On Wed, 23 Jan 2002 20:09:27 GMT, you wrote:

>Nicholas Irias wrote...
>
>>I always send plain text because I know some people hate html.  But I =
am
>>wondering why html is a problem.  Dont all modern e-mail apps eat html?
>
>One compelling reason for using a more disciplined e-mail client (i.e.,
>one that does not automatically process and present HTML or attachments)
>is immunity from viruses.
>
>I use Agent,=20
Me too!
>a five-year-old combination e-mail/news program (still
>quite popular) that handles only plain text.  Any attachments (including
>HTML) are shown as icons after the text message body, if any; and I can
>launch them or save them if I wish by right-clicking on them and
>selecting the desired operation.  But Agent will absolutely NOT launch
>anything, no matter how simple, on its own.
..but if you do 'reply' to an HTML message it will usually display the
text - a useful way of looking at a message without the risk of IE
taking you somewhere you don't want to go!
=20
>What this means for me is no cute sounds; no cute pictures; no cute
>animations; and no cute viruses. =20
..and there aren't enough users out there for anyone to look for any
buffer-overrun type vulnerabilities!
>Those "modern" e-mail applications provide all kinds of cuteness
>features, but in doing so they present a target for mischief that's as
>wide as a barn door.
Absolutely!

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.