Re: plain text vs. html
From: Radoslav Dejanoviæ (radoslav.dejanovic@zagreb.hr)Date: 05/08/02
- Previous message: Jason Wong: "Re: plain text vs. html"
- In reply to: Miklos Bagi Jr.: "plain text vs. html"
- Next in thread: Vladimir Shtern: "Re: plain text vs. html"
- Next in thread: Jens Benecke: "Re: plain text vs. html"
- Reply: Vladimir Shtern: "Re: plain text vs. html"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
From: Radoslav Dejanoviæ <radoslav.dejanovic@zagreb.hr> To: joschy@mailbox.hu, focus-linux@securityfocus.com Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 08:57:22 +0200
On Tuesday 07 May 2002 01:43, Miklos Bagi Jr. wrote:
> Well, I'm in this trap. I'm sure if my company were use plain text as
> emailing
there wouldn't be any chance to get such infections like html
> mails are carrying inside of them. My question is:
Embeeding HTML in e-mail is not evil by itself. It is the client that makes
troublesome data parsed and executed. ;-) In my company suggestion is
to avoid MS Outlook/OE if possible. So when the virus knocks on the door,
users who use Lotus Notes or MSIE to read e-mail don't spread it out.
But of course we do have some smartasse(t)s who refuse to work with
anything else but Outlook Express.
> So technically it is possible, that's for sure, but is there any
> complete
solutions/workarounds/scripts already working you know of?
Try this one: it strips HTML, scripts, objects, checks for attachment name
extensions...
http://www.barrett.com.au/Software/sendmail/
Of course, there's a lot more.
-- Radoslav Dejanovic Senior Associate to Mayor's Office City of Zagreb, Croatia
- Previous message: Jason Wong: "Re: plain text vs. html"
- In reply to: Miklos Bagi Jr.: "plain text vs. html"
- Next in thread: Vladimir Shtern: "Re: plain text vs. html"
- Next in thread: Jens Benecke: "Re: plain text vs. html"
- Reply: Vladimir Shtern: "Re: plain text vs. html"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
|