Chuq Von Rospach <chuqui@plaidworks.com> writes:
> This is another case where the fight is over, and we might as well get
> used to it. Whether its good or bad, it's here and endemic.
Yes, and it's used almost entirely for spam, which makes it very
convenient.
60-80% of the spam that I get is in HTML. 0.01% of the legitimate mail
that I get is in HTML, approximately. I therefore apply simple
mathematics and make the obvious choice when doing mail filtering, and
I've yet to regret it.
I find the success of HTML extremely convenient; all of the sleeze have
adopted it wholesale, thus enabling me to easily ignore everything they
have to say.
(This is for messages with a content-type of text/html. Usage of
multipart/alternative is much more ambiguous, but in those cases I just
ignore the text/html portion, since it's almost without exception
formatted *less* readibly than the text version regardless of what HTML
browser I use to view it.)
HTML is being widely used in e-mail, but by and large it's a joke.
Occasionally an amusing and useful one, though.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
