HTML Links on Evolution

[Gertjan Vinkesteijn]

Youssef Makki wrote:

>Considering the implementations can't and won't be changed by tommorow
>morning, what do you suggest? The tv analogy labels the opinions in a
>wrong way. No, html is not disliked by some people because they insist
>on using emacs and mutt, and avoiding X. Html is disliked because today,
>for about the 3rd time this week, I had to clean off viruses and trojans
>from 2 family member's PCs.
>That also doesn't mean that html can't be used to make mail more
>presentable, or has no use. However, you're not sending presentations to
>mailing lists. This is exactly where the phrase 'simpler is better'
>applies. No, html mail doesn't consume more of my bandwidth, eat more of
>my cpu cycles, and doesn't hurt my eyes.
>Just imagine for a second that everyone on the list starts using Outlook
>Express templates in their postings, or adding smily's and avatars.
>Wouldn't that be appealing?
>
>
>  
>
>>The primary problems (i.e. virii and 
>>backdoors in IE and OE) are not caused by HTML per se but rather by weak 
>>and insecure implementations thereof. Thus you are assuming a 
>>cause-and-effect relationship where such is not really the case. Yes, in 
>>the majority of cases (Windows users in particular) HTML mail is dangerous. 
>>But HTML itself is not the root cause of the problem.
>>    
>>
>
>
>
>  
>
But I like Fuer Elise better, that is the name of that daughter of mmine ;-)

-- 
mailto: vinky at xs4all.nl
homepage: gershwin.xs4all.nl