Re: mail and html

Keith Mastin wrote:
>>> They are correct for more reasons than just asthetics. HTML can
>>> carry dangerous code. Better to send your stuff in .pdf attachments.
>>
>> *gag*
>> talk about gross inefficiency.
>>
>> run a pdf converter/generator for every outgoing mail?
>> force the reader to have or get acrobat reader?
>> force the reader to wait for acrobate reader to fire up?
>>
>> my customers would spit on me as I walked by if I tried to sell them
>> that scenario as the best way they could serve their customers.
>
> If you were really worried about your customers, your gateway wouldn't
> have nearly so many open ports as it does. Priorities....
>
> And wrong. Customers and clients actually depend on us to show them
> how to do things in a manner that's not going to cost them a lot of
> $$ if they contract a virus or trojan (like the subseven one running
> on your gateway box).
>
> This little piece of info was free. Next time, you pay, okay?

upon further investigation, I wonder if this free info was worth exactly
what I paid for it? What made you think I was sub7'ed? Merely the
existance of an unknown service listening on some odd port numbers?
Well I happen to have a not-very-common service that I specifically set up
on a couple different odd port numbers.

Brian K. White  --  [email protected]  --  http://www.aljex.com/bkw/
+++++[>+++[>+++++>+++++++<<-]<-]>>+.>.+++++.+++++++.-.[>+<---]>++.
filePro BBx  Linux SCO  Prosper/FACTS AutoCAD  #callahans Satriani