Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 6th Dec 2007 16:27 UTC
Mac OS X Since my Cube could not run Leopard, and I did not have any other Macs, I was unable to delve into Leopard right away. Apple NL was kind enough to fix this problem for us, by generously loaning me a brand new MacBook with Leopard installed so I could review it for OSNews. Read on for the findings.
Thread beginning with comment 289268
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Stationary
by StephenBeDoper on Fri 7th Dec 2007 13:19 UTC in reply to "Stationary"
StephenBeDoper
Member since:
2005-07-06

When people tell me HTML email is evil, I always press them to tell me why. Except for embedded scripts, which are usually blocked these days, I don't know why "geeks" have a mission against it.


There are several reasons:

- the number of EMail users who can't view HTML EMail is actually increasing (thanks to the rise in EMail-capable handheld devices).

- it's unnecessarily wasteful of bandwidth, especially since most mail clients send two versions of the same message (plain-text and HTML) to accommodate clients that can't view HTML.

- most of the capabilities of HTML that *would* be useful in EMail have been disabled because of their potential for abuse (want to send out a web-based form by EMail? Too bad, since it won't work with the latest versions of Outlook).

- spammers often use uniquely-named images in EMails for address validation (if there's any traffic to the image, then they know the address is valid) - so newer EMail clients don't load images automatically.

- and on a more subjective level, it enables annoying crap like "IncrediMail" (if you've ever received an EMail with auto-playing background audio or animations in the signature, you know what I mean).

I'm not one of those "purists" who believe that all EMail should be plain-text and nothing else - I just wish that there was some standard for text formatting in EMail that wasn't quite so heavyweight compared to plain text (the size of a message shouldn't quadruple simply because a word has been italicized).

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Stationary
by netpython on Fri 7th Dec 2007 14:15 in reply to "RE: Stationary"
netpython Member since:
2005-07-06

- the number of EMail users who can't view HTML EMail is actually increasing (thanks to the rise in EMail-capable handheld devices).

As it should from a handholding security point of view.
No nasty links you can click on might save your day. As in not being phished.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Stationary
by StephenBeDoper on Fri 7th Dec 2007 20:11 in reply to "RE[2]: Stationary"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

As it should from a handholding security point of view.
No nasty links you can click on might save your day. As in not being phished.


I think that may be going a bit too far - personally at least, I find quite a bit of utility to links in EMail (even when the messages themselves are displayed as text, but URLs are rendered as links). It would probably cost me at least an extra half an hour every work day with copy-pasting.

I guess an argument could be made for disabling that feature as the default - but I've found similar "security features" in Microsoft Products (E.g., attachment blocking) to be more hassle than they're worth. I can't count the number of times I've walked people through disabling attachment blocking over the phone - just so they could access legit/desired attachments. Although that does seem to be par-for-the-course with the new Microsoft security philosophy of "escaped horse, meet iron-clad, barred, and triple-locked barn door."

Reply Parent Score: 2