Hello,
I have been having this problem and regardless of how much hair I pull
out, I cannot get to the bottom of it:
In HTML-based emails that have embeded images, the images don't
display. Instead I see an "exclamation picture".
I am running the latest version, and I have re-installed... HOWEV
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi ,
On 23 November 2000 at 23:28:57 +0200 (which was 21:28 where I
live) Ratty Longlegs wrote and made these points:
RL> In HTML-based emails that have embeded images, the images don't
RL> display. Instead I see an "exclamation picture".
Quite ri
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello Ratty,
Thursday, November 23, 2000, 9:28:57 PM, you wrote:
RL> Hello,
RL> I have been having this problem and regardless of how much hair I pull
RL> out, I cannot get to the bottom of it:
RL> In HTML-based emails that have embeded images, th
Hi Nick,
On Fri, 24 Nov 2000 10:01:53 +GMT (24/11/2000, 18:01 +0800GMT),
Nick Gordon wrote:
NG> The Bat! deliberately doesn't honour embedded instructions (you could
NG> call them programs without being too wrong) like this,
NG> because this is the vehicle used by email viruses and worms to
Hi Nick,
On 24 November 2000 at 10:01:53 + (which was 10:01 where I
live) Nick Gordon wrote and made these points:
RL>> In HTML-based emails that have embeded images, the images don't
RL>> display. Instead I see an "exclamation picture".
NG> I might get this all wrong (I'm new to The Bat!
Hello Ratty (and other TBUDLers :-),
Here is a nice article explaining why images should not be
downloaded:
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/22/technology/22NET.html
:-)
--
Cheers,
Stefan
..."Why not go out on a limb? Isn't that where the fruit is?" - Frank Scully
--
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 24 November, 2000, 8:10 AM, I saw Marck's comments made on
Fri, 24 Nov 2000 10:23:02 +, and thought I'd add my $0.02 worth:
NG>> If I've got this wrong, someone please tell me (but I hope I haven't)
MDP> You haven't. Nicely put. Alt
Hallo Allie,
On Fri, 24 Nov 2000 08:18:56 -0500 GMT (24/11/2000, 21:18 +0800 GMT),
A . Curtis Martin wrote:
MDP>> You haven't. Nicely put. Although images of themselves are not likely
MDP>> to be viral, the principle stands. More importantly, an off-line mail
MDP>> reader should certainly *no
On Friday, November 24, 2000, 12:15:29 PM, Thomas wrote:
ACM>> "One approach is to send the victim an e-mail message that
ACM>> contains what is known as a webbug or tracking GIF. This is a
ACM>> URL referring to an image file
> They are better than that. An HTML file can contain an image than i
Hallo Ming-Li,
On Sat, 25 Nov 2000 10:59:17 -0800 GMT (26/11/2000, 02:59 +0800 GMT),
Ming-Li wrote:
>> They are better than that. An HTML file can contain an image than is
>> one pixel big, but contains an FTP command. This way, you FTP some
>> info to the server without even knowing it.
ML> Hm
On Saturday, November 25, 2000, 11:05:28 PM, Thomas wrote:
ML>> AFAIK, no IMG or HREF command can be used to upload
ML>> information. Yes, you can embed a FTP command in an IMG link,
ML>> but it can only be used to download things. Or am I missing
ML>> something?
> Yes, they get your email addre
Hallo Ming-Li,
On Sun, 26 Nov 2000 10:06:54 -0800 GMT (27/11/2000, 02:06 +0800 GMT),
Ming-Li wrote:
ML> What I don't understand is, if they spam you indirectly (through
ML> spamming a public mailing list), can they acquire your email address
ML> via a http or ftp link? Not from TB, of course, wh
On Sunday, November 26, 2000, 1:53:47 PM, Michael wrote:
> Outlook is a good example, because they'll run VBScript code when
> you view the message. This is why "macro" based viruses now
> account for more than %98 of all new virus activity.
I know that. But we weren't talking about scripting.
Hi Stefan,
Friday, November 24, 2000, 7:14:25 PM, you wrote:
ST> Hello Ratty (and other TBUDLers :-),
ST> Here is a nice article explaining why images should not be
ST> downloaded:
ST> http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/22/technology/22NET.html
So is there a way to make sure The Bat doesn't
Hi Doug,
Friday, November 24, 2000, 10:51:45 PM, you wrote:
DW> Hi Stefan,
DW> Friday, November 24, 2000, 7:14:25 PM, you wrote:
ST>> Hello Ratty (and other TBUDLers :-),
ST>> Here is a nice article explaining why images should not be
ST>> downloaded:
ST>> http://www.nytimes.com/2000/1
Outlook is a good example, because they'll run VBScript code when you
view the message. This is why "macro" based viruses now account for
more than %98 of all new virus activity.
There's no "generic" way to do it (i.e. that would work on "most"
email clients) since it would involve running some
16 matches
Mail list logo
