On Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 04:49:11PM -0700, Mike Fedyk wrote: > If we're going to go to the extreme of disregarding htmlized posts, > then we might as well just reject then from being sent to the list. thats a good idea, if the list masters were not so busy with other things i would ask them about doing that. its possible its not trivial to do with smartlist however, or i suspect it would have already happened. the developer reference already states that html and CCing replies are both unacceptable. (iirc) > To summarize, if your text (and I do read my mail via mutt with ssh > often) email client can read the format, and present it to you without > hassle, why reject it? because its a security risk i don't want? because all it will do is let me see more spam? > The pdf and rtf tools can probably distill those formats into text > also, and if so that should be acceptable. why should i waste time converting bloated formats into text when the message should have been text in the first place. use the simplest format for the given task, email is plain text: Deal with it. > Really, if we want to have a policy, it should be set on the server > and left to that. This attitude that some of us have doesn't help > anyone, especially if the response is silence. well i could set my procmail recipe to auto reply with *plonk* if you think that would help. i think that would just be annoying though. -- Ethan Benson http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/
Attachment:
pgpm4u_KVWESf.pgp
Description: PGP signature