your day's work is cut out for you!

And--on-topic, but didn't see any need to discuss the HTML thing
further on tbudl--I agree totally that the HTML in-body web import
should be an option, and the lack of the import in-body should be the
Default in TB!

Greg did say that in his long post.

That's the trouble with long posts: Sometimes something crucial
doesn't get emphasized enough.

And I know that you know that Greg said it, and were simply
emphasizing how crucial it is when you said again that "it should be
an option."

Other list topic: In the recent firestorm on tbot, I thought it was
absolutely too bad that I got singled out as an over-user of the
Smileys.

When Leif and Allie had so recently had their duel thread, in which
they included hardly any text at all.

I'm near to considering Melissa a troll.

But Pat has apologized to me in Private Mail for setting me up for the
whole thing with her "Jocularity" Smiley suggestion.

And the weather is beautiful temporarily here, also. I have had two
lovely long walks on two consecutive days.

Be well.

-- 
Warm regards,
Mary








Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[Mary Bull]

Hello Allie!

On Sunday, February 06, 2005, 5:48 AM, you wrote:

>> I like to get my "ads" from Amazon. However, if they sent me an
>> attachment, I would become quite wary.

> Me too. The spammers know about Amazon sending ads and will send
> fraudulent material. I get fraudulent stuff a lot concerning PayPal
> and other banking issues.

Oh, my. I don't bank "on-line" and it's only recently that I got
PayPal. Haven't used it yet.

>> I would save it to my Desktop and run F-Secure, TDS-3, SpyBot and
>> Trojan Remover over it, before opening it.

> I'd still not assume that it's safe.

I see. Well, you truly are correct. Neither The Bat! nor my AV and
anti-trojan programs can be coded against everything.

At the risk of wandering slightly off-topic, I'll put a report of a
narrow escape that I had with a Web Page, one that I can conceive of
sending me something in the body of an HTML e-mail, if I received my
e-mail in HTML:

Last week I wanted the sheet music (not just the lyrics) to a 1930s
popular song. Google sent me to a place called Digital Sheet Music
that offered just such a download. I began the process, but as soon as
the Transfer window appeared, F-Secure put up a warning that
Exploit.Htm was on my machine. Of course, I said, Delete it. And got
out of there fast.

> If you don't have to open the attachment, then don't open it at all.

Oh, you are most certainly right. And with a business, I would not
have to open the attachment. I can see what Amazon has to offer right
on its web pages.

My brain ticks over very slowly, sometimes.

> Why would you have to? A friend or business sent it to you and
> described what fun, important information is in it for you to see.
> IOW's, you're expecting the attachment, it's a safe format to open,
> or you're accustomed to being sent more risky formats which have been
> previously ok.

I have never received an attachment from either Amazon.com or PayPal.
So it now, ahead of time, becomes my policy to delete anything from
them containing an attachment.

>> And then I would expect F-Secure to catch any "archived" mal-code that
>> did try to pop up when I opened it.

> They can miss things. They aren't perfect.

Creations of my fellow human beings. Of course they are not!

>> I download no e-mail the address of which I don't recognize or which I
>> am not expecting.

> Ok. Great. However, don't forget fraudulent mail. The machine of
> friends may also be compromised and malicious messages sent out
> without their knowing. You'll see them as the sender.

When an attachment arrives in a "newsletter" type e-mail from the
permanent president of my undergraduate college class, sent as bulk
mail to all of us, I always delete it. Frequently that's a FWD letter,
where someone has sent a funny cartoon. Too risky. But she doesn't
know I'm doing that. Most of my classmates are OE kids. :(

I have some hope--a faint one--of winning my OE sister to The Bat!
though. I just have to trust, at present, that her address won't get
spoofed.

If I disappear, you can assume that the Spoofers finally got me,
however!!

> The PayPal fraud notes are skillful. It's not until you pass the mouse
> over the URL they invite you to visit that you see it's not a paypal
> URL. They're taking you to a site which is likely just as fraudulent
> as the message.

Oh, my. Maybe I don't even need PayPal. I haven't put in any
Confirmation numbers yet, to finish activating the account.

>> I hope that I am not too naive and trusting. I don't know what further
>> I can do to protect myself.

> Unplug your machine, turn out the lights, lock your doors and ;)



> It can be difficult, but I see you're doing well already. Much better
> than many who are managing anyway. :)

Learned most of my policies right here on tbudl.

>> I do not click on any attachment that my sister who uses Outlook
>> Express-HTML sends me, unless she has sent a previous mail saying what
>> it is. I read her mails in plain text, also.

> Ok.

But I do get many attachments from her. Long genealogy reports,
pictures, compositions to proofread, "funnies" her third-grade
students came up with, etc.

It's a risk I'm willing to take.

>> And I long ago stopped her from sending me those commercial greeting
>> cards. I told her I was deleting them unopened.

> :)

Yes. :)

Thanks, Allie. You've caused me to upgrade my cautionary policies
further.

Long live the Mail Dispatcher!!

-- 
Best regards,
Mary
The Bat! 3.0.2.10 on Windows XP 5.1 2600 Service Pack 2








Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[Tony Boom]

Hello Greg,

  A reminder of what Greg Strong on TBOT typed on:
  Sunday, February 06, 2005 at 04:45:40 GMT +0100

GS> I've seen this argument on TB lists for years. It seems to be an
GS> ideological issue / opinion.  Why can't you provide options and keep
GS> everybody happy?

 Exactly. Not having the option limits the user base, having the option
 would open it up to an even wider user base even it most people wouldn't
 use it.


-- 

Tony.

The Bat! 3.0.2.10
Registered Linux user #316959

 :gentoo:
www.gentoo.org





smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[Tony Boom]

Hello Thomas,

  A reminder of what Thomas Fernandez on TBOT typed on:
  Sunday, February 06, 2005 at 04:29:44 GMT +0100

TF> TB's user demography will probably have a higher percentage of
TF> computer savvy users than most other mailers, yet it nannies the users
TF> more. Why is that?

 I can't stress enough how much I agree with you. If TB! is to compete with
 other mailers, especially the ones about today then it should have the
 same abilities.

 I've played with most of them and the good ones all have the option to
 refuse or accept image display. What they don't have is all the rest of
 TB's powers, especially filtering and templates.

 Like Thomas said, the users on this list are the elite of email users,
 maybe a version of TB! just for us with a secret, non documented option
 for true full blown html ability... Just for us, to reward us for years of
 loyalty in the face of beta testing adversity :)


-- 

Tony.

The Bat! 3.0.2.10
Registered Linux user #316959

 :gentoo:
www.gentoo.org





smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[Thomas Fernandez]

Hello Allie,

On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 06:38:24 -0500 GMT (06/02/2005, 18:38 +0700 GMT),
Allie Martin wrote:

AM> The interesting thing too is that if you open the message in your
AM> browser, the risks are still there in terms of security and privacy.

Persactly. So I must know what I am doing, otherwise I'm doomed
anyway, as TB's nanny function cannot protect me.

-- 

Cheers,
Thomas.

Man: Is this seat empty? Woman: Yes, and this one will be if you sit
down.

Message reply created with The Bat! 3.0.2.10
under Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600Service Pack 2





Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[Allie Martin]

On Saturday, February 05, 2005 at 10:29:57 PM [GMT -0500], Mary Bull
wrote:

> I like to get my "ads" from Amazon. However, if they sent me an
> attachment, I would become quite wary.

Me too. The spammers know about Amazon sending ads and will send
fraudulent material. I get fraudulent stuff a lot concerning PayPal
and other banking issues.

> I would save it to my Desktop and run F-Secure, TDS-3, SpyBot and
> Trojan Remover over it, before opening it.

I'd still not assume that it's safe.

If you don't have to open the attachment, then don't open it at all.

Why would you have to? A friend or business sent it to you and
described what fun, important information is in it for you to see.
IOW's, you're expecting the attachment, it's a safe format to open,
or you're accustomed to being sent more risky formats which have been
previously ok.

> And then I would expect F-Secure to catch any "archived" mal-code that
> did try to pop up when I opened it.

They can miss things. They aren't perfect.

> I download no e-mail the address of which I don't recognize or which I
> am not expecting.

Ok. Great. However, don't forget fraudulent mail. The machine of
friends may also be compromised and malicious messages sent out
without their knowing. You'll see them as the sender.

The PayPal fraud notes are skillful. It's not until you pass the mouse
over the URL they invite you to visit that you see it's not a paypal
URL. They're taking you to a site which is likely just as fraudulent
as the message.

> I hope that I am not too naive and trusting. I don't know what further
> I can do to protect myself.

Unplug your machine, turn out the lights, lock your doors and ;)

It can be difficult, but I see you're doing well already. Much better
than many who are managing anyway. :)

> I do not click on any attachment that my sister who uses Outlook
> Express-HTML sends me, unless she has sent a previous mail saying what
> it is. I read her mails in plain text, also.

Ok.

> And I long ago stopped her from sending me those commercial greeting
> cards. I told her I was deleting them unopened.

:)

-- 
Cheers,
 -= Allie =-
. You're trying to pull a clinton, aren't you?
   «·»
IMAP Client: The Bat!™ v3.0.2.5
IMAP Server: MDaemon Pro · OS: Windows XP Pro (Service Pack 2)


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[Allie Martin]

On Saturday, February 05, 2005 at 10:22:59 PM [GMT -0500], Thomas
Fernandez wrote:

GL>> That said, you can retrieve the entire message, external images and
GL>> all, even in 1.62. All you have to do is double-click the icon for the
GL>> HTML page to open it in your default browser. So, if you want to
GL>> subscribe to newsletters that you trust and that contain external
GL>> images, you can even with TB 1.x

> Yes we all know that, it'll open the browser. But this is not the
> topic of the discussion.

The interesting thing too is that if you open the message in your
browser, the risks are still there in terms of security and privacy.

-- 
Cheers,
 -= Allie =-
. Scaldophobia: Fear the toilet will flush while showering.
   «·»
IMAP Client: The Bat!™ v3.0.2.5
IMAP Server: MDaemon Pro · OS: Windows XP Pro (Service Pack 2)


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[2]: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[Richard Wakeford]

Hello Mary,

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 you wrote in 

MB> And very well said. My .02 worth is to agree with all your points one
MB> hundred per cent!

and I'll just add a very strong "me to" here but it would have to be an
option.

MB> I think that the Smiley capability (also optional of course) is very
MB> good for The Bat! also. And I enjoy them. But I am trying to enjoy
MB> them in moderation.

I agree Mary, Smilies are great and it's nice to see a smiling face
after a message to take the sting off :-) However, as you said, enjoy
them in moderation!

 It's a lovely day here, a bit chilly at the momnent, but I'm
off to rake up the last two of the ten beds in the garden. I tend to
take about two hours for each one as there are a lot of stones and I
want to do it well. .

-- 
Regards,
Richard

| The Bat! 3.0.2.10 & SpamPal
| Windows XP (build 2600), version 5. 1 Service Pack 2
| Opera 8.00 build 7401

PGP public key:
http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCA93B5BE   


pgpXREje7wx3C.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[Alexander S. Kunz]

Hello Greg Strong & everyone else,

on 06-Feb-2005 at 00:19 you (Greg Strong) wrote:

>>> Giving away the IP address of the recipient when reading an HTML mail
>>> with embedded images, providing feedback to spammers that the message
>>> arrived.

>> H... I cannot see why that is a security risk.

> If you have the time to read, go to Google and do a search on "IP
> address security risk."  I'M SURE you will find your answer there.

I don't know what you mean and can only guess which of the thousands of
hits is what you are referring to, but if it is what I think, then you
shouldn't surf the web either :) If someone walks by your house, he can
look what name is on the door bell and mailbox, and peek thru your windows,
watch the flowers in your garden, you can't do a thing about it. Its
perfectly legal. If you leave your front door open and someone walks in and
uses your toilet and takes your stereo, its your problem. Everything
requires conscious usage.

I think I can make the generalisation that all of us agree that plain text
email is first choice, and that remote images should not be loaded
automatically, but rather thru a button, a list of trusted senders or
domains, whatever.

However, people always make this html and/or remote images thing an almost
religious matter and don't stay with the facts, and mix security and
privacy up, and whatnot. It is not within the responsibility of an *email*
program to protect the user from design flaws of its operating system, or
the entire internet technology. It is the responsibility of the program to
protect the user from privacy issues like web bugs, and its the
responsibility of the programmers to build bullet-proof code, as far as
that is possible.

-- 
Best regards,
 Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.de - ICQ 238153981)

The product of mental labor-science always stands far below it's
value, because the labor-time neccessary to reproduce it has no
relation at all to the labor-time required for it's original
production. -- Karl Marx



Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[Mary Bull]

Hello Greg!

On Saturday, February 05, 2005, 9:45 PM, you wrote:

MDP>>> That's one. There are others. Downloading *anything* at the behest of
MDP>>> an *email* is fundamentally a security breach - it's not the way email
MDP>>> is supposed to work.

>> ..."was" supposed to work, I'd say. Welcome to the 21st century. Needs
>> and preferences change.

> I've seen this argument on TB lists for years. It seems to be an
> ideological issue / opinion.  Why can't you provide options and keep
> everybody happy?

I think it can be that way, Greg. I think--if it's not there
already--the best way for this discussion to culminate would be in a
feature request to the BugTracker website.

Or if it is there already, someone who knows that it is could kindly
post the URL where supporting notes can be added.

-- 
Best regards,
Mary
The Bat! 3.0.2.10 on Windows XP 5.1 2600 Service Pack 2








Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[Greg Strong]

Hello Thomas,

On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 10:37:57 +0700 GMT(2/5/2005, 9:37 PM -0600 GMT), 
per mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Thomas Fernandez wrote:

MDP>> That's one. There are others. Downloading *anything* at the behest of
MDP>> an *email* is fundamentally a security breach - it's not the way email
MDP>> is supposed to work.

> ..."was" supposed to work, I'd say. Welcome to the 21st century. Needs
> and preferences change.

I've seen this argument on TB lists for years. It seems to be an
ideological issue / opinion.  Why can't you provide options and keep
everybody happy?

-- 
Best Regards,
Greg Strong 

Using The Bat! v3.0.2.10 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2




Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[Greg Strong]

Hello Thomas,

On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 10:18:57 +0700 GMT(2/5/2005, 9:18 PM -0600 GMT), 
per mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Thomas Fernandez wrote:

> TB's user demography will probably have a higher percentage of
> computer savvy users than most other mailers, yet it nannies the users
> more. Why is that?

This is a VERY good question! I could guess, but it would only be
conjecture.

-- 
Best Regards,
Greg Strong 

Using The Bat! v3.0.2.10 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2




Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[Thomas Fernandez]

Hello Marck,

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 19:37:16 + GMT (06/02/2005, 02:37 +0700 GMT),
Marck D Pearlstone wrote:

MDP> That's one. There are others. Downloading *anything* at the behest of
MDP> an *email* is fundamentally a security breach - it's not the way email
MDP> is supposed to work.

..."was" supposed to work, I'd say. Welcome to the 21st century. Needs
and preferences change.

-- 

Cheers,
Thomas.

"They recently conducted a marijuana taste test. Nobody seems to be
able to remember the results."

Message reply created with The Bat! 3.0.2.10
under Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600Service Pack 2





Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[Mary Bull]

Hello David!

On Saturday, February 05, 2005, 9:11 PM, you wrote:

M>> How thoroughly do you filter, so that emails apparently from
M>> Amazon _cannot_ be spoofed?

> There is that... but we have to put a level of trust in someplace...

I like to get my "ads" from Amazon. However, if they sent me an
attachment, I would become quite wary.

I would save it to my Desktop and run F-Secure, TDS-3, SpyBot and
Trojan Remover over it, before opening it.

And then I would expect F-Secure to catch any "archived" mal-code that
did try to pop up when I opened it.

But, my first line of defense is the Mail Dispatcher.

I download no e-mail the address of which I don't recognize or which I
am not expecting.

I hope that I am not too naive and trusting. I don't know what further
I can do to protect myself.

I do not click on any attachment that my sister who uses Outlook
Express-HTML sends me, unless she has sent a previous mail saying what
it is. I read her mails in plain text, also.

And I long ago stopped her from sending me those commercial greeting
cards. I told her I was deleting them unopened.

She hasn't cut me out of her will, yet, so I reckon I'm managing okay
even though she uses a client I don't trust. :)

-- 
Best regards,
Mary
The Bat! 3.0.2.10 on Windows XP 5.1 2600 Service Pack 2








Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[Thomas Fernandez]

Hello Geoff,

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 18:46:28 + GMT (06/02/2005, 01:46 +0700 GMT),
Geoff Lane wrote:

GL> I'm not saying for one moment that these things should not be
GL> available for those who want it - just that you should have the option
GL> to turn them off if you don't.

Thanks, and I think everybody agrees that "off" should be the default.
Some people seem to say that there should not be any option to allow
downloading pictures from the web.

GL> Someone suggested that opening external images directly couldn't hurt.
GL> I just wanted to point out that it can -- with that information it
GL> should be up to each to assess the risk and act accordingly.

There is a risk, and everybody who wants to avoid it can leave the
option off.

GL> That said, you can retrieve the entire message, external images and
GL> all, even in 1.62. All you have to do is double-click the icon for the
GL> HTML page to open it in your default browser. So, if you want to
GL> subscribe to newsletters that you trust and that contain external
GL> images, you can even with TB 1.x

Yes we all know that, it'll open the browser. But this is not the
topic of the discussion.

-- 

Cheers,
Thomas.

Blamestorming: Sitting around in a group discussing why a deadline was
missed or a project failed, and who was responsible.

Message reply created with The Bat! 3.0.2.10
under Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600Service Pack 2





Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[Thomas Fernandez]

Hello Jernej,

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 19:40:35 +0100 GMT (06/02/2005, 01:40 +0700 GMT),
Jernej Simoncic wrote:

>> Thats the stuff I don't like either. Maybe a future TB function to download
>> remote images should include a check that the URL does not contain an email
>> address, or some other measure to prevent web bugs.

JS> It doesn't have to be e-mail address at all - unique identifiers can be
JS> hidden like this, too:

True, true. But then, why would Lufthansa hide a unique identifier in
their monthly newsletter, which I have actively subscribed to?

And if I whitelist the LH newsletter and then someone sends me a
webbug from that address (not difficult to fake a From header), it is
*my* risk. People who don't want to take that risk will leave their
whitelist empty, but they shouldn't tell me whether I am allowed to
make my own decisions or not.

TB's user demography will probably have a higher percentage of
computer savvy users than most other mailers, yet it nannies the users
more. Why is that?

-- 

Cheers,
Thomas.

Practice making fax and modem noises at your desk.

Message reply created with The Bat! 3.0.2.10
under Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600Service Pack 2





Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[David Calvarese]

On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 at 02:22:58 +, MFPA wrote:

M> Hi

M> On Saturday 5 February 2005 at 2:29:09 PM, in
M> , David Calvarese wrote:

>> Even being able to take certain addresses as 'safe' to
>> automaticly display the images for them. Like Amazon, I'm pretty
>> sure their emails are safe.

M> How thoroughly do you filter, so that emails apparently from
M> Amazon _cannot_ be spoofed?

There is that... but we have to put a level of trust in someplace...

-- 
Best regards,
 David

Using The Bat! v3.0.2.10 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2






Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[MFPA]

Hi

On Saturday 5 February 2005 at 2:29:09 PM, in
, David Calvarese wrote:


> Even being able to take certain addresses as 'safe' to
> automaticly display the images for them. Like Amazon, I'm pretty
> sure their emails are safe.

How thoroughly do you filter, so that emails apparently from
Amazon _cannot_ be spoofed?

-- 
Best regards,
 
MFPAmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Using The Bat! v3.0.1.33 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1



Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[Mary Bull]

Hello Greg!

On Saturday, February 05, 2005, 5:19 PM, you wrote, in part:

> Now having said that I will also state I'm a text based email advocate
> because I do understand that HTML email increases risk. I read all email
> in plain text. I don't know of any statistics on TB users, but would
> tend to think that they are much higher on the technical abilities side
> than the average PC user when it comes to using computers.

> With all that I've stated previously I don't feel HTML is as important
> as a good IMAP email client even though I personally do not have an
> integral need for IMAP.

> Just MY OPINION and .02 worth.

And very well said. My .02 worth is to agree with all your points one
hundred per cent!

Even though I am an ex-plain text person.

It is Leif's fault. He lured me to the Smiley side with two gifts:
:42: and h2g2

Having fallen in love with Douglas Adams when I was introduced to him
on tbot, I was powerless to resist.

I think that the Smiley capability (also optional of course) is very
good for The Bat! also. And I enjoy them. But I am trying to enjoy
them in moderation. ;)

I want The Bat! to be commercially viable.

I am so glad that a professionally produced Help file is on the way,
already contracted for.

And a fully functional IMAP and HTML capability, for those who need
it, may not be far behind. It's my fervent hope that will be so.

Keep the faith, baby! :)

-- 
Best regards,
Mary
:Mary:
The Bat! 3.0.2.10 on Windows XP 5.1 2600 Service Pack 2








Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[Greg Strong]

Hello Alexander,

Saturday, February 5, 2005, 1:59:42 PM, Alexander S. Kunz wrote:

ASK>>> Could you name one, please. Talking about security, not privacy.
ASK>>> Talking about pure HTML (not javascript, and not ActiveX, either).

>> Giving away the IP address of the recipient when reading an HTML mail
>> with embedded images, providing feedback to spammers that the message
>> arrived.

> H... I cannot see why that is a security risk.

If you have the time to read, go to Google and do a search on "IP
address security risk."  I'M SURE you will find your answer there.

Well I've tried to stay away from this thread, so I'll go on record on
this HTML topic even though I admit NOT being the expert here. I've used
TB for years and I've seen this argument / debate / war (i.e. call it
what ever you want) waged on these lists before. Seeing them waged in
the past I don't know if you can ever declare a winner because they
really boil down to opinions. Putting this aside I am for TB being able
to embed images in HTML mail, downloading images, etc., provided it is
provided as an option where the default option is text email.

I do feel the option should have choices. One choice would be to apply
HTML globally across all accounts. Another choice would be to apply to
an individual account basis. Another option would be to apply on an
individual email address basis. The last option would be to apply to an
individual email received basis. IIRC the other security risk with HTML
is embedded scripting languages. So in addition to the HTML option,
there should be options to enable disable scripting language similar to
those in a browser. Again I emphasize that the default would be text
email with all scripting languages off. The key here is CHOICES.

Why? Simple! Revenue!!! I think by providing these choices TB would
preserve the benefits that a substantial percentage of the installed
base feel important. Now I know some would be put off by the additional
options. However I like TB, and in my opinion the inclusion of these
options would benefit TB in the future.

Now having said that I will also state I'm a text based email advocate
because I do understand that HTML email increases risk. I read all email
in plain text. I don't know of any statistics on TB users, but would
tend to think that they are much higher on the technical abilities side
than the average PC user when it comes to using computers.

With all that I've stated previously I don't feel HTML is as important
as a good IMAP email client even though I personally do not have an
integral need for IMAP.

Just MY OPINION and .02 worth.

-- 
Best Regards,
Greg Strong 

Using The Bat! v3.0.2.10 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2





Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

RE: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[Jurgen Haug]

Hello Tony,

Saturday, February 5, 2005, 8:02:09 PM, you wrote:


>   A reminder of what Thomas Fernandez on TBOT typed on:
>   Saturday, February 05, 2005 at 15:17:35 GMT +0100

TF>> But then, I still fail to see why "sexually implicit" movies are so
TF>> heavily regulated (how can they hurt anyone?), like PG18, while
TF>> violent movies are often rated only PG12.

>  I agree with you here Tommy. I don't believe it should be rammed down
>  their throats but I'd rather them learn to make love not war to quote an
>  old phrase.

You're my man, Tony!


-- 
Best regards,
 Jürgen
:eu-flag3: :de-bw: :safaribears:

http://www.bushin30seconds.org/view/1024_large.shtml

Using The Bat! v3.0.2.4 Rush, Opera v8.00.7401 on WinXP Home v2600 SP2

* PGP key available on request: send mail with subject 'PGP key request'

pgp4WEalOzMcG.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[Alexander S. Kunz]

Hello Marck D Pearlstone & everyone else,

on 05-Feb-2005 at 20:37 you (Marck D Pearlstone) wrote:

ASK>> Could you name one, please. Talking about security, not privacy.
ASK>> Talking about pure HTML (not javascript, and not ActiveX, either).

> Giving away the IP address of the recipient when reading an HTML mail
> with embedded images, providing feedback to spammers that the message
> arrived.

H... I cannot see why that is a security risk.

> That's one. There are others. Downloading *anything* at the behest of
> an *email* is fundamentally a security breach - it's not the way email
> is supposed to work.

Well, *fundamentally* HTML is not the way email is supposed to work
either... :)

-- 
Best regards,
 Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.de - ICQ 238153981)

The Buddha, the GodHead, resides quite as comfortably in the circuits
of a digital computer or the gears of a cycle transmission as he does
at the top of a mountain or in the petals of a flower. -- Robert
Persig



Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[Marck D Pearlstone]

Dear Alexander,

@5-Feb-2005, 13:44 +0100 (05-Feb 12:44 UK time) Alexander S. Kunz
[ASK] in mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said to Thorvald:

>> I am fully aware of the security risks of HTML emails.

ASK> Could you name one, please. Talking about security, not privacy. Talking
ASK> about pure HTML (not javascript, and not ActiveX, either).

Giving away the IP address of the recipient when reading an HTML mail
with embedded images, providing feedback to spammers that the message
arrived.

That's one. There are others. Downloading *anything* at the behest of
an *email* is fundamentally a security breach - it's not the way email
is supposed to work.

-- 
Cheers --  //.arck D Pearlstone -- List moderator and fellow end user
TB! v3.0.2.10 on Windows XP 5.1.2600 Service Pack 2
'

pgpFzKSaAGxx8.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[Tony Boom]

Hello Thomas,

  A reminder of what Thomas Fernandez on TBOT typed on:
  Saturday, February 05, 2005 at 15:17:35 GMT +0100

TF> But then, I still fail to see why "sexually implicit" movies are so
TF> heavily regulated (how can they hurt anyone?), like PG18, while
TF> violent movies are often rated only PG12.

 I agree with you here Tommy. I don't believe it should be rammed down
 their throats but I'd rather them learn to make love not war to quote an
 old phrase.

TF> I'm impressed about your kids. Depending on how old they are,

My Son is 19 and he always manages to find better site than I do :)_


-- 

Tony.

The Bat! 3.0.2.10
Registered Linux user #316959

 :gentoo:
www.gentoo.org





smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[Tony Boom]

Hello Chris,

  A reminder of what Chris on TBOT typed on:
  Saturday, February 05, 2005 at 14:53:36 GMT +0100

C> It can though.

OK, I'll play along.


C> 1) Your kid gets porn spam. Would you rather have the images show up
C> right away or only after asked so he or she can delete it without
C> seeing the images.

You need to read the spam before that can happen.

C> 2) Web bugs allow e-mailers to track who read what message when. This
C> is normally done be embedding an image with a source like this:
C> http://www.flybynight.com/scripts/[EMAIL PROTECTED]&msgid=AD57

Again, you need to read it before that can happen.

C> 3) Background images as well as poorly chosen color schemes can make
C> it very hard to read text.

That's the only one that would affect me. As for the first two, spam gets
deleted before it's read, I don't even bother to open it wether it contains
images or not.

Your going to tell me next virus's are a problem in email too?


-- 

Tony.

The Bat! 3.0.2.10
Registered Linux user #316959

 :gentoo:
www.gentoo.org





smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[Geoff Lane]

On 05 February 2005, 18:08, Alexander S. Kunz wrote:

> But it doesn't disqualify HTML email either just because one or the other
> programmer screwed up and built code vulnerable to attacks. I have trust in
> RITlabs to make their code as best as possible.
~~~

FWIW, I strongly suspect that Microsoft didn't intentionally foist
vulnerable code on its users - and I'm confident that RitLabs won't
either. Notwithstanding that, if you don't support a particular
function, you can't be susceptible to vulnerabilities of that
function.

Now, TB may well have undiscovered vulnerabilities with respect to
off-page images: we don't know. Also, because TB has a fewer users
than the MS MUAs, I suspect that most potential attackers won't
bother. That said, if you never retrieve off-page images, you won't be
vulnerable to attacks they may permit.

-- 
Geoff Lane
Cornwall, UK
--
Using The Bat! v1.62i on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1
Floggings will continue until moral improves!



Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[Tony Boom]

Hello Geoff,

  A reminder of what Geoff Lane on TBOT typed on:
  Saturday, February 05, 2005 at 13:46:24 GMT +0100

GL> So, yes, displaying html images direct from the web in e-mail can hurt.

 You maybe, not me though.


-- 

Tony.

The Bat! 3.0.2.10
Registered Linux user #316959

 :gentoo:
www.gentoo.org





smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[Geoff Lane]

On 05 February 2005, 14:07, Thomas Fernandez wrote:

GL>> FWIW, I didn't claim it to be either a security or a privacy issue -
GL>> just something that I don't want.

> Others may want it. It is requested as an option only.

GL>> However, there are known security issues with html images that can
GL>> cause buffer overruns and, in the right (or should that be wrong!)
GL>> circumstances, give an attacker control over your computer. [...]

> I agree with everything you say. However, there are some newsletters I
> trust, and I would whitelist only those. It is my own responsibility
> to choose membership in the whitelist reasonably, but it is not my
> MUA's responsibility to nanny me.

> It wouldn't effect you, Geoff, if I, Thomas, made a mistake and
> allowed malicious code on my computer. It would be my own problem
> entirely.
~~~

I'm not saying for one moment that these things should not be
available for those who want it - just that you should have the option
to turn them off if you don't.

Someone suggested that opening external images directly couldn't hurt.
I just wanted to point out that it can -- with that information it
should be up to each to assess the risk and act accordingly.

That said, you can retrieve the entire message, external images and
all, even in 1.62. All you have to do is double-click the icon for the
HTML page to open it in your default browser. So, if you want to
subscribe to newsletters that you trust and that contain external
images, you can even with TB 1.x

HTH,

-- 
Geoff Lane
Cornwall, UK
--
Using The Bat! v1.62i on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1
Tagline theft ... the sincerest form of flattery



Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[Jernej Simoncic]

On Saturday, February 5, 2005, 19:01:54, Alexander S. Kunz wrote:

> Thats the stuff I don't like either. Maybe a future TB function to download
> remote images should include a check that the URL does not contain an email
> address, or some other measure to prevent web bugs.

It doesn't have to be e-mail address at all - unique identifiers can be
hidden like this, too:

http://some.site/images/xyz1234.png
http://xyz123.some.site/title.jpg

-- 
< Jernej Simoncic ><><><><>< http://deepthought.ena.si/ >

No books are lost by lending except those you particularly wanted to keep.
   -- Atwoods Corollary



Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[Alexander S. Kunz]

Hello Geoff Lane & everyone else,

on 05-Feb-2005 at 14:15 you (Geoff Lane) wrote:

> FWIW, I didn't claim it to be either a security or a privacy issue -
> just something that I don't want.

Neither do I, but it doesn't disqualify HTML email as a whole.

> However, there are known security issues with html images that can
> cause buffer overruns and, in the right (or should that be wrong!)
> circumstances, give an attacker control over your computer. AFAICT,
> the attack works because an external resource (which may be an image)
> has a specifically-formatted URL. I've lost count of the number of
> "security updates" that MS has issued to plug such holes that wouldn't
> exist if MS MUAs behaved like TB with respect to external resources.

But it doesn't disqualify HTML email either just because one or the other
programmer screwed up and built code vulnerable to attacks. I have trust in
RITlabs to make their code as best as possible.

As for pictures with malformed headers that cause buffer overflows and
allow code injection, maybe you're save if those are remote images, but if
you get the images as an attachment it'll get you, anyway. :)

-- 
Best regards,
 Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.de - ICQ 238153981)

I'd probably be famous now if I wasn't such a good waitress. -- Jane
Siberry



Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[Alexander S. Kunz]

Hello Chris & everyone else,

on 05-Feb-2005 at 14:48 you (Chris) wrote:

> 2) Web bugs allow e-mailers to track who read what message when. This
> is normally done be embedding an image with a source like this:
> http://www.flybynight.com/scripts/[EMAIL PROTECTED]&msgid=AD57

Thats the stuff I don't like either. Maybe a future TB function to download
remote images should include a check that the URL does not contain an email
address, or some other measure to prevent web bugs.

-- 
Best regards,
 Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.de - ICQ 238153981)

History contains no facts but those that are the most thoroughly
improbable from the standpoint of probability theory. -- Stanislaw Lem



Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[Melissa Reese]

Hi Alexander,

On Saturday, February 05, 2005, at 2:08:06 AM PST, you wrote:

>>> This and HTML mail as standard when you start a new mail.

>> No, sorry, this would let many people go away.

> Should be made configurable. Whats the problem with a switch that
> defines the default editor?

There already is:

Options | Preferences | Viewer/Editor | Default Message Text Editor

I'm still using v2.x, but I see this option already exists.

-- 
Melissa

PGP public keys:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]&Body=Please%20send%20keys

TB! v2.12.00 on Windows XP 5.1.2600 Service Pack 1



pgpuaKkYrd1f8.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

RE: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[Jurgen Haug]

Hello David,

Saturday, February 5, 2005, 3:20:50 PM, you wrote:


> If I recall Netscape/Mozilla mail used to have the option in the
> address book for tagging contacts as 'This person prefers plain text
> email' or 'this person prefers HTML email' or 'Send Both'.  Something
> along those lines would work nicely too for TB! I think.

hey, you're right, now that you talk about it, that I remember, too!



-- 
Best regards,
 Jürgen
:eu-flag3: :de-bw: :safaribears:

"Gebildet ist, wer Parallelen zu sehen vermag. Dummköpfe sehen immer wieder 
etwas ganz Neues (Sigmund Graff)"

Using The Bat! v3.0.2.4 Rush, Opera v8.00.7401 on WinXP Home v2600 SP2

* PGP key available on request: send mail with subject 'PGP key request'

pgp07zPny9bsM.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[Allie Martin]

On Saturday, February 05, 2005 at 7:52:05 AM [GMT -0500], Alexander S.
Kunz wrote:

> This is a privacy, not a security issue. For that very reason the
> wish to add a sender to a list of "trusted senders" from whom remote
> images are allowed exists. Or a simple menu entry "download images
> now".

This is one feature in ThunderBird that makes it more pleasant to read
mail with. By default, it doesn't retrieve graphics or other data in
HTML mail. However, at the click of a button, you can do this right
there in the viewer.

-- 
Cheers,
 -= Allie =-
. As I said before, I never repeat myself.
   «·»
IMAP Client: The Bat!™ v3.0.2.5
IMAP Server: MDaemon Pro · OS: Windows XP Pro (Service Pack 2)


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[David Calvarese]

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 at 14:33:26 +0100, Alexander S. Kunz wrote:

ASK> on 05-Feb-2005 at 12:24 you (Marck D Pearlstone) wrote:

>> Preferences..Viewer/Editor..Default message/text editor.

ASK> D'oh - its already there... :-)

ASK> What we need now is some solution for the remote images, as described in
ASK> https://www.ritlabs.com/bt/view.php?id=920 (one possible solution).

Yeah, that's pretty much exactly what I was talking about.

-- 
Best regards,
 David

Using The Bat! v3.0.2.10 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2






Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[Allie Martin]

On Saturday, February 05, 2005 at 5:32:21 AM [GMT -0500], Thorvald
Neumann wrote:

> I am fully aware of the security risks of HTML emails. Others are not.

If retrieving data from the Internet is toggled off for HTML mail, how
does this make ThunderBird or Becky or any other similar clients
insecure? Please enlighten me on this, since I use ThunderBird and
keep the remote retrieval of data switched off.

-- 
Cheers,
 -= Allie =-
. I'm Not Schizophrenic, And Neither Am I.
   «·»
IMAP Client: The Bat!™ v3.0.2.5
IMAP Server: MDaemon Pro · OS: Windows XP Pro (Service Pack 2)


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[David Calvarese]

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 at 12:48:31 +, Geoff Lane wrote:

GL> On 05 February 2005, 10:46, Tony Boom wrote:

>>  To be honest, I'm easy either way. I have no problem with displaying html
>>  images direct from the web in email, it can't hurt can it?
GL> ~~~

GL> I, for one, am very glad that TB won't display external images, and
GL> it's the main reason why I was prepared to pay for TB rather than use
GL> one of the numerous freebie MUAs.

GL> External images can be used for malevolent purposes. For example, as
GL> web beacons to track your usage, or for spammers to verify your e-mail
GL> address. So, yes, displaying html images direct from the web in e-mail
GL> can hurt.

Yes, I agree it *CAN* hurt, that's why it should be an option.
Display the message with the images disabled, and then click a button
to display the images if it's safe to do so.  Even being able to take
certain addresses as 'safe' to automaticly display the images for
them.  Like Amazon, I'm pretty sure their emails are safe.

-- 
Best regards,
 David

Using The Bat! v3.0.2.10 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2






Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[David Calvarese]

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 at 12:52:44 +0100, Jurgen Haug wrote:

JH>>> yeah that would be nice, it would have made me convert some people
JH>>> to TB! This and HTML mail as standard when you start a new mail.

>> Preferences..Viewer/Editor..Default message/text editor.

>> Enjoy. (Or shudder, as I do).

JH> The problem is, that I am using TB! at work, too (which in
JH> itself is not a problem but a blessing), but in the last 4 or 5
JH> places I been working the rule was  'You have to have HTML mail
JH> switched on by default, and you have to use this and that template
JH> for your mails' - which usually included some colourful and larger
JH> text font for the name and the company logo above/below it.

JH> My present work place is the worst. The administrator has set
JH> the mail server so that it turnes ANY incoming mail into an HTML
JH> mail, and ALL outgoing mails are turned into HTML mails as well.
JH> ARGH! I am using now my own mailserver for my private mails I send
JH> out, but I can't do that for my business mail.

God, I had a boss that wanted to do that at work.  I discouraged him
by pulling a 'Scotty' on him and giving him a way overblown cost
estimate for it and justifying it with a lot of 'technobabble', all
for the good of the company.  Thank god that boss isn't with us any
more.

Though I can understand it kinda, guess they're trying to build 'name
recognition and give everything a 'uniform and professional look'.  I
prefer the more personal touch to emails though.


-- 
Best regards,
 David

Using The Bat! v3.0.2.10 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2






Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[David Calvarese]

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 at 22:02:41 +1100, Ian A. White wrote:

IAW> Thorvald,

IAW> On Saturday, February 5, 2005, 9:34:50 PM, you (Thorvald Neumann) wrote:

TN>> Hæ!

TN>> Saturday, February 5, 2005, 11:13, Alexander S. Kunz wrote:
>>> Decide whats best for you, and let other people decide whats best for
>>> them...

TN>> Yes, sure.

TN>> But I hate to see TB having the HTML mode on as a default.

IAW> I don't think that this is what was ever suggested as a general
IAW> setting for all installations of the The Bat!. What was suggested
IAW> was that an individual user could set HTML as default on their own
IAW> system so that it would not be necessary for them to have to toggle it
IAW> each time for particular recipients.

If I recall Netscape/Mozilla mail used to have the option in the
address book for tagging contacts as 'This person prefers plain text
email' or 'this person prefers HTML email' or 'Send Both'.  Something
along those lines would work nicely too for TB! I think.


TN>> Because I am "educating" my clients to use plain text emails,
TN>> preferably with TB as their standard mailer.

IAW> I agree, however there are times where it is simpler to use HTML for
IAW> e-mail. As an example, I needed to send my father a series of
IAW> photographs converted to JPG images. He was in his 90's and trying to
IAW> get him to work with attachments was impossible. The simplest way to
IAW> get the images to him was to create the message in HTML and insert the
IAW> images directly in the message itself so that he could see the image
IAW> without any further fiddling and see any notes about the image
IAW> following it. The same goes when sending a client photographs with
IAW> comments on them in a message rather than comments and attachments
IAW> that have to be matched separately.

I had to send an email to Stellram customer support about some broken
carbide inserts for a steel mill... Had to send HTML email with the
images embeded like that for them as well.   There ARE times HTML
email is quite handy.  I have to use Outlook at work because of it
(though all my personal email goes through TB! now.)


--
Best regards,
 David

Using The Bat! v3.0.2.10 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2






Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[Thomas Fernandez]

Hello Geoff,

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 13:15:35 + GMT (05/02/2005, 20:15 +0700 GMT),
Geoff Lane wrote:

GL> FWIW, I didn't claim it to be either a security or a privacy issue -
GL> just something that I don't want.

Others may want it. It is requested as an option only.

GL> However, there are known security issues with html images that can
GL> cause buffer overruns and, in the right (or should that be wrong!)
GL> circumstances, give an attacker control over your computer. [...]

I agree with everything you say. However, there are some newsletters I
trust, and I would whitelist only those. It is my own responsibility
to choose membership in the whitelist reasonably, but it is not my
MUA's responsibility to nanny me.

It wouldn't effect you, Geoff, if I, Thomas, made a mistake and
allowed malicious code on my computer. It would be my own problem
entirely.

-- 

Cheers,
Thomas.

How long a minute is depends on what side of the bathroom door you're
on.

Message reply created with The Bat! 3.0.2.10
under Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600Service Pack 2





Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[Thomas Fernandez]

Hello Chris,

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 08:48:19 -0500 GMT (05/02/2005, 20:48 +0700 GMT),
Chris wrote:

C> 1) Your kid gets porn spam. Would you rather have the images show up
C> right away or only after asked so he or she can delete it without
C> seeing the images.

I'm impressed about your kids. Depending on how old they are, I would
think they take a look at the pics anyway befpore deleting the
message. But then, I don't have any kids, so I am not qualified to
comment.

But then, I still fail to see why "sexually implicit" movies are so
heavily regulated (how can they hurt anyone?), like PG18, while
violent movies are often rated only PG12.

C> 3) Background images as well as poorly chosen color schemes can make
C> it very hard to read text.

That's true. I have an agent (in Brasil) who sends HTML mails with
such a heavy background that I cannot read a word. I just delete the
.jpg file from the attachments, and all is  well.

I don't like yellow fonts on violet background either.

But that doesn't mean that in some cases, HTML email makes sense.

-- 

Cheers,
Thomas.

Money can't buy happiness but it can certainly rent it for a couple of
hours.

Message reply created with The Bat! 3.0.2.10
under Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600Service Pack 2





Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[David Calvarese]

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 at 11:08:06 +0100, Alexander S. Kunz wrote:

ASK> on 05-Feb-2005 at 09:16 you (Thorvald Neumann) wrote:

>>> This and HTML mail as standard when you start a new mail.

>> No, sorry, this would let many people go away.

ASK> Should be made configurable. Whats the problem with a switch that defines
ASK> the default editor?

Exactly, I'm pretty sure that's what he originally meant, not turning
TB! into incredimail (Yuck).

-- 
Best regards,
 David

Using The Bat! v3.0.2.10 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2






Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[David Calvarese]

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 at 09:16:42 +0100, Thorvald Neumann wrote:

TN> Hæ!

TN> Saturday, February 5, 2005, 08:09, Jurgen Haug wrote:
>> This and HTML mail as standard when you start a new mail.

TN> No, sorry, this would let many people go away.

TN> HTML should not be used for emails.

I think he means 'The Option to have new mails default to HTML instead
of text' Not all mails being HTML.

-- 
Best regards,
 David

Using The Bat! v3.0.2.10 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2






Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[David Calvarese]

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 at 10:33:53 +0100, Thorvald Neumann wrote:

TN> Hæ!

TN> Saturday, February 5, 2005, 10:25, Mic Cullen wrote:
>> Sometimes it's extremely useful. Rarely, but when you need it, you
>> really need it.

TN> No, sorry. I do not see any sense in using HTML for emails at all.

I see more use in being able to receive HTML emails than send them...
If just for NewEgg, Amazon, Circuitcity sales emails. :)

-- 
Best regards,
 David

Using The Bat! v3.0.2.10 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2






Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[David Calvarese]

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 at 10:33:53 +0100, Thorvald Neumann wrote:

TN> Hæ!

TN> Saturday, February 5, 2005, 10:25, Mic Cullen wrote:
>> Sometimes it's extremely useful. Rarely, but when you need it, you
>> really need it.

TN> No, sorry. I do not see any sense in using HTML for emails at all.

I see more use in being able to receive H

-- 
Best regards,
 David

Using The Bat! v3.0.2.10 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2






Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[David Calvarese]

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 at 08:09:50 +0100, Jurgen Haug wrote:

MR>>> I don't think you can download images directly into the message pane,
MR>>> but you should be able to open the attached HTML document into a
MR>>> browser if you really want to see all the images.

>> Yeah, I know that.  He wants to be able to open the images right in
>> the menu pane like Thunderbird or Pocomail does.

JH> yeah that would be nice, it would have made me convert some
JH> people to TB! This and HTML mail as standard when you start a new
JH> mail. Each time I show collegues TB! (am the only one using that
JH> at work) that's one of the first things that makes them go away.

I don't see why they couldn't add it.  Pocomail does it quite well,
having the images disabled by default and then having to click a
button to display all the 'advanced html' and images.  Just like Gmail
does on the web.

-- 
Best regards,
 David

Using The Bat! v3.0.2.10 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2






Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[Chris]

Tony Boom @ 2005-Feb-5 5:46:23 AM
"Remote Images in HTML mail?" <mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

>  To be honest, I'm easy either way. I have no problem with displaying html
>  images direct from the web in email, it can't hurt can it?

It can though.

1) Your kid gets porn spam. Would you rather have the images show up
right away or only after asked so he or she can delete it without
seeing the images.

2) Web bugs allow e-mailers to track who read what message when. This
is normally done be embedding an image with a source like this:
http://www.flybynight.com/scripts/[EMAIL PROTECTED]&msgid=AD57

3) Background images as well as poorly chosen color schemes can make
it very hard to read text.

-- 
Chris
Quoting when replying to this message is good for your karma.

Using The Bat! v3.0.1.33 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2
Accessing a POP3 mailbox.

Today's Oxymoron: Same difference


pgpoc0Dab8o1j.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

RE: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[Jurgen Haug]

Hello Cristina,

Saturday, February 5, 2005, 2:02:33 PM, you wrote:


> On Sat, 5 Feb 2005, at 08:09:50 [GMT +0100] (which was 7:09 where I
> live) you wrote:


>> yeah that would be nice, it would have made me convert some
>> people to TB! This and HTML mail as standard when you start a new
>> mail. Each time I show collegues TB! (am the only one using that at
>> work) that's one of the first things that makes them go away.

> But we can choose HTML as default message text editor in
> Options - Preferences - Viewer/Editor. Or is it something different
> you are talking about?

I didn't put it in a good way...
I meant that when you write to some people and start a  new 
mail...
Like as I said I don't want to switch, and I don't want to switch TO html-mail 
as much as from HTML to normal mail ;-) it should be per address book AND 
per account for instance. 

If I don't count the mailing lists, then maybe 20% of my mails are HTML mails 
and I would always end up switching if it's just a super-general setting.

-- 
Best regards,
 Jürgen
:eu-flag3: :de-bw: :safaribears:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/24/us_security_fiasco/

Using The Bat! v3.0.2.4 Rush, Opera v8.00.7401 on WinXP Home v2600 SP2

* PGP key available on request: send mail with subject 'PGP key request'

pgpDqpHSaJTjx.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[Geoff Lane]

On 05 February 2005, 12:52, Alexander S. Kunz wrote:

>> External images can be used for malevolent purposes. For example, as
>> web beacons to track your usage, or for spammers to verify your e-mail
>> address. So, yes, displaying html images direct from the web in e-mail
>> can hurt.

> This is a privacy, not a security issue. For that very reason the wish to
> add a sender to a list of "trusted senders" from whom remote images are
> allowed exists. Or a simple menu entry "download images now".
~~~

FWIW, I didn't claim it to be either a security or a privacy issue -
just something that I don't want.

However, there are known security issues with html images that can
cause buffer overruns and, in the right (or should that be wrong!)
circumstances, give an attacker control over your computer. AFAICT,
the attack works because an external resource (which may be an image)
has a specifically-formatted URL. I've lost count of the number of
"security updates" that MS has issued to plug such holes that wouldn't
exist if MS MUAs behaved like TB with respect to external resources.

HTH,

-- 
Geoff Lane
Cornwall, UK
--
Using The Bat! v1.62i on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1
eschew obfuscation.



Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[Alexander S. Kunz]

Hello Marck D Pearlstone & everyone else,

on 05-Feb-2005 at 12:24 you (Marck D Pearlstone) wrote:

> Preferences..Viewer/Editor..Default message/text editor.

D'oh - its already there... :-)

What we need now is some solution for the remote images, as described in
https://www.ritlabs.com/bt/view.php?id=920 (one possible solution).

-- 
Best regards,
 Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.de - ICQ 238153981)

Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more
violent. It takes a touch of genius, and a lot of courage, to move in
the opposite direction. -- Albert Einstein



Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[Thomas Fernandez]

Hello Alexander,

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 13:52:05 +0100 GMT (05/02/2005, 19:52 +0700 GMT),
Alexander S. Kunz wrote:

>> External images can be used for malevolent purposes. For example, as
>> web beacons to track your usage, or for spammers to verify your e-mail
>> address. So, yes, displaying html images direct from the web in e-mail
>> can hurt.

ASK> This is a privacy, not a security issue. For that very reason the wish to
ASK> add a sender to a list of "trusted senders" from whom remote images are
ASK> allowed exists. Or a simple menu entry "download images now".

I agree with this. There are trusted newsletters I receive.

-- 

Cheers,
Thomas.

If the professor on Giligan's Island can make a radio out of a
coconut, why can't he fix a hole in a boat?

Message reply created with The Bat! 3.0.2.10
under Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600Service Pack 2





Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re[2]: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[Cristina Ramos]

Hello Jurgen,

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005, at 08:09:50 [GMT +0100] (which was 7:09 where I
live) you wrote:


> yeah that would be nice, it would have made me convert some
> people to TB! This and HTML mail as standard when you start a new
> mail. Each time I show collegues TB! (am the only one using that at
> work) that's one of the first things that makes them go away.

But we can choose HTML as default message text editor in
Options - Preferences - Viewer/Editor. Or is it something different
you are talking about?

-- 
Cristina



Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

RE: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[Jurgen Haug]

Hello Alexander,

Saturday, February 5, 2005, 1:52:05 PM, you wrote:


> This is a privacy, not a security issue. For that very reason the wish to
> add a sender to a list of "trusted senders" from whom remote images are
> allowed exists. Or a simple menu entry "download images now".

:good: that's one of the things needed on TB!

-- 
Best regards,
 Jürgen
:eu-flag3: :de-bw: :safaribears:

"In Europe you have watches but in Africa we have time"

Using The Bat! v3.0.2.4 Rush, Opera v8.00.7401 on WinXP Home v2600 SP2

* PGP key available on request: send mail with subject 'PGP key request'

pgpEKB6xOacxx.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

RE: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[Jurgen Haug]

Hello Roelof,

Saturday, February 5, 2005, 1:43:15 PM, you wrote:


> On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 12:46:44 +0100GMT (5-2-2005, 12:46 +0100, where I
> live), you wrote:

JH>> But I didn't buy TB! to communicate with TB!-users.

> Neither did I and I still haven't decided whether it's an advantage or
> a disadvantage that it enables me to do so. ;-)

you bought TB! because you wanted to be Solar-Administrator or something like 
that!

-- 
Best regards,
 Jürgen
:eu-flag3: :de-bw: :safaribears:

"The shortest distance between two points is under construction. - Noelie 
Altito"

Using The Bat! v3.0.2.4 Rush, Opera v8.00.7401 on WinXP Home v2600 SP2

* PGP key available on request: send mail with subject 'PGP key request'

pgpBWK4p5hNko.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[Alexander S. Kunz]

Hello Geoff Lane & everyone else,

on 05-Feb-2005 at 13:48 you (Geoff Lane) wrote:

> External images can be used for malevolent purposes. For example, as
> web beacons to track your usage, or for spammers to verify your e-mail
> address. So, yes, displaying html images direct from the web in e-mail
> can hurt.

This is a privacy, not a security issue. For that very reason the wish to
add a sender to a list of "trusted senders" from whom remote images are
allowed exists. Or a simple menu entry "download images now".

-- 
Best regards,
 Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.de - ICQ 238153981)

I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked with
the best people, and I can assure you that data processing is a fad
that won't last out the year. -- The editor in charge of business
books for Prentice Hall, 1957



Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[Geoff Lane]

On 05 February 2005, 10:46, Tony Boom wrote:

>  To be honest, I'm easy either way. I have no problem with displaying html
>  images direct from the web in email, it can't hurt can it?
~~~

I, for one, am very glad that TB won't display external images, and
it's the main reason why I was prepared to pay for TB rather than use
one of the numerous freebie MUAs.

External images can be used for malevolent purposes. For example, as
web beacons to track your usage, or for spammers to verify your e-mail
address. So, yes, displaying html images direct from the web in e-mail
can hurt.

-- 
Geoff Lane
Cornwall, UK
--
Using The Bat! v1.62i on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1
Pedestrian: A motorist who found a parking space



Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[Alexander S. Kunz]

Hello Thorvald Neumann & everyone else,

on 05-Feb-2005 at 11:32 you (Thorvald Neumann) wrote:

> I am fully aware of the security risks of HTML emails.

Could you name one, please. Talking about security, not privacy. Talking
about pure HTML (not javascript, and not ActiveX, either).

-- 
Best regards,
 Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.de - ICQ 238153981)

I do not think that the whole of creation has been staked on the one
planet where we live. -- Sir Arthur Eddington



Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[Roelof Otten]

Hallo Jurgen,

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 12:46:44 +0100GMT (5-2-2005, 12:46 +0100, where I
live), you wrote:

JH> But I didn't buy TB! to communicate with TB!-users.

Neither did I and I still haven't decided whether it's an advantage or
a disadvantage that it enables me to do so. ;-)

-- 
Groetjes, Roelof

As I feared, you have no sense of humor.

The Bat! 3.0.2.10
Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2
1 pop3 account, server on LAN



pgp5sEF7VFeei.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[Thomas Fernandez]

Hello Thorvald,

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 10:33:53 +0100 GMT (05/02/2005, 16:33 +0700 GMT),
Thorvald Neumann wrote:

>> Sometimes it's extremely useful. Rarely, but when you need it, you
>> really need it.

TN> No, sorry. I do not see any sense in using HTML for emails at all.

Thanks for your opinion. I don't like HTML, but sometimes it *is*
useful. I need to send tables sometimes, and embedded pictures with
comments are move convenient in case of cargo damage descriptions.

Be advised that HTML emails have their place in efficient
communication. That HTML is often abused in emailing is another thing.

-- 

Cheers,
Thomas.

"If they don't want us to drink and drive, why do you have to have a
driver's license to buy beer?"

Message reply created with The Bat! 3.0.2.10
under Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600Service Pack 2





Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[Mic Cullen]

At 13:05 [GMT+0100] on Saturday February 5 (actual time - 8:05pm on Saturday in
Perth, Western Australia), you wrote:

>> No, I don't want the world to see it.

Thorvald> A website does not imply it's accessible to the whole world.

This  is  getting  ridiculous,  but  if  I  want  people  (of  varying technical
abilities)  from  four  or five organisations and locations to be able to see my
information,  (and only them), an email is by far the easiest way to achieve it,
anti-HTML email crusades or not.

-- 

cheers, mic

Mr. Cole's Axiom: The sum of the intelligence on the planet is a constant; the 
population is growing.



Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[Thorvald Neumann]

Hæ!

Saturday, February 5, 2005, 12:50, Mic Cullen wrote:
> No, I don't want the world to see it.

A website does not imply it's accessible to the whole world.

-- 
Kveðja, Thorvald Neumann | 
| The Bat! v3.0.2.10 Professional & K9 v1.28
| Windows 2000 SP4 (v5.0.2195)













Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[Mic Cullen]

At 12:52 [GMT+0100] on Saturday February 5 (actual time - 7:52pm on Saturday in
Perth, Western Australia), you wrote:

Jurgen> And better support for HTML mail. But I think they're working on that.

Indeed  -  being  able to save a template as HTML would be a real time-saver for
me. (Even if it only that one email a week.)

-- 

cheers, mic

"When you win, nothing hurts."
Joe Namath



Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

RE: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[Jurgen Haug]

Hello Marck,

Saturday, February 5, 2005, 12:24:38 PM, you wrote:

JH>> yeah that would be nice, it would have made me convert some people
JH>> to TB! This and HTML mail as standard when you start a new mail.

> Preferences..Viewer/Editor..Default message/text editor.

> Enjoy. (Or shudder, as I do).

grin - I would never use a setting that makes ALL emails start as HTML mail and 
I would have to turn that off if I don't want to use that. Most of my mails are 
plain mails. But a macro setting and a switch in the ADDRESS BOOK would be 
*really* great. 
And better support for HTML mail. But I think they're working on that.

The problem is, that I am using TB! at work, too (which in itself is not a 
problem but a blessing), but in the last 4 or 5 places I been working the rule 
was  'You have to have HTML mail switched on by default, and you have to use 
this and that template for your mails' - which usually included some colourful 
and larger text font for the name and the company logo above/below it.

My present work place is the worst. The administrator has set the mail server 
so that it turnes ANY incoming mail into an HTML mail, and ALL outgoing mails 
are turned into HTML mails as well. ARGH! I am using now my own mailserver for 
my private mails I send out, but I can't do that for my business mail. 

-- 
Best regards,
 Jürgen
:eu-flag3: :de-bw: :safaribears:

"There are none so blind as those who will not see"

Using The Bat! v3.0.2.4 Rush, Opera v8.00.7401 on WinXP Home v2600 SP2

* PGP key available on request: send mail with subject 'PGP key request'

pgpZiJwN2LW7w.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[Mic Cullen]

At 11:33 [GMT+0100] on Saturday February 5 (actual time - 6:33pm on Saturday in
Perth, Western Australia), you wrote:

>> If  I  send  out  a weekly schedule to the people I work for/with, being 
>> able to
>> colour-code  the  different  sports/teams  I'm  covering that week is 
>> incredibly
>> useful, so that what I'm doing and for whom and when can be very quickly 
>> seen.

Thorvald> This is what I would use a webpage for. With a weekly reminder email
Thorvald> telling the people it has been updated.

No, I don't want the world to see it.

Anyway, the idea is to make it as easy as possible. Opening an attachment, going
to a site - neither is as easy as looking at an email.

-- 

cheers, mic

"If all the rich people in the world divided up their money among themselves 
there wouldn't be enough to go around."
Christina Stead, House of All Nations (1938)"Credo"



Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

RE: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[Jurgen Haug]

Hello Tony,

Saturday, February 5, 2005, 11:46:23 AM, you wrote:


>  To be honest, I'm easy either way. I have no problem with displaying html
>  images direct from the web in email, it can't hurt can it?

>  It's just so many people are against it.

so many people *on here* are against it. But I didn't buy TB! to communicate 
with TB!-users.

-- 
Best regards,
 Jürgen
:eu-flag3: :de-bw: :safaribears:

"Never trust a man who can count to 1023 on his fingers"

Using The Bat! v3.0.2.4 Rush, Opera v8.00.7401 on WinXP Home v2600 SP2

* PGP key available on request: send mail with subject 'PGP key request'

pgpxMRxqQKrbN.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[Marck D Pearlstone]

Dear Jurgen,

@5-Feb-2005, 08:09 +0100 (05-Feb 07:09 UK time) Jurgen Haug [JH] in
mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said to David:

>> Yeah, I know that.  He wants to be able to open the images right in
>> the menu pane like Thunderbird or Pocomail does.

JH> yeah that would be nice, it would have made me convert some people
JH> to TB! This and HTML mail as standard when you start a new mail.

Preferences..Viewer/Editor..Default message/text editor.

Enjoy. (Or shudder, as I do).

-- 
Cheers --  //.arck D Pearlstone -- List moderator and fellow end user
TB! v3.0.2.10 on Windows XP 5.1.2600 Service Pack 2
'

pgpDLzkMMDxal.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: RE: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[Thorvald Neumann]

Hæ!

Saturday, February 5, 2005, 11:45, Jurgen Haug wrote:
> so you tell me you know better than me what is going on in the kind
> of industry *I* am working?

Read my sentence again. I did not say that. It's your interpretation.

-- 
Kveðja, Thorvald Neumann | 
| The Bat! v3.0.2.10 Professional & K9 v1.28
| Windows 2000 SP4 (v5.0.2195)













Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

RE: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[Jurgen Haug]

Hello Thorvald,

Saturday, February 5, 2005, 11:37:16 AM, you wrote:


> Hæ!

> Saturday, February 5, 2005, 11:19, Jurgen Haug wrote:
>> b) professionally, in the industry I'm working, like it or not, HTML
>> mail is a must.

> Sorry, I disagree.

> I am using emails professionally since 1994.

> And I have never seen an industry/company where HTML is a *must*.

so you tell me you know better than me what is going on in the kind of industry 
*I* am working?

-- 
Best regards,
 Jürgen
:eu-flag3: :de-bw: :safaribears:

"Der Zweifel ist's, der Gutes böse macht"

Using The Bat! v3.0.2.4 Rush, Opera v8.00.7401 on WinXP Home v2600 SP2

* PGP key available on request: send mail with subject 'PGP key request'

pgprorMCnUxZJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[Tony Boom]

Hello Jurgen,

  A reminder of what Jurgen Haug on TBOT typed on:
  Saturday, February 05, 2005 at 11:20:36 GMT +0100

JH> And if even so, so what?

 To be honest, I'm easy either way. I have no problem with displaying html
 images direct from the web in email, it can't hurt can it?

 It's just so many people are against it.


-- 

Tony.

The Bat! 3.0.2.10
Registered Linux user #316959

 :gentoo:
www.gentoo.org





smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

RE: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[Jurgen Haug]

Hello Thorvald,

Saturday, February 5, 2005, 11:32:21 AM, you wrote:


> Hæ!

> Saturday, February 5, 2005, 11:14, Jurgen Haug wrote:
>> exactly. but for some this is a religious matter, I guess.

> No, it is not.

[snip]

> The people who created Outlook should be crucified IMO.

no comment necessary... (see above)



> And at least I am not willing to let others decide in what fashion I
> *have* something to see.

and? I think the suggestion of that stuff being switchable arised already on 
here. And I am not willing to let *you* decide in what fashion *others* write 
their emails.

-- 
Best regards,
 Jürgen
:eu-flag3: :de-bw: :safaribears:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/24/us_security_fiasco/

Using The Bat! v3.0.2.4 Rush, Opera v8.00.7401 on WinXP Home v2600 SP2

* PGP key available on request: send mail with subject 'PGP key request'

pgp0VtHOLmrzT.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: RE: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[Thorvald Neumann]

Hæ!

Saturday, February 5, 2005, 11:19, Jurgen Haug wrote:
> b) professionally, in the industry I'm working, like it or not, HTML
> mail is a must.

Sorry, I disagree.

I am using emails professionally since 1994.

And I have never seen an industry/company where HTML is a *must*.

-- 
Kveðja, Thorvald Neumann | <http://www.aesir.de/>
| The Bat! v3.0.2.10 Professional & K9 v1.28
| Windows 2000 SP4 (v5.0.2195)













Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[Thorvald Neumann]

Hæ!

Saturday, February 5, 2005, 11:13, Alexander S. Kunz wrote:
> Decide whats best for you, and let other people decide whats best for
> them...

Yes, sure.

But I hate to see TB having the HTML mode on as a default.

Because I am "educating" my clients to use plain text emails,
preferably with TB as their standard mailer.

-- 
Kveðja, Thorvald Neumann | 
| The Bat! v3.0.2.10 Professional & K9 v1.28
| Windows 2000 SP4 (v5.0.2195)













Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[Thorvald Neumann]

Hæ!

Saturday, February 5, 2005, 10:47, Mic Cullen wrote:
> If  I  send  out  a weekly schedule to the people I work for/with, being able 
> to
> colour-code  the  different  sports/teams  I'm  covering that week is 
> incredibly
> useful, so that what I'm doing and for whom and when can be very quickly seen.

This is what I would use a webpage for. With a weekly reminder email
telling the people it has been updated.

-- 
Kveðja, Thorvald Neumann | 
| The Bat! v3.0.2.10 Professional & K9 v1.28
| Windows 2000 SP4 (v5.0.2195)













Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: RE: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[Thorvald Neumann]

Hæ!

Saturday, February 5, 2005, 11:14, Jurgen Haug wrote:
> exactly. but for some this is a religious matter, I guess.

No, it is not.

I am fully aware of the security risks of HTML emails. Others are not.

I am quite glad TB does not allow those "features" to be "used".

The people who created Outlook should be crucified IMO.

And at least I am not willing to let others decide in what fashion I
*have* something to see.

-- 
Kveðja, Thorvald Neumann | 
| The Bat! v3.0.2.10 Professional & K9 v1.28
| Windows 2000 SP4 (v5.0.2195)













Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[Alexander S. Kunz]

Hello Jurgen Haug & everyone else,

on 05-Feb-2005 at 11:19 you (Jurgen Haug) wrote:

> ASCII-evangelists

LOL!!

-- 
Best regards,
 Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.de - ICQ 238153981)

The errors to avoid are those that eliminate opportunities to try
again. -- Lazar Goldberg



Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

RE: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[Jurgen Haug]

Hello Tony,

Saturday, February 5, 2005, 11:10:27 AM, you wrote:


>   A reminder of what Jurgen Haug on TBOT typed on:
>   Saturday, February 05, 2005 at 10:46:19 GMT +0100

JH>> we will see what Ritlabs will do in future.

>  Can you imagine what TBOT AKA "The Cartoon Network" would be like if TB!
>  had full blown html capability?

not much worse I'd say, no? And if even so, so what? It's TBOT. There's nothing 
essentially you'd miss if you start filtering on people who don't stop 
overdoing it. I'm not talking about implementing a general rule that everyone 
writing with TB! has to using pink backgrounds animated cartoons and blinking 
text everywhere. But a) for me *personally* it would be so much better if I'd 
have TB! with full HTML capability b) professionally, in the industry I'm 
working, like it or not, HTML mail is a must. I've switching employers a lot in 
the last years and almost everywhere HTML mail was a MUST and c) for Ritlabs i 
think it would attract a lot more people to TB! than it would scare of those 
ASCII-evangelists who have lost touch with reality out there.
Just like in a browser where you have toggles for using ActiveX, JavaScript, 
Java, images, popups and all the rest, it's certainly not out of the question 
to have that configurable in TB!, too. 


-- 
Best regards,
 Jürgen
:eu-flag3: :de-bw: :safaribears:

"Never trust a man who can count to 1023 on his fingers"

Using The Bat! v3.0.2.4 Rush, Opera v8.00.7401 on WinXP Home v2600 SP2

* PGP key available on request: send mail with subject 'PGP key request'

pgpTySuADEgkJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

RE: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[Jurgen Haug]

Hello Alexander,

Saturday, February 5, 2005, 11:08:06 AM, you wrote:


> Hello Thorvald Neumann & everyone else,

> on 05-Feb-2005 at 09:16 you (Thorvald Neumann) wrote:

>>> This and HTML mail as standard when you start a new mail.

>> No, sorry, this would let many people go away.

> Should be made configurable. Whats the problem with a switch that defines
> the default editor?

exactly. but for some this is a religious matter, I guess.

-- 
Best regards,
 Jürgen
:eu-flag3: :de-bw: :safaribears:

"Housework is so wonderfully patient that it waits for you no matter HOW long 
you put if off."

Using The Bat! v3.0.2.4 Rush, Opera v8.00.7401 on WinXP Home v2600 SP2

* PGP key available on request: send mail with subject 'PGP key request'

pgp16hVHqOGAs.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[Alexander S. Kunz]

Hello Thorvald Neumann & everyone else,

on 05-Feb-2005 at 10:33 you (Thorvald Neumann) wrote:

>> Sometimes it's extremely useful. Rarely, but when you need it, you
>> really need it.

> No, sorry. I do not see any sense in using HTML for emails at all.

Decide whats best for you, and let other people decide whats best for
them...

-- 
Best regards,
 Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.de - ICQ 238153981)

Common sense is the deposit of prejudice laid down in the mind before
the age of eighteen. -- Albert Einstein



Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[Tony Boom]

Hello Jurgen,

  A reminder of what Jurgen Haug on TBOT typed on:
  Saturday, February 05, 2005 at 10:46:19 GMT +0100

JH> we will see what Ritlabs will do in future.

 Can you imagine what TBOT AKA "The Cartoon Network" would be like if TB!
 had full blown html capability?


-- 

Tony.

The Bat! 3.0.2.10
Registered Linux user #316959

 :gentoo:
www.gentoo.org





smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[Alexander S. Kunz]

Hello Thorvald Neumann & everyone else,

on 05-Feb-2005 at 09:16 you (Thorvald Neumann) wrote:

>> This and HTML mail as standard when you start a new mail.

> No, sorry, this would let many people go away.

Should be made configurable. Whats the problem with a switch that defines
the default editor?

-- 
Best regards,
 Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.de - ICQ 238153981)

The first thing every child learns is that he is not the entire
universe. -- Robert Silverberg



Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[Mic Cullen]

At 10:33 [GMT+0100] on Saturday February 5 (actual time - 5:33pm on Saturday in
Perth, Western Australia), you wrote:

Thorvald> Saturday, February 5, 2005, 10:25, Mic Cullen wrote:
>> Sometimes it's extremely useful. Rarely, but when you need it, you
>> really need it.

Thorvald> No, sorry. I do not see any sense in using HTML for emails at all.

I don't either generally, but what you want or see isn't the only point-of-view.

If  I  send  out  a weekly schedule to the people I work for/with, being able to
colour-code  the  different  sports/teams  I'm  covering that week is incredibly
useful, so that what I'm doing and for whom and when can be very quickly seen.

Can't  be  done  in text-only email, and it's a complete PITA to have to open an
attachment every time someone wants to see it.

I  hate  the  idiotic backgrounds, etc, that the morons put in normal email more
than most people, but this is about ease of communication. Isn't that what email
is about?

-- 

cheers, mic

"Some for renown, on scraps of learning dote, And think they grow immortal as 
they quote."
Edward Young, Love of Fame (satire I, l. 89)



Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

RE: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[Jurgen Haug]

Hello Thorvald,

Saturday, February 5, 2005, 10:33:53 AM, you wrote:


> Saturday, February 5, 2005, 10:25, Mic Cullen wrote:
>> Sometimes it's extremely useful. Rarely, but when you need it, you
>> really need it.

> No, sorry. I do not see any sense in using HTML for emails at all.

we will see what Ritlabs will do in future.

-- 
Best regards,
 Jürgen
:eu-flag3: :de-bw: :safaribears:

"Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder..."

Using The Bat! v3.0.2.4 Rush, Opera v8.00.7401 on WinXP Home v2600 SP2

* PGP key available on request: send mail with subject 'PGP key request'

pgpiEBXVqDe5D.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Remote Images in HTML mail?

[Thorvald Neumann]

Hæ!

Saturday, February 5, 2005, 10:25, Mic Cullen wrote:
> Sometimes it's extremely useful. Rarely, but when you need it, you
> really need it.

No, sorry. I do not see any sense in using HTML for emails at all.

-- 
Kveðja, Thorvald Neumann | 
| The Bat! v3.0.2.10 Professional & K9 v1.28
| Windows 2000 SP4 (v5.0.2195)













Current version is 3.0.1.33 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html