Gentoo Archives: gentoo-amd64

From: Bob Young <BYoung@××××××××××.com>
To: gentoo-amd64@l.g.o
Subject: RE: [gentoo-amd64] [OT- html posts]
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 00:21:52
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-amd64] [OT- html posts] by Eric Bliss
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Bliss [mailto:eric@×××××××××××.net]
Sent: Friday, December 09, 2005 2:17 PM
To: gentoo-amd64@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-amd64] [OT- html posts]

>Now suppose these e-mail >accounts were for kids, rather than old professionals and it just gets
>And once you have to blank out images as well, what are you really dealing >with in the HTML mail that can't be handled by raw text? Also compare that >with the extra room taken up by all of the HTML and there's no good reason
>use it, especially on mailing lists like this (Which is where the major >objection comes in).
Thank you, that's exactly the point, the major objection is on a *mailing list*, the content is much more well defined, each and every message is thousands of times less likely to be spam or malware, than any randomly selected non-list email.
>Also remember that for lists, it's not just a matter of tossing in a few
>lines of HTML to one person. An extra k or 2 of data to a single user is
>big deal. But multiply that by, say, 1000 or more people on a list, per >post, and it quickly starts adding up to become a serious bandwidth issue
>the list server.
Okay, let's use your numbers, that's an additional 2K * 1000 people, so an additional 2 megabytes for each message that crosses the list. Let's say the list receives 100 messages in a 24 hour period, in round numbers that's an extra 200MB to send out over a 24 hour period, sounds like a lot doesn't it? But compared to the bandwidth capacity the server actually has available over that 24 hour period, it's probably a low single digit percentage...if that.
>Don't argue about why your way is better when it's in clear >opposition to the people who make up the community, simply accept that they >have reasons for doing things the way they do, and abide by those rules
>you're in their home.
This is disappointing. Just blowing off all opposing arguments any, and saying it must be done this way, "because we say so" regardless of the facts, or validity of opposing argument, is something I'd expect from a Microsoft mindset.
>So, exactly what would you refer to the Sober Worm attack on Nov. 23 as???
>weeks ago is pretty damned recent.
Two points, first I'd bet that the attack didn't start with a message to an email list, much less a Linux oriented list. Second, the number of Linux users affected by the Worm was probably zero, so that doesn't seem like a very solid reason for prohibiting html on a Linux oriented list
> And as for "objective analysis"... How >many spam filter rules are there that boil down to "It's got HTML/it's got >loads of HTML in it - it's probably spam". I'd call that a fairly
It may be objective, that doesn't make it accurate or desirable. Just throwing out all html messages as spam is simplistic and lazy, obviously not all html messages are spam.
>> Do you allow html >> to be rendered when you browse the web? If so, why is email more >> dangerous when your email client can easily be configured to >> render html just as safely as your browser?
>How's about because we can CHOOSE where we go when we browse the web, and
>can change the settings that we use if we go to sites we don't trust. But, >if you have to work at all with the public at large, you have to accept >e-mail from people who's intentions are a complete mystery to you, because >you can't know until you read it if it's a legitimate e-mail. Yes, you can >filter out some things that are very obviously spam, but you can't stop >everything.
The issue here is accepting html from a mailing list, the sender of each and every message is traceable, at least to a valid email address. Yet your argument seems to be that accepting html email from someone who can be traced and held accountable, is somehow more dangerous than accessing a web page written by someone you know nothing about and may have no way of contacting. It's okay if you want to hold the opinion that "HTML e-mail is a BAD THING" just because you have some emotional fondness for plain text. Such fondness may be because it's "from the good ole days" and that's fine, but at some point we all must let go of the past and embrace change, otherwise we stagnate.
>Sorry for this rant, it's just that I happen to strongly agree with the >community here that HTML e-mail is a BAD THING - especially to FLOSS lists.
It's good to agree with someone, but it's more important to be sure of the reasons *why* you agree with them. Regards Bob Young -- gentoo-amd64@g.o mailing list


Subject Author
[gentoo-amd64] RE: [OT- html posts] Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net>
Re: [gentoo-amd64] [OT- html posts] Eric Bliss <eric@×××××××××××.net>