stop posting in html
Rodent of Unusual Size
Mon, 1 Apr 2002 10:24:20 -0500
* On 2002-04-01 at 10:04,
Luis Villa <firstname.lastname@example.org> excited the electrons to say:
> On Mon, 2002-04-01 at 05:45, email@example.com wrote:
> > You're not getting it. The point of HTML in email is that it has no point.
> You're not getting it either. The point is not that it has no point
> (unless you're claiming that HTML email is somehow inherently bitless in
> a way that the exact same content in plain-old-text isn't.) The point is
> that it has no /cost/.
That is very strong, and promotes growth. Costs associated with
rich-format email include: additional bandwidth, storage, and cycles
to deal with the overhead of the tags; time for people who don't use
an inherently GUI MUA (even mutt [and probably pine] pops up a browser
window, which requires a visual context switch as well as handwaving
for focus), and time making all those ancillary network requests even
for those who *do* use a GUI MUA; replyability for non-GUI MUA users;
indigestibility to almost every single list digester on the planet;
and probably others. So 'no cost' is a complete handwave.
When writing to a mixed audience, you gear the content and
presentation to reach the most people -- not the high-end ones.
> but it also has no costs, except for the bits wasted in yelling about
And that's a pretty bloody significant cost.
> Oh, and if you're worried about 'attack angles' via email, you need a
> real operating system.
More handwaving. Web bugs have nothing to do with the OS, and
everything to do with the MUA -- and I don't know of a single MUA that
doesn't have some sort of vulnerability exposure when reading rich
email. Do you? And that's just an example.
Ah yes, there's another cost: having to go to the effort to defend
against stuff that Just Wouldn't Be A Problem if the mail were
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"