VOTE ...HTML or Plain Text???

[Montblack]

I was surprised by the acceptance of an HTML post in another thread. I, for
one, could read the HTML fine. Others said the same thing.

Has the time come for HTML in the newsgroup(s)?

My (change is bad - we fear change) vote is no HTML ... for now.

I'm being fuddy-duddy with my reason: I get bombarded with "wow" media all
day. It's a nice change of pace to read the ol' newsgroups in a plain text
format.

I have no clue what technical problems HTML causes for some other newsgroup
participants.

Your vote on HTML.....?

--
Montblack

[Peter Duniho]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
.. .
> I was surprised by the acceptance of an HTML post in another thread. I,
for
> one, could read the HTML fine. Others said the same thing.
>
> Has the time come for HTML in the newsgroup(s)?

Boy, you're askin' for it. :)

I'll bite...

IMHO, nothing inherent wrong with HTML. However, it should be avoided in
almost every case, simply because of the lack of added value. Even in the
post that started your question, the information could have just as easily
been presented in plain text. The fact that it *wasn't* doesn't mean it
couldn't have been, nor that it shouldn't have been.

A couple of big reasons why not to use HTML unless it really adds something:
as someone else pointed out, for many people, it makes the post hard to
read. Believe it or not, not everyone uses Outlook Express or one of the
other HTML-aware newsreaders. It only SEEMS like they do. Another reason
is simple efficiency. Bandwidth should be conserved at all times, just as
all other resources should be conserved. When you need the extra bandwidth
to convey something that's otherwise impossible to convey, then by all
means, use HTML. But otherwise, use plain text.

I realize that in this day and age of the daily-driver 12 mpg SUV, lots of
people will disagree. They are the same people that think that as long as
someone else is wasting more than they are, they don't need to conserve.
Water, gas, electricity, paper, and yes, even bandwidth. Just because
someone else uses more than you do, that doesn't mean you shouldn't try to
minimize your own use, avoiding wasteful use of the resource.

Pete

[Jay Masino]

Plain text if fine. HTML doesn't add anything to a discussion.

-- Jay


__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino/ ! ! !

Checkout http://www.oc-adolfos.com/
for the best Italian food in Ocean City, MD and...
Checkout http://www.brolow.com/ for authentic Blues music on Delmarva

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Montblack" > said:
>Has the time come for HTML in the newsgroup(s)?

No. Newsgroups are about information, not about fancy formatting.


--
Paul Tomblin, PP-ASEL _|_ Rochester Flying Club web page:
____/___\____ http://www.rochesterflyingclub.com/
___________[o0o]___________

[blanche cohen]

Another reason to use plain text is the possibility of nefarious
java, asp, javascript and other types of HTML-embedded routines. We get
sufficient spam in the newsgroups and too many of them have
these little (and sometimes, not so little!) routines in them.

And they get really nasty at times.

[Michael Houghton]

Howdy!

Unless explicitly stated otherwise in the newsgroup charter (at least
for Big Eight newsgroups), messages should be plain text only. HTML
markup adds noise and negative value. This is not really something to
"vote" about. It just *is*. Usenet newsgroups are, in general, a text
only arena. Binary newsgroups are a notable exception.

Email, likewise, is a fundamentally text-only application. Anyone who
insists that they *must* send their content solely in a text/html format
is wasting my time and the time of others who elect to use a text-only
email client (which is often far less susceptible to attack, including
the use of HTML spyware).

yours,
Michael
--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/

[Doug Carter]

Montblack wrote:

> Your vote on HTML.....?

I vote YES some trepidation and with the hope that folks with use is
sparingly (for tables and such). Some will foolishly attempt to prevail
in a discussion with form rather than content but suffering fools is a
hazard of usenet anyway.

HTML does take more bandwidth, but so does cross posting... Do you
suppose there is any correlation between NO voters and those how fight
for the retention of NDB's? :-)

[Steve House]

I use OE on my laptop and Forte Agent on my desktop and just tested both
with the original HTML message that prompted this discussion. With OE got a
real pretty table that was far more readable than the text version of the
message. Using Forte Agent got a table that was virtually identical to the
original text version message except that the HTML version didn't have the
line breaks rearranged by word wrapping. As a result even in Agent the HTML
table was more readable even though the fonts and colours were the same as
the text message. I have to say that I don't understand the emotional
attachment some people have for software that dates to the days when
monitors ran on kerosene instead of electricity, especially when products
that reflect the current state of the art like OE are free or very, very
inexpensive. DOS was nice, OS360 was a great operating system, Hollerith
cards were pretty, but it's time to move on <grin>. I have a client, a
computer training firm no less, that still uses an early version of Eudora
for their internal email even though MS Office is their desktop standard
otherwise - every time I send an email with an attachment from MS
Office/Outlook I have to remember that they get gibberish unless I force it
to plain text format. While it's true, IMHO, that it's not necessary to
have the very latest whizbang version of everything, it doesn't make sense
to stay 5 or more years behind the curve either.


"Montblack" > wrote in message
.. .
> I was surprised by the acceptance of an HTML post in another thread. I,
for
> one, could read the HTML fine. Others said the same thing.
>
> Has the time come for HTML in the newsgroup(s)?
>
> My (change is bad - we fear change) vote is no HTML ... for now.
>
> I'm being fuddy-duddy with my reason: I get bombarded with "wow" media
all
> day. It's a nice change of pace to read the ol' newsgroups in a plain text
> format.
>
> I have no clue what technical problems HTML causes for some other
newsgroup
> participants.
>
> Your vote on HTML.....?
>
> --
> Montblack
>
>
>

[Steve House]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> In a previous article, "Montblack" >
said:
> >Has the time come for HTML in the newsgroup(s)?
>
> No. Newsgroups are about information, not about fancy formatting.
>


True, except that tabular information such as in the message this thread was
triggered by is more clearly communicated in a true table rather than a
"psuedo-table" created with space or tab characters that get rearranged by
the news reader. If "fancy formatting" enhances the information transfer
then by all means go for it. For example there was is a recent thread on
the pin-outs of an Isocom intercom. Instead of a manually typed text list
of the pin assignments, wouldn't an image of the schematic embedded in an
HTML message communicate more information more clearly and with less chance
of error? In a case like that it seems to me that "fancy formatting" gives
rise to more information.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Steve House" > said:
>to plain text format. While it's true, IMHO, that it's not necessary to
>have the very latest whizbang version of everything, it doesn't make sense
>to stay 5 or more years behind the curve either.

Why is it whenever somebody wants to shovel something at you that's worse
than what you're using already, they always start calling you a Luddite?
Until somebody makes a gui/html news reader that has even 50% of the
features of trn, I'll stick with trn, thanks.

--
Paul Tomblin >, not speaking for anybody
"SPARC" is "CRAPS" backwards --Rob Pike

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Steve House" > said:
>the pin-outs of an Isocom intercom. Instead of a manually typed text list
>of the pin assignments, wouldn't an image of the schematic embedded in an
>HTML message communicate more information more clearly and with less chance
>of error? In a case like that it seems to me that "fancy formatting" gives
>rise to more information.

And an even better solution would be to stick it on a web site somewhere
and post a link to it. That way the 5 or 6 people who are interested can
see it the way you intended it, and the tens of thousands of news servers
out there don't have to cart around this binary that so few people want to
see.


--
Paul Tomblin >, not speaking for anybody
"Very sad life. Probably have very sad death. But at least there is
symmetry. Go, Go, Zathrus take care."

[G.R. Patterson III]

blanche cohen wrote:
>
> Another reason to use plain text is the possibility of nefarious
> java, asp, javascript and other types of HTML-embedded routines.

While that might be a good reason to set things up so that nobody could
post HTML to the newsgroups, it is hardly a reason for a poster to refrain
from using it. No spammer is going to be able to sneak an embedded routine
into one of Montblack's posts, and having all the usual posters refrain
from using HTML will not stop the spammer or vandal who wants to post
such a routine.

George Patterson
The optimist feels that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The
pessimist is afraid that he's correct.
James Branch Cavel

[Peter R.]

Montblack ) wrote:

> Your vote on HTML.....?

NO. Text is the ticket.

My newsreader has HTML disabled, just to be safe. :)

--
Peter

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "G.R. Patterson III" > said:
>blanche cohen wrote:
>>
>> Another reason to use plain text is the possibility of nefarious
>> java, asp, javascript and other types of HTML-embedded routines.
>
>While that might be a good reason to set things up so that nobody could
>post HTML to the newsgroups, it is hardly a reason for a poster to refrain
>from using it. No spammer is going to be able to sneak an embedded routine

And it's an EXTREMELY good reason for a person to not use an HTML-aware
newsreader. And since most people post because they want other people to
read it, and smart people are reading with plain text newsreaders, it
would make sense to post in plain text.


--
Paul Tomblin >, not speaking for anybody
And on the seventh day, He exited from append mode.

[MikeM]

Montblack wrote:
> Your vote on HTML.....?

Plain text for 99% of normal postings;
very occasional HTML for a diagram or table OK.

MikeM

[JerryK]

I like HTML when it adds something. Bolding and itallics don't really add
much so if the message is all text, just leave it plain text.

But a table looks much better in HTML. I hate having to recreate column
aligments, etc. Same thing with diagrams. I hate when people attempt to
use characters for arrows and lines.

jerry

[David Brooks]

"John T" > wrote in message
ws.com...
> "Montblack" > wrote in message
>
> >
> > Your vote on HTML.....?
>
> "Nay."
>
> Even though I use Outlook Express, I set it to read all messages (even
> email) as plain text. Why?
> 1) Spammers can use the simple loading of a graphic from an HTML-formatted
> message to validate your email address.

I assume you're referring to a web bug, which is an small invisible graphic
(for example a 1x1 white square). I'm not disagreeing with the overall
objection, but I don't think this is accurate. It is true in the case of
mail that is sent to you, but I can't see how it can be done on usenet.
That's unless:
- web bugs are smarter than me, which is entirely possible
- your newsreader still indulges in the bad habit of sending your email
address in the header of HTTP requests

Web bugs can identify the machine that they are loaded from (or at least the
proxy that you go through), so depending on your connection it may still be
useful information.

> 2) Plain text is just fine by me unless I'm looking at a web page.

Me too.

-- David Brooks

[Doug Carter]

Paul Tomblin wrote:

> No. Newsgroups are about information, not about fancy formatting.

Information like the picture "drawn" in plain text characters in your
signature? <grin>

[John T]

"David Brooks" > wrote in message

>
> I assume you're referring to a web bug.... I'm not disagreeing with
> the overall objection, but I don't think this is accurate.

Yes, that's what I was referring to and its use in spam email (not USENET
posts where it is not nearly as effective) is one of the main reasons I set
OE to use plain text. The fact that I get to read my USENET messages in
plain text, too, is just a fringe benefit. :)

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer
__________

[Doug Carter]

Paul Tomblin wrote:

> And it's an EXTREMELY good reason for a person to not use an HTML-aware
> newsreader.

Or perhaps an HTML aware reader that doesn't respond to ActiveX, Java or
scripting but still displays tables that are easy to read.

A (rhetorical) poll: how many users know whether or not their
newsreader is open to ActiveX, Java or scripting at this instant?

[Peter Schoaff]

"Steve House" > wrote in message >...
>
> Instead of a manually typed text list
> of the pin assignments, wouldn't an image of the schematic embedded in an
> HTML message communicate more information more clearly and with less chance
> of error? In a case like that it seems to me that "fancy formatting" gives
> rise to more information.


You're right, that is another good reason not to use HTML. You start putting
binaries in this non-binary newsgroup and news server admins will start
dropping it. Thanks for pointing that out.

[Roger Halstead]

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 23:15:55 -0500, "Montblack"
> wrote:

>I was surprised by the acceptance of an HTML post in another thread. I, for
>one, could read the HTML fine. Others said the same thing.

Usually some one will remind the offender that posting in HTML is a
practice to be discouraged.

>
>Has the time come for HTML in the newsgroup(s)?

I don't think so.

>
>My (change is bad - we fear change) vote is no HTML ... for now.

The change isn't bad, but it's what can be done with HTML that is
potentially bad.

>
>I'm being fuddy-duddy with my reason: I get bombarded with "wow" media all
>day. It's a nice change of pace to read the ol' newsgroups in a plain text
>format.

Set your e-mail client to text only. The latest version of Outlook
Express even has that as an option.

>
>I have no clue what technical problems HTML causes for some other newsgroup
>participants.

I have all my mail and newsgroups to read plain text only...for
several reasons. (and I use Outlook express for mail)

1. HTML is a handy way to spread viruses and Trojan horses.
If you set your reader to take HTML for one, it will
do it for all.

2. HTML can be tagged to contact the sender, or even redirect the
opener to a web site.
It's often used in spam to verify the address as valid.
Leaving HTML turned on is almost guaranteed to increase the amount of
spam you receive.
3. HTML takes far more storage space on the news group servers
than does text
4 Many news readers are not capable of reading HTML
5. Many of us have our readers set to not enable HTML

6. It may make it almost impossible for a text to speech
translator to work properly. (for the blind)

..BUT, it can be made to look pretty.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)


>
>Your vote on HTML.....?

[Roger Halstead]

On 23 Jul 2003 08:01:19 -0500, "Steve House"
> wrote:

>I use OE on my laptop and Forte Agent on my desktop and just tested both
>with the original HTML message that prompted this discussion. With OE got a

I use the same apps and both are set to plain text only if for no
other reason than safety.


<snip>


Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Doug Carter > said:
>Paul Tomblin wrote:
>> No. Newsgroups are about information, not about fancy formatting.
>
>Information like the picture "drawn" in plain text characters in your
>signature? <grin>

That was on purpose. Besides, it doesn't use up any more bandwidth than
any other 4 line text signature. Compare that to the embedded graphic
signature elements that so many WebTV lusers were using when WebTV first
infested Usenet.


--
Paul Tomblin >, not speaking for anybody
UNIX was half a billion (500000000) seconds old on
Tue Nov 5 00:53:20 1985 GMT (measuring since the time(2) epoch).
-- Andy Tannenbaum

[John T]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:uqGTa.130542$N7.19167@sccrnsc03
>
> Just curious: Why would someone turn HTML interpretation off? What
> purpose does this serve?

The issue is that spammers often use HTML-formatted email. This allows them
to jazz up the email with catchy fonts and graphics. "Catchy" is an
interesting term to use here because it's possible for the spammer's system
to track which email gets read by tracing the request for a particular
graphic. This indicates a couple of things: a) the email has been read and
b) the email address is valid. Both of these things are good for the
spammer and will encourage him to send even more spam or to sell your email
address - now proven to be valid - to other spammers.

Disabling HTML in your email client prevents this from happening since none
of the HTML tags - like <IMG> - are interpreted. This has little effect on
legitimate email since the email reader (in my case OE) will probably
indicate the HTML content as an attachment that can be saved allowing you to
view it safely using a text reader - or even a browser, if you like life on
the edge. Also, most legitimate email that is formatted as HTML (like AOL
mail) will have a section of the email dedicated to text-only recipients.
This section is void of any HTML tags to begin with and should be the
section shown by your email reader when HTML is disabled.

Anything to help give the finger to spammers...

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer
_______________

[Doug Carter]

John T wrote:

> Disabling HTML in your email client prevents this from happening since none
> of the HTML tags - like <IMG> - are interpreted.

Or disable image loading.

[aaronw]

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 01:15:06 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>> Just to elaborate (it almost sounds like Montblack hasn't ever seen the
>raw
>> HTML), this is what it looks like for someone without HTML interpretation
>> (either because their newsreader doesn't support it, or because they
>turned
>> it off):
>
>Just curious: Why would someone turn HTML interpretation off? What purpose
>does this serve?

Mostly I would guess for one of the reasons said earlier - no need to
expose your computer to any HTML 'nasties' that are hiding. I
specifically turn off the HTML viewer (well, "Microsoft Viewer", I
just checked) in Eudora, which I use to read my mail.

aw

[Tony Roberts]

> Has the time come for HTML in the newsgroup(s)?

No.
I use a fast computer with high speed access in one location,
and an old low memory computer with slow access in another. The memory is
so low I don't even have Netscape installed, but then I don't need it -
it's just for email and newsgroups, and I am happy to keep it that way, so
no thanks, I don't want to receive HTML posts here

--
Tony Roberts (tonyroberts@ remove shaw.ca)
PP-ASEL
VFR-OTT - Night
Cessna 172 C-GICE

[Brien K. Meehan]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
.. .
> Has the time come for HTML in the newsgroup(s)?

Troll.

[Montblack]

(Brien K. Meehan wrote)
> Troll.

(First part of my thread opener)
>>I was surprised by the acceptance of an HTML post in another thread. I,
for
>>one, could read the HTML fine. Others said the same thing.
>>
>>Has the time come for HTML in the newsgroup(s)?
>>
>>My (change is bad - we fear change) vote is no HTML ... for now.


Oh wait, Troll was humor. I love a dry wit.

....Troll?

Droll Brien, very droll. (That's a good thing)

--
Montblack

[Gilan]

My vote is for HTML. I have no problem with text only news groups or I
wouldn't read this one but I do find some really great groups that allow
HTML on Yahoo.
--
Have a good day and stay out of the trees!
See ya on Sport Aircraft group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/


Private Pilot in 10 days
http://www.perfectplanes.com

Join "The Ultralight & Experimental Aircraft SiteRing"
http://pub27.bravenet.com/sitering/add.php?usernum=2286862090

"Montblack" wrote ...
> I was surprised by the acceptance of an HTML post in another thread. I,
for
> one, could read the HTML fine. Others said the same thing.
>
> Has the time come for HTML in the newsgroup(s)?
>
> My (change is bad - we fear change) vote is no HTML ... for now.
>
> I'm being fuddy-duddy with my reason: I get bombarded with "wow" media
all
> day. It's a nice change of pace to read the ol' newsgroups in a plain text
> format.
>
> I have no clue what technical problems HTML causes for some other
newsgroup
> participants.
>
> Your vote on HTML.....?
>
> --
> Montblack
>
>
>

[Bob Noel]

In article >, "Kiwi Jet Jock"
> wrote:

> > I have no clue what technical problems HTML causes for some other
> newsgroup
> > participants.
> >
> > Your vote on HTML.....?
>
> And whilst on the subject, I wish more folks would TOP POST for simple
> replies.

simple reply to what?

and would it be too much effort to trim your "simple" reply?

--
Bob Noel

[Martin Hotze]

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 23:06:24 -0700, Peter Duniho wrote:

>> My vote is for HTML.
>
>Your vote doesn't count, since you top-post and don't trim any of the quoted
>text.


that's what I just read in another group re top-posting:

||| Posting at the top because that's where the cursor happened to be
||| is like ****ting in your pants because that's where your asshole
||| happened to be.

#m
--
http://www.usawatch.org/ http://www.alternet.org/

John Gilmore: I was ejected from a plane for wearing
"Suspected Terrorist" button http://www.politechbot.com/p-04973.html

[Peter Duniho]

"Kiwi Jet Jock" > wrote in message
...
> And whilst on the subject, I wish more folks would TOP POST for simple
> replies.

And I wish people would stop leaving quoted the entire text of the message
to which they are replying.

But we don't always get what we want, do we?

[Joe Bleaux]

How about posting at the top because That's where you start reading?
When you reply, that reply is directed at someone who is probably
already familiar with the conversation. If you post at the top, they
don't have to scroll past a mountain of garbage to get to what you are
trying to say.

And this anti-html thing is just microsoft bashing in my opinion. If
Agent was the most popular newsreader that supported html, we probably
wouldn't even be having this discussion. Html is more pleasing to the
eye than plain text and that's about all the reason you need to use it.
If your newsreader doesn't support html or you simply refuse to
acknowledge that you are on a public network and ignore security, then
you should probably get with the program.

*** Sent via http://www.automationtools.com ***
Add a newsgroup interface to your website today.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Joe Bleaux > said:
>already familiar with the conversation. If you post at the top, they
>don't have to scroll past a mountain of garbage to get to what you are
>trying to say.

People who bottom post don't leave "a mountain of garbage", they trim
their quoted material to act as a reminder of what they're talking about
to to have just the point they are talking about there in a conversational
manner.

>wouldn't even be having this discussion. Html is more pleasing to the
>eye than plain text and that's about all the reason you need to use it.

I guess it all depends on whether you post to impart information, or to
create art. I post to impart information, and you do that with your
words, not with pretty colours and fonts.

--
Paul Tomblin >, not speaking for anybody
The Borg assimilated my race & all I got was this T-shirt.

[Gig Giacona]

Yahoo groups aren't USENET. When you post a message on USENET it has to sit
on MANY servers not just Yahoo's and the groups subscribers' mail servers.
There is a time and a place for HTML and the time is when you can't get the
point across any other way and the place is on web sites and if you must
personal e-mail.

This message is ~1k in size. The same message, if I were to send it in HTML
would be ~3k.

Do the math.




"Gilan" > wrote in message
...
> My vote is for HTML. I have no problem with text only news groups or I
> wouldn't read this one but I do find some really great groups that allow
> HTML on Yahoo.
> --

[Roger Halstead]

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 22:20:40 -0500, Doug Carter
> wrote:

>John T wrote:
>
>> Disabling HTML in your email client prevents this from happening since none
>> of the HTML tags - like <IMG> - are interpreted.
>
>Or disable image loading.

Better to disable HTML.
With HTML the system can run any number of apps and Macros without
user intervention. Couple that with a virus or worm that normally
tricks the user into running it and you end up with an "auto run"
virus or worm just by highlighting the header to read the message.

OTOH it can send you to a malicious site which can mess with your
computer. It can upload and download files as well.

So unless you take precautions (disabling images, java, macros, and
links) reading messages in HTML can be very hazardous to your
computers health.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)

[Roger Halstead]

On 23 Jul 2003 08:12:06 -0500, "Steve House"
> wrote:

>
>"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
>> In a previous article, "Montblack" >
>said:
>> >Has the time come for HTML in the newsgroup(s)?
>>
>> No. Newsgroups are about information, not about fancy formatting.
>>
>
>
>True, except that tabular information such as in the message this thread was
>triggered by is more clearly communicated in a true table rather than a
>"psuedo-table" created with space or tab characters that get rearranged by
>the news reader. If "fancy formatting" enhances the information transfer
>then by all means go for it. For example there was is a recent thread on
>the pin-outs of an Isocom intercom. Instead of a manually typed text list
>of the pin assignments, wouldn't an image of the schematic embedded in an
>HTML message communicate more information more clearly and with less chance
>of error? In a case like that it seems to me that "fancy formatting" gives
>rise to more information.
>

In the above case you put the table up on a web page, or PDF and link
to it. That way the newsgroup users can view the table if they wish.

Just like aircraft photos you want to show...You either post them to
the binaries group with a note here, or you put them up on a page
which you link to in the post.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)

[Roger Halstead]

On 23 Jul 2003 08:01:19 -0500, "Steve House"
> wrote:

>I use OE on my laptop and Forte Agent on my desktop and just tested both
>with the original HTML message that prompted this discussion. With OE got a
>real pretty table that was far more readable than the text version of the
>message. Using Forte Agent got a table that was virtually identical to the
>original text version message except that the HTML version didn't have the
>line breaks rearranged by word wrapping. As a result even in Agent the HTML
>table was more readable even though the fonts and colours were the same as
>the text message. I have to say that I don't understand the emotional
>attachment some people have for software that dates to the days when
>monitors ran on kerosene instead of electricity, especially when products
>that reflect the current state of the art like OE are free or very, very
>inexpensive.

It's not an emotional attachment. It's the knowledge of what some one
can do to your computer through an HTML enabled e-mail, or news
reader.

> DOS was nice, OS360 was a great operating system, Hollerith
>cards were pretty, but it's time to move on <grin>. I have a client, a
>computer training firm no less, that still uses an early version of Eudora
>for their internal email even though MS Office is their desktop standard
>otherwise - every time I send an email with an attachment from MS
>Office/Outlook I have to remember that they get gibberish unless I force it
>to plain text format. While it's true, IMHO, that it's not necessary to
>have the very latest whizbang version of everything, it doesn't make sense
>to stay 5 or more years behind the curve either.

In their case they are using common sense...whether they realize it or
not.

The problems (that's plural) come from all the avenues the nice and
handy new stuff opens into your computer for those who wish to exploit
it, or you.

Those old text only news readers are far safer than OE, or Outlook
with HTML enabled.

I use Agent (the full version) for news groups and OE for mail (with
HTML and the other *stuff* turned off, so it's a straight text reader.
I much prefer OE to the supposedly more superior Outlook.

All 4 systems here run XP Pro and Office XP. All use Netscape 7.1 (or
Mozilla) for browsing.

I don't open attachments from any one with out an explanation as to
what is attached and a confirmation. (IE..Did you send this to me?)

If I receive a news letter that is in HTML and I want to read it in
HTML, I can enable HTML temporarily which is a quick and simple
operation.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)
>
>
>"Montblack" > wrote in message
.. .
>> I was surprised by the acceptance of an HTML post in another thread. I,
>for
>> one, could read the HTML fine. Others said the same thing.
>>
>> Has the time come for HTML in the newsgroup(s)?
>>
>> My (change is bad - we fear change) vote is no HTML ... for now.
>>
>> I'm being fuddy-duddy with my reason: I get bombarded with "wow" media
>all
>> day. It's a nice change of pace to read the ol' newsgroups in a plain text
>> format.
>>
>> I have no clue what technical problems HTML causes for some other
>newsgroup
>> participants.
>>
>> Your vote on HTML.....?
>>
>> --
>> Montblack
>>
>>
>>
>

[Peter Duniho]

"Roger Halstead" > wrote in message
...
> HTML doesn't recognize spaces except for one. Put in ten and you
> still get one. The &nbsp is required in HTML if you want to space
> something over more than one space.

Your defense of OE is well-intentioned, but not exactly accurate. The
presence of the nbsp tags happens even when NO spaces have been specified in
the original text, or perhaps only one. They are NOT just showing up to try
to match what the user entered.

I have seen OE and Front Page add nbsp to my HTML plenty of times to know
for a fact that it's not just trying to obey my commands. It's doing it
arbitrarily.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Roger Halstead" > wrote in message
...
> For one, It makes it far easier to read for those who use text to
> audio converters.

You need a smarter text to audio converter.

Unless the newsgroup is rec.aviation.blind-pilots, I see no reason that the
preferred standard should be abandonded just for a small number of people
who may have special needs.

Pete

[John Clonts]

Roger Halstead > wrote in message
...
[snip]
>
> Those old text only news readers are far safer than OE, or Outlook
> with HTML enabled.
>
> I use Agent (the full version) for news groups and OE for mail (with
> HTML and the other *stuff* turned off, so it's a straight text reader.
> I much prefer OE to the supposedly more superior Outlook.
>

How DO you turn off HTML etc. in OE for reading? I looked for a while last
night and couldn't find it...

Thanks!
John Clonts
Temple, Texas

[Sydney Hoeltzli]

Steve House wrote:
> I have to say that I don't understand the emotional
> attachment some people have for software that dates to the days when
> monitors ran on kerosene instead of electricity, especially when products
> that reflect the current state of the art like OE are free or very, very
> inexpensive.

Well, I'm emotionally attached to not enabling unnecessary security
holes for no great benefit.

OE is a never-ending security hole. Our IT people beg us not to use
it.

Sydney

[ArtP]

On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 08:31:34 -0500, "John Clonts"
> wrote:


>How DO you turn off HTML etc. in OE for reading? I looked for a while last
>night and couldn't find it...

Tools, Options, Read, Read all messages in plain text.

[Roger Halstead]

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 21:52:44 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>"Roger Halstead" > wrote in message
...
>> HTML doesn't recognize spaces except for one. Put in ten and you
>> still get one. The &nbsp is required in HTML if you want to space
>> something over more than one space.
>
>Your defense of OE is well-intentioned, but not exactly accurate. The

It's not my intention to defend any of the programs. It's just the
%nbsp is added by virtually all WYSIWYG HTML editors.

>presence of the nbsp tags happens even when NO spaces have been specified in
>the original text, or perhaps only one. They are NOT just showing up to try
>to match what the user entered.
>
>I have seen OE and Front Page add nbsp to my HTML plenty of times to know
>for a fact that it's not just trying to obey my commands. It's doing it
>arbitrarily.

They don't really do it arbitrarily. They are added at the beginning
of paragraphs and lines where a hard return has been used and for
other obscure reasons. They do follow rules to enter the darn things,
but whether they do it arbitrarily of following rules the characters
are still a nuisance. It's just that they are not just specific to
Outlook and OE.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)
>
>Pete
>

[noah]

I strongly vote: NO on HTML.

For many reasons: People could easily include / embed ads. Browser
incompatibility / accessibility issues for those with lesser eyesight
/ large fonts by default (usurped by the html post).



As for top-posting: YES.

I think it's actually useful. You should post a response related to
the relevant thread of discussion. I'm sick of reading thru 10posts
about a flame or random thing, just to get back to the original thread
of discussion.

[Peter Duniho]

"Sydney Hoeltzli" > wrote in message
...
> OE is a never-ending security hole. Our IT people beg us not to use
> it.

Every program you use is a potentially never-ending security hole, and those
that intentionally receive data from the Internet are especially so. If
your IT people are so concerned about network security, they ought not to
allow you to use ANY software that accepts data from the Internet.

I'm as against HTML in Usenet newsgroups as much as the next guy, but it has
nothing to do with a belief that not using HTML will ensure my security.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"noah" > wrote in message
om...
> As for top-posting: YES.
>
> I think it's actually useful. You should post a response related to
> the relevant thread of discussion. I'm sick of reading thru 10posts
> about a flame or random thing, just to get back to the original thread
> of discussion.

What does staying on-topic have to do with top-posting?

[John Clonts]

ArtP > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 08:31:34 -0500, "John Clonts"
> > wrote:
>
>
> >How DO you turn off HTML etc. in OE for reading? I looked for a while
last
> >night and couldn't find it...
>
> Tools, Options, Read, Read all messages in plain text.
>

Hmm, thanks for the reply, but that option is not in my Tools/Options/Read
properties dialog. Outlook Express 5.00. What version are you using?

Cheers,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas

[Roger Halstead]

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 21:54:22 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>"Roger Halstead" > wrote in message
...
>> For one, It makes it far easier to read for those who use text to
>> audio converters.
>
>You need a smarter text to audio converter.

I don't have one. I'm just reporting what they tell me on the
Hallicrafters group.
>
>Unless the newsgroup is rec.aviation.blind-pilots, I see no reason that the
>preferred standard should be abandonded just for a small number of people
>who may have special needs.
>
Ahhh...the preferred standard isn't standard. It varies from news
group to news group. There are those who rabidly support top posting,
bottom posting, and interspersed. OTOH there are those in any
particular news group who oppose the same standards.

As you move around it just varies with the group and who prefers what.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)
>Pete
>

[leslie]

John Clonts ) wrote:
:
: How DO you turn off HTML etc. in OE for reading? I looked for a while
: last night and couldn't find it...
:
http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
Configuring Mail Clients to Send Plain ASCII Text

"What is wrong with sending HTML or MIME messages?

There are now six main reasons for NOT doing this:

[snip]

4. Embedded HTML or MIME attachments are the number one method of
spreading virus, worm or Trojan programs.

For instance, the Forgotten worm was written in Visual Basic
Script and spread without any attachment. Instead, the worm code
was embedded into the HTML formatted message body.

The I Love You worm program exploited an ActiveX vulnerability and
was executed just by viewing or previewing the e-mail message
without opening any attachment.

Likewise, embedded code could exploit some MS Office vulnerability
as with Office ODBC Vulnerabilites and Specially Formed Script in
HTML Mail can Execute in Exchange 5.5

[snip]

Turning Off HTML or MIME

There are now a variety of HTML/MIME programs, including but not
limited to:

* Agent/Free Agent
* AOL 5.0 and earlier
* AOL 6.0
* AOL 7.0 REVISED
* AOL 8.0 NEW
* AOL 6.0, 7.0, 8.0 Alternate NEW
* CompuServe 2, 3 and 4
* CompuServe 2000
* Entourage 2001 (MacIntosh)
* Entourage X (MacIntosh)
* Eudora Light v3.0.5 and earlier
* Eudora Light v3.0.6
* Eudora Pro v4.0.2 and earlier
* Eudora Pro v4.2 and later
* Eudora v5.0
* Hotmail
* IncrediMail Xe
* Juno v5.0
* Lotus Notes R5
* Mac OS X Mail NEW
* MS Internet Explorer 4.0, 5.0, 5.50 and 6.0
* MSN Explorer 6.0
* MSN Explorer 7.0
* MS Exchange 4.0 and other MS problems
+ WINMAIL.DAT (TNEF) attachments UPDATED
+ Equal signs at end of lines
+ ISO 8859-1 or other character sets
* Mozilla 1.1
* Netscape Communicator 3.xx
* Netscape Communicator 4.0x - 4.4x
* Netscape Communicator 4.5, 4.6, 4.7
* Netscape Communicator 6.0 - 6.1
* Netscape Communicator 6.2
* Netscape Communicator 7.0 PR1, Final NEW
* Novell Groupwise UPDATED
* Outlook 2000 UPDATED
* Outlook 2002
* Outlook Express 4.0
* Outlook Express 5.0, 5.50, and 6.00
* Outlook 97 (without Service Release 1 SR1)
* Outlook 97 (with Service Release 1 SR1)
* Outlook 98 (Work group version)
* Outlook 98 (Internet version)
* Pegasus Mail 3.x
* Pegasus Mail 4.x
* Pine 4.x (Unix)
* Pine 4.x (Windows)
* Poco 2.xx
* TheBat! v1.18
* WebTV
* Yahoo Mail UPDATED..."

Just click on the link for your news reader; e.g.:

Outlook Express 5.0, 5.50, and 6.00

HTH,

--Jerry Leslie (my opinions are strictly my own)
Note: is invalid for email

" Outlook is a piece of software for giving remote access by
email to all the bugs in Internet Explorer !"

[noah]

> It sounds like you may be confusing top-posting with trimming. Everybody
> should trim the quoted text to only the relevant sections (regardless of
> top- or bottom-posting) and they should post their response below the
> relevant sections (bottom-posting).
>
> It's the Way of USENET... :)


Just like tailwheel training - I'm learning something new every day!
Thanks for the explanation... I think I follow now - post below the
relevant sections (bottom posting) and *definitely* please please trim
those loooong posts... I probably miss about 15% of the posts because
groups.google.com trims them at 35 lines (all of which are the
previous post).

Hmmm - USENET - there's something about it - that promotes
misunderstanding :)

[Roger Halstead]

On 31 Jul 2003 17:04:13 GMT, (Michael Houghton)
wrote:

>Howdy!
>
>In article >,
>Roger Halstead > wrote:
>> <snip>
<snip>
>A so-called WYSIWYG HTML editor is propagating a lie. I can use my standards
>compliant browser (one of several) and mess with the various assumptions
>inherent in that lie.
<snip>
>Using nbsp for formatting is dicey; even in a monospaced font, you do not
>have assurance that thing will align as you intended. You certainly will
>not have enough control over the browser to ensure that the typeface and size
>being used is what you expected.
>
I have no argument with anything you said.

I was just commenting on that darn space character.

All my readers are set to text, if for no other reason than safety.


Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)
>yours,
>Michael

[John Clonts]

"ArtP" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 08:31:34 -0500, "John Clonts"
> > wrote:
>
>
> >How DO you turn off HTML etc. in OE for reading? I looked for a while
last
> >night and couldn't find it...
>
> Tools, Options, Read, Read all messages in plain text.

At home I'm using Outlook Express 6.00, at work OE 5.00. Neither seems to
have this option. What version of Outlook Express are you using?

Thanks,
John

[John Clonts]

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
> "John Clonts" > wrote:
>
> > Hmm, thanks for the reply, but that option is not in my
Tools/Options/Read
> > properties dialog. Outlook Express 5.00. What version are you using?
>
> Outlook Express below vs. 5.5 is very insecure.
> Please go to http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com/ and update your
> software.
>

Thanks for the tip. Do you know what version(s) allow you to disable HTML
etc for reading messages?

John Clonts
Temple, Texas

[Martin Hotze]

On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 13:01:45 -0500, John Clonts wrote:

>> Outlook Express below vs. 5.5 is very insecure.
>> Please go to http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com/ and update your
>> software.
>>
>
>Thanks for the tip.

BTW: just yesterday a new security update for M$-OS was released.

> Do you know what version(s) allow you to disable HTML
>etc for reading messages?

AFAIK: all of them.

>John Clonts
>Temple, Texas

#m

--
http://www.usawatch.org/ http://www.alternet.org/
Don't like your neighbor? -> https://tips.fbi.gov/

Bombing for peace is like ****ing for virginity.

[Peter Schoaff]

(noah) wrote in message >...
>
> I probably miss about 15% of the posts because
> groups.google.com trims them at 35 lines (all of which are the
> previous post).

I've always considered that a feature. I figure anyone who doesn't
know enough to trim his quotes probably doesn't have anything
of value to add to the discussion. It's like an intelligent kill-file.

[Roger Hamlett]

"John Clonts" > wrote in message
...
>
> "ArtP" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 08:31:34 -0500, "John Clonts"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >
> > >How DO you turn off HTML etc. in OE for reading? I looked for a while
> last
> > >night and couldn't find it...
> >
> > Tools, Options, Read, Read all messages in plain text.
>
> At home I'm using Outlook Express 6.00, at work OE 5.00. Neither seems to
> have this option. What version of Outlook Express are you using?
It should be there. Certainly is on 6, and I'm sure it was there on 5.
'Tools' pull down, 'option', then as he says select 'read'. Then there is a
tick box under 'reading messages', for 'read all messages in plain text'.

Best Wishes