From: Earle Martin Date: 14:48 on 20 Aug 2007 Subject: PDF "encryption" Gmail provides a very helpful view-PDF-attachment-as-HTML tool. It works for my needs 99% of the time. Except when I get some particular PDFs, clicking upon which in Gmail producing this message: "The attachment cannot be viewed as HTML because the author has placed restrictions on its content. Download the attachment to view it in its original format." Apparently the content of the PDF is "encrypted". This must be some new definition of the word "encryption" that means "does not require a password to display plaintext version when opened (but nevertheless will interfere with your email setup)". Who the fuck thought that was a good idea? Let me guess, was it Adobe by any chance?
From: Chris Devers Date: 15:00 on 20 Aug 2007 Subject: Re: PDF "encryption" On Aug 20, 2007, at 9:48 AM, Earle Martin wrote: > Except when I get some particular PDFs, clicking upon which in Gmail > producing this message: > > "The attachment cannot be viewed as HTML because the author has placed > restrictions on its content. Download the attachment to view it in its > original format." > > Apparently the content of the PDF is "encrypted". This must be some > new definition of the word "encryption" that means "does not require a > password to display plaintext version when opened (but nevertheless > will interfere with your email setup)". > > Who the fuck thought that was a good idea? Let me guess, was it Adobe > by any chance? Surely Adobe & Gmail can share the blame there. If the Adobe software can open it sans password, then surely Google should be able to either reverse engineer that ability, or license the ability to do so from Adobe. Or are their pockets not as deep as everyone assumes?
From: Peter da Silva Date: 15:32 on 20 Aug 2007 Subject: Re: PDF "encryption" On 20-Aug-2007, at 09:00, Chris Devers wrote: > If the Adobe software can open it sans password, then surely Google > should be able to either reverse engineer that ability, or license > the ability to do so from Adobe. Assuming Adobe wants them to have that ability, and won't sue them for reverse engineering it. Or else it was flagged as encrypted but wasn't, and gmail didn't look deeper than that flag. The amount of stupid hateful wetware around the whole subject of encryption is, of course, amazing.
From: Michael Jinks
Date: 16:27 on 20 Aug 2007
Subject: Re: PDF "encryption"
On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 09:32:13AM -0500, Peter da Silva wrote:
>
> The amount of stupid hateful wetware around the whole subject of
> encryption is, of course, amazing.
And lots of it spends much of its workday wrapped in black robes. I
could easily imagine a course of events thus:
- Moron posts pdf, "encrypted" because it includes a compromising
photo of Moron's Aunt Tillie;
- Google finds it, laughs, "decrypts" it and caches it;
- Moron discovers this, sues Google for invasion of privacy or (even
better!) "circumvention" under the DMCA;
- Courts side with Moron and against P. T. Barnum, transfer of funds
ensues.
From: Earle Martin Date: 17:38 on 20 Aug 2007 Subject: Re: PDF "encryption" On 20/08/07, Peter da Silva <peter@xxxxxxx.xxx> wrote: > On 20-Aug-2007, at 09:00, Chris Devers wrote: > > If the Adobe software can open it sans password, then surely Google > > should be able to either reverse engineer that ability, or license > > the ability to do so from Adobe. > > Assuming Adobe wants them to have that ability, and won't sue them > for reverse engineering it. Apparently they used to be able to, but switched it off. Probably when the legal department heard about it. http://chosaq.net/archives/2006/05/gmail-cripples-drmed-pdf-files-view-as-html-functionality.html Triple hate on the rocks all round!
From: Jonathan Stowe Date: 17:54 on 20 Aug 2007 Subject: Re: PDF "encryption" On Mon, 2007-08-20 at 17:38 +0100, Earle Martin wrote: > > http://chosaq.net/archives/2006/05/gmail-cripples-drmed-pdf-files-view-as-html-functionality.html > Which brings me to another hatred - when was the HTML 'title' element deprecated ?
From: Bob Walker Date: 18:04 on 20 Aug 2007 Subject: Re: PDF "encryption" On Mon, 20 Aug 2007, Jonathan Stowe wrote: > On Mon, 2007-08-20 at 17:38 +0100, Earle Martin wrote: >> >> http://chosaq.net/archives/2006/05/gmail-cripples-drmed-pdf-files-view-as-html-functionality.html >> > > Which brings me to another hatred - when was the HTML 'title' element > deprecated ? it hasnt been. however SEOs believe that google pay attention to the url as well.
From: A. Pagaltzis Date: 18:43 on 20 Aug 2007 Subject: Re: PDF "encryption" * Bob Walker <bob@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx> [2007-08-20 19:15]: > On Mon, 20 Aug 2007, Jonathan Stowe wrote: > >On Mon, 2007-08-20 at 17:38 +0100, Earle Martin wrote: > >> > >>http://chosaq.net/archives/2006/05/gmail-cripples-drmed-pdf-files-view-as-html-functionality.html > > > >Which brings me to another hatred - when was the HTML 'title' > >element deprecated ? > > it hasnt been. however SEOs believe that google pay attention > to the url as well. Even if they didn't, it's good style. Look at that link: despite the fact that Earle didn't bother to paste the title of the post (it seems no one other than me is anal enough to do that in email), you know right away what the article is about. It's easier to decide whether you want to click the link. Should the linked article vanish, it will still be obvious what used to be there. And there are more reasons why it's good that escape me right now. Regards,
Generated at 10:26 on 16 Apr 2008 by mariachi