[AT] HTML and Attachments

[Robert Brooks]

Spencer;

I think your compromise is a good one.  It should let everybody 
participate, and we can't ask Dean to give up his cartoon's.

Bob


At 09:07 AM 2/13/04 -0500, Spencer Yost wrote:
>I have heard what Cecil has had to say and I know from experience that it 
>may be difficult to enforce no attachments because many users have no 
>control,  or have the experience and training to control, how attachments 
>and message formatting is done.
>
>Here is the only compromise that may be acceptable:  Set the software to 
>convert HTML to text but allow small attachments - say about 10K total 
>message size.   That way email packages that send plain text but 
>automatically send an HTML version without permission or control of the 
>user(some old versions of Outlook did this) aren't left in the dark.  I 
>also understand some web based email packages don't order the "parts" of 
>the message correctly which may force the software to reject the message 
>because the attachments come before the HTML message.  Since I scan all 
>mail for viruses before they get to the list and very few viruses 
>(probably none of them from the last 5 years) are smaller than 10K even if 
>they get through my scanner the size limitation will effectively kill 
>them.   The risk is there but very, very small.
>
>This compromise does these things:
>
>Doesn't unduly limit participation
>Chops the tail of dragons and eliminates "bloaty" messages.
>Allows for small, cute cartoons from Dean (-;
>Doesn't significantly increase risk of viruses.
>Low bandwidth users are not unduly inconvenienced.
>
>
>What does everyone think of this compromise?  Stick with no 
>attachments/HTML or try the compromise?
>
>
>Spencer
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>AT mailing list
>AT at lists.antique-tractor.com
>http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/at

Bob Brooks

rbrooks at hvc.rr.com

"It takes courage to grow up and turn out to be who you really are."
- ee cummings