Re: [anti-spam-wg] Imaged spam
-
From: peter h peter@localhost
-
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 08:10:08 +0200
On Monday 21 August 2006 00.04, Jørgen Hovland wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "peter h" peter@localhost
>
> > The real name for this is bullshit. HTML is for spammers and cluless
> > folks.
>
> If HTML didn't exist and the only way of sending email was with plaintext,
> you would still get spam, now wouldn't you? The format does not matter.
> So please go somewhere else nagging about non-existant problems. Namecalling
> doesn't solve the equation either. Personally, I would rather have fancy
> spam than boring plaintext spam. Besides, it is easier to detect (both
> programatically and manually). If you have a security issue with HTML then
> it is a problem with the implementation you are using. Blaming HTML for that
> is, what you say, for "clueless folks". I am sure you are not one of those.
>
> j
>
>
With that argumentation you should e-mail encapsulated in flash or mpeg-4 is even better
then html. I think something is broken when the encapsulation is more important then
the message ( we are talking about e-mail messages here ??)
--
Peter Håkanson
There's never money to do it right, but always money to do it
again ... and again ... and again ... and again.
( Det är billigare att göra rätt. Det är dyrt att laga fel. )
