Kenneth Porter wrote: > On Wednesday, March 08, 2006 6:46 PM -0800 Kenneth Porter > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Makes me wonder about installing outbound filters that run a validator >> and reject anything that fails. I often see flame wars on mailing lists >> about allowing HTML posts to the list, but I wonder how the arguments >> would change if one allowed only *validated* HTML. I'll bet most who >> insist on using HTML would immediately be rejected by the validator. >> "Sorry, your message was rejected because your MUA vendor writes garbage >> that we can't parse, and makes you look like a spammer." ;) > > > Anyone know of a good validator that can be run over a MIME part to > report on the quality of the HTML? This might be used as a go/no-go > filter at milter level, or it could be used as an SA plugin to assign a > variable score based on the quality of the HTML. > > For mailing lists catering to newbies who love HTML and can't understand > why us old-timers hate it, we can set the list to exclude all invalid > HTML. "Sure, we'll accept your HTML. But only if it's really HTML. Not > that crap that most MUA's write."
I have never used it in a mail context; but tidy (from our friends at w3 http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett/tidy/) is a very nice validator. Might be too big a load for SA, tho. I think you will also find that M$ html output from OE is probably full of errors anyway... > >
