From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mo DeJong To: "Frank Ch. Eigler" Cc: overseers@sourceware.cygnus.com Subject: Re: emails in HTML must be purged. Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 06:08:00 -0000 Message-id: References: <20000823220539.A31723@redhat.com> X-SW-Source: 2000/msg01004.html On Wed, 23 Aug 2000, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: > Hi - > > On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 05:49:23PM -0700, Mo DeJong wrote: > > [...] > > Could we set up an automatic mail bounce for each > > of the lists that would reject mail in HTML format? > > [...] > > Not that this is likely to change your mind, but keep in > mind that HTML is a perfectly legitimate way to pass text > around; no worse than text/enriched, or Acrobat. Modern > news/mail readers can render the goods inline. This popular > hatred of HTML content seems rather luddite or at least > anachronistic. No, you are mistaken. HTML is fine for the web, is it not ok for email. This is like claiming that a word document is a perfectly legitimate way to pass text around. An even better way to pass text around is using text! This is both a policy problem and a user problem. Once we have defined the policy (No HTML in emails to the lists), we get the side benefit of not having to argue with users that do not know or simply do not have the ability to reconfigure the email client they use. Mo DeJong Red Hat Inc From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mo DeJong To: "Frank Ch. Eigler" Cc: overseers@sourceware.cygnus.com Subject: Re: emails in HTML must be purged. Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 19:55:00 -0000 Message-ID: References: <20000823220539.A31723@redhat.com> X-SW-Source: 2000-q3/msg00295.html Message-ID: <20000823195500.Fq8nuVtHzCp_yCO6M1OZ_tQz-rSIIwOEi-LIlCNc3wE@z> On Wed, 23 Aug 2000, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: > Hi - > > On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 05:49:23PM -0700, Mo DeJong wrote: > > [...] > > Could we set up an automatic mail bounce for each > > of the lists that would reject mail in HTML format? > > [...] > > Not that this is likely to change your mind, but keep in > mind that HTML is a perfectly legitimate way to pass text > around; no worse than text/enriched, or Acrobat. Modern > news/mail readers can render the goods inline. This popular > hatred of HTML content seems rather luddite or at least > anachronistic. No, you are mistaken. HTML is fine for the web, is it not ok for email. This is like claiming that a word document is a perfectly legitimate way to pass text around. An even better way to pass text around is using text! This is both a policy problem and a user problem. Once we have defined the policy (No HTML in emails to the lists), we get the side benefit of not having to argue with users that do not know or simply do not have the ability to reconfigure the email client they use. Mo DeJong Red Hat Inc