I Don't Heart This



  • Continuing on the theme of [url="http://forums.thedailywtf.com/forums/p/25971/288213.aspx#288213"]Hotmail is sucking more lately[/url], I present this:

    You'll notice two things:

    1) The gigantic obtrusive red heart that is a non-standard character Update, [b]this isn't a fucking character, it's an IMAGE TAG[/b]
    2) This is in my [b]FUCKING JUNK MAIL[/b].

    I mean seriously, Hotmail. Are you trying to let spammers turn my junk box into this forum's tag cloud or something? What use case would allow unfettered access to stylized, coloured non-standard characters to unsolicited senders?

    [b]CORRECTION[/b]: I did a view source (so I could put the annoying character in the tags, of course), and found out it's not a Unicode character. It's a goddamn image tag:

    <img class="Emoji$02665$15BC" alt="Black heart (cards)" title="Black heart (cards)" src="https://redacted.hotmail.com/mail/w4/pr04/ltr/emoji/emoji_02665.gif">

    Holy Buddah-fucking Christ! You're fucking allowing unsolicited senders to put goddamn IMAGES in SUBJECT LINES? 

    Fuck's sake.



  • It appears to be a character that Hotmail is replacing with an image located on Hotmail's servers, not a spammer's image. Kind of silly (especially in the spam folder) but not the hugest WTF.



  • To be honest, email allows any character in the subject line even valid html.

    Hotmails problem isn't that they are allowing it, but rather they are parsing the subject line as HTML, parse it as plain text so we can see the spamming asshats for what they are, not some pretty dressup.



  • @KattMan said:

    To be honest, email allows any character in the subject line even valid html.

    <PedanticDickweed>Not /r or /n. Also, mail was traditionally 7-bit ASCII so a lot of people still encode 8-bit values (like UTF-8) so they can be represented as 7-bit.</PedanticDickweed>

    @KattMan said:

    Hotmails problem isn't that they are allowing it, but rather they are parsing the subject line as HTML, parse it as plain text so we can see the spamming asshats for what they are, not some pretty dressup.

    No, they aren't allowing raw HTML. That would be a massive security hole. They're just replacing certain characters with image tags pointing to emoji.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    No, they aren't allowing raw HTML. That would be a massive security hole. They're just replacing certain characters with image tags pointing to emoji.
     

    That isn't as bad, in the sense that getting sodomized by a Hiroshima is better than getting sodomized by a Nagasaki.

    I wouldn't allow subject-line emoticons from a trusted sender. There's no excuse for allowing them from spammers. (Again, this email was in my "Junk" box, and my account is set to "exclusive whitelist only motherfuckers").



  • @Lorne Kates said:

    That isn't as bad, in the sense that getting sodomized by a Hiroshima is better than getting sodomized by a Nagasaki.

    But Hiroshima was smaller than Nagasak--ohhh.

    @Lorne Kates said:

    I wouldn't allow subject-line emoticons from a trusted sender. There's no excuse for allowing them from spammers. (Again, this email was in my "Junk" box, and my account is set to "exclusive whitelist only motherfuckers").

    I agree, it's goofy. It doesn't make me want to burn down someone's home but it does make me sad that people actually got paid to think up, implement, test and deploy that idea.



  • @KattMan said:

    Hotmails problem isn't that they are allowing it, but rather they are parsing the subject line as HTML.

    That.

    How long before someone exploits this idea for phish, or Hotmale begins to execute embedded javascript in the subject line?



  • @Cassidy said:

    Hotmale
    Oops?



  • No, you don't understand. Hotmail is not parsing anything as HTML. There was no HTML in the subject line to begin with. It is simply that Hotmail will replace Unicode Character 'BLACK HEART SUIT' (U+2665) with

    <img src="http://gfx2.hotmail.com/mail/w4/pr04/ltr/emoji/emoji_02665.gif" class="Emoji$02665$1546" title="Black heart (cards)" alt="Black heart (cards)">
    


  • @barrabus said:

    No, you don't understand. Hotmail is not parsing anything as HTML. There was no HTML in the subject line to begin with. It is simply that Hotmail will replace Unicode Character 'BLACK HEART SUIT' (U+2665) with

    <img src="http://gfx2.hotmail.com/mail/w4/pr04/ltr/emoji/emoji_02665.gif" class="Emoji$02665$1546" title="Black heart (cards)" alt="Black heart (cards)">
    

     

    So they're replacing text-- which is rendered according to user preferences via their browser, and is fully screen reader accessible-- with a pre-determined image of their choice which is neither?

    Morbs-- you sure you don't want to burn down someone's house? There'll be charred remains in it for you...

     



  • @Lorne Kates said:

    @barrabus said:

    No, you don't understand. Hotmail is not parsing anything as HTML. There was no HTML in the subject line to begin with. It is simply that Hotmail will replace Unicode Character 'BLACK HEART SUIT' (U+2665) with

    <img src="http://gfx2.hotmail.com/mail/w4/pr04/ltr/emoji/emoji_02665.gif" class="Emoji$02665$1546" title="Black heart (cards)" alt="Black heart (cards)">
    

     

    So they're replacing text-- which is rendered according to user preferences via their browser, and is fully screen reader accessible-- with a pre-determined image of their choice which is neither?

    Morbs-- you sure you don't want to burn down someone's house? There'll be charred remains in it for you...

     

    Er, is ♥ actually more accessible? How would you pronounce it? At least the emoji has an alt tag.



  • @barrabus said:

    No, you don't understand. Hotmail is not parsing anything as HTML. There was no HTML in the subject line to begin with. It is simply that Hotmail will replace Unicode Character 'BLACK HEART SUIT' (U+2665) with

    <img src="http://gfx2.hotmail.com/mail/w4/pr04/ltr/emoji/emoji_02665.gif" class="Emoji$02665$1546" title="Black heart (cards)" alt="Black heart (cards)">
    

    Which, apparently, is an image of a [i]red[/i] heart.



  • @pkmnfrk said:

    Er, is ♥ actually more accessible? How would you pronounce it? At least the emoji has an alt tag.
     

    I don't know how, but I'm sure a screen reader would, and would do it in a recognizable and consistent way that the user is used to.

    Or Hotmail could create a giant lookup table of every unicode character to full text descriptions, in every language supported, and hope they got it all right (not like, say, mixing up red and black), just so they can poorly replace functionality the user already had.

     



  • I'm not saying it's not a WTF, but it's a heck of a lot smaller one than it would have been if they were actually parsing HTML in the subject line, which is the conclusion some people were jumping to.



  • Why didn't they make the alt text "♥" ? At least that would have made sense.



  • @Strolskon said:

     Filed under: <FONT color=#698d73>I ⚗ Unićode</FONT>
    You "Han" it?



  • @Spectre said:

    @barrabus said:
    No, you don't understand. Hotmail is not parsing anything as HTML. There was no HTML in the subject line to begin with. It is simply that Hotmail will replace Unicode Character 'BLACK HEART SUIT' (U+2665) with

    <img src="http://gfx2.hotmail.com/mail/w4/pr04/ltr/emoji/emoji_02665.gif" class="Emoji$02665$1546" title="Black heart (cards)" alt="Black heart (cards)">
    

    Which, apparently, is an image of a red heart.

    It's actually more surprising to me that the Unicode character name includes a colour. What's the point? If you entered that character into a word processor and set the font colour to red, would the word processor also be wrong if it rendered a red glyph?



  • @barrabus said:

    @Spectre said:
    @barrabus said:
    No, you don't understand. Hotmail is not parsing anything as HTML. There was no HTML in the subject line to begin with. It is simply that Hotmail will replace Unicode Character 'BLACK HEART SUIT' (U+2665) with

    <img src="http://gfx2.hotmail.com/mail/w4/pr04/ltr/emoji/emoji_02665.gif" class="Emoji$02665$1546" title="Black heart (cards)" alt="Black heart (cards)">
    

    Which, apparently, is an image of a red heart.

    It's actually more surprising to me that the Unicode character name includes a colour. What's the point? If you entered that character into a word processor and set the font colour to red, would the word processor also be wrong if it rendered a red glyph?

    In the context of Unicode graphics, "black" means filled-in whereas "white" means outlined. Since the card suit is red it actually makes sense that they rendered it in red.



  • @Lorne Kates said:

    2) This is in my FUCKING JUNK MAIL.
     

    WORKS AS INTENDED.



  • @Lorne Kates said:

    So they're replacing text-- which is rendered according to user preferences via their browser, and is fully screen reader accessible-- with a pre-determined image of their choice which is neither?

    So instead of the subject line of the email saying  "We ♥ Pinterest"  it says  "We Pinterest".

    It seems that Hotmail's devs have a little too much free time on their hands.



  • @Lorne Kates said:

    So they're replacing text-- which is rendered according to user preferences via their browser, and is fully screen reader accessible-- with a pre-determined image of their choice which is neither?

    I ♥ the blind.


  • @morbiuswilters said:

    In the context of Unicode graphics, "black" means filled-in whereas "white" means outlined. Since the card suit is red it actually makes sense that they rendered it in red.

    g2k



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    In the context of Unicode graphics, "black" means filled-in whereas "white" means outlined. Since the card suit is red it actually makes sense that they rendered it in red.

    Today, I learned things!



  • @Lorne Kates said:

    Continuing on the theme of Hotmail is sucking more lately, I present this:

    You'll notice two things:

    1) The gigantic obtrusive red heart that is a non-standard character Update, this isn't a fucking character, it's an IMAGE TAG
    2) This is in my FUCKING JUNK MAIL.

    I mean seriously, Hotmail. Are you trying to let spammers turn my junk box into this forum's tag cloud or something? What use case would allow unfettered access to stylized, coloured non-standard characters to unsolicited senders?

    CORRECTION: I did a view source (so I could put the annoying character in the tags, of course), and found out it's not a Unicode character. It's a goddamn image tag:

    <img class="Emoji$02665$15BC" alt="Black heart (cards)" title="Black heart (cards)" src="https://redacted.hotmail.com/mail/w4/pr04/ltr/emoji/emoji_02665.gif">

    Holy Buddah-fucking Christ! You're fucking allowing unsolicited senders to put goddamn IMAGES in SUBJECT LINES? 

    Fuck's sake.

     Lorne Kates, you have an extremely limited vocabulary which is tilted heavily toward the obscene and blasphemy. Take your...excuse the word, please...shit someplace else.



  • @SilentRunner said:

    Lorne Kates, you have an extremely limited vocabulary which is tilted heavily toward the obscene and blasphemy. Take your...excuse the word, please...shit someplace else.
     

    What the fuck? I only used the word "Unicode", like, fucking two times.

    Motherfucker.



  • @Lorne Kates said:

    @SilentRunner said:

    Lorne Kates, you have an extremely limited vocabulary which is tilted heavily toward the obscene and blasphemy. Take your...excuse the word, please...shit someplace else.
     

    What the fuck? I only used the word "Unicode", like, fucking two times.

    Motherfucker.

    +1



  • As some others mentioned, Hotmail has begun replacing various unicode and HTML entities with inline GIF images. This is wreaking havoc for HTML email developers




    See this thread:

    [url]http://www.campaignmonitor.com/blog/post/3716/hats-off-to-hotmail-for-replacing-symbols-with-oversized-emoji/[/url]




    Don't blame the marketers for this one, Hotmail did it all on their own.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    In the context of Unicode graphics, "black" means filled-in whereas "white" means outlined.

    Unicode 6, however, introduces characters like U+1F34E RED APPLE, U+1F34F GREEN APPLE, U+1F499 BLUE HEART, U+1F49A GREEN HEART, U+1F49B YELLOW HEART, U+1F49C PURPLE HEART, U+1F4D7 GREEN BOOK, U+1F4D8 BLUE BOOK, U+1F4D9 ORANGE BOOK and possibly few other emoji that are not really representable without color (the code chart depicts them with striping in various direction).



  • @barrabus said:

    I'm not saying it's not a WTF, but it's a heck of a lot smaller one than it would have been if they were actually parsing HTML in the subject line, which is the conclusion some people were jumping to.
     

    That'll include me, and yup - it's a smaller WTF than if it had have been parsing raw HTML.

    It's still interfering with the content, mind. Why not leave it as the unicode character as intended? "why is my black heart coming out red in your email?"



  • @dynedain said:

    This is wreaking havoc for HTML email developers

    And this is a bad thing how? The fewer HTML-formatted mails I get, the better …



  • @pkmnfrk said:

    Er, is ♥ actually more accessible? How would you pronounce it? At least the emoji has an alt tag.

     

    "We black heart cards Pintrest!"

    Which at least makes a lot more sense than how a lot of pages get rendered by screen readers.

     



  • It's U+2697 'ALEMBIC'.

    (Which still doesn't make much sense but whatever)



  • @pkmnfrk said:

    Er, is ♥ actually more accessible? How would you pronounce it? At least the emoji has an alt tag.
     

    Considering the alt text doesn't actually match the image, I'd say pretty accessible. A screen reader will read out what the character is when it comes across it. The thing is, this "feature" probably isn't limited to only this character, so who knows what else is being replaced which would have worked just fine otherwise?



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    I ♥ the blind.
     

    That is the worst fucking antialias I've ever seen.



  • @dhromed said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    I ♥ the blind.
     

    That is the worst fucking antialias I've ever seen.

     

    The blind don't complain about other people's fonts.

    Ironically, they could read this better than you, Sighty.

     



  • @SilentRunner said:

    Lorne Kates, you have an extremely limited vocabulary which is tilted heavily toward the obscene and blasphemy. Take your...excuse the word, please...shit someplace else.
    On one hand, I can agree that there's gratuitous profanity on this site.  On the other hand, you self-selected to be here.  If you don't want to see the profanity, that's fine, you just self-select to not be here.  Just like I self-select to not to go gay bars . . . I let Morbs do that instead.



  • @Lorne Kates said:

    What blissful nativity.

    Are you suggesting that all blind people are First-Nations?



  • @Lorne Kates said:

    @SilentRunner said:
    Lorne Kates, you have an extremely limited vocabulary which is tilted heavily toward the obscene and blasphemy. Take your...excuse the word, please...shit someplace else.
    What the fuck? I only used the word "Unicode", like, fucking two times.

    Motherfucker. 

     


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @morbiuswilters said:

    @KattMan said:
    To be honest, email allows any character in the subject line even valid html.

    <PedanticDickweed>Not /r or /n. Also, mail was traditionally 7-bit ASCII so a lot of people still encode 8-bit values (like UTF-8) so they can be represented as 7-bit.</PedanticDickweed>

    You know if you're going to do that, someone has to point out it's \r and \n, not /r and /n.



  • @nonpartisan said:

    If you don't want to see the profanity, that's fine, you just self-select to not be here.

    Alternatively - if he's using Firefox - he could use an extension that filters profanity, FuckBlockPlus.xpi.

    Coming soon at all UK ISPs, at Mr Vaisey's insistence, backed up by hordes of wailing alarmist mothers that are too fuck-stupid to understand the responsibilities of owning an internet-connected computer. 



  • @pkmnfrk said:

    @Lorne Kates said:

    What blissful nativity.

    Are you suggesting that all blind people are First-Nations?

     

    It must be from drinking homebrew hooch all day.

    [/UnnecessarilyOffensiveTroll]

     



  • @Cassidy said:

    FuckBlockPlus.xpi
    ISAGN.@Cassidy said:
    Coming soon at all UK ISPs, at Mr Vaisey's insistence, backed up by hordes of wailing alarmist mothers that are too fuck-stupid to understand the responsibilities of owning an internet-connected computer. 
    As I've pointed out elsewhere, we already have an opt-in system regarding accessing content on the internet. It's called "getting the internet."



    We don't need another opt-in on top of that to be allowed to access anything that happens to be being blocked by nanny-statism filters. I know it's porn this week, and from the looks of things some people are pushing for blocking pro-suicide and pro-eating disorder sites to be included on nanny's list.



    If there are parents out there that are

    1. ignorant to the controls currently available to stop their darling little crotch-fruit browsing stuff said parents don't want them to see and
    2. are unwilling to learn about them and instead demand that `the government' to do it for them



      then they should have their computers taken off them. Or their children. Or both. They clearly aren't capable of using the former or looking after the latter.


  • @PJH said:

    pro-suicide and pro-eating disorder sites

    Like fast food websites?



  • @serguey123 said:

    @PJH said:
    pro-suicide and pro-eating disorder sites

    Like fast food websites?

    No, but given the UK government's willingness to listen to any and all bansturbatory ideas (usually by fake-charities funded largely - or in whole - by the tax-payer,) fast-food, salt and fizzy/sugary drinks won't be far behind.



  • @dhromed said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    I ♥ the blind.
     

    That is the worst fucking antialias I've ever seen.

    Stop criticizing FOSS. You have to like it because it was free.

    Now pay up.



  • @FrostCat said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    @KattMan said:
    To be honest, email allows any character in the subject line even valid html.

    <PedanticDickweed>Not /r or /n. Also, mail was traditionally 7-bit ASCII so a lot of people still encode 8-bit values (like UTF-8) so they can be represented as 7-bit.</PedanticDickweed>

    You know if you're going to do that, someone has to point out it's \r and \n, not /r and /n.

    I hate you. D:



  • Kates, if you were in my shop and used language like that anywhere, you would have been out the door yesterday. I demand respect for fellow workers at my company.



  • @SilentRunner said:

    Kates, if you were in my shop and used language like that anywhere, you would have been out the door yesterday. I demand respect for fellow workers at my company.

     

     Calling people by their last name is disrespectful, Runner. You're fired. Leave your keycard and company issued organs. Your severance flogging will be delivered via registered mail/dark alley when you least expect it.

     



  • @Lorne Kates said:

    @SilentRunner said:

    Kates, if you were in my shop and used language like that anywhere, you would have been out the door yesterday. I demand respect for fellow workers at my company.

     

     Calling people by their fucking last name is fucking disrespectful, Runner. You're fucking fired. Leave your fucking keycard and company issued fucking organs. Your severance flogging will be delivered via registered fucking mail/dark fucking alley when you least fucking expect it.

    Fuck.

     

    FTFY.



  • @SilentRunner said:

    Kates, if you were in my shop and used language like that anywhere, you would have been out the door yesterday.
    Purely out of interest, how many of your subordinates that call people cunts online are still working under you? For the purpose of this question, please disregard those you've

    a) actually caught doing it and

    b) have sacked because you caught then doing it [on facebook/twitter/anything other that that directly involved with 'your shop'] (I'm guessing a mom-and-pop grocery store at this point.)



    An estimate of the people working under you who have called other people twuntpiles, cocknipples, motherfuckers or niggers online - but you haven't caught them doing it - while not necessary, would be appreciated.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.