In message <[log in to unmask]>, John Cowan
<[log in to unmask]> writes
>Fabian wrote:
>> Does anyone else feel as strongly as I do that postings that force a
>> Email client to dialup should earn a temporary ban from the list?
>Which email client?  This message contains both plaintext and
>HTML versions, which is annoying to the MIME-deprived, but there's
>nothing magic about it.  If your
>client tries to access the Internet under those circumstances,
>there is something wrong with *it*.  The message is quite

It included these two statements:

<BODY aLink=#780000 background=../images/backgrnd/paper/paper01.jpg
bgColor=#e3c797 link=#780000 vLink=#780000>

<IMG align=bottom height=1 src="../images/bar%26butn/purp_bar.gif"
width=540 NATURALSIZEFLAG = 0><FONT size=+1>

...each of which are including in the html page a binary presumably on
the sender's home site.  A browser which attempts to display this page
will try to fetch these and if your system is set up accordingly it will
start to dial.  Mine isn't, so the browser just sat there trying until I
told it to stop.  All of which is why, when my MIME-ish mail reader
offers me alternatives, as in this case, I don't usually select the html
version, which launches the browser to read it.

Still, I expect the person who sent it did it by mistake, and I would
far rather put up with it than make an issue of it.  Certainly temporary
bans etc seem right over the top to me.

John Fisher   [log in to unmask]   [log in to unmask]
Elet Anta website:
Drummond ro cleshfan merec; fanye litoc, inye litoc