Slashdot Mirror
Borking Outlook Express
Johannes writes: "Swedish Gnuheter has a story on Nick Moffitt arranging with his X-headers in way that makes it impossible to read his email with Microsoft WebTV or Outlook Express. Moffitt states: 'The folks using Outlook Express have locked themselves into a
limited subset of the information that can flow over the Internet, and
are blaming me personally for not limiting my transmissions to that
outlook-centric subset.'
See also original email (in English). Immoral? Or just right?" Looks like Moffit's "Who, me?" attitude is tongue in cheek, but the creative header changes here are hilarious.
I read the english e-mail and he explains his position (I don't quite understand the hack though) -- rather than blocking totally Microsoft's client, why not make it display "This message would be readable if you used any other email client than Microsoft's. For a list of good clients, some of which are free, visit *url to Download.com or something*."
Same thing for anti-Microsoft mailing lists which disalow Outlook -- kindly inform anything other than Outlook is ok (due to security concerns, etc.) and provide a list of free or not-too-expensive email clients (or again a link to download.com and the like).
Sounds like a much better (and beneficial) use of time.
Thanks,
--
Matt
I don't like your e-mail client, therefore I will manipulate my mail in a manner that makes it impossible to read from that client? Now THAT's mature.
Cut and paste, then.
Får man lägga till nya headers i sina e-post-meddelanden som gör att de meddelanden som man skickar inte kan läsas av de som använder Outlook Express eller läser brev med WebTV?
Frågan har väckts i samband med att Nick Moffitt har skickat just sådana meddelanden på Tron-listan. Microsoft-användarna är inte nöjda med Moffitts beteende medan Moffitt hänvisar till att mottagarnas e-post-program är problemet och inte hans X-headers.
De headers som är omdebatterade:
X-Fnord: +++ath
X-WebTV-Stationery: Standard; BGColor=black; TextColor=black
X-Message-Flag: Message text blocked: ADULT LANGUAGE/SITUATIONS
X-BeenThere: crackmonkey@crackmonkey.org
Läs Nick Moffitts brev på Crackmonkey-listan.
Debattera sedan gärna vidare på Gnuheter.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Whatever you think of his politics I love the idea of a snooty doorman looking at the M$ users and making them continue to stand in line outside the club. ;)
It raises the bar for entry to the list, and ensures that users really want to be there. There are two ways, actually, that one can meet the crackmonkey mailing list dress code. One is to simply use Free Software[] Another is to continue to use your Windows-based mailer, but hack the headers of your message so as not to betray your use of the software.[] Both methods demonstrate an effort made to post to the list, as well as a certain degree of technical acumen.
I hate to say it but this probably works wonders. I remember when alt.hackers instituted a policy in which it was listed as a "moderated" newsgroup but there was no moderator. So any submitted stories were simply mailed into the ether.
You had to edit your header so that you 'approved' your own post. Yes, it was trivial but a quick comparison between that group and 'alt.2600' proved that even that low a bar worked wonders for the level of content.
=tkk
Bill Gates - Creationist?!?
Which is pretty easy to do. Just add to your headers:
X-Message-Flag: This message would be readable if you used any other email client than Microsoft's. For a list of good clients, some of which are free, visit *url to Download.com or something*.
morcego
Anyway, the time will come when I'm the one to post results. I'll use Gnumeric, I think. I have been toying with the idea of actually posting a Gnumeric XML file to the list... Revenge!!! ;-)
Well, I'm not going to do it just for the revenge. It has to be illustrating some point.
This got me thinking: Since Gnumeric's native file format is based on XML, it should be possible to have it sensibly parsed and displayed in a browser that does support XML, including IE, given....?
OK, so this is the question: What would it take for people to get a readable table on their browser, straight from a Gnumeric XML file?
If this would work, it would illustrate a major point: How much more flexible these products are. Those who have experienced all M$ lock-ins and unreadable documents can suddenly access a document in a format they've never heard of.
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
Mozilla's mail client, for one.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I think that he's just tring to get people to realize how stupid it is to limit yourself to email that only Outlook can read.
I use outlook every day and I recieve email that I cannot read. Why? Because outlook blocks exe files from me. Now you say that I shouldn't be getting them, well my co-workers send them to me! They don't know that I can't read them because they all use Netscape Mail. I have to switch to outlook because we are switching to MS Outlook servers and so soon they will have to as well. However in the real world things are not that simple.
I think that we need to press MS to make their software more compatable with badly written mail messages. Not get mad at someone who writes bad messages. If you don't wish to recieve badly written messages, then don't use the email system.
The whole point of the X-Headers he's using is to let people extend the functionality of email. It's the implementors fault if they assume the only X-Headers written will be by complaint programs! That's just silly.
I have to come to defense of Outlook Express. (God help me...).
If you're not familiar with the two Outlook products, here's an overview: Normal "Outlook" is the crappy Microsoft Office-integrated, do-it-all, unsecure, scheduling, Exchange-client, mail reader and more and Outlook Express is simply the POP/IMAP that comes with IE. The latter is a great mail client.
I don't use Internet Explorer anymore - I've been using Mozilla since 9.5 (a few months now) and I love it. But I can't use the Mozilla mail client yet, it's just not mature enough. OE is simple to use, fast, manages the 10,000 emails I have in folders without problems, doesn't make me manage each email account separately (though I could if I wanted), decent filtering, higher-security, etc. Whoever wrote this app at Microsoft had a clue as it's really well done. There's not much wrong with it, except, I guess, whatever this guy is ranting about and the fact that it's a Microsoft product.
The last bit does bother me as I'm slowly weaning myself from M$ products. I have TRIED many other email programs (for Windows) and not been satisfied at all. The Bat!, Eudora, Mozilla, Opera's Email bit and others that have come and gone from my system. Until they're more like OE, I'm not switching...
I'm really pulling for the Mozilla team and gave my feedback to some of the Mail guys during the Bug Week or whatever it's called. But I'm not a C++ programmer (and even if I was, I'm not installing Microsoft Visual C++ to develop with Mozilla...) so I just have to wait until it gets mature enough for daily use.
One good thing though is that the Mozilla importer is great for pulling in my emails from OE already. So when the UI is up to snuff, it'll be a snap to switch over. (And then I can seriously consider switching over to Linux full-time also...)
That's it.
-Russ
Me
was of a recent Ask Slashdot article that talks about the unnecessary HTML formatting in Windows mailers. The problems are that they force you to reply in HTML, and include HTML headers that are impossible to not include in replies. There is nothing like having to spend time reformatting a whole email discussion just because some Windows mailer HTMLized the whole thing. This guy has the right idea; Let's just not include MS mailers if they are not going to follow the standard and make everything diffcult. MS tries to reinvent the wheel too much
This is the fundamental issue that's hurting the perception of Linux. The die-hard Linux supporters, a.k.a. the "Winblows Sux" crowd, are doing a very, very good job of convincing the rest of the world that Linux is a toy that's more trouble than it's worth. I've talked to many business people who have had little exposure to the Linux culture aside from a few forays into online resources like /., usenet, and some Linux-oriented help sites, and they are not favorably impressed.
That's why I gave up pushing Linux a long time ago. It's easier for me and for my clients to stick with the best Windows solution for desktops, which is still, IMO, Win2k. That avoids the hassles of trying to overcome their political bias against significant change. Getting them to upgrade Win 95 and 98 systems to Win2k is tough enough, but they like the result (read: stability), they don't have to pay for massive retraining to convert users over to a new OS and set of apps, and everyone goes home happy.
I've been looking for a decent email client for windows (not for me, but for my coworkers). I wish I could get something along the lines of Kmail, but so far I can't find any. Eudora is way too bloated for my liking, and most of the others expire. I want someting that's easy to use (nice big "check mail" button, decent address book, not too cluttered). I'm sorry to say that outlook express looks to be my best option so far. Can someone show me (or them, like I said before I use Kmail) the light?
I have to say, I'd like to find a really good approach for dealing with mailers with built-in prejudicial statements in them.
You know the kind, where you get to see disparaging comments like
as if you are using a deficient MUA when you see such text.I'd really like a 2-3 sentence autoreply text that could bounce some of those MS Word attachments with similar pronouncements about
Most people simply have no idea what standards are, nor the ways or the degree to which they pay for the IT infrastructure that they currently use.Their responses are usually quizzical and predictable, "Uhh, so what does it look like to you when Word launches?" Answer: Word doesn't launch. It requires money to launch. It requires that you buy the whole banana to get Word. (There used to be Ted Rall cartoon years ago that parodied the whole issue during the browser war years "Works best with MS House!"
People so much consider these things like .doc to be standards, that they ought to be made into bona fide standards that are publicly documented, including all the quirks of proper display, instead of just glossing over that they cannot be displayed without paying money to see them, even if its bundled into the cost of your new PC or the Microsoft Enterprise License Agreement for Office, which is probably priced more inelastically than gasoline.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
So if you use Windows, you must be some diseased leper who isn't fit to lick the boots of Nick Moffitt. What a jerk. This is exactly the kind of person who turns people off to Linux, free software, etc.
Nope, wrong. If you are not technically competent enough to figure out how to play, you don't get to. Simply screening out, using his criteria. I know plenty of technically competent people who use Windows that would have no problem figuring this out.
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power.
I've read a few comments here how this is about "playing God" and it's a bad reflection on the Linux community. Funny how this kind of story will only show up on a pro-Linux site like Slashdot... and only here are people complaining (well, maybe the few Windows users who were denied from posting).
And why are Windows users the only ones excluded? Why not exclude Mac users too? Aren't they supposed to be even stupider than Windows users? So block two of my computing platforms if you want, I have more...
If you are not technically competent enough to figure out how to play, you don't get to.
Nope, wrong. As an example, I use XP. I also use plenty of free software. However, since OE does an adequate job of email, I use that. But if I want to be a part of his list, I am forced to use something else. This is not what free software is about. Free software is about choice. I have the choice to pay for XP, IE, OE, etc or I can download Mozilla or whatever client I choose. Yes, I know how to download and install a non-MS mail client, but why should I have to?
...which program to read Word docs? Microsoft Word 4, 95, 97, 2000? I have Word on my computer, and it won't read the "new" Word formats. Although I have some other programs that read Word documents just fine. On the other hand, most of Microsoft's HTML tools can't make HTML that reads well in anything except Explorer...
I get crappy, munged-up email from Outlook users every single day, often with one or another worm or virus as a payload. Anything that encourages Windows users to get a real email/news program is a good thing.
Reminds me of article 2 from the Bill of Non-Rights.
Constitutionally Correct
>Its ok to say "Use anything except outlook" when
>you are on the linux side.
>
>What would you say, if I said use a program that
>can read Word docs [slashdot.org]??
The point about these anti-Outlook headers is that they're still perfectly conformant with RFCs 821, 822, et al. Any conformant mail-reader can read these messages just fine.
But there is no RFC for Word .doc format. In either case, the underlying message is "use a mail client that conforms to open standards (the RFCs)."
When Microsoft releases an RFC for .doc format, then this position will be hypocritical. But until then, it's perfectly consistent. (Alternatively, they could make Outlook obey the RFCs... then Mr. Moffitt's header hacks won't bother it any more.)
Kai MacTane: Web developer for hire in San Francisco
I know of Ubizen, a Belgian security firm, that filters out all of the Outlook posts from its incoming mail for al of its users. They simply send the message back, including an explanation to the sender that it isn't quite safe to use Outlook and that they're only allowing mail from other mail-clients. Considering this comes from a renown security firm, a lot of people take this advise very seriously. Of course, this isn't quite the same thing but it still is an interesting way to look at the 'Outlook Problem'.
From here on out, everything I post to mailing list and newsgroups will begin with:
Virus infected or Microsoft software may be confused by the following message:
begin
<aside>Good Joke</aside>
Maybe I'm missing something, but I tried that message beginning and some other text (sent from Mozilla 0.9.7+), back to myself and read it just fine with Outlook Express 5.01 SP2. No exchange servers in-between.
I'm wondering if the problem only affects Outlook and not Outlook Express, or is it only certain versions???
Excluding Outlook users might even be construed as a security measure. :-p
Not funny at all. According to Microsoft, Outlook was "just built that way" and I quote
"Will the virus impact my Macintosh if I am using a non-Microsoft e-mail program, such as Eudora?
If you are using an Macintosh e-mail program that is not from Microsoft, we recommend checking with that particular company. But most likely other e-mail programs like Eudora are not designed to enable virus replication.
So, if you were writing a program (trojan) that was designed as a virus delivery system (trojan), would you get upset if someone created a method for alerting users to this aspect (trojan) of your software? (Anti-Virus) The key here is that even Microsoft acknowledges that Outlook transmits viriii by design.
.
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power.
O.K., let's change the focus. Use a RFC Compliant e-mail program (not OE or Outlook) and you can belong to the list and read my mail. If you CHOOSE to not use a compliant mailer, well, that's your choice.
If the standard is to communicate in letters and you insist on using binary numbers, what would that make you? Elitist?
After all, everyone understands 1's and 0's don't they?
There's nothing about RFC compliancy here.
The poster on CrackMonkey notes that he has a number of tricks -- one is a header which sets the stationary on WebTV's to an unreadable color. Another is one that on some ISPs, shuts down the modem (which I actually think is more likely complete bullshit, due to the way that AT command strings work).
So there's a couple of lame hacks that try to make things difficult for some users. X-* headers are standards compliant, even if they might have different results on different systems.
The problem here is the UUEncoding init string that is automatically detected by Outlook Express. This is meant to be a convenience for the user; it'll automatically work out that there's an attachment in the post.
UUencoding is obsolete, by the way. MIME should be used instead. But hey, they have to keep it for interoperability with people who don't have MIME compliant browsers, don't they?
That'd be PINE users, for a start.
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
That's no personal vendetta.
He sends out perfectly legitimate mail. We've had this debate on Usenet a few times.
Outcrap^H^H^H^Hlook tries to decode a message as an uuencoded attachment as soon as a message body line starts with "begin ". Feel free to think of the ramifications of that. (And yes, that's not "Header". That's "body", i.e. text supposed to be read by the recipient.)
This bug has been known for ages. M$ just doesn't fix it. It used to be worse, though. There was a time when out look even tried to interpret or execute said attachement. People had signatures that sent every Windows machine into lock or reboot.
Apparently the only way to get M$ to fix the most obvious crappy bugs is to massively exploit them.
So be it.
f.
My sympathies. However that does make you part of the problem, and not part of the solution.
You'll have to forgive me if I don't understand. I run Linux / FreeBSD on all of the machines in my home but TWO (2). My wife uses Win95 and my kids use Win98. My wife refuses to switch (read learn about) to Linux. My kids use my Linux machine to play games and some browsing. But they only understand that PbsKids.org doesn't 'work' on my box. My Linux is completely self-taught, and I am VERY proud of my accomplishments. My samba server works seemlessly with both windows and linux. My mailserver hasn't dropped an email, and my firewall has an uptime of over 6 months. I come from an AS/400 background and had never seen a *nix OS. When I d/led the latest RH distro (at the time was 6.1) and struggled through the install, I was lost. I stuck with it, and have seen linux grow a lot in the past 2 years.
I guess if you could explain to this simpleton why he is a problem, then I could refute your statement.
Since I don't normally think every statement I disagree with is a flamebait, if the above is one, go bother someone else.
Vertical
72 CD D7 52 D0 7E D8 47 44 91 D5 84 D1 59 F1 A9-This is my 128bit integer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
A lot of people are posting comments similar to,
:), who cares what my grandma uses?
"It's crap like this that prevent people from
using Linux. We'll never move into the mainstream
that way."
So what? What's going to be so good about moving
Linux onto everyone's desktop? Foolish pride?
I'm all for getting more people with technical
know-how into Linux. Means faster support for new
hardware, all the good things in the "Bazaar"
model.
However, how many mainstream desktop users are
going to start kernel hacking and significantly
help? For those that aren't going to help, what
difference does it make if they use Linux or
Windows or Mac or FooOS? It's not like they can
kill Linux.
As long as I have my Linux (or FreeBSD, as the
case may be