o...@pell.chi.il.us (david parsons) wrote: ><bold>It's the death of the net<blink><font face=wingdings> >In article <5h1go4$...@shellx.best.com>, Bob O Brien <o...@best.com> wrote: >>david parsons <o...@pell.chi.il.us> wrote:
<"broken software" strawman torched>
>>Peeve: trn 3.5 is similarly hobbled, it wants to load something >>to view orc's posts. > Well, I suppose that in the brave new world of everything being > html, all the people who matter will have orgasms over
> <bold>peeve:</bold><italic>it's the apocolypse</italic>
> while fossils like myself will be hunted in the streets for the > temerity of actually wanting to read the damned posts.
Well, if self-indulgent fossils like you continue to insist on making it difficult for others who just want to read the damned posts, then your fate will be well deserved. -- gl...@cyberhighway.net
On Sun, 23 Mar 1997 20:29:44 +0000, char...@antipope.org (Charlie
Stross) wrote: ><BLINK>Use a real newsreader<FONT FACE="WingDings"><FONT SIZE="+3"> >alfie...@chaffee.net<alfie...@chaffee.net> drooled (in article <33355afb.3287...@news.dx.net>): >>BTW, from comp.os.linux.misc
>>**Quoted text** >>I'm looking for an off-line news-reader for Linux that operates in a
>And your point is ...?
Agent (and, by extension, FreeAgen) isn't such a crappy newsreader as some people on alt.peeves make it out to be. I (using FA) have no problems with orc's posts. It may be that Glen has some other problems with his computer. I dunno.
><IMG SRC="COM1:" ALT="Help keep usenet a web-browser free zone!">
><BLINK>Use a real newsreader<FONT FACE="WingDings"><FONT SIZE="+3">
>Glen Quarnstrom<gl...@cyberhighway.net> ranted >>And these specified protocols are engraved on stone tablets somewhere, >>I suppose, and are never changed, and are followed religiously by >>everybody? Riiiiight.
>>Either the UseNet standard provides for HTML or it doesn't.
>Usenet, Glen, predates HTML by more than a decade.
>The header lines which may be used in a usenet posting were initially >set forth in RFC822, then updated -- 1035 being the most recent official >version.
1036, actually. 1035 is a domain names document.
Interesting thing about the bogus newsreader catcher. I just had a runaround with a fairly clueless individual in one of the scsi groups who saw the header and sent me a "don't post html" note. So I explained that news wasn't html, and this was a way to catch broken newsreaders.
He sent back a response saying no, it's html, because Content-Type: is a html header, and you shouldn't post html because it's icky.
Umm, no, it's usenet news, and that has nothing to do with html; if your newsreader is interpreting this header as anything other than noise, it's broken.
He sent back a moderately spittle-flecked post saying LOUDLY that "no, it's html, and my newsreader(*) is PERFECT in every way."
[* one of the variants of Agent, no doubt]
No, really, it's usenet news, but I would welcome any reference from either rfc1036 or son-of-1036 that said that content-type was a reserved header.
He screamed back "I HATE HTML AND I'M GOING TO KILLFILE YOU, PLUG MY EARS, AND HOLD MY BREATH UNTIL YOU STOP DOING IT!!!!!!!"
I'll bet he'll turn an appealing shade of blue before he passes out.
Peeve: it would be considered mean to randomise my from address and put the <blink> tags in a group where I actually try to get useful information, so I'll need to resist the temptation to troll the Microsoft customers.
!Peeve: I just checked rfc1036 again. ``Any unrecognised headers are allowed and will be passed through unchanged.'' Roughly translated, Glen, that means you need to get a working newsreader.
____ david parsons \bi/ Don't treat news as HTML. It's the law. \/
c...@alfakonsult.se (cd skogsberg) wrote: >Agent (and, by extension, FreeAgen) isn't such a crappy newsreader as >some people on alt.peeves make it out to be. I (using FA) have no >problems with orc's posts. It may be that Glen has some other problems >with his computer. I dunno.
Nope. As I pointed out, Agent *will* display a message in "raw" content, which, if I interpret Charlie's comments correctly, is exactly what it's supposed to do. FA does this, as it doesn't have capabilities to decode much of anything. Agent will decode MIME and several other types of encoding, which it then represents with an icon. You can then choose how to deal with that particular message.
This is a handy way to ignore all the dreck being posted in text newsgroups from people using Netscape and MSIE. Orc deliberately chooses to include himself in this group when he adds the "Content: HTML" line. Then he shouts the "broken newsreader" mantra in a futile attempt to detract from the fact that he's the one playing games. It's not that big a deal for me to be able to read his posts if I choose to do so. It's even simpler with the new version of Agent which just came out this week. I just don't see what he thinks he's gaining by forcing others to have to make adjustments for his posting style. -- gl...@cyberhighway.net
>Nope. As I pointed out, Agent *will* display a message in "raw" >content, which, if I interpret Charlie's comments correctly, is >exactly what it's supposed to do. FA does this, as it doesn't have >capabilities to decode much of anything. Agent will decode MIME and >several other types of encoding, which it then represents with an >icon. You can then choose how to deal with that particular message.
>This is a handy way to ignore all the dreck being posted in text >newsgroups from people using Netscape and MSIE. Orc deliberately >chooses to include himself in this group when he adds the "Content: >HTML" line. Then he shouts the "broken newsreader" mantra in a futile >attempt to detract from the fact that he's the one playing games. >It's not that big a deal for me to be able to read his posts if I >choose to do so. It's even simpler with the new version of Agent >which just came out this week. I just don't see what he thinks he's >gaining by forcing others to have to make adjustments for his posting >style.
In a sense, what I'm going to say here has all been said before (by some that are much more knowledgeable than I). However, you still steadfastly cling to the assertion that you Just Don't Get It. Whether that's actually true or not (who knows, maybe you like poking a stick into this particular hornet's nest), is something probably worth addressing; but I'll let someone else take care of that. Follow me here...
Usenet originally started as an agreement between several individuals on a network to pass around information in a particular way. There were only a couple of computers on the network way back then (early 80's), so the standards worked themselves out pretty quickly.
This small network grew pretty quickly and somehow came to include the DARPA network, and other networks around the world. It grew more or less of it's own volition, and the original cabal of people developed a standard standard making process (the RFC or "Request for Comments" process). This had two benefits: It encouraged development of new stuff, and it made sure everyone knew how the new stuff worked so that they could make other stuff that worked with or worked like the new stuff. In other words: "Compatibility is Cool". I'll get back to that.
Usenet News evolved in such a way. The RFC system has literally hundreds of papers discussing the transmission, storage, and format of Usenet News. RFC 1036 (which has been mentioned before) discusses the format of news messages. All newsreaders are obliged to follow the instructions of RFC 1036, or they risk not processing news properly. Compatibility is Cool.
There are two types of header lines in a news message: Required and Optional. Required headers are such things as "From:" and "Subject:" lines; optional headers include the "Reply-To:" and "Sender:" lines. According to RFC 1036, newsreaders are safe to ignore optional lines and still expect to "read" the message. The full text of this RFC is available here (http://www.pasteur.fr/cgi-bin/mfs/01/10xx/1036) if you want to read it.
Ok, the problem lies in the definition of "safely". The people who make Netscape (and other browsers), have decided that it's ok to place the (optional) "Content type:" header line in that section so that browsers can see it and process HTML tags in the article accordingly. Technically, it is. Usenet was designed to be easily extensible. One might even consider this "progress"
The argument against that is that news postings with HTML gobbledegook in them look like so much crap to the majority of newsreaders, and that this "Content-Type:" header seems to have been sprung on an unaware Usenet community without regard to the established methods of standards (in fact, there's already a standard that probably should have been followed for this: RFC 1505. Compatibility is Cool).
Netscape and their ilk have therefor ascribed to the hight of hubris and rudeness by attempting to arbitrarily define standards for the Usenet community without first consulting said community. No, there's no cabal here, but there _is_ an accepted way of doing things. By doing things otherwise, a gauntlet has been thrown.
The guerilla response is to encode things with this arbitrary format in such a way as to render them unusable to those that follow it. Civil Disobedience, if you will. If the Browser-Thumpers insist on treading on the establishment, we will make their Followers (and, by extension, them) pay. We can't scream "Look at the RFC" to Netscape, because their response would probably be "So?" You are now caught in the middle (an unenviable place) of a religious war.
The question remains "Is Glen's Newsreader Broken?" Well, maybe. By deciding to side with the Browser-Thumpers, Forte has (in effect) sided with the forces of chaos and anarchy. While not technically wrong, they're certainly not very nice. They are of the opinion "Might makes Right" without stopping to see if they actually are Right (or have Might).
Where does that leave you? Well, that really depends on who you want to read. A.P. is rapidly developing into a browser-hostile zone, and browser-friendly newsreaders are going to have a tough time of it. I suspect it won't end soon, and I suspect David won't be the only one.
The short answer? Get a different newsreader, or learn to love WingDings.
In article <3345f674.11999...@news.cyberhighway.net>,
Glen Quarnstrom <gl...@cyberhighway.net> wrote: >newsgroups from people using Netscape and MSIE. Orc deliberately >chooses to include himself in this group when he adds the "Content: >HTML" line. Then he shouts the "broken newsreader" mantra in a futile >attempt to detract from the fact that he's the one playing games.
Eh? I don't think I've made any attempt to hide that I'm trying to convince people to stop using newsreaders that treat news as html for the poor and downtrodden (or, as you quaintly put it, "play".)
>I just don't see what he thinks he's >gaining by forcing others to have to make adjustments for his posting >style.
You mean plain text, following rfc1036 conventions? I know, it's pretty dull when compared to the high-quality html that litters the net, but some of us still remember the days when content mattered.
If I can stop people from using Netscape to post (does IE allow people to spew html-encoded goo to usenet?) I'll consider it a win. But at this point using netscape 4, in full vomit-forth-html multimedia splendor, is beginning to seem like an option. Yeah, so nobody who doesn't use netscape will be able to read my posts, but enough people have enbraced stupid "extensions" to news so that I won't be annoyed by the other people that you Mozilla, the worst of all possible newsreaders. Just what is it about the internet, anyway? It's as if every stupid idea that comes along is leapt on as the next best thing, from converting news into a poor cousin of html to MIME, a wonderful way of making formerly readable text into some mish-mash that's painful to read unless you've got one of the slow decoders available to it, all the way to enthusiastic support of the land barons who control popular namespace and are busily showing why it's a really stupid idea to give capitalists a monopoly. Having trn go over to the stupid side is really proof of something, though I can't really say what -- I can see a future where every newsreader first starts doing mime, then html, and then goes the way of netscape where, Hey!, you might as well decode EVERYTHING as html because that's what people expect now.
____ david parsons \bi/ if you've got a read news as news button, why don't you \/ use it?
In article <5hk71k$...@pell.pell.chi.il.us>, o...@pell.chi.il.us (david parsons) wrote:
> In article <3345f674.11999...@news.cyberhighway.net>, > Glen Quarnstrom <gl...@cyberhighway.net> wrote: > >newsgroups from people using Netscape and MSIE. Orc deliberately > If I can stop people from using Netscape to post (does IE allow > people to spew html-encoded goo to usenet?) I'll consider it a win.
Yeah, I'm sure it does, although I've never tried to use it for posting. There's an option to check for "HTML" format for outgoing mail or news, though.
> But at this point using netscape 4, in full vomit-forth-html > multimedia splendor, is beginning to seem like an option. Yeah, so
> can't really say what -- I can see a future where every newsreader > first starts doing mime, then html, and then goes the way of netscape > where, Hey!, you might as well decode EVERYTHING as html because > that's what people expect now.
But do you seriously think that you'll have any effect at all on this creeping "elegance?" If all the Peeves regulars were to join you in your crusade, would it make the slightest bit of difference to the rest of the net? I haven't noticed any influx of HTML posts here or in similar groups like a.f.u. There's an increasing number of them in some of the less disciplined groups, but that seems to indicate to me that tactics other than what you're using woud be more effective.
Feel free to convince me otherwise, however, and I may join you. I've never shied from tilting at windmills.
Ironically, I'm posting this from Deja News, which tells me it's using Mozilla to post this.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====----------------------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet