1 |
-----Original Message----- |
2 |
From: Eric Bliss [mailto:eric@×××××××××××.net] |
3 |
Sent: Friday, December 09, 2005 2:17 PM |
4 |
To: gentoo-amd64@l.g.o |
5 |
Subject: Re: [gentoo-amd64] [OT- html posts] |
6 |
|
7 |
>Now suppose these e-mail |
8 |
>accounts were for kids, rather than old professionals and it just gets |
9 |
worse. |
10 |
>And once you have to blank out images as well, what are you really dealing |
11 |
>with in the HTML mail that can't be handled by raw text? Also compare that |
12 |
>with the extra room taken up by all of the HTML and there's no good reason |
13 |
to |
14 |
>use it, especially on mailing lists like this (Which is where the major |
15 |
>objection comes in). |
16 |
|
17 |
Thank you, that's exactly the point, the major objection is on a *mailing |
18 |
list*, the content is much more well defined, each and every message is |
19 |
thousands of times less likely to be spam or malware, than any randomly |
20 |
selected non-list email. |
21 |
|
22 |
|
23 |
>Also remember that for lists, it's not just a matter of tossing in a few |
24 |
extra |
25 |
>lines of HTML to one person. An extra k or 2 of data to a single user is |
26 |
no |
27 |
>big deal. But multiply that by, say, 1000 or more people on a list, per |
28 |
>post, and it quickly starts adding up to become a serious bandwidth issue |
29 |
for |
30 |
>the list server. |
31 |
|
32 |
Okay, let's use your numbers, that's an additional 2K * 1000 people, so an |
33 |
additional 2 megabytes for each message that crosses the list. Let's say the |
34 |
list receives 100 messages in a 24 hour period, in round numbers that's an |
35 |
extra 200MB to send out over a 24 hour period, sounds like a lot doesn't it? |
36 |
But compared to the bandwidth capacity the server actually has available |
37 |
over that 24 hour period, it's probably a low single digit percentage...if |
38 |
that. |
39 |
|
40 |
|
41 |
>Don't argue about why your way is better when it's in clear |
42 |
>opposition to the people who make up the community, simply accept that they |
43 |
>have reasons for doing things the way they do, and abide by those rules |
44 |
when |
45 |
>you're in their home. |
46 |
|
47 |
This is disappointing. Just blowing off all opposing arguments any, and |
48 |
saying it must be done this way, "because we say so" regardless of the |
49 |
facts, or validity of opposing argument, is something I'd expect from a |
50 |
Microsoft mindset. |
51 |
|
52 |
|
53 |
>So, exactly what would you refer to the Sober Worm attack on Nov. 23 as??? |
54 |
3 |
55 |
>weeks ago is pretty damned recent. |
56 |
|
57 |
Two points, first I'd bet that the attack didn't start with a message to an |
58 |
email list, much less a Linux oriented list. Second, the number of Linux |
59 |
users affected by the Worm was probably zero, so that doesn't seem like a |
60 |
very solid reason for prohibiting html on a Linux oriented list |
61 |
|
62 |
> And as for "objective analysis"... How |
63 |
>many spam filter rules are there that boil down to "It's got HTML/it's got |
64 |
>loads of HTML in it - it's probably spam". I'd call that a fairly |
65 |
objective |
66 |
>viewpoint. |
67 |
|
68 |
It may be objective, that doesn't make it accurate or desirable. Just |
69 |
throwing out all html messages as spam is simplistic and lazy, obviously not |
70 |
all html messages are spam. |
71 |
|
72 |
>> Do you allow html |
73 |
>> to be rendered when you browse the web? If so, why is email more |
74 |
>> dangerous when your email client can easily be configured to |
75 |
>> render html just as safely as your browser? |
76 |
|
77 |
|
78 |
>How's about because we can CHOOSE where we go when we browse the web, and |
79 |
we |
80 |
>can change the settings that we use if we go to sites we don't trust. But, |
81 |
>if you have to work at all with the public at large, you have to accept |
82 |
>e-mail from people who's intentions are a complete mystery to you, because |
83 |
>you can't know until you read it if it's a legitimate e-mail. Yes, you can |
84 |
>filter out some things that are very obviously spam, but you can't stop |
85 |
>everything. |
86 |
|
87 |
The issue here is accepting html from a mailing list, the sender of each and |
88 |
every message is traceable, at least to a valid email address. Yet your |
89 |
argument seems to be that accepting html email from someone who can be |
90 |
traced and held accountable, is somehow more dangerous than accessing a web |
91 |
page written by someone you know nothing about and may have no way of |
92 |
contacting. |
93 |
|
94 |
It's okay if you want to hold the opinion that "HTML e-mail is a BAD THING" |
95 |
just because you have some emotional fondness for plain text. Such fondness |
96 |
may be because it's "from the good ole days" and that's fine, but at some |
97 |
point we all must let go of the past and embrace change, otherwise we |
98 |
stagnate. |
99 |
|
100 |
|
101 |
>Sorry for this rant, it's just that I happen to strongly agree with the |
102 |
>community here that HTML e-mail is a BAD THING - especially to FLOSS lists. |
103 |
|
104 |
It's good to agree with someone, but it's more important to be sure of the |
105 |
reasons *why* you agree with them. |
106 |
|
107 |
Regards |
108 |
Bob Young |
109 |
|
110 |
|
111 |
|
112 |
-- |
113 |
gentoo-amd64@g.o mailing list |