Re: block in open()
- From: Jordan Abel <random@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 26 Oct 2006 03:00:00 GMT
2006-10-25 <453FBEC3.E6030002@xxxxxxxxx>,
CBFalconer wrote:
Jordan Abel wrote:
... snip ...
In other words, a usenet user agent MUST properly decode a
multipart message and display the appropriate part(s) (since this
was an "alternative" message, the appropriate part would be the
text/plain part for a user-agent that cannot handle text/html).
This all started because someone's user agent failed to do so,
and he or she decided to blame the sender instead of his or her
own faulty newsreader.
That is not the point. The point is that html is dangerours to
unwary systems and operators. This started not because my
newsreader cannot read html, but because I have taken the
precaution of forbidding it to do so,
So why didn't it just display the plain text version?
for security reasons,
Do you forbid your web browser from displaying html as well?
But I digress
aiind I advised the OP of the situation.
I don't like html either - and in fact my newsreader _can't_ handle it,
and it apparently can't handle multipart (which annoys me) - I was just
pointing out the fact that there's apparently no actual rule against it
(lacking a charter, CLC must fall back to "is it binary or is it not"
and text/html is not binary, it's ascii, and "is it on-topic" - IIRC the
original message was, at least insofar as anything posted here anymore
is) and maybe there should be. I wouldn't have posted at all if not for
the _other_ issue. (I wouldn't mind if text/enriched became more common,
it can at least be handled sensibly by stripping out all the tags, but
i digress)
HTML does not belong in news groups, and I will not read HTML email
either.
Yet, again, you'll read html webpages.
We are not simply being obstinate antediluvians. HTML works quite
well on the www (except when misused, which is often). It has its
place, which is not here.
We're talking about _three_ separate issues now:
The use of HTML (which, i'll freely admit, I was only arguing for it to
be contrary. Without the fact that I was replying anyway, I wouldn't
have even mentioned it. after all, text/enriched has most of the
benefits and is quite a bit safer - now if only it were better
supported). Though why you think what's good for the www isn't good for
anyplace else is a bit odd - security reasons? then surely you stay off
the www entirely, so how would you know what works well on it?
The use of attachments (and it's unclear _why_ servers drop messages
with attachments, rather than, say, dropping messages with BINARY
attachments) and the misconception that attachment means binary. An
attachment, of a text file, is just a fancy machine-readable "cut here"
line, and there's absolutely no reason they should be forbidden or
dropped. The fact that they are is nothing more than an unfortunate
configuration error.
And your somewhat ridiculous "don't use mime types" line. What, not even
text/plain? despite strong (and possibly deserved) opposition against
html, the mime infrastructure is much more than that, and quoted-
printable, format=flowed, and other mime-ish things have long since won
their rightful place on usenet.
--
Random832, signing off with another machine-readable "cut here" line.
0d0a2d2d200d0a
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: block in open()
- From: CBFalconer
- Re: block in open()
- References:
- block in open()
- From: freegnu
- Re: block in open()
- From: CBFalconer
- Re: block in open()
- From: Jordan Abel
- Re: block in open()
- From: Walter Roberson
- Re: block in open()
- From: Stephen Sprunk
- Re: block in open()
- From: Jordan Abel
- Re: block in open()
- From: CBFalconer
- block in open()
- Prev by Date: Re: Another Mersenne Twister question
- Next by Date: Re: block in open()
- Previous by thread: Re: block in open()
- Next by thread: Re: block in open()
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
