Yakov Shafranovich wrote:
At 01:27 PM 6/19/2003 -0600, Vernon Schryver wrote:
[..]
> Our challenge should be to figure out how to give the users
> what they want without exposing them to unnecessary risks. If the
> problem is a difficult one to solve, it isn't because what the users
> want is some that is not "legitimage," rather, it simply means that
> we're not being creative enough in defining solutions.
I carefully did not say that all HTML is illegitimate. So why are
you implying that I did? Do you have some vested interest in HTML
mail software? As I said, some HTML mail is legitimate and because
of the size of the Internet, that tiny minority is a lot of messages.
However, that tiny minority of legitimate HTML mail has nothing to do
with the vastly larger bazillions of messages from end users that are
in HTML only because their MUAs use HTML by default.
Then there are the bazillions of spam in HTML.
[..]
Then the question is do we sacrifice this minority of legit HTML
messages in order to kill spam.
I agree. We should not sacrifice any email types or formats to kill spam.
Rather than limit the types of email that we receive, we should state
that we will only receive email from (1) a server that can be verified
as the one from where the email originated and (2) an individual or
entity who has received authorization from me to send me email, which
authorization can be verified upon receipt.
By limiting the mime types, base64, html, etc., we limit a great deal of
useful features.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg