Re: HTML: woes

Erik Moeller (
Thu, 12 Mar 1998 22:51:20 +0100

>> There's still a difference in using documented standards and placing
>> invisible remote images creating a request on a server anywhere and
>> logging the user's mail receipt directly without his/her knowledge.

>So in your example above, the user is aware that you are being informed
>they read your mail?

No, unless he checks the HTML code in-depth. And draws the right
conclusions. Even "illustrative" images would be enough, but that's the
obvious way of doing it. Invisible GIF images are worse.

Not to mention what you can do with JavaScript & RadioActiveX (check out
Fred McLain's 'Exploder' and 'Runner' controls for the latter). "But you can
turn on all security options." Yeah, but a) not everyone knows that and b)
M$ and N$ have shown us that they know how to implement so-called bugs that
allow to circumvent them. Every 2 months, M$ gives us a new buffer overflow
error. AND, last but not least, according to statistics for example of my
own website, only very few people use the latest browser versions. Most
still have versions with documented bugs in them. And the others have those
with undocumented bugs.

Fuck it, HTML in e-mail is a no-no.

>> >I'd thought that the umlauts in german can be swapped for a following
>> Exactly, I'd just like this to be the standard. When I write an article
>> send it via mail, I have to use either HTML or zipped 8-bit ASCII because
>> otherwise the recipient would have to re-convert all the umlauts (cannot
>> done automatically) in order to publish it.
>When you write to someone who doesn't speak german, only english, you write
>english, right?

Right, but I don't understand your point.

Erik Moeller