Re: amber-developers: restricting amber email to text-only?

From: Scott Brozell <>
Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 14:05:03 -0700 (PDT)


Plain text is an awesome readable platform independent format
that can simply and memorably be mapped into even the Cyrillic
alphabet (note that there are too many variable names in Amber
that are not readable, simple or memorable despite being textual).

That being said, what is the context and the purpose ?
Is it virus protection ?
If so do we need to blow away html attachments to catch viruses ?

It seems to me that html is superfluous to reflector posts.
If not then perhaps html can be converted into text.
Perhaps html attachments can be dumped somewhere, neutered,
and spewed to a web site.

My feeling is that it is the industry posters that tend to send html
as well as the just plain clueless.

So tally me under TUI (Textual User Interface), but please explain
the big picture.


On Fri, 2 May 2008, Thomas Steinbrecher wrote:

> my vote would also be to get rid of html, it doesnt help with
> anything and true amber users should get used to doing everything in
> ASCII anyway ;-)
> On Fri, 2 May 2008, Carlos Simmerling wrote:
> > I can't remember the last time that html helped in
> > one of the emails. sometimes attachments are useful,
> > so we probably should not block those.
> >
> > On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 3:38 PM, David A. Case <> wrote:
> >> Ross Walker wrote:
> >>
> >> > The best solution in the end though would be to stop accepting html email
> >> > on the amber list. This would make things so much nicer but will obviously
> >> > generate a lot of initial complaints from "inexperienced" users.
> >>
> >> What do people think about this idea? Many mailing lists do automatically
> >> reject mail with html extensions. I've tried to be as "friendly" as possible
> >> for, but there is some price.
> >>
> >> So, I'm looking for advice or discussion: what do you think about the pros and
> >> cons of forcing posts to be text only?
Received on Sun May 04 2008 - 06:07:59 PDT
Custom Search