Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
Getting spam with my friends email address in the subject line
cranioscopical:
I tried that for a while, and all it did was piss people off.
-SKesselman (June 17, 2009, 09:46 PM)
--- End quote ---
And you stopped? What better reason could you want? ;D
4wd:
Are the consequences similar, no matter where I open the potentially harmful mail from, be it webmail or Outlook? Hmm...-SKesselman (June 17, 2009, 09:46 PM)
--- End quote ---
Yes, I would expect so - probably even easier in webmail since you're already looking at it in a browser that's designed to load images from all over the internet.
Unless, of course, the webmail service gives you some measure of control over what you choose to display while you're online.
1. Yes it's old but still valid - there is no reason to send HTML in an email. Any sent to me usually end up deleted rather than read and I blame it on a message filter if someone asks :P -4wd (June 17, 2009, 04:17 PM)
--- End quote ---
I tried that for a while, and all it did was piss people off. Seriously.
--- End quote ---
The obvious answer to those people is, "Well, I don't know how valuable your personal data is but I actually take steps to protect mine."
Alternatively, you could scramble the <html> tags and forward it back to them asking where in the load of rubbish is the pertinent information.
For a while I actually toyed with the idea of creating a filter that auto-responded with that website before deleting the offending message.
Now-a-days people tend to know me better and don't send me things I have no intention of looking at, (like bl**dy PowerPoint attachments for stupid jokes), because they know it'll just get deleted.
it's old but still valid - there is no reason to send HTML in an email.-4wd (June 17, 2009, 04:17 PM)
--- End quote ---
is anyone aware of a reason why HTML mail persists?
-Target (June 17, 2009, 10:31 PM)
--- End quote ---
That's easy, have a look at any PC running Windows - OE, (and probably Outlook), and Thunderbird, (IIRC, it's been awhile since I last installed let alone configured it), both default to HTML email and replying to email in the format it was sent.
I don't know about any other email clients but since you're talking about probably the most used one, (OE), it comes back to being "people don't know any better."
They see the pretty emails they can send but they don't see all the junk that's sent to do it, neither are they aware of the risk involved in receiving the damn things.
Target:
That's easy, have a look at any PC running Windows - OE, (and probably Outlook), and Thunderbird, (IIRC, it's been awhile since I last installed let alone configured it), both default to HTML email and replying to email in the format it was sent.
I don't know about any other email clients but since you're talking about probably the most used one, (OE), it comes back to being "people don't know any better."
They see the pretty emails they can send but they don't see all the junk that's sent to do it, neither are they aware of the risk involved in receiving the damn things.
-4wd (June 17, 2009, 10:44 PM)
--- End quote ---
There's some truth in what you say, but it doesn't answer the question - why does the format persist?
Given that HTML mail is such a well known vector for security breaches it's kind of hard to understand why nobody is making an effort promote a better alternative (rich text?). Outlook (not express) already includes RTF mail, but it's not as 'mainstream' as others, and it's pointless if the people your sending to can't (or don't/won't) use that format
The reason that people 'don't know any better' is because they're not being offered an alternative. And if an alternative exists, it's obvious advantages are not beng promoted
Or could it be that it's in the best interests of the (AV) industry to perpetuate this format?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version