Re: [anti-spam-wg] Imaged spam

[peter h peter@localhost]

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. )