Kelson wrote:
Tom Allison wrote:
Personally, I think HTML email should be outright discarded from the
start.
If you look at this arguement presented by the OP then it reinforces
the idea that most ascii is ham and most html is spam. Therefore,
reject delivery of all html based email. Or to b
--On Monday, February 12, 2007 12:50 PM -0800 Kelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
In other words, what can adequately replace text/html in the
non-plaintext multipart/alternative section such that HTML becomes
irrelevant for legitimate uses? Microsoft Word? PDF? RTF? Any of
those would be wor
Gene Heskett wrote:
With all due respect, that's 100% BS. MIME was invented to handle the
non-ascii stuff, and does it very well except for M$, who couldn't follow
a std rule with a loaded 44 magnum stuck in Bills ear.
100% BS? So end-users don't like formatting in their messages? Email
is
Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Monday 12 February 2007 13:27, Kelson wrote:
>> Now, if you can come up with another markup language for formatting
>> email...
>>
>> [...]
>> * And you can get all the major email clients to use it for formatted
>> composition instead of HTML (so end users can still ma
On Monday 12 February 2007 13:27, Kelson wrote:
>Tom Allison wrote:
>> Personally, I think HTML email should be outright discarded from the
>> start. If you look at this arguement presented by the OP then it
>> reinforces the idea that most ascii is ham and most html is spam.
>> Therefore, reject
Tom Allison wrote:
Personally, I think HTML email should be outright discarded from the start.
If you look at this arguement presented by the OP then it reinforces the
idea that most ascii is ham and most html is spam. Therefore, reject
delivery of all html based email. Or to be more succinct
