ietf-asrg
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Asrg] HTML-burdened unsolicited mail

2003-06-22 08:37:39
"behaviour" solutions to spam problem seldom works because spammer will quickly adapt and change their "behaviour".

For example,

We can filter keywords, and spammer will avoid using those keywords. We can do IP blacklist, and spammer will avoid using those blacklist. We can ban HTML and spammer will start using plain text. etc etc.

So, either you have an adaptive (and thus fuzzy) solution or we need to think out of box.

-James Seng

Peter J. Holzer wrote:
On 2003-06-19 18:31:58 -0500, gep2(_at_)terabites(_dot_)com wrote:

There are many clear indicators that large numbers of people like to both send and receive HTML formatted messages.

I don't think that's true at all, and in particular not for people who realize the implications of it.


When we replaced Netscape 4 with Mozilla as the default MUA, we disabled
the HTML editor at the explicit request of some users. So far only one
user has complained.


        As far back as 1981, when I first started selling one of the
first "corporate" email systems, Digital's ALL-IN-1 office, customers
were asking for and often demanding "rich text" or "high quality" email
messaging capabilities.

If they want "high quality" e-mail there are a whole variety of options, going well beyond HTML. One is to send .DOC files (which can be read with freeware viewers), another is Adobe PDF files.


These options are way worse than HTML. HTML is simple to render, mostly
device-independent (I can view an HTML file just fine in an 80x25
terminal window, and I could also view it on a palm without much loss of
quality). Word documents are proprietary, and I don't know any program
which can display them reliably except MS Word (and then only the same
version which was used to write it). PDF files assume a fixed page
layout: My 21" monitor is capable of displaying a whole A4 page in a
readble font size. a 17" monitor usually isnt, and a palmtop doesn't
stand a chance. Also, Word and PDF generally are a lot larger (even
though HTML produced by editors is often extremely bloated).

Also, an HTML renderer as a separate program can be small and fast. I
use w3m for HTML to text conversion, and it is usually so fast I don't
even notice that I'm not reading a text mail. Invoking Star Office or
Acroread takes several seconds, and it opens in a separate window, which
is annoying (even more so if I am logged in remotely, and the X11
connection is going over an SSH tunnel over a 768 kbit/s leased line
(and that's fast - I used a 33.6 modem until not too long ago)).

I agree fully, that HTML is usually unnecessary and has little benefit
over plain text, but suggesting the use of Word or PDF instead of it is
replace one evil with an worse one.


In any case, such mail does not have to be sent from unknown/untrusted/unfamiliar senders.


ACK.


And if they REALLY WANT to use HTML, another approach without most of the bulk is to put it up on a Web server (using an 'unguessable' URL) and E-mail (as plain ASCII text) the URL to the intended recipient.


For normal mail, I think that's a really stupid idea. (It goes a bit
into the direction of message/external-body or Bernstein's IM, but
without automatic retrieval by the MUA, that's a sure way to get your
e-Mail ignored). It is feasible if the document at the URL meaningful
outside of the context of the email (Like: "I wrote up the minutes of
the last meeting. You can find them at $url").

        hp




_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg