Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
Actually it's not all that bad.
If you accept as a premise that email messages are put together by
"designers" using HTML and CSS for rendering on the screens of "readers"
(both words from email-standards.org), then I don't think you can
improve very much on what the email-standards.org people are doing.
But isn't i such a minor part of the total ergonomics. Don't you think?
They don't seem to care much about being able to quote in
> a reply, and so on, and so forth, so there's certainly scope for
> improvement, but most HTML/mail proposals I've seen are much
> worse than theirs.
Right. I only too a quick look, and its acid test was pretty much about
'style' - one group's (probably 1 person) opinion - and we know everyone
has one. :-) So if they believe AOL looks "Prettier" that doesn't make
it the email standard and god no, I really hope everyone don't looks and
feel the same way - how boring would that be? :-)
I could only think of one easy security attack that their test affords.
(Lazy implementers may allow more attacks, but isn't that always the case?)
AJAX and mail previewers seems to be gaining. I was blown away by my
customers almost near riot in getting it added to our web mail system.
Now I really do like it myself.
Here's a public access view:
What we found out was how much really helps in the low bandwidth
customer situations such as Chucke Cheese Restaurants whose 450+ odd
stores all have low bandwidth 64kb connections to HQ support with our
Anyway, there are so many other considerations for an "MUA Email
Standard" outside the x822 area. Of course it is all subjective.
Long live the MUA battles!
Hector Santos, CTO