HTML vs. bulk

Brian T Glenn
Sat Jan 4 00:07:05 UTC 2003

Hash: SHA1

On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Vernon Schryver wrote:

| Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2003 16:22:49 -0700 (MST)
| From: Vernon Schryver <>
| Subject: Re: HTML vs. bulk
| All of that is interesting.  Thanks.
| I'm thinking about defining a FUZ3 checksum that would ignore text
| bounded by <html>...</html> and otherwise be similar to the FUZ2
| checksum.  When what remains of the message is too little to generate
| a checksum, then as with the other fuzzy checksums, no checksum would
| be reported to the DCC server.  However, like some of the SMTP header
| and envelope checksums, a constant checksum for the null string would
| be generated for local blacklisting (or even white-listing).
| This would allow DCC clients (e.g. entire enterprises) or individual
| users at enterprises using per-user whitelists (e.g. with dccproc
| or the dccm per-user whitelists) to blacklist all messages without
| enough plaintext to generate a FUZ3 checksum.
| What do you think?

I think this is a great idea. I know I would personally like to filter out
mail such as this on my own account, but my users definitely use HTML
email often.

Another thing to consider is the fact that many Windows MUA's allow for
selecting between sending HTML-only, plain-text, or both. If someone with
just enough clue decides to change that to HTML-only, it might cause some
legitimate mail to look as though it were non-legitimate mail. This would
have to be dealt with on a per site and per user basis I suppose,
depending on the types of users and mail that flow through the site and
each account.

- -- 
Brian T Glenn Internet Services

"Doesn't the "Bcc:" show up when you look at the complete headers
display in pine?  It must be somewhere."
	--Steve Sykes in n.a.n-a.e

Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)


More information about the DCC mailing list

Contact by mail or use the form.