From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/70288 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 15:20:32 -0500 Organization: =?utf-8?B?0KLQtdC+0LTQvtGAINCX0LvQsNGC0LDQvdC+0LI=?= @ Cienfuegos Message-ID: <87tym96wrz.fsf@lifelogs.com> References: <87sk1uzjap.fsf@lifelogs.com> <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> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1283372467 25009 80.91.229.12 (1 Sep 2010 20:21:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 20:21:07 +0000 (UTC) To: ding@gnus.org Original-X-From: ding-owner+M18674@lists.math.uh.edu Wed Sep 01 22:21:04 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 1Oqtno-0001m9-Ni for ding-account@gmane.org; Wed, 01 Sep 2010 22:21:01 +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 1Oqtnh-0002V0-0O; Wed, 01 Sep 2010 15:20:53 -0500 Original-Received: from mx1.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.32]) by util0.math.uh.edu with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Oqtnf-0002Uo-TO for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Wed, 01 Sep 2010 15:20:51 -0500 Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.231.51]) by mx1.math.uh.edu with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Oqtnb-0004Uc-VV for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Wed, 01 Sep 2010 15:20:51 -0500 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1Oqtnb-0001xz-00 for ; Wed, 01 Sep 2010 22:20:47 +0200 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Oqtna-0001fW-Cq for ding@gnus.org; Wed, 01 Sep 2010 22:20:46 +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 22:20:46 +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 22:20:46 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 39 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:xkswUinaRXG4ogr52tY0dt7OPDQ= X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) List-ID: Precedence: bulk Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:70288 Archived-At: On Wed, 01 Sep 2010 21:57:26 +0200 Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen wrote: LMI> Ted Zlatanov writes: >> Katsumi Yamaoka and I had a similar discussion about safe URLs. I think >> fighting spammers by filtering all images is a losing battle and >> everyone will just set that to nil, but maybe the filter can at least >> take the image size into account. LMI> I don't think spammers are the main problem -- it's a question of loss LMI> of privacy. There are people selling tools that lets you know whether LMI> somebody has read the email you sent them just by exploiting the LMI> sloppiness of mail readers in this area. I don't think that's a good LMI> idea to have enable by default. 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. So, looking at http://w2.eff.org/Privacy/Marketing/web_bug.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_bug... Gnus doesn't let w3m use cookies so session tracking won't work. We're only worried about images. We should maybe look at w3m-filter-rules and structure gnus-blocked-images after it. 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. >> 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. Ted