On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 05:05:29AM -0800, Alexander Hvostov said: > > That's changing. Even venerable Pine can read HTML. Yes, by converting it back into text. What exactly have you gained in that overhead? > Digests should consist of a multipart message, where each part is a > message/rfc822, containing one of the emails being digested. That avoids > this problem nicely. This has several other useful benefits, as well. Right; and message/rfc822 parts contain text, not HTML. > And it was a fallacy. I understand the popular mail reader Pine is > _full_ of remotely exploitable buffer overflows. So is Outlook Express, and most of the other popular proprietary MUAs. What does that have to do with anything? Most folks here use Open Source/Free Software email clients, not proprietary ones such as Pine or Outlook Express. > Interestingly, you forget to note that only Microsoft Outlook is > affected by any of them. As much as you may think otherwise, this is an You're wrong. There have been ones that affected Netscape, such as LoveLetter. That one would have affected ANY Windows MUA that allowed use of Windows Scripting in HTML. I'm sure you'll argue now that this is a Windows problem, not an HTML problem, but you're missing the point; HTML in email greatly increases the complexity, and complexity breeds bugs. It doesn't greatly increase the communications ability of email, so it makes no sense to put it in there. -- Shawn McMahon | Every time you walk out of the house FedEx Services | with clothes on, you give up freedom DSS-MCO Security Lead | for temporary safety.
Attachment:
pgp_UaXdbiuuV.pgp
Description: PGP signature