From: "Geo." 

"Rich"  wrote in message news:406f82cf$1{at}w3.nls.net...

>>You position on rich text is both wrong and stupid.  Necessary, no.
Valuable, yes.



However, I never said html, scripting, or even fetching graphics from a
website to display in an email doesn't have value, it's simply that unlike
some at microsoft I don't believe simply having value is the only measure.
I believe you have to weigh the value vs the risk and it's clear to me this
is a thought that is all too rare with the folks designing IE, OE, IIS, and
Office.


But what really aggrivates me is why the folks designing this stuff can't
at least make it flexible enough that we can all be happy? I mean how hard
would it be to make OE capable of "read raw", "read all as
text", "read all except signed as text", or "read html
when supplied" as four options instead of just two? It just feels like
there is more going on here, like there is some undeclaired reason they
don't want to provide that capability to fully escape these exploitable or
just plain annoying features.

Is it really such a foreign thought to think that someone might prefer to
read all his email and newsgroups in the same font and at his predefined
text size? That perhaps the user doesn't want stupid flashing icons in an
email or lame stationary that makes it all but impossible to read the text?
That perhaps someone might just want to look at the raw email with nothing
hidden? That perhaps there might be a good reason to forward an email
complete with the fricken headers?

Do you have any idea how many hours ISP's have wasted because outlook can't
easily forward a stupid spam without leaving out all header information and
raw code? The features you find so useful cost others a ton of money and
time and make life way more difficult than it need be.


Geo.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5