From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/70302 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ted Zlatanov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: Built-in HTML renderer in Emacs? Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 15:49:46 -0500 Organization: =?utf-8?B?0KLQtdC+0LTQvtGAINCX0LvQsNGC0LDQvdC+0LI=?= @ Cienfuegos Message-ID: <87iq2p6vf9.fsf@lifelogs.com> References: <871v9dlgqp.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87lj7ljyxd.fsf@lifelogs.com> <874oe9jwv3.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87vd6pig2y.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87occhfl77.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87d3sxfkhc.fsf@lifelogs.com> <878w3lfjgd.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87d3sx8gkq.fsf@lifelogs.com> <871v9d8dj2.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87tym96wrz.fsf@lifelogs.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1283374216 32360 80.91.229.12 (1 Sep 2010 20:50:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 20:50:16 +0000 (UTC) To: ding@gnus.org Original-X-From: ding-owner+M18688@lists.math.uh.edu Wed Sep 01 22:50:14 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: ding-account@gmane.org Original-Received: from util0.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.18]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OquG5-0001ph-Jl for ding-account@gmane.org; Wed, 01 Sep 2010 22:50:13 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.math.uh.edu) by util0.math.uh.edu with smtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1OquG4-000334-0H; Wed, 01 Sep 2010 15:50:12 -0500 Original-Received: from mx2.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.33]) by util0.math.uh.edu with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1OquG2-00032V-BR for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Wed, 01 Sep 2010 15:50:10 -0500 Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.231.51]) by mx2.math.uh.edu with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1OquFo-00005a-UE for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Wed, 01 Sep 2010 15:50:10 -0500 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1OquFo-0002GX-00 for ; Wed, 01 Sep 2010 22:49:56 +0200 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OquFo-0001ho-4p for ding@gnus.org; Wed, 01 Sep 2010 22:49:56 +0200 Original-Received: from 38.98.147.130 ([38.98.147.130]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 01 Sep 2010 22:49:56 +0200 Original-Received: from tzz by 38.98.147.130 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 01 Sep 2010 22:49:56 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 42 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 38.98.147.130 X-Face: bd.DQ~'29fIs`T_%O%C\g%6jW)yi[zuz6;d4V0`@y-~$#3P_Ng{@m+e4o<4P'#(_GJQ%TT= D}[Ep*b!\e,fBZ'j_+#"Ps?s2!4H2-Y"sx" User-Agent: Gnus/5.110011 (No Gnus v0.11) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:7/Yn0cCLSsOFEz41eeNL1fla4T0= X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) List-ID: Precedence: bulk Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:70302 Archived-At: On Wed, 01 Sep 2010 22:26:35 +0200 Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen wrote: LMI> Ted Zlatanov writes: >> OK, s/spammers/evildoers and other miscreants/. I believe 99% of the >> users will set this to nil or give up. We should at least try to give >> this some nuance; a regex is not the best solution. LMI> Well, we could have a more fine-grained solution. Like "I want to have LMI> privacy", "do a best effort for privacy, but let me loot at purdy LMI> pictures", and "whatever". That would be swell (with "custom" as the fourth option). And it should have the granularity to specify some combination of symbolic parameterized rules in an alist, e.g. ((no-get-params) (min-dimensions 2) (min-area 8)) in addition to multiple URL regexes. WDYT? Finally, there should be a way to get an image in the article buffer even if it was blocked by going to it and hitting `i' or whatever. >> Also image URLs that have GET parameters could be filtered out >> explicitly as a separate rule. That's very likely to be a web bug. LMI> There are plenty of images out there that have get parameters. Yes. As a rule it would make sense but I agree it's not for everyone. >>>> 1x1 images are suspicious but a 800x600 image is probably safe. >>>> Basically the pixel count should be over 8 and each dimension should >>>> be over 2. >> LMI> You don't know the size of the image before you download it. >> >> It's pretty common to set the width and height explicitly to 1 for web >> bug images in the HTML. That's what I was thinking of; sorry for being >> unclear. LMI> Ah, right. Yes, that makes sense. Please make it so. :-) Let's figure out the above rule structure and then I'll write it. Ted