At 4/14/2000 11:39 AM -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote or quoted:
>Using your knowledge of mime format, or else using Russell's code as a
>base (since it already contains the code to find the various parts),
>make a program that decides if a message contains html or not. Then
>use that program in
Kai MacTane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 13 April 2000 at 12:25:14 -0700
> At 4/13/2000 10:28 AM -0400, Russell Nelson wrote or quoted:
>
> >Yes, anyone has such code. It's now at http://www.qmail.org/no-alternative.
>
> This looks pretty cool, but it would be even cooler if it could be s
Thus said Peter van Dijk on Fri, 14 Apr 2000 08:58:27 +0200:
> WTF?
>
> Why is this mail in text/html only? Is this some kind of sick joke?
I believe so... it is because he wrapped his entire message in HTML
tags... not necessarily HTML, but it was definitely an HTML only email
without a corr
On Thu, Apr 13, 2000 at 03:35:45PM -0400, Russell Nelson wrote:
WTF?
Why is this mail in text/html only? Is this some kind of sick joke?
Greetz, Peter.
--
Peter van Dijk - student/sysadmin/ircoper/madly in love/pretending coder
|
| 'C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot;
| C++ mak
On Thu, Apr 13, 2000 at 10:28:02AM -0400, Russell Nelson wrote:
> Petr Novotny writes:
> > On 12 Apr 00, at 15:52, Russell Nelson wrote:
> >
> > > Yes. Bounce html-only email. Strip the html fork from
> > > multipart/alternative email.
> >
> > Does anyone have such a code and is willing
From: Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 15:35:45 -0400 (EDT)
My code doesn't deal with the case of Content-Type: text/html as the
only part. You could easily modify it to bounce such mail though. I
can't say I've ever received text/html-only mail.
I'm sur
At 4/13/2000 03:35 PM -0400, Russell Nelson wrote or quoted:
>Why bother? If they provide a text fork, then they're saying that
>either alternative has the full information. Why pester them to not
>send a text/html part in addition?
Because I'd like to discourage people from sending mails that
>I can't say I've ever received text/html-only mail.
I have. It was javascripted spam, with the text encrypted
and decoded by the javascript, presumably so that content
analysers could not recognise the email as spam.
This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet delive
On 13-Apr-2000, Kai MacTane wrote:
> At 4/13/2000 10:28 AM -0400, Russell Nelson wrote or quoted:
> >Yes, anyone has such code. It's now at http://www.qmail.org/no-alternative.
> This looks pretty cool, but it would be even cooler if it could be set to
> generate a bounce message to the sender,
Title: Re: HTML mail considered harmful
Kai MacTane writes:
> At 4/13/2000 10:28 AM -0400, Russell Nelson wrote or quoted:
>
> >Yes, anyone has such code. It's now at http://www.qmail.org/no-alternative.
>
> This looks pretty cool, but it would be even coole
At 4/13/2000 10:28 AM -0400, Russell Nelson wrote or quoted:
>Yes, anyone has such code. It's now at http://www.qmail.org/no-alternative.
This looks pretty cool, but it would be even cooler if it could be set to
generate a bounce message to the sender, telling them that this email
address doe
On Thu, Apr 13, 2000 at 09:42:10AM +0100,
>
> Horses for courses, PGP has its place but not on mailing lists for
> example.
I disagree. It can be important to establish you always sign messages to
lend credibility for when you want to deny posting/sending some message.
PGP signed messages will
Petr Novotny writes:
> On 12 Apr 00, at 15:52, Russell Nelson wrote:
>
> > Yes. Bounce html-only email. Strip the html fork from
> > multipart/alternative email.
>
> Does anyone have such a code and is willing to share it?
Yes, anyone has such code. It's now at http://www.qmail.org/no-
On Thu, Apr 13, 2000 at 10:04:36AM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2000 at 09:42:10AM +0100,
> >
> > Horses for courses, PGP has its place but not on mailing lists for
> > example.
>
> I disagree. It can be important to establish you always sign messages to
> lend credibility for
On Thu, Apr 13, 2000 at 08:51:06AM +0100, Chris Green wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 02:05:11PM -0600, Scott D. Yelich wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> >
> >
> > (1) I complained about a guy's 17 line signature that could
> > be compressed down to 4 lines... he complained about
On Thu, Apr 13, 2000 at 02:20:26AM -0600, Scott D. Yelich wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>
> On Thu, 13 Apr 2000, Chris Green wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 02:05:11PM -0600, Scott D. Yelich wrote:
> > Well I have to admit I have some sympathy with him there, I'd much
> > prefer
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Thu, 13 Apr 2000, Chris Green wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 02:05:11PM -0600, Scott D. Yelich wrote:
> Well I have to admit I have some sympathy with him there, I'd much
> prefer that people *didn't* post PGP signed messages where it isn't
> necessary. It
On Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 02:05:11PM -0600, Scott D. Yelich wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>
>
> (1) I complained about a guy's 17 line signature that could
> be compressed down to 4 lines... he complained about my 9
> line PGP signature. clue.
>
Well I have to admit I have some sym
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12 Apr 00, at 15:52, Russell Nelson wrote:
> Yes. Bounce html-only email. Strip the html fork from
> multipart/alternative email.
Does anyone have such a code and is willing to share it?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPG
Hello Scott
On 12-Apr-00, you wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>
>
> (1) I complained about a guy's 17 line signature that could
> be compressed down to 4 lines... he complained about my 9
> line PGP signature. clue.
>
> (2) I have already seen html email that has jabbascript tha
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
(1) I complained about a guy's 17 line signature that could
be compressed down to 4 lines... he complained about my 9
line PGP signature. clue.
(2) I have already seen html email that has jabbascript that "decodes"
the content of the message. I assume this w
Bruce writes:
> Although the US PTO might consider this novel and unobvious,
> I doubt it is news to many people on this list, and I suspect
> that it is already happening. Am I right?
Yup. I've built such systems for customers.
> Is there anything one can do about it, assuming one doesn
On Wed, 12 Apr 2000 12:47:47 PDT, "Bruce" wrote:
> I find the general acceptance of HTML mail to be alarming.
I abhor HTML email, but what can one do? It would be a good idea if
all the *newbies* to the Internet could be somehow trained before
getting *online* but alas, that would be a hope w
Off topic, except that qmail users actually care about spam...
I find the general acceptance of HTML mail to be alarming.
Assume for the moment that I am a spammer (but don't shoot
me). If I want to generate from whole cloth a mailing list
of real, live Internet users, the first thing I might
24 matches
Mail list logo
