* * * * *
This is EMAIL, not FTP …
The consensus on the mailing list from yesturday [1] about Reply-To: munging
is that Reply-To: is The Right Thing. The list is back to the old behavior
and everyone has stopped complaining.
The topic now (very light traffic on this) is the removal of HTML in email.
Or rather, HTML and attachments altogether, which I am in full agreement
with. Attachments are evil (heck, MIME is eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil but
that's another rant); the worst I saw (when I worked at an ISP) was some guy
who blew his disk quota by sending not only the files he was working on, but
the **application** as well, so he could work on them from home.
The ISP allows 10M of disk space, which is quite generous for email (for the
record, I currently have 14M of email saved (everything I write gets saved
just in case) and it works out to 3,457 messages (or an average of 4k per
message and yes, a lot of those can be deleted).
Anyway, one of the requests, from Peter Turnbull, was:
> My request-for-enhancement is:
>
> > “do something” about HTML, or better still, “do something” about any
> > “multipart/alternative” posting (which would include M$ richtext, with
> > those application/ms-tnef attachments).
> >
>
> Options I can think of:
>
> a) silently discard any such postings (probably not a good idea)
> b) bounce them back to the author, with an explanation of why bounced
> c) remove the non-text part
> d) combination of (b) and (c)
> e) accept, but warn the author (who may not realise (s)he's sent HTML)
>
Can't argue with those.
[1]
gopher://gopher.conman.org/1Phlog:2000/02/03
Email author at
[email protected]
