The message
from "Clive George" contains these words:
"Rusty_Hinge" wrote in message
. uk...

There would be a lot less successful malware floating round the internet
if
plain text mail was used. With Outlook Express, simply viewing an HTML
message in the preview frame is a security risk.

Any mailreader worth its salt won't display HTML - HTML in mail is
against protocols, and AUP.

And MS have significantly improved OE's security since the problems of
a few
years ago. The HTML engine is IE, so it's as secure as that, and due to the
high profile of the problems it used to have, IE is now actually pretty
secure. (unless you deliberately break it).

So I'm told - but it's a bit late now.

Still, HTML email is an abomination, but that's a different point. (not as
much an abomination as people sending bulletins/newsletters as one massive
JPG "because it looks right", but that's something I'm still working on).

Really? I had a go at one of our parish councillors for sending me a
*MASSIVE* jpeg of an A5 flyer for an event. I reduced it from over a
megabyte to about 25k without losing any detail on the A5 printout, and
sent him back the reduced one with a comment to the effect of 'Must do
better'.

He's just resigned from the council - allegedly because of the leader of
it, and there are now two places up for erect^h^h^h^election. I intend
shaking said leader by the hand - erstwhile councillor starts all sorts
of things, then loses interest. He 'maintained' the village website, and
asked for volunteers to help. I volunteered (largely to rewrite it in
proper HTML and ditch the Frontpage junk) but he didn't take me up on
the offer, and a year later had not altered one word of it.

Thinking of standing, innit.

cheers,
clive

--
Rusty
Direct reply to: horrid dot squeak snailything zetnet point co period uk
Separator in search of a sig

The message
from Martin contains these words:

Any mailreader worth its salt won't display HTML - HTML in mail is
against protocols,

cite?

Probably got chapter and verse on the old box. I'll look - but don't wait up.

and AUP.

Several do by request of the users. This includes later versions of Agent.

Several users of ZIMACS have asked, too. They've been told very firmly,
"No." However, it's possible that it may have the reading of HTML added,
but never the writing of it.

Your provider's AUP is almost certainly not the same as all other providers
AUPs. I can find nothing about use of HTML in mail in the AUPs I have
checked
(Janet and BT)

Well, you wou wouldn't expect *THEM* to, would you?

UAP Accepted User Policy - this refers to mail and news protocols, not
to the whims of individual ISPs.

--
Rusty
Direct reply to: horrid dot squeak snailything zetnet point co period uk
Separator in search of a sig

The message
from Martin contains these words:

Any mailreader worth its salt won't display HTML - HTML in mail is
against protocols,

cite?

Got, so far, - for news:

I asked: "Particularly interested in general attitudes to html in news..."

Zetgod answered: "In short: don't."

http://www.anta.net/misc/nnq/nhtml.shtml (About 10kbyte.)

More at: http://www.anta.net/misc/nnq/

And I have another 90 kbyte which I'll put up on the wibble.

Mail research to follow...

--
Rusty
Direct reply to: horrid dot squeak snailything zetnet point co period uk
Separator in search of a sig

Rusty_Hinge wrote:
Hehe..........local college here is advertising web design courses using
'latest technology' Front Page. Pi**ed myself!!
--
Pete C
London UK

The message
from "Pete C" contains these words:
Rusty_Hinge wrote:

Hehe..........local college here is advertising web design courses using
'latest technology' Front Page. Pi**ed myself!!

No I didn't!

But molished I to grin...

A few years ago someone 'kindly' produced a website for the village
using Frontpage - if the water round here wasn't so shallow the site
would have sunk with all hands in seconds flat, it was so heavy, and
full of holes.

Didn't work in Firefox or Opera (which I'd guess was deliberate on the
part of its 'writers'), and I rewrote the pages in a text program, and
it worked with every browser I could lay my hands on (including
Nutscrape 4), and totalled (IIRC) around 10 kb, whereas his script was
over 200 kb.

TAAAW, the pics could all have had their content reduced by a factor of
ten without compromising their quality on the monitor.

/weeping and gnashing of teeth/

--
Rusty
Direct reply to: horrid dot squeak snailything zetnet point co period uk
Separator in search of a sig

The message
from Martin contains these words:
On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 22:08:09 GMT, Rusty_Hinge

wrote:

The message
from Martin contains these words:

Any mailreader worth its salt won't display HTML - HTML in mail is
against protocols,

cite?

Got, so far, - for news:

Yeah, but you said mailreader.



I asked: "Particularly interested in general attitudes to html in news..."

Zetgod answered: "In short: don't."

http://www.anta.net/misc/nnq/nhtml.shtml (About 10kbyte.)

More at: http://www.anta.net/misc/nnq/

And I have another 90 kbyte which I'll put up on the wibble.

Mail research to follow...

See bottom of my text.

I've got better things to do than to trawl for protocols. Chapter and
verse will follow - when I CBA

--
Rusty
Direct reply to: horrid dot squeak snailything zetnet point co period uk
Separator in search of a sig

The message
from Martin contains these words:

Say no more, please

I will, but at a later date.

If you want some idea of what I speak, see:

http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/ad/

and then

http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/garden.htm

And that's not the half of it...

I have a lot of creative (some say)¹¾ writing gathering dust, admin
likewise, a pooter under construction, likewise a server, and being a
poor neglected bachelor, loads of cooking to do and washing-up,
housework etc. to neglect. This is why I have difficulty keeping up (at
the back).

¹¾ *I* say...

--
Rusty
Direct reply to: horrid dot squeak snailything zetnet point co period uk
Separator in search of a sig