Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #196980 > unrolled thread

Claws-mail - which plugin for html mails?

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  Claws-mail - which plugin for html mails? Aldo Maggi <aldo.maggi@poste.it> - 2018-06-27 23:00 +0200
    Re: Claws-mail - which plugin for html mails? Patrick Bartek <nemommxiv@gmail.com> - 2018-06-27 23:50 +0200
      Re: Claws-mail - which plugin for html mails? <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2018-06-28 08:40 +0200
        Re: Claws-mail - which plugin for html mails? Ben Oliver <ben@bfoliver.com> - 2018-06-28 09:20 +0200
          Re: Claws-mail - which plugin for html mails? Aldo Maggi <sentiniate@virgilio.it> - 2018-06-29 10:10 +0200
            Re: Claws-mail - which plugin for html mails? <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2018-06-29 11:00 +0200
              Re: Claws-mail - which plugin for html mails? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-06-29 18:20 +0200
            Re: Claws-mail - which plugin for html mails? Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2018-06-29 14:30 +0200
              Re: Claws-mail - which plugin for html mails? <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2018-06-29 15:10 +0200
                Re: Claws-mail - which plugin for html mails? Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2018-06-29 15:20 +0200
                  Re: Claws-mail - which plugin for html mails? Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2018-07-01 04:40 +0200
                    Re: Claws-mail - which plugin for html mails? Ben Oliver <ben@bfoliver.com> - 2018-07-01 11:20 +0200
                      Re: Claws-mail - which plugin for html mails? Jason <electron@emypeople.net> - 2018-07-02 17:40 +0200
                        Re: Claws-mail - which plugin for html mails? Ben Oliver <ben@bfoliver.com> - 2018-07-02 18:30 +0200
                Re: Claws-mail - which plugin for html mails? Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2018-06-29 16:20 +0200
                  Re: Claws-mail - which plugin for html mails? <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2018-06-29 16:30 +0200
                    Re: Claws-mail - which plugin for html mails? Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2018-06-29 16:50 +0200
              Re: Claws-mail - which plugin for html mails? Ben Oliver <ben@bfoliver.com> - 2018-06-29 15:10 +0200
              Re: Claws-mail - which plugin for html mails? Aldo Maggi <sentiniate@virgilio.it> - 2018-06-29 15:30 +0200
              Re: Claws-mail - which plugin for html mails? Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2018-06-29 16:10 +0200
                Re: Claws-mail - which plugin for html mails? Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2018-07-01 04:40 +0200

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#196980 — Claws-mail - which plugin for html mails?

It is now more than one year I have to manually  send html content to a
browser to see it
I know that fancy plugin, which formerly did that job very well
automatically, was dismissed because of problems of security with a
library, I remember, though, that, formerly, dillo-plugin existed, and
BTW I've Dillo installed and working, how is it that when I try to load
such plugin it isn't available?

Thanks!

Aldo :-)

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#196982

On Wed, 27 Jun 2018 22:19:53 +0200
Aldo Maggi <aldo.maggi@poste.it> wrote:

> It is now more than one year I have to manually  send html content to
> a browser to see it
> I know that fancy plugin, which formerly did that job very well
> automatically, was dismissed because of problems of security with a
> library, I remember, though, that, formerly, dillo-plugin existed, and
> BTW I've Dillo installed and working, how is it that when I try to
> load such plugin it isn't available?

I checked around the last time you posted this query.  Couldn't
find it.  Perhaps the Dillo-plugin is no longer supported. I use the
fancy-plugin to display directly in the Claws-Mail window. Although, I
don't use it that much. HTML emails are so artsy-fartsy and a waste of
bandwidth.

I'm sure that "security problem" has been fixed. That was from when
Wheezy was Stable.

B 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#196987

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 02:47:17PM -0700, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jun 2018 22:19:53 +0200
> Aldo Maggi <aldo.maggi@poste.it> wrote:
> 
> > It is now more than one year I have to manually  send html content to
> > a browser to see it

[...]

> I checked around the last time you posted this query.  Couldn't
> find it [...]

> I'm sure that "security problem" has been fixed. That was from when
> Wheezy was Stable.

To be fair, HTML mails dont "have" this or that "security problem", they
are a *constant source* of security problems. Be it that they use links
that auto-resolve (yes, you can disable loading images, and most sensible
MUAs do it, but what about CSS? Do you know what other resources HTML is
set to load?).

For one recent example on how HTML mail can subvert (S-MIME) encryption,
see efail [1] (and no, don't follow EFF's recommendation quoted there
to disable PGP -- better disable HTML).

The biggest problem (apart from its sheer complexity) is that HTML is
a moving target: soon it won't be HTML without Javascript. Me? I don't
want my mail user agent executing programs sent by some random spammer,
thankyouverymuch.

Cheers

[1] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/05/decade-old-efail-attack-can-decrypt-previously-obtained-encrypted-e-mails/

- -- tomás
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAls0gkcACgkQBcgs9XrR2kZWMACfbZRSQtidhrjCHXMdkTJDvq3s
NlgAnArXEipedrlOcZonvIddiT7ECYnY
=K7jn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#196991

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 18-06-28 08:37:59, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
>
>For one recent example on how HTML mail can subvert (S-MIME) encryption,
>see efail [1] (and no, don't follow EFF's recommendation quoted there
>to disable PGP -- better disable HTML).

Agreed - pretty bad advice from the EFF. If you have PGP turned on it's 
for a reason, why would you want to forego that just for some dumb HTML 
email?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#197008

Ok, I understand your point, but, I wonder, are you using just lynx or
links2 for going on Internet?  The problems you correctly point out are
not the same with Chromium, Firefox etc.?

Thanks

Aldo


Il giorno Thu, 28 Jun 2018 08:18:44 +0100
Ben Oliver <ben@bfoliver.com> ha scritto:

> On 18-06-28 08:37:59, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> >
> >For one recent example on how HTML mail can subvert (S-MIME)
> >encryption, see efail [1] (and no, don't follow EFF's recommendation
> >quoted there to disable PGP -- better disable HTML).  
> 
> Agreed - pretty bad advice from the EFF. If you have PGP turned on
> it's for a reason, why would you want to forego that just for some
> dumb HTML email?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#197011

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 10:05:47AM +0200, Aldo Maggi wrote:
> Ok, I understand your point, but, I wonder, are you using just lynx or
> links2 for going on Internet?  The problems you correctly point out are
> not the same with Chromium, Firefox etc.?

I wouldn't be so sure about lynx et al. Here [1] is a rough but readable
explanation on how eFail works. There are two components into it: (1)
a format like HTML, in which the client possibly follows links without
user interaction (more on that below) and (2) how to bury a MIME
boundary within HTML's baroque syntax so that for the HTML parser,
the whole (now decrypted) message forms part of that link, which will
be "given" readily to a server out there, waiting to harvest it.

More on (1): the example uses an img tag. You might argue that HTML
capable mail readers have learnt these days to not follow automatically
img tags (on privacy grounds), but there is a multitude of other links
which might be followed automatically: CSS, iframes...

Are you sure your l{ynx,inks} doesn't download any of them? Do you know
by heart all of those? Do you even know where to look them up? [2]

I for one wouldn't know better than to look into lynx/links source
code. Good luck with that.

Cheers

[1] https://thehackernews.com/2018/05/efail-pgp-email-encryption.html
[2] This isn't to make you look bad: I don't myself either! This is
   to drive home the message that "HTML" is a huge, ill-defined mess
   of standards, and that all HTML renderers out there have to be
   a steaming pile of pragmatism which is practically impossible to
   validate.

- -- tomás
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAls18w4ACgkQBcgs9XrR2kbxXQCaA+z9BNrpjkLJUnmhJi5+/d+t
bRMAnjfgq7HjAXqAi66RDMsYNEYYN34L
=CSa/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#197033

On Fri 29 Jun 2018 at 10:51:26 (+0200), tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 10:05:47AM +0200, Aldo Maggi wrote:
> > Ok, I understand your point, but, I wonder, are you using just lynx or
> > links2 for going on Internet?  The problems you correctly point out are
> > not the same with Chromium, Firefox etc.?
> 
> I wouldn't be so sure about lynx et al. Here [1] is a rough but readable
> explanation on how eFail works. There are two components into it: (1)
> a format like HTML, in which the client possibly follows links without
> user interaction (more on that below) and (2) how to bury a MIME
> boundary within HTML's baroque syntax so that for the HTML parser,
> the whole (now decrypted) message forms part of that link, which will
> be "given" readily to a server out there, waiting to harvest it.
> 
> More on (1): the example uses an img tag. You might argue that HTML
> capable mail readers have learnt these days to not follow automatically
> img tags (on privacy grounds), but there is a multitude of other links
> which might be followed automatically: CSS, iframes...
> 
> Are you sure your l{ynx,inks} doesn't download any of them? Do you know
> by heart all of those? Do you even know where to look them up? [2]
> 
> I for one wouldn't know better than to look into lynx/links source
> code. Good luck with that.

When an email is HTML-only, I use lynx to read it. It doesn't download
anything because I set commandline options to prevent it (both
automatically and if I select a link). Here's the line from my
~/.mutt/mailcap-mutt file:

# the next line is used only when an html attachment is selected in the attachments menu
text/html; /usr/bin/lynx -force-html -localhost -stdin

which is configured in my ~/.mutt/muttrc file:

set mailcap_path=$HOME/.mutt/mailcap-mutt

I think elinks has a similar option ( -localhost 1 ), but I don't know
about the links program. I like lynx because it doesn't just dump the
output but scrolls it like the interactive mode, highlighting the
(gagged) links.

> [1] https://thehackernews.com/2018/05/efail-pgp-email-encryption.html
> [2] This isn't to make you look bad: I don't myself either! This is
>    to drive home the message that "HTML" is a huge, ill-defined mess
>    of standards, and that all HTML renderers out there have to be
>    a steaming pile of pragmatism which is practically impossible to
>    validate.

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#197014

On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 10:05:47AM +0200, Aldo Maggi wrote:
> Ok, I understand your point, but, I wonder, are you using just lynx or
> links2 for going on Internet?  The problems you correctly point out are
> not the same with Chromium, Firefox etc.?

I use a web browser to browse the web, but I use mutt to read and
send email.

The two things are completely separate for me.  And, I suspect, for
many other Debian users.

If someone sends email which contains only HTML and not a textual part,
mutt shows me the raw HTML.  And then I delete the email, because if
they can't be bothered to send their words in an ordinary plain text
message, then I can't be bothered to go out of my way to convert it for
them.  Plus, it'll either be spam, or a stupid question that I have
no interest in reading in the first place, because what kind of
intelligent question could you possibly get from someone who sends
pure-HTML email?  None.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#197015

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 08:24:36AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:

[...]

> I use a web browser to browse the web, but I use mutt to read and
> send email.

...which of course is perfectly capable of calling out into a viewer
for HTML (lynx or somesuch). But yeah...

> The two things are completely separate for me.  And, I suspect, for
> many other Debian users.

Same for me, but see below.

> If someone sends email which contains only HTML and not a textual part,
> mutt shows me the raw HTML.  And then I delete the email, because if
> they can't be bothered to send their words in an ordinary plain text
> message [...]

Sometimes you gotta compromise. I spent a short period of my life in
a corporate environment. I may have lost what's left of my sparse
sanity had I been forced to use Outlook. So I actually managed to get
fetchmail to talk to their Exchange server (IMAP). Needless to say,
most company mails were HTML (few people even knew that, and I was
in the computer tech department!).

My HTML viewer was html2text. Most probably immune to the vulnerability
we're talking about, although I wouldn't bet my farm [1] on it :-)

Cheers
[1] that one I don't have :-)
- -- tomás
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAls2LlAACgkQBcgs9XrR2kZnbgCeINm7ixI/pD3Bh8wP8p9XRHE5
kvEAnR1eEaAx0ZGtvHG+AyehlWaMv4DJ
=a8w4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#197019

On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 03:04:16PM +0200, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> Sometimes you gotta compromise. I spent a short period of my life in
> a corporate environment. I may have lost what's left of my sparse
> sanity had I been forced to use Outlook.

Yes, work is a different story.  They're paying me to do this job, and
part of this job entails communicating with people who use Microsoft
stuff exclusively (it's the desktop standard here).

For the times when it's actually important for my job to be able to read
what someone is saying in the format that they're using ("my corrections
are shown in red below"), I will open the mail in Outlook Web App (OWA).
Which I use in google-chrome-stable.

But for non-work emails?  Forget it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#197056

On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 09:10:16 -0400
Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 03:04:16PM +0200, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > Sometimes you gotta compromise. I spent a short period of my life in
> > a corporate environment. I may have lost what's left of my sparse
> > sanity had I been forced to use Outlook.
> 
> Yes, work is a different story.  They're paying me to do this job, and
> part of this job entails communicating with people who use Microsoft
> stuff exclusively (it's the desktop standard here).
> 
> For the times when it's actually important for my job to be able to read
> what someone is saying in the format that they're using ("my corrections
> are shown in red below"), I will open the mail in Outlook Web App (OWA).
> Which I use in google-chrome-stable.
> 
> But for non-work emails?  Forget it.

I suppose everyone's browsing habits are different. I dislike HTML mail
as much as the next guy (well, perhaps not as much as the true
believers / fanatics), but I do have to deal with banks, businesses,
and other commercial entities who send HTML mail (with a text part that
isn't readable).

Celejar

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#197073

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 18-06-30 22:31:49, Celejar wrote:
>I suppose everyone's browsing habits are different. I dislike HTML mail
>as much as the next guy (well, perhaps not as much as the true
>believers / fanatics), but I do have to deal with banks, businesses,
>and other commercial entities who send HTML mail (with a text part that
>isn't readable).

My pet peeve is when they do provide a plaintext part, but it's just the 
HTML anyway...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#197130

On Sun, Jul 01, 2018 at 10:11:49AM +0100, Ben Oliver wrote:
> On 18-06-30 22:31:49, Celejar wrote:
> >I suppose everyone's browsing habits are different. I dislike HTML mail
> >as much as the next guy (well, perhaps not as much as the true
> >believers / fanatics), but I do have to deal with banks, businesses,
> >and other commercial entities who send HTML mail (with a text part that
> >isn't readable).
> 
> My pet peeve is when they do provide a plaintext part, but it's just the
> HTML anyway...

Or if they include it but it contains different content than the HTML,
or is devoid of any content.

-- 
Jason

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#197132

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 18-07-02 10:22:57, Jason wrote:
>Or if they include it but it contains different content than the HTML,
>or is devoid of any content.

The blank plaintext is the ultimate middle finger to the user. At least 
when it's not there you can fall back to html if you want to. When you 
put a blank one in you get a blank email...!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#197027

On Friday 29 June 2018 09:04:16 tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 08:24:36AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > I use a web browser to browse the web, but I use mutt to read and
> > send email.
>
> ...which of course is perfectly capable of calling out into a viewer
> for HTML (lynx or somesuch). But yeah...
>
> > The two things are completely separate for me.  And, I suspect, for
> > many other Debian users.
>
> Same for me, but see below.
>
> > If someone sends email which contains only HTML and not a textual
> > part, mutt shows me the raw HTML.  And then I delete the email,
> > because if they can't be bothered to send their words in an ordinary
> > plain text message [...]
>
> Sometimes you gotta compromise. I spent a short period of my life in
> a corporate environment. I may have lost what's left of my sparse
> sanity had I been forced to use Outlook.

Certainly a step in that direction.

> So I actually managed to get 
> fetchmail to talk to their Exchange server (IMAP). Needless to say,
> most company mails were HTML (few people even knew that, and I was
> in the computer tech department!).
>
> My HTML viewer was html2text. Most probably immune to the
> vulnerability we're talking about, although I wouldn't bet my farm [1]
> on it :-)

Bet only what you can afford to lose.  And generally, that amount donated 
to a charity will do more good.
>
> Cheers
> [1] that one I don't have :-)
> -- tomás

I don't consider this postage stamp of yellow clay a farm. But its been 
paid off for 20+ years now.

-- 
Cheers, Gene Heskett
--
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#197029

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 10:13:08AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:

[farm]

> I don't consider this postage stamp of yellow clay a farm. But its been 
> paid off for 20+ years now.

Hey, at least a tiny yellow farm :-)

Cheers
- -- t
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAls2QF4ACgkQBcgs9XrR2kbKDACfcd0sxZl5Q2HV49qGaNUSbHHH
6HUAn2Pm20TmU079b7vVwXVZJ4v3Uq/B
=ZOEY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#197031

On Friday 29 June 2018 10:21:18 tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 10:13:08AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
>
> [farm]
>
> > I don't consider this postage stamp of yellow clay a farm. But its
> > been paid off for 20+ years now.
>
> Hey, at least a tiny yellow farm :-)

Actually, its summer in this hemisphere so its green, covered with weeds 
that seriously need mowing. :(

And which I've been slowly covering with roof's, a shed for this, a shed 
for that, and 10 years ago a very well insulated garage on the end of 
the house, which immediately got loaded up with wood and metalworking 
machinery, quite a bit of which is run by linuxcnc, after I converted 
them so motors could move them by the micron.  Retired for 15+ years 
now, this stuff keeps me out of the bars. ;-)  That and caring for a now 
invalid wife. Any "housekeeping" done is done by me. But I still manage 
to work in some time to harass (my interests are best described as 
eclectic) about 40 mailing lists. :)

Thanks Tomas.

> Cheers
> -- t



-- 
Cheers, Gene Heskett
--
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#197017

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 18-06-29 08:24:36, Greg Wooledge wrote:
>If someone sends email which contains only HTML and not a textual part,
>mutt shows me the raw HTML.  And then I delete the email, because if
>they can't be bothered to send their words in an ordinary plain text
>message, then I can't be bothered to go out of my way to convert it for
>them.  Plus, it'll either be spam, or a stupid question that I have
>no interest in reading in the first place, because what kind of
>intelligent question could you possibly get from someone who sends
>pure-HTML email?  None.

Hard line but I like it, and do the same. Most decent services do good 
multipart anyway.

I do have a macro to pipe an email to firefox if I absolutely *must* 
read it in html.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#197022

I perfectly agree with you, in fact I wonder why one should use a
graphic mail reader (claws-mail) which cannot show html mail just
like  the really very powerful mutt (which I myself used many years
ago)?
The conclusion is:  claws-mail, at the moment, is completely useless,
better disinstall it.

Thanks

Aldo

Il giorno Fri, 29 Jun 2018 08:24:36 -0400
Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> ha scritto:

> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 10:05:47AM +0200, Aldo Maggi wrote:
> > Ok, I understand your point, but, I wonder, are you using just lynx
> > or links2 for going on Internet?  The problems you correctly point
> > out are not the same with Chromium, Firefox etc.?  
> 
> I use a web browser to browse the web, but I use mutt to read and
> send email.
> 
> The two things are completely separate for me.  And, I suspect, for
> many other Debian users.
> 
> If someone sends email which contains only HTML and not a textual
> part, mutt shows me the raw HTML.  And then I delete the email,
> because if they can't be bothered to send their words in an ordinary
> plain text message, then I can't be bothered to go out of my way to
> convert it for them.  Plus, it'll either be spam, or a stupid
> question that I have no interest in reading in the first place,
> because what kind of intelligent question could you possibly get from
> someone who sends pure-HTML email?  None.
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#197026

On Friday 29 June 2018 08:24:36 Greg Wooledge wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 10:05:47AM +0200, Aldo Maggi wrote:
> > Ok, I understand your point, but, I wonder, are you using just lynx
> > or links2 for going on Internet?  The problems you correctly point
> > out are not the same with Chromium, Firefox etc.?
>
> I use a web browser to browse the web, but I use mutt to read and
> send email.
>
> The two things are completely separate for me.  And, I suspect, for
> many other Debian users.
>
> If someone sends email which contains only HTML and not a textual
> part, mutt shows me the raw HTML.  And then I delete the email,
> because if they can't be bothered to send their words in an ordinary
> plain text message, then I can't be bothered to go out of my way to
> convert it for them.  Plus, it'll either be spam, or a stupid question
> that I have no interest in reading in the first place, because what
> kind of intelligent question could you possibly get from someone who
> sends pure-HTML email?  None.

Rant on

+10,000 folks. Send me pure html mail and it goes straight back 
to "sa-learn spam". And that training has probably sent 20 such messages 
a day to the spam folder already, where its chances of being read are 
very poor, and a reply is once in a blue moon event.

Email was intended to be plain text. And since email is sent to a common 
server, which in turn relays it to every subscriber to the list 
regardless of where on the planet the recipient is, he is going to see 
it, and all your legal dept gets for appending a big if not the intended 
recipient, delete this unread, of course its only seen after reading 
that far down in the message that this is seen. The only thing the legal 
folks are getting out of such a message, is a paycheck that is a drain 
on your resources, there has not been a court rendering anyplace on the 
planet that I'm aware of ordering the reader of such a message to pay 
damages.

/rant off
-- 
Cheers, Gene Heskett
--
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web