In article ,
Dave Hinz wrote:
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 22:04:27 -0000, Robert Bonomi
wrote:
In article ,
Dave Hinz wrote:

On that, I definately agree. Although, Dave, the images would
probably be tags to a webserver anyway, so the mail itself should be
small.

But _that_ is the 'reference implementation' of virus-spreading e-mails.

I didn't know they had managed to build viruses into images yet.

Call it an 'image', even name it with the extension for a recognized image
format. make the _acutal_ content of the file a MS-executable.

Windows is _so_dumb_, that it looks at the file 'type' (based on extension)
to figure out whether or not to automatically 'execute' the file, and then
*ignores* the extension, and looks at the actual content to determine *how*
to execute it.

Furthermore, there *are* exploits of defective code in the MS 'jpeg' decoder.
which allow you to embed malicious *code* into the 'data' of a properly-
constructed .JPG file, and it _will_ be executed.

Many modern browsers will -not-, when processing HTML mail, open links to an

'external to the message' reference.

Well, it's not a link, it's a tagged object, but either way, email is
the way not to do it for a host of reasons.

I won't debate terminology. "a href={something}text description/a"

Charlie, at a minimum, you need to give people an *option* for
HTML mail vs 'plain ASCII'.

Absolutely.