Using gzip vs. compress for dcc source

Vernon Schryver vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com
Mon Jun 6 01:22:39 UTC 2005


> From: "Mike Cappella" 

> As for the multi-part encoding, I'm sure you're aware that was a simple,
> don't-post-to-lists-often oversight on my part.  Thanks for the reminder.

The primary evils of unnecessary HTML encoding are unrelated to mailing
lists.  Without default HTML encoding,
   - Email would use far less bandwidth and disk space.
   - Many obfuscation tricks of spammers would be impossible.
   - It would not be practical to detect when and where foolish people
      read spam (i.e. anyone who uses an MUA that dereferences URLs
      by default and who receives mail with a "counter" or "web bug").
   - Some significant Microsoft security holes would never have existed
      or been utilized by the bad guys.
   - I'd have no reason to be proud of my single pass, forward-only,
      sufficent for spam checksumming kludge of an HTML parser.  
   - There would not be new whines from the direct email marketing people
      about ISPs blocking HTML mail by default, thereby making their
      valuable offers less compelling.

For various reasons I think good and sufficient, I use an MUA that
doesn't understand HTML.  On my grumpier days, I'd sentence everyone
who sends me HTML mail (not to mention Microsoft's new XML mail) to
write all of the HTML mail they've ever sent onto paper tape with an
antique, manual, combination splicer and one-hole-at-a-time punch.

I think there are obvious and compelling reasons why anyone responsible
for defending against spam and viruses should normally use a dumb MUA.


Vernon Schryver    vjs@rhyolite.com



More information about the DCC mailing list

Contact vjs@rhyolite.com by mail or use the form.