[BUGA] Re: HTML vs. plain text (was: How to communicate using
davidn at rebel.net.au
Fri Jan 14 03:33:47 CST 2005
On Fri, 2005-01-14 at 12:32, Brett Lymn wrote:
> Actually, the first thing I think of with HTML mail is the horrible lack
> of security/privacy. All the <script></script> nastiness and the web
> bugs, loading of images and all that other wonderful stuff.
What's between the script tags is not HTML. Whether or not an HTML MUA
should include an embedded ECMAscript interpreter is a good question,
but not really central to that of whether HTML is good for email. The
loading of images is another good point, and as you go on to say, both
of these points have been picked up on by MUA authors, with options such
as "don't load from internet", and "don't execute scripts". I look at
HTML email over the last few years and I see that it's getting better.
(It'll be perfect exactly when plain text email is perfect.)
More information about the linuxsa