VOTE ...HTML or Plain Text???

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

"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
__________

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?

"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.

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.....?

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)

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

"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
_______________

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.

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