Re[3]: New HTML engine?
Hello Kurgan, > Oh, and I use Incredimail for the fun stuff > it can do, in case you were wondering about my mental health. :) > Hey, it *does* have some pretty nifty features. I only know it can do pretty fancy emails (I received a couple of them and liked them). BTW: I solved most if not all of the virus problem by filtering mail and looking for: _*name="*.vbs" _*name="*.scr" _*name="*.pif" _*name="*.bat" *Content-type: audio/x-wav; name=*.exe* *Content-type: audio/x-midi; name=*.exe* Although this filter could be a problem if someone is actually receiving this types (.vbs ...) normally (I do not). -- Best regards, Mitja Perko Current Ver: 1.60q FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Bug Reports: https://bt.ritlabs.com
Re[3]: New HTML engine?
On Tuesday, June 11, 2002, Daniel van Rooijen [CopyCats] wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > instead of those little red crosses, I'd much rather see some random > pictures -eg. fractals- of the right size (if this size was > specified in the html), so that the formatting is more similar to > what was intended by the sender. I like the idea of substituting fractal images. However, FWIW, I recall a survey being taken by a users group for Proxomitron, which is a proxy that can be configured in a number of ways but basically scrubs Internet ads and sanitizes referrer codes. As I recall, there was a question about whether most users would prefer the scrubbed ads to be replaced by placeholders of the same size, by nothing at all, or by uniformly sized, very small brackets around the word "ad." The last one prevailed. Before we clamor for change on this point, therefore, we should be sure we have a good sense of the market. -- JN Current Ver: 1.60q FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Bug Reports: https://bt.ritlabs.com
Re[3]: New HTML engine?
Hello Mitja, > Plus you have the issue that image files may not always be what they > say they are... there are a lot of viruses floating about running > under the .jpg or .gif file extension... last thing you want is for > TB! to wander off, download and execute an image from an infected site > ;) > Well, maybe not. As I understand it, the extension says > it's a graphic, but it functions as a worm. This is wrong belief to my knowledge. You do not go executing images. You read them and try to display them. If format is not right then component for reading the image will report it and you will skip the image. Images must have a valid header and data format. The thing is the same as with phrase TB! is not "engine" but renderer. You also only render images. Also one can send you html with attached images (which are in fact scripts) right now and nothing is wrong. Here we are only talking about downloading images if they are not attached. > You realize of course that when TB shows on-line images, you'll need > to go on-line too. It's just that it's now a conscious decision, > whereas otherwise it would be an automatic connection. Hmm.. I thought the images get cached. At least Netscape mail did this. This is quite nice since you do not need to go online to view the html with images. Although I forgot if caching was until the browser was closed or longer. -- Best regards, Mitja Perko Current Ver: 1.60q FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Bug Reports: https://bt.ritlabs.com
Re[3]: New HTML engine?
Tuesday, June 11, 2002, 3:17:31 AM, you wrote: MP> Hello Marck, >> It will never be there in that form. It's just too >> dangerous. I understand that support for retrieving >> non-sent images will be added at some point *BUT* it >> will only get one image at a time and prompt for >> permission for *each* image. This is because not all >> images *are* images. MP> What is the problem with that? If they are not images MP> you display nothing. MP> You detect by extension which image it should be, try MP> to display it if you can, otherwise leave it alone. Well, maybe not. As I understand it, the extension says it's a graphic, but it functions as a worm. So you don't want it loaded. Or at least, I'd rather skip it. Lynn TB 1.60h Win2kPro Build 2195 SP2 -- mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * *Aun Aprendo I'd rather be WARP'ed* * * Team OS/2 http://www.sites.onlinemac.com/hawthorne/ Current Ver: 1.60q FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Bug Reports: https://bt.ritlabs.com
