Jargons of Info Tech industry

[Xah Lee]

Jargons of Info Tech industry

(A Love of Jargons)

Xah Lee, 2002 Feb

People in the computing field like to spur the use of spurious jargons.
The less educated they are, the more they like extraneous jargons, such
as in the Unix & Perl community. Unlike mathematicians, where in
mathematics there are no fewer jargons but each and every one are
absolutely necessary. For example, polytope, manifold,
injection/bijection/surjection, group/ring/field.., homological,
projective, pencil, bundle, lattice, affine, topology, isomorphism,
isometry, homeomorphism, aleph-0, fractal, supremum/infimum, simplex,
matrix, quaternions, derivative/integral, ... and so on. Each and every
one of these captures a concept, for which practical and theoretical
considerations made the terms a necessity. Often there are synonyms for
them because of historical developments, but never “jargons for
jargon's sake� because mathematicians hate bloats and irrelevance.

The jargon-soaked stupidity in computing field can be grouped into
classes. First of all, there are jargons for marketing purposes. Thus
you have Mac OS “X�, Windows “XP�, Sun OS to Solaris and the
versioning confusion of 4.x to 7 to 8 and also the so called
“Platform� instead of OS. One flagrant example is Sun Microsystem's
Java stuff. Oak, Java, JDK, JSDK, J2EE, J2SE enterprise edition or no,
from java 1.x to 1.2 == Java 2 now 1.3, JavaOne, JFC, Jini, JavaBeans,
entity Beans, Awk, Swing... fucking stupid Java and fuck Sun
Microsystems. This is just one example of Jargon hodgepodge of one
single commercial entity. Marketing jargons cannot be avoided in modern
society. They abound outside computing field too. The Jargons of
marketing came from business practice, and they can be excusable
because they are kinda a necessity or can be considered as a naturally
evolved strategy for attracting attention in a laissez-faire economy
system.

The other class of jargon stupidity is from computing practitioners, of
which the Unix/Perl community is exemplary. For example, the name Unix
& Perl themselves are good examples of buzzing jargons. Unix is
supposed to be opposed of Multics and hints on the offensive and
tasteless term eunuchs. PERL is cooked up to be “Practical Extraction
& Reporting Language� and for the precise marketing drama of being
also “Pathologically Eclectic Rubbish Lister�. These types of
jargons exudes juvenile humor. Cheesiness and low-taste is their
hall-mark. If you are familiar with unixism and perl programing, you'll
find tons and tons of such jargons embraced and verbalized by unix &
perl lovers. e.g. grep, glob, shell, pipe, man, regex, more, less,
tarball, shebang, Schwartzian Transform, croak, bless, interpolation,
TIMTOWTDI, DWIM, RFC, RTFM, I-ANAL, YMMV and so on.

There is another class of jargon moronicity, which i find them most
damaging to society, are jargons or spurious and vague terms used and
brandished about by programers that we see and hear daily among design
meetings, online tech group postings, or even in lots of computing
textbooks or tutorials. I think the reason for these, is that these
massive body of average programers usually don't have much knowledge of
significant mathematics, yet they are capable of technical thinking
that is not too abstract, thus you ends up with these people defining
or hatching terms a-dime-a-dozen that's vague, context dependent,
vacuous, and their commonality are often a result of sopho-morons
trying to sound big.

Here are some examples of the terms in question:

• anonymous functions or lambda or lamba function
• closure
• exceptions (as in Java)
• list, array, vector, aggregate
• hash (or hash table) � fantastically stupid
• rehash (as in csh or tcsh)
• regular expression (as in regex, grep, egrep, fgrep)
• name space (as in Scheme vs Common Lisp debates)
• depth first/breadth first (as in tree traversing.)
• operator
• operator overloading
• polymorphism
• inheritance
• first class objects
• pointers, references
• tail recursion

My time is limited, so i'll just give a brief explanation of my thesis
on selective few of these examples among the umpteen.

In a branch of math called lambda calculus, in which much theories of
computation are based on, is the origin of the jargon _lambda function_
that is so frequently reciprocated by advanced programering donkeys. In
practice, a subroutine without side-effects is supposed to be what
“lambda function� means. Functional languages often can define them
without assigning them to some variable (name), therefore the
“function without side-effects� are also called “anonymous
functions�. One can see that these are two distinct concepts. If
mathematicians are designing computer languages, they would probably
just called such thing _pure functions_. The term conveys the meaning,
without the “lamba� abstruseness. (in fact, the mathematics
oriented language Mathematica refers to lambda function as pure
function, with the keyword Function.) Because most programers are
sopho-morons who are less capable of clear thinking but nevertheless
possess human vanity, we can see that they have not adopted the clear
and fitting term, but instead you see lambda function this and that
obfuscations dropping from their mouths constantly.

Now the term “closure� can and indeed have meant several things in
the computing field. The most common is for it to mean a subroutine
that holds some memory but without some disadvantages of modifying a
global variable. Usually such is a feature of a programing language.
When taken to extreme, we have the what's called Object Oriented
Programing methodology and languages. The other meaning of
“closure� i have seen in text books, is for it to indicate that the
things in the language is “closed� under the operations of the
language. For example, for some languages you can apply operations or
subroutines to any thing in the language. (These languages are often
what's called “dynamic typing� or “typeless�). However, in
other languages, things have types and cannot be passed around
subroutines or operators arbitrarily. One can see that the term
“closure� is quite vague in conveying its meaning. The term
nevertheless is very popular among talkative programers and dense
tutorials, precisely because it is vague and mysterious. These
pseudo-wit living zombies, never thought for a moment that they are
using a moronic term, mostly because they never clearly understand the
concepts behind the term among the contexts. One can particular see
this exhibition among Perl programers. (for an example of the
fantastically stupid write-up on closure by the Perl folks, see
“perldoc perlfaq7� and “perldoc perlref�.)

in the so-called “high-level� computing languages, there are often
data types that's some kind of a collection. The most illustrative is
LISt Processing language's lists. Essentially, the essential concept is
that the language can treat a collection of things as if it's a single
entity. As computer languages evolve, such collection entity feature
also diversified, from syntax to semantics to implementation. Thus,
beside lists, there are also terms like vector, array, matrix, tree,
hash/“hash table�/dictionary. Often each particular term isto
convey a particular implementation of collection so that it has certain
properties to facilitate specialized uses of such groupy. The Java
language has such groupy that can illustrate the point well. In Java,
there are these hierarchy of collection-type of things:

Collection
Set (AbstractSet, HashSet)
SortedSet (TreeSet)
List (AbstractList, LinkedList, Vector, ArrayList)

Map (AbstractMap, HashMap, Hashtable)
SortedMap (TreeMap)

The words without parenthesis are Java Interfaces, and ones in are
implementations. The interface hold a concept. The deeper the level,
the more specific or specialized. The implementation carry out
concepts. Different implementation gives different algorithmic
properties. Essentially, these hierarchies of Java show the potential
complexity and confusion around groupy entities in computer languages.
Now, among the programers we see daily, who never really thought out of
these things, will attach their own specific meaning to
list/array/vector/matrix/etc type of jargons in driveling and
arguments, oblivious to any thought of formalizing what the fuck they
are really talking about. (one may think from the above tree-diagram
that Java the language has at least put clear distinction to interface
and implementation, whereas in my opinion they are one fantastic fuck
up too, in many respects.)

---------------------
This post is archived at
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/jargons.html
© Copyright 2002 by Xah Lee.

Xah
xa*@xahlee.org
∑ http://xahlee.org/

[Mike Meyer]

Roedy Green <my******************************@munged.invalid > writes:

On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 09:38:49 +1000, Steven D'Aprano
<st***@REMOVETHIScyber.com.au> wrote or quoted :

Yes it is. HTML means that after I've specified my email client use my
favourite font, in the size I like, people send me emails that over-ride
my choice. Invariably they use a font I don't even have.

I would suggest then a better solution is to implement CSS in email,
the way you do in browsers to deal with that same problem.

The only way I've seen a browser fix this is to ignore the clients CSS
completely. That breaks a lot of HTML, becuase CSS has turned "tag
soup" authors into "div soup" authors.

If you've got a browser with a better solution, what's the browser,
and what's the solution?

<mike
--
Mike Meyer <mw*@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.

[Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen]

Mike Meyer wrote:

If you've got a browser with a better solution, what's the browser,
and what's the solution?

There is no single solution.

On one side you got control freaks who condemn everyone who dares send
an email with something other than what you've got your own email set up
to use. "You dare specify the font sized when I finally figured out that
10 is just right? Infidel!"

On the other side you got people who would like to have slightly more
control over their email formatting than the ability to hit enter to
denote a line break. "Whaddya mean I can't specify bold text to
emphasize a point?"

As long as you got something called a feature, there will always be
people who will be able to abuse it.

Now, if you want to get into a big huff because someone you knows use a
font that is "slightly oversized" because of Windows, then I think you
missed the point of the email altogether, which was probably to convey a
message.

Just the same as people that sends bright red text on green background
seems to miss the whole issue of "appropriate".

It doesn't matter what is used, decided, controlled, allowed, removed,
whatever. Some people will always like it, some will hate it, some will
abuse it, but most of all there will always be people that will discuss it.

Hopefully most people will use it for what it is.

In any case, html email is here to stay. Or perhaps I should remove html
and say "richly formatted", whatever that might mean in the future.

But trying to keep your email world into a pure text-based
no-formatting-whatsoever world, that's a fantasy bubble that is bound to
burst, sooner rather than later.

Deal with it.

--
Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen
http://usinglvkblog.blogspot.com/
mailto:la***@vkarlsen.no
PGP KeyID: 0x2A42A1C2

[Mike Meyer]

Roedy Green <my******************************@munged.invalid > writes:

On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 17:57:13 -0000, go***********@burditt.org (Gordon
Burditt) wrote or quoted :

HTML enables a heck of a lot of problems: "web bugs" in email,
links to fake sites that appear as real ones in what shows up
on the screen, Javascript viruses, denial-of-service attacks
(pages that open two windows when you close one), etc.

That is like hating all choirs because televangelists use them.
I liken it more to hating all viruses because some of them
install keyloggers.

I take it then you avoid browsers or use Lynx?

It's not quite that bad. You run multiple browsers: your default
browser turns off all the crap that can run code on your machine. You
use a second browser that has most of that turned on, and bookmark the
sites that need those features that you now trust. Maybe your browser
lets you have multiple profiles, in which case you can use those
instead of multiple browsers. Unless your goat browser is IE (or
Mozilla on Unix), you should keep a copy of IE (Mozilla on Unix)
around, with an untouched configuration, for the sites that either
enforce their belief that they only work on IE, or are one of those
rare sats where correctly believe that. Finally, you configure your
mail and news readers to *not* decode MIME messages unless given an
explicit command to do so.

I understand some browsers now let you enable dangers features on a
site-by-site basis. I'll check those out one of these days.

FWIW, I like w3m as a default browser, because it has the ability to
launch external browsers on a page or link.
No you FIX the problems rather than wear a hair shirt. Same for
email. Why should rich expressions only be permitted to those with
websites.
The technial problems have been solved for over a decade. NeXT shipped
systems that used text/richtext, which has none of the problems that
HTML has. The problems are *social* - you've got to arrange for
people to use mail/news readers that understand a rich text format
that isn't a vector for viruses.
Some people use email PRIMARILY for sharing photos.

That doesn't take HTML. I get - and send - pictures via email all the
time, with nary a tag of HTML in sight.

<mike
--
Mike Meyer <mw*@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.

[Roedy Green]

On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 17:57:13 -0000, go***********@burditt.org (Gordon
Burditt) wrote or quoted :

HTML enables a heck of a lot of problems: "web bugs" in email,
links to fake sites that appear as real ones in what shows up
on the screen, Javascript viruses, denial-of-service attacks
(pages that open two windows when you close one), etc.

Just how long do you want to stall evolution? Do you imagine people
200 years from now will be still be using pure ASCII text unable to
find a solution to JavaScript viruses (turn off JS), pop-up( disable
popups) etc.?
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Again taking new Java programming contracts.

[Roedy Green]

On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 17:41:38 -0400, Mike Meyer <mw*@mired.org> wrote
or quoted :

If you've got a browser with a better solution, what's the browser,
and what's the solution?

Try Opera. You can merge the two.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Again taking new Java programming contracts.

[Roedy Green]

On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 00:03:05 +0200, Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen
<la***@vkarlsen.no> wrote or quoted :

On one side you got control freaks who condemn everyone who dares send
an email with something other than what you've got your own email set up
to use. "You dare specify the font sized when I finally figured out that
10 is just right? Infidel!"

This is one of the marvels of CSS once you get the hang of it. If you
don't like bright red letters on green backgrounds, you can CHANGE
that. You can change the fonts, sizes etc etc. You can if you want get
something very like plain ASCII text.

So from an aesthetic point of view, once people learn how it works,
CSS lets sender and receiver compromise on what the message looks
like. No other medium gives ANY control to the receiver about how a
message is formatted.

One of the most important changes in the ability to select special
fonts for the those without prefect vision and larger fonts.

There is also the philosophical question. When my nephew sends me a
message, do I have a right to warp his intent even if I don't like the
aesthetics? That is part of his message.

Should my email reader fix the spelling mistakes in the emails sent me
by angry US soldiers? Or is that part of the message?

There are three different issues getting muddled together:

1. avoiding spam

2. making mail from well meaning but inept friends more readable.

3. what constitutes a good general style for general correspondence.
How should you use rich text appropriately.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Again taking new Java programming contracts.

[John Bokma]

Roedy Green <my******************************@munged.invalid > wrote:

On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 17:57:13 -0000, go***********@burditt.org (Gordon
Burditt) wrote or quoted :

HTML enables a heck of a lot of problems: "web bugs" in email,
links to fake sites that appear as real ones in what shows up
on the screen, Javascript viruses, denial-of-service attacks
(pages that open two windows when you close one), etc.

Just how long do you want to stall evolution? Do you imagine people
200 years from now will be still be using pure ASCII text unable to
find a solution to JavaScript viruses (turn off JS), pop-up( disable
popups) etc.?

I've already the impression that a lot of people are moving from email to
IM. I prefer email, but some of my customers prefer IM.

Also, with Unicode support in a plain text environment it's also possible
to make links to fake sites. It's even possible with pure ASCII I mean:

HTTP://WWW.G00GLE.COM/ or even: http://www.goog1e.com/.

--
John Small Perl scripts: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Perl programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
I ploink googlegroups.com :-)

[Rich Teer]

On Sat, 8 Oct 2005, Roedy Green wrote:

Some people use email PRIMARILY for sharing photos.
WHat the hell has that got to do with HTML email? Sending photos
is an example of what attachments are for.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Again taking new Java programming contracts.

--
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member

President,
Rite Online Inc.

Voice: [phone]
URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich

[Rich Teer]

On Sun, 9 Oct 2005, Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen wrote:

But trying to keep your email world into a pure text-based
no-formatting-whatsoever world, that's a fantasy bubble that is bound to
burst, sooner rather than later.

Not here. I've configured my email server to reject HTML emails
before I even see them, and more often tham not I'll delete any
others that sneak through the gate.

If people want me to read their email, they should send it to me
in an open, universal format, which for email is plain text. It's
as simple as that.

--
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member

President,
Rite Online Inc.

Voice: [phone]
URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich

[John Bokma]

Rich Teer <ri*******@rite-group.com> wrote:

On Sat, 8 Oct 2005, Roedy Green wrote:

Some people use email PRIMARILY for sharing photos.
WHat the hell has that got to do with HTML email?

The photo doesn't have to be included (as in attached)? with the email?
Sending photos
is an example of what attachments are for.

Yeah, yeah, and 640K is enough for everybody. Same song, different tune.

--
John Small Perl scripts: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Perl programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
I ploink googlegroups.com :-)

[John Bokma]

Rich Teer <ri*******@rite-group.com> wrote:

On Sun, 9 Oct 2005, Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen wrote:

But trying to keep your email world into a pure text-based
no-formatting-whatsoever world, that's a fantasy bubble that is bound to
burst, sooner rather than later.
Not here. I've configured my email server to reject HTML emails
before I even see them, and more often tham not I'll delete any
others that sneak through the gate.

Good for you. If I do that, I lose some customers. Your private war is a
joke, and one day you'll wake up. What a waste of energy.
If people want me to read their email, they should send it to me
in an open, universal format, which for email is plain text. It's
as simple as that.

Is Unicode allowed, or is 7 bit ASCII the only right way?

--
John Small Perl scripts: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Perl programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
I ploink googlegroups.com :-)

[Mike Meyer]

Roedy Green <my******************************@munged.invalid > writes:

On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 17:41:38 -0400, Mike Meyer <mw*@mired.org> wrote
or quoted :

If you've got a browser with a better solution, what's the browser,
and what's the solution?

Try Opera. You can merge the two.

Merge the two CSS files? Most browsers do that - that's why they call
them "cascading" style sheets. Got a sample style sheet that you use
that prevernts authors from overriding things?

For the font size problem, Camino has a simple solution: a "minimum
size" for fonts. That's why it's my default OS X browser (well, that
and that Terminal sucks as a scripting tool). I'm not sure you can do
that with CSS.

<mike
--
Mike Meyer <mw*@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.

[Mike Meyer]

Roedy Green <my******************************@munged.invalid > writes:

This is one of the marvels of CSS once you get the hang of it. If you
don't like bright red letters on green backgrounds, you can CHANGE
that. You can change the fonts, sizes etc etc. You can if you want get
something very like plain ASCII text.
Show us *examples*! Do you create a style sheet for every site you
visit that overrides there classes? What?
So from an aesthetic point of view, once people learn how it works,
CSS lets sender and receiver compromise on what the message looks
like. No other medium gives ANY control to the receiver about how a
message is formatted.
Sorry, but that's bullshit. The receiver controls the viewer software,
and hence ultimately has complete control over *everything*. If I use
ghostscript as the viewer for ps and pdf files, I can install font map
files to replace all the standardd sans serif fonts with serifed
fonts, and so on. Some viewer applications may require editing the
magic .c, .cpp, etc. configuration files, but that's possible so long
as you're sending something other than pictures of words.
There is also the philosophical question. When my nephew sends me a
message, do I have a right to warp his intent even if I don't like the
aesthetics? That is part of his message.
If HTML is a medium, only someone really ignorant of the medium will
think that their presentation is preserved. As has been pointed out,
moving the file from Windows to other platforms changes the font
sizes. The physical monitor size, the screen size, the readers window
size, the dpi on the monitor, even the color depth on low-end devices
all change the presentation. The fonts you use may not be installed on
the recipients platform - I particularly like the idea that if you use
a font installed by some application, the only person who'll see it
the way you intended is the guy who bought the other copy of that
application.

So what you're really asking is if you have the right to read his
message on anything but his favorite rendering agent configured the
way he likees it, on his favorite computer configured the way he likes
it.
Should my email reader fix the spelling mistakes in the emails sent me
by angry US soldiers? Or is that part of the message?
I say let Harlan Ellison decide.
There are three different issues getting muddled together:

1. avoiding spam
I think what you mean here is "avoiding malware". Spam should be dealt
with before it gets to your mail reader.
2. making mail from well meaning but inept friends more readable.

3. what constitutes a good general style for general correspondence.
How should you use rich text appropriately.

Well, if you want your presentation preserved, you don't send rich
text, you send pictures of words.

<mike
--
Mike Meyer <mw*@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.

[Paul Boddie]

Roedy Green wrote:

Just how long do you want to stall evolution? Do you imagine people
200 years from now will be still be using pure ASCII text unable to
find a solution to JavaScript viruses (turn off JS), pop-up( disable
popups) etc.?

People in their sky-cars turning off JavaScript in their browsers: what
a thought!

But to suggest a seemingly endless list of "user customisations" to
prevent heightened exposure to irritating advertisers, phishing
attempts, malware and so on is to miss the point, just as Bill Gates
smugly does so (and I say this at the risk of sounding like a certain
other "contributor" to this newsgroup) by saying that computer software
isn't good enough and could be better/more secure/more stable, despite
running a software monopoly for the past decade or so and having an
unparalleled opportunity to do something about the situation instead of
just "milking it".

Every so often, discussions like these remind me of some ancient work I
once did on the topic of avoiding some of the issues raised by mobile
code and mobile content. Despite the likes of Mr Gates who will
probably try and persuade you that we're on the cutting edge
(presumably before demanding a premium to "sort it all out"), many of
the issues have been known about for a good while. Of course, that
doesn't mean that the software industry is in any hurry to do anything
about it.

Paul

[Matt Garrish]

"John Bokma" <jo**@castleamber.com> wrote in message
news:Xn*************************@130.133.1.4...

Rich Teer <ri*******@rite-group.com> wrote:

On Sun, 9 Oct 2005, Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen wrote:

But trying to keep your email world into a pure text-based
no-formatting-whatsoever world, that's a fantasy bubble that is bound to
burst, sooner rather than later.

Not here. I've configured my email server to reject HTML emails
before I even see them, and more often tham not I'll delete any
others that sneak through the gate.

Good for you. If I do that, I lose some customers. Your private war is a
joke, and one day you'll wake up. What a waste of energy.

LOL! Maybe this inane thread can finally die now...

Matt

[Paul Rubin]

Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen <la***@vkarlsen.no> writes:

But trying to keep your email world into a pure text-based
no-formatting-whatsoever world, that's a fantasy bubble that is bound
to burst, sooner rather than later.

I read mail over an ssh connection to a Unix shell. I have no easy
way to read html email with a graphics browser. I occasionally get
html email that I want to read. I save it in a file and read it with
lynx, which so far works perfectly well. I find html email to be a
PITA and as someone else said, html in email is an almost sure sign
that it's a message that I want to trash without reading it. But for
the rare exceptions, lynx as far as I know is 100% w3 standards
compliant, and it's plain text (and it works on terminals with no font
control) . So there's no incompatibility between html and pure
text-based display.

[Mike Meyer]

Paul Rubin <http://ph****@NOSPAM.invalid> writes:

I read mail over an ssh connection to a Unix shell. I have no easy
way to read html email with a graphics browser.
You don't need a grahics browser - you just need a browser. I read
mail in emacs, and use emacs-w3m to view html in the mailer. Works for
most things, and doesn't have the nasty side effect of letting the
sender know I read it by fetching images from their web site.
I occasionally get html email that I want to read. I save it in a
file and read it with lynx, which so far works perfectly well. I
find html email to be a PITA and as someone else said, html in email
is an almost sure sign that it's a message that I want to trash
without reading it.

Unfortunately, I've found that HTML email comes in two flavors: That
which sets content-type to text/html in the headers, and that which
sets it to some form of multipart in the headers. I used to bounce all
mail of either form. Then I discovered that the AOL client - used by
my relatives - could *not* be set to not send HTML email. At least it
sends text/plain as well. On investigation, most legit email does
sends multipart/mixed, so I only reject mail whose sole content is
text/html.

<mike
--
Mike Meyer <mw*@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.

[Paul Rubin]

Mike Meyer <mw*@mired.org> writes:

I read mail over an ssh connection to a Unix shell. I have no easy
way to read html email with a graphics browser.

You don't need a grahics browser - you just need a browser.

Right, precisely. I use lynx, as I explained. It renders the html as
plain text and doesn't violate any standards by doing so. The html is
nothing but a pain in the neck that lynx removes, so they may as well
send text email in the first place. Lynx shows that all the fancy
html formatting crap is just advisory at best. It's perfectly fine
for a browser to ignore it.

[Gordon Burditt]

>>HTML enables a heck of a lot of problems: "web bugs" in email,

links to fake sites that appear as real ones in what shows up
on the screen, Javascript viruses, denial-of-service attacks
(pages that open two windows when you close one), etc.

That is like hating all choirs because televangelists use them.
I liken it more to hating all viruses because some of them
install keyloggers.

I take it then you avoid browsers or use Lynx?

Last time I checked, it was impossible to send me an unsolicited
web site. It is trivial, however, to send unsolicited email or
post unsolicited articles on USENET.

No, I don't trust Lynx to read email or USENET articles.
No you FIX the
problems
And how do you fix the problem of unsolicited USENET articles?
(*ALL* of them are unsolicited to someone). Or unsolicited
email?
rather than wear a hair shirt. Same for email. Why should
rich expressions only be permitted to those with websites.
Web sites can't send you stuff unsolicited, and most of them have
enough stake in their reputation to keep the obnoxious stuff off
of them, since if they have viruses chances are you can't trust
buying anything from them. "web bugs" aren't a problem with web
sites since the server logs log *all* the hits, and they don't have
to use hidden ones. And I don't visit web sites without a good
reason to do so (that excludes seeing the URL in some SPAM). Oh,
yes, and Javascript is turned off.
Some people use email PRIMARILY for sharing photos.

And what does sharing photos (attachments) have to do with HTML?
USENET text groups are not the appropriate place for photos.

Gordon L. Burditt

[Roedy Green]

On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 23:33:13 GMT, Rich Teer <ri*******@rite-group.com>
wrote or quoted :

WHat the hell has that got to do with HTML email? Sending photos
is an example of what attachments are for.

Normally you send photos to grandma with captions under each photo.
That is far more convenient for the technopeasant receiver than
dealing with multiple attachments.

People keep thinking of email as a techie preserve.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Again taking new Java programming contracts.

[Roedy Green]

On 8 Oct 2005 23:39:27 GMT, John Bokma <jo**@castleamber.com> wrote or
quoted :

Yeah, yeah, and 640K is enough for everybody. Same song, different tune.

For how long. Surely attachments are a stop gap. Can you imagine
people sharing images that way 100 years from now?

Why should we wait for the future? The problems blocking easy to use
photo sharing are not technological but social.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Again taking new Java programming contracts.

[Roedy Green]

On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 04:44:25 -0000, go***********@burditt.org (Gordon
Burditt) wrote or quoted :

And how do you fix the problem of unsolicited USENET articles?
(*ALL* of them are unsolicited to someone). Or unsolicited
email?

Read my essay.
http://mindprod.com/projects.html/ma...ewsreader.html

I talk around those problems.

It requires a fresh start.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Again taking new Java programming contracts.

[Roedy Green]

On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 19:56:50 -0400, Mike Meyer <mw*@mired.org> wrote
or quoted :

Show us *examples*! Do you create a style sheet for every site you
visit that overrides there classes? What?

Why don't you download a copy of Opera, see
http://mindprod.com/jgloss/opera.html

Then try out the feature. Click View | style | user
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Again taking new Java programming contracts.

[Roedy Green]

On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 23:35:40 GMT, Rich Teer <ri*******@rite-group.com>
wrote or quoted :

If people want me to read their email, they should send it to me
in an open, universal format, which for email is plain text. It's
as simple as that.

This is pulling a King Canute. There is not even a mechanism in email
protocols to warn your correspondents of your demand. I have been
bugging Eudora for years for at least a bit in the address book to
record the recipient's preference for plain or formatted emails. They
have so far ignored me.

There is nothing wrong with formatted text. You are confusing
formatted text with spam.

You think you hated formatted text, but you really hate spam.

If your lover sent you a message with photo, and even musical
accompaniment, I doubt you would feel offended. It is the CONTENT
bugging you, not the HTML.

You imagine that the two are inexplicably linked. That is just because
the technology is immature. There is no fundamental reason that
formatted spam should have an easier time penetrating your defenses
than plain text spam. I am using Spamnix. It think it leaks about
50/50 formatted and plain text spam.

Eudora warns you of deceptive links in HTML. There are many more such
things that have yet to be done to deal with malicious emails. I
think we should focus on those rather than reverting to the days of
the TTY.I don't think it would buy you much. Formatted emails can't
hurt you if you don't allow them to automatically run any code. It is
unfair to blame formatting for the foolish practice off allowing
untrusted code to run without even an ok. They have nothing to do
with each other.

--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Again taking new Java programming contracts.

[Roedy Green]

On 08 Oct 2005 18:59:39 -0700, Paul Rubin
<http://ph****@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote or quoted :

I read mail over an ssh connection to a Unix shell. I have no easy
way to read html email with a graphics browser.

So the rest of the world should forgo rich communication because of
your obsolete software? How could anything every evolve with that
attitude?
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Again taking new Java programming contracts.

[David H Wild]

In article <1p********************************@4ax.com>,
Roedy Green <my******************************@munged.invalid > wrote:

I take it then you avoid browsers or use Lynx? No you FIX the
problems rather than wear a hair shirt. Same for email. Why should
rich expressions only be permitted to those with websites.

Between consenting adults, yes, but for general use **in emails**, no.
Some people use email PRIMARILY for sharing photos.

I do, frequently, without any need for HTML.

--
David Wild using RISC OS on broadband

[Dr.Ruud]

Mike Meyer:

Paul Rubin:

I read mail over an ssh connection to a Unix shell. I have no easy
way to read html email with a graphics browser.

You don't need a grahics browser - you just need a browser. I read
mail in emacs, and use emacs-w3m to view html in the mailer. Works for
most things, and doesn't have the nasty side effect of letting the
sender know I read it by fetching images from their web site.

I occasionally get html email that I want to read. I save it in a
file and read it with lynx, which so far works perfectly well. I
find html email to be a PITA and as someone else said, html in email
is an almost sure sign that it's a message that I want to trash
without reading it.

Unfortunately, I've found that HTML email comes in two flavors: That
which sets content-type to text/html in the headers, and that which
sets it to some form of multipart in the headers. I used to bounce all
mail of either form. Then I discovered that the AOL client - used by
my relatives - could *not* be set to not send HTML email. At least it
sends text/plain as well. On investigation, most legit email does
sends multipart/mixed, so I only reject mail whose sole content is
text/html.

Let procmail make all those decisions and transformations for you.

I have a maildir called 'raw' where I keep a copy of all non-spammish
mail.

Copies of the same messages also get delivered in the right mailboxes,
by procmail.
A message that contains only html, is piped though lynx -dump -stdin.
A message containing both HTML and a plain/text-part, is de-mime-d,
leaving only the plain/text-part (unless that part contains only a silly
remark).
Footers and long signatures are limited or even deleted. Etc., etc. (I
like my mail cooked.)

One of the reasons that I started with Perl, is that I want to rewrite
procmail in Perl.

--
Affijn, Ruud <http://www.pandora.com/?sc=sh770781&cmd=tunermini>

"Gewoon is een tijger."

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 20:43:12 +0000, Roedy Green wrote:

I liken it more to hating all viruses because some of them
install keyloggers.
I take it then you avoid browsers or use Lynx? No you FIX the
problems rather than wear a hair shirt.

No, I avoid browsers that are broken, e.g. those that have ActiveX. If
people send a link to a website that includes ActiveX, then no matter how
great the advantages, the disadvantages are more.

Likewise I avoid emails that are broken. If it looks like it will contain
web-bugs, javascript exploits, or badly formatted unreadable text, then I
avoid any mail client that can't display it in plain text.

And by "looks like", I mean "contains any HTML".
Same for email. Why should
rich expressions only be permitted to those with websites.
Because the disadvantages of HTML email are greater than the advantages.
If people mail me HTML mail, I make a snap judgement -- trash it or read
it? It is usually trash it. There are only so many emails with purple text
on indigo backgrounds that a man can read before deciding that the
tasteless, clueless masses should never been given the ability to format
text.
Some people use email PRIMARILY for sharing photos.

Which you can do by attaching the photo to the email. Even mutt or pine
can attach binary files to an email.
--
Steven.

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 20:44:12 +0000, Roedy Green wrote:

On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 09:38:49 +1000, Steven D'Aprano
<st***@REMOVETHIScyber.com.au> wrote or quoted :

Yes it is. HTML means that after I've specified my email client use my
favourite font, in the size I like, people send me emails that over-ride
my choice. Invariably they use a font I don't even have.

I would suggest then a better solution is to implement CSS in email,
the way you do in browsers to deal with that same problem.

Are you volunteering? Good. Let me know when your done, I'd love to see it.

In the meantime, I'll continue viewing emails in plain text, and if they
contain HTML I'll choose for myself whether to render it, or trash it, or
manually read through the code looking for content.
--
Steven.

[Mike Meyer]

Roedy Green <my******************************@munged.invalid > writes:

On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 04:44:25 -0000, go***********@burditt.org (Gordon
Burditt) wrote or quoted :

And how do you fix the problem of unsolicited USENET articles?
(*ALL* of them are unsolicited to someone). Or unsolicited
email?
Read my essay.
http://mindprod.com/projects.html/ma...ewsreader.html

I talk around those problems.

Actually, you present a design that forces a solution that makes them
do what you want down their throats, never mind what they want, or
what they've been doing. It shows an amazing ignorance about the
internet and how people behave on it. Like most antispam proposals, it
won't actually stop spam, just force spammers to concentrate on
different channels. You seem to have randomly broken quoting for
people who download mail and read it offline, and for any medium
that's unreliable or doesn't reliably deliver messages "in order" -
which includes mail and news. Virus writers will love the ability to
change peoples address books remotely. The problem of differing
character sets is technically solved. Practically, the solution
doesn't work because people implementing the software ignore the
standards. What's your server going to do when it gets messages with
characters in them that aren't valid in the charset that it's declared
as being? Better yet, what's it going to do when the characters are
valid, but the declared charset isn't the one the author actually
used? You implementation sketch only covers the client talking to the
first server (in that it requires the client to encrypt a challange
phrase with the private key belonging the email id, which is
presumably what 2822 uses for the envelope sender). Most mail on the
internet goes through at least two servers, and news is much
worse. For instance, your messages apparently passed through 10
servers getting to me. You really have to deal with store and forward,
or convince a large number of corporations that potentially hostile
users should be allowed to talk directly to their mail servers, which
isn't very likely. Kudos for recognizing that spam needs to be dealt
with by people with guns, but you lose half of them for making ISPS
liable for it.

I also read the comment about wanting an automated "Ask them to run my
browser in my favorite configuration", which is equally naive. A lot
of sites have such cruft on them already. I find them funny - I surf
the web on three different platforms, none of them Windows. Any
pointer to download a new browser or plugin for Windows just impresses
me with the authors lack of skills. The only browser I know of that
runs on all three platforms is Opera, and it's something radically
different on one of the three. Even should you get the platform right,
almost nobody is going to bother upgrading following the download
links. The very small percentage of users who are real geeks will
silently thank you for the notice, and update their software. Most
users will ignore it so long as the page isn't obviously broken. For
those for whom it's broken, all but small percentage will simply find
some other site to visit. I'd suggest that anyone thinking about writing
It requires a fresh start.

You think you're the only person - and probably not the first - to
propose such? People a lot smarter than either of us, with a lot more
pull and a lot more reason to want it to happen have worked on this -
and it ain't happened yet. I wouldn't bet on it happening anytime
soon.

<mike
--
Mike Meyer <mw*@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 20:44:44 +0000, Roedy Green wrote:

On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 09:38:49 +1000, Steven D'Aprano
<st***@REMOVETHIScyber.com.au> wrote or quoted :

Even more invariably, they set the point size directly rather than in
relative terms, and they are on Windows, where point sizes are about 20%
oversized.

that is like giving up Java because there was a bug in the Windows
JVM. FIX THE BUG.

Only Microsoft can do that. They designed their font system in such a way
that it ignored real typesetters measurements, probably so it would be
deliberately incompatible with font sizes on the Mac. Either that or just
through incompetence. Now, it is almost certainly unfixable in Win9x and
XP -- it would break too many people's Word documents and web pages.
Microsoft could maybe fix it in Vista, if they care too. As if it matters
what they put in Vista.

But that isn't going to stop lusers setting the font size to 5pt or 55pt
just because they think it is kewl. Until we can send fatal electric
shocks through the Internet, there is little we can do to stop that.
--
Steven.

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 00:03:05 +0200, Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen wrote:

Now, if you want to get into a big huff because someone you knows use a
font that is "slightly oversized" because of Windows, then I think you
missed the point of the email altogether, which was probably to convey a
message.

Talk about missing the point, pun intended. The point isn't that there is
some tiny difference in font sizes. It is that small font sizes which are
just readable under Windows are unreadably small on Linux and Mac.

If you want to convey a message, it helps if the recipient can actually
read the damn thing without having to get out a magnifying glass.
--
Steven.

[Steven D'Aprano]

Oh, and another point...

On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 00:03:05 +0200, Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen wrote:

But trying to keep your email world into a pure text-based
no-formatting-whatsoever world, that's a fantasy bubble that is bound to
burst, sooner rather than later.

Nonsense. I can easily set up a filter to dump non-plain text email
straight into the trash. If I choose, I never need see a HTML mail. Ever.

In fact, since the single strongest predictor of spam is the use of HTML,
I predict that a lot more people than you think have HTML emails either
deleted or dumped in a spam folder.
--
Steven.

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 22:25:23 +0000, Roedy Green wrote about HTML emails:

Just how long do you want to stall evolution?
Evolution doesn't mean "use whatever broken solution Microsoft and Hotmail
popularized, just because all my friends are using it."

If and when somebody puts out a good rich text email format, I'll use it.
Until then, I won't use HTML.
Do you imagine people 200 years from now will be still be using pure
ASCII text unable to find a solution to JavaScript viruses (turn off
JS), pop-up( disable popups) etc.?

Firstly, I don't care what people will be using in 200 years. I don't care
if in 200 years the default email format is so big and bloated that it
takes three weeks to download even a single sentence, because I won't be
around to suffer.

If you think that people will be using the current data formats for email
in two centuries, you're crazy.
--
Steven.

[Paul Rubin]

Roedy Green <my******************************@munged.invalid > writes:

I read mail over an ssh connection to a Unix shell. I have no easy
way to read html email with a graphics browser.

So the rest of the world should forgo rich communication because of
your obsolete software? How could anything every evolve with that
attitude?

There is nothing obsolete about lynx. It completely conforms to the
w3 standard. Anyway, email is a text medium and attempts to "evolve"
it almost always make it worse.

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 07:19:29 +0000, Roedy Green wrote:

On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 23:33:13 GMT, Rich Teer <ri*******@rite-group.com>
wrote or quoted :

WHat the hell has that got to do with HTML email? Sending photos
is an example of what attachments are for.
Normally you send photos to grandma with captions under each photo.

No, normally YOU send photos to grandma with captions under each photo.
My grandma doesn't put captions in her photo album, and she doesn't need
captions on her photos in email.
That is far more convenient for the technopeasant receiver than
dealing with multiple attachments.

Only if your photos are so obscure and confusing that they need captions.

"Here's Johnny with the dog. Here is Johnny with the dog again. This one
is Johnny on his own. Here is the dog. Oh look, it is Johnny with the dog
again -- that's the dog on the left, in case it isn't clear. Just for a
change, this is Johnny wearing a hat. It is blue with a feather in it,
in case you couldn't tell from, oh I don't know, looking at the actual
picture."

--
Steven.

[Mike Meyer]

Roedy Green <my******************************@munged.invalid > writes:

On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 19:56:50 -0400, Mike Meyer <mw*@mired.org> wrote
or quoted :

Show us *examples*! Do you create a style sheet for every site you
visit that overrides there classes? What?
Why don't you download a copy of Opera, see
http://mindprod.com/jgloss/opera.html

What makes you think I don't have a copy of Opera? Just so happens
I've got a registred copy on my newest computer.
Then try out the feature. Click View | style | user

My copy of Opera doesn't have that menu entry. I suspect you're making
platform-specific suggestions.

Trying it on a different platform, it looks like it does what I said
earlier: user mode simply disables the authors style sheets. None of
the "merging" you suggested was going on is actually happening

Can you demonstrate this "merging" you talked about? For example, show
me how to get the "Opera help" page to display with the authors layout
but my fonts.

<mike
--
Mike Meyer <mw*@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 07:40:55 +0000, Roedy Green wrote:

There is nothing wrong with formatted text. You are confusing
formatted text with spam.

No. YOU are confusing HTML email (broken, dangerous, bad) with formatted
text (maybe good, maybe bad).

I've hated HTML emails well before I received my first spam. I still hate
it, long after I've got my spam problem under control.

If and when somebody comes up with a non-broken, non-dangerous way of
allowing formatting in emails, I'll consider it. But HTML is not and never
will be that format.

--
Steven.

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 07:42:18 +0000, Roedy Green wrote:

On 08 Oct 2005 18:59:39 -0700, Paul Rubin
<http://ph****@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote or quoted :

I read mail over an ssh connection to a Unix shell. I have no easy
way to read html email with a graphics browser.

So the rest of the world should forgo rich communication because of
your obsolete software? How could anything every evolve with that
attitude?

Hardly obsolete, any more than hammers are obsolete just because we have
Concords.

(The Concord... now *there* is an obsolete technology.)

You may have noticed that even Microsoft have acknowledged the power and
flexibility of text-based shells, and will be (if they get the technology
right in time) building one into Vista.

--
Steven.

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 23:39:27 +0000, John Bokma wrote:

Rich Teer <ri*******@rite-group.com> wrote:

On Sat, 8 Oct 2005, Roedy Green wrote:

Some people use email PRIMARILY for sharing photos.

WHat the hell has that got to do with HTML email?

The photo doesn't have to be included (as in attached)? with the email?

I'll repeat the question: what do attachments have to do with HTML emails?
--
Steven.

[Mike Meyer]

Roedy Green <my******************************@munged.invalid > writes:

There is no fundamental reason that formatted spam should have an
easier time penetrating your defenses than plain text spam.

Formatted spam can include pictures of words. That's a common spam
tactic - send a multipart/alternative with a text part that look like
a letter from aunt jane - and mention that you're sending a
picture. The picture part is basically a jpeg of a flyer for the spam
companies product.

If you've got a spam filter that can determine that a picture of words
is spam, I'd like to know about it.

<mike
--
Mike Meyer <mw*@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.

[Mike Meyer]

"Dr.Ruud" <rv********@isolution.nl> writes:

Let procmail make all those decisions and transformations for you.
I prefer qmail dot-commands. It provides an architecture for
controlling the delivery of email, and lets you write the smarts of
the mail processing in whatever language you want.
I have a maildir called 'raw' where I keep a copy of all non-spammish
mail.
I call mine archives. I also remove duplicate email before it gets to
the mailbox.
Copies of the same messages also get delivered in the right mailboxes,
by procmail.
Yup, qmail does that for me.
A message that contains only html, is piped though lynx -dump -stdin.
I build a bounce message explaing that it wasn't read, and send that
back to the sender.
A message containing both HTML and a plain/text-part, is de-mime-d,
leaving only the plain/text-part (unless that part contains only a silly
remark).
Footers and long signatures are limited or even deleted. Etc., etc. (I
like my mail cooked.)
I don't do those things. Then again - my mail reader makes deals with
them on request.
One of the reasons that I started with Perl, is that I want to rewrite
procmail in Perl.

Try qmail - it may solve the problem with a lot less work.

<mike
--
Mike Meyer <mw*@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.

[Stefaan A Eeckels]

On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 22:39:38 GMT
Roedy Green <my******************************@munged.invalid > wrote:

So from an aesthetic point of view, once people learn how it works,
CSS lets sender and receiver compromise on what the message looks
like. No other medium gives ANY control to the receiver about how a
message is formatted.
My mail reader renders HTML as text. Usually, that gets the message
through without the impediments the sender included.
Of course one can render anything in one's computer exactly the way one
wants, given comptence and time. Mutual agreement on a CSS is possible,
but for widespread usage it needs to be a standardised CSS, and then
we're back in the featuritis spiral.
One of the most important changes in the ability to select special
fonts for the those without prefect vision and larger fonts.
That's exactly why I don't want people to muck with the presentation of
an email. I've set up my machine to render standard ASCII emails
execatly the way I want, with the font that I can read, in a size that
optimises ease and visible text. I don't care that someone would like
to inline a 5000x3000 JPEG from their 15 megapixel camera, or render
text in white on black, or any other silly format. If they want me to
see a document in _exactly_ the way they prepared it, let them use PDF.
It's there, and it works well.
There is also the philosophical question. When my nephew sends me a
message, do I have a right to warp his intent even if I don't like the
aesthetics? That is part of his message.
That question is answered above - if your nephew wants you to see
exactly what he produced, let him use the format specifically designed
for the purpose. And yes, philosophically speaking the recipient can do
anything they like with the message, including not reading it at all.
Anything else would be preposterous.
Should my email reader fix the spelling mistakes in the emails sent me
by angry US soldiers? Or is that part of the message?
If you want it to do that, yes. Wheter including the corrected message
in the reply is a good idea is another question (mostly related to how
the relation is, how it should be, and how big the soldier in question
is).
There are three different issues getting muddled together:

1. avoiding spam
Which happens to use HTML to obfuscate the message and avoid getting
caught by filters.
2. making mail from well meaning but inept friends more readable.
Who happen to use HTML because they don't have a clue.
3. what constitutes a good general style for general correspondence.
How should you use rich text appropriately.

Which happens to be largely superfluous as far as conveying intent is
concerned.

Email works well without rich text, especially when combined with
attachments that use a format sender and recipient have agreed to.
We don't need more, and we shouldn't assume that more complex
technology equates to an improvement. Example: it's not because we can
use a gazillion typefaces in pastel colours that documents that we
should do so.

Take care,
--
Stefaan
--
As complexity rises, precise statements lose meaning,
and meaningful statements lose precision. -- Lotfi Zadeh

[Dr.Ruud]

Mike Meyer:

Try qmail - it may solve the problem with a lot less work.

I checked my .procmailrc, and saw that mail with qmail anywhere in the
headers, goes to a spambox here.

;)

--
Affijn, Ruud <http://www.pandora.com/?sc=sh770781&cmd=tunermini>

"Gewoon is een tijger."

[Tim Tyler]

In comp.lang.java.programmer Mike Meyer <mw*@mired.org> wrote or quoted:

The technial problems have been solved for over a decade. NeXT shipped
systems that used text/richtext, which has none of the problems that
HTML has. The problems are *social* - you've got to arrange for
people to use mail/news readers that understand a rich text format
that isn't a vector for viruses.

It's not HTML that has problems, it's Microsoft's crappy software.

Writing virus-free HTML renderers is not hard - but of course
Microsoft can still screw it up.

Don't blame HTML for viruses - *every* document format Microsoft has
anything to do with becomes a vector for viruses.

They *even* managed to get virulent spreadsheets and word processor
documents!
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ ti*@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.

[Tim Tyler]

In comp.lang.java.programmer Steven D'Aprano <st***@removethiscyber.com.au> wrote or quoted:

On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 07:19:29 +0000, Roedy Green wrote:

Rich Teer <ri*******@rite-group.com>:

WHat the hell has that got to do with HTML email? Sending photos
is an example of what attachments are for.

Normally you send photos to grandma with captions under each photo.

No, normally YOU send photos to grandma with captions under each photo.
My grandma doesn't put captions in her photo album, and she doesn't need
captions on her photos in email.

That is far more convenient for the technopeasant receiver than
dealing with multiple attachments.

Only if your photos are so obscure and confusing that they need captions.

"Here's Johnny with the dog. Here is Johnny with the dog again. This one
is Johnny on his own. Here is the dog. Oh look, it is Johnny with the dog
again -- that's the dog on the left, in case it isn't clear. Just for a
change, this is Johnny wearing a hat. It is blue with a feather in it,
in case you couldn't tell from, oh I don't know, looking at the actual
picture."

What have you got against captions?

Giving photos captions is a *very* common practice.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ ti*@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.

[Tim Tyler]

In comp.lang.java.programmer Mike Meyer <mw*@mired.org> wrote or quoted:

Roedy Green <my******************************@munged.invalid > writes:

Read my essay.
http://mindprod.com/projects.html/ma...ewsreader.html

I talk around those problems.

Actually, you present a design that forces a solution that makes them
do what you want down their throats, never mind what they want, or
what they've been doing. It shows an amazing ignorance about the
internet and how people behave on it. Like most antispam proposals, it
won't actually stop spam, just force spammers to concentrate on
different channels. You seem to have randomly broken quoting for
people who download mail and read it offline, and for any medium
that's unreliable or doesn't reliably deliver messages "in order" -
which includes mail and news. Virus writers will love the ability to
change peoples address books remotely.

Since - in Roedy's essay - messages are digitally signed, authority
to advise about any email address updates would presumably be confined
to those people with access to the sender's private key.

Even /without/ any form of authentication, a standard change-of-address
message - which is understood by mail readers - is a fine and sensible
idea.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ ti*@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.

[Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen]

Tim Tyler wrote:
<snip>

Only if your photos are so obscure and confusing that they need captions.

"Here's Johnny with the dog. Here is Johnny with the dog again. This one
is Johnny on his own. Here is the dog. Oh look, it is Johnny with the dog
again -- that's the dog on the left, in case it isn't clear. Just for a
change, this is Johnny wearing a hat. It is blue with a feather in it,
in case you couldn't tell from, oh I don't know, looking at the actual
picture."

What have you got against captions?

Giving photos captions is a *very* common practice.

Perhaps he has a search engine that can find blue hats in an image and
recognize people?

--
Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen
http://usinglvkblog.blogspot.com/
mailto:la***@vkarlsen.no
PGP KeyID: 0x2A42A1C2

[Tim Tyler]

In comp.lang.java.programmer Roedy Green <my******************************@munged.invalid > wrote or quoted:

Read my essay.
http://mindprod.com/projects.html/ma...ewsreader.html

FYI, this bit:

``Like ICQ, someone cannot send you mail without your prior permission.
They can't send you mail because they don't have your public key to
encrypt the mail.''

....is pretty confusing - because "public key" is a term with a technical
meaning in cryptography - and a public key really *is* public.

If you want to allow email only from a list of senders, then you use
a simple white list. Cryptography is not needed or desirable if this
is the intended goal.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ ti*@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.

[Tim Tyler]

In comp.lang.java.programmer Paul Boddie <pa**@boddie.org.uk> wrote or quoted:

Roedy Green wrote:

Just how long do you want to stall evolution? Do you imagine people
200 years from now will be still be using pure ASCII text unable to
find a solution to JavaScript viruses (turn off JS), pop-up( disable
popups) etc.?

People in their sky-cars turning off JavaScript in their browsers: what
a thought!

Javascript can be turned off in *mail readers* - by their manufacturers.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ ti*@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.