VOTE ...HTML or Plain Text???

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

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.

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?