The HTML thread
Timothy Rue
came along after the Fact of HTML. And as such, has a goal of making XML
wide spread after the Fact of W3C.
W3C "assumed" some sort of control or authority over something that
existed and was evolving before they existed.
Given the open source Amaya, the concept of the validator (which would be
more intelligent to be able to use off line and integrated within the
editing environment) and HTMLtidy (of course integrated into the editor),
there really is no excuse for a great deal of the noise people have given
me regarding HTML.
If the W3C really was the defining standard of HTML they apparently want
to be seen as, then why aren't they the standard everyone uses. Such that
their tools are so well spread that people like me don't need to deal with
the Noise people have given me, but rather have had the "GOD TOOLS of the
W3C" in the first place? (Where in my own efforts to create HTML pages I
receive correct feedback - rather than Biased and often bull shit from the
opinionators.)
W3Cs target is not HTML! But of moving everyone to XML. Where they have a
better chance of playing a GOD named XML.
---
HyperText Markup Language
Some early ideas for HTML
http://www.w3c.org/History/19921103-hypertext/hypertext/WWW/MarkUp/MarkUp.html
This is the description of a very early version of HTML. This text dates
from 1992.
Somewhere in all of this it was mentioned that the first browser was also
an editor (duh!).
---
http://www.w3c.org/Consortium/Points/
(W3C)...in 7 points
"You've heard it: the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) creates Web
standards. W3C's mission is to lead the Web to its full potential, which
it does by developing technologies (specifications, guidelines, software,
and tools) that will create a forum for information, commerce,
inspiration, independent thought, and collective understanding. This
summary in 7 points explains W3C's goals and operating principles."
About W3C
"W3C was founded in October 1994 to lead the World Wide Web to its full
potential by developing common protocols that promote its evolution and
ensure its interoperability. Today, W3C has over 510 Members and nearly
60 full-time staff around the world who contribute to the development of
W3C specifications and software. Find out more about:"
---
W3C's Editor/Browser
"Amaya is a browser/authoring tool that allows you to publish documents on
the Web. It is used to demonstrate and test many of the new developments
in Web protocols and data formats. Given the very fast moving nature of
Web technology, Amaya has a central role to play. It is versatile and
extensible and is available on both Unix and Windows '95/NT platforms."
"Amaya is a complete web browsing and authoring environment and comes
equipped with a "WYSIWYG style" of interface, similar to that of the most
popular commercial browsers. With such an interface, users can easily
generate HTML and XHTML pages, as well as CSS style sheets, MathML e
xpressions, and SVG drawings (full support of SVG is not yet available,
though)."
Amaya - Open Source
"Amaya is an open source software project hosted by W3C. You are invited
to contribute in many forms (documentation, translation, writing code,
fixing bugs, porting to another platform...)."
---
http://www.w3c.org/XML/1999/XML-in-10-points
XML in 10 points
"XML, XLink, Namespace, DTD, Schema, CSS, XHTML ... If you are new to XML,
it may be hard to know where to begin. This summary in 10 points attempts
to capture enough of the basic concepts to enable a beginner to see the
forest through the trees. And if you are giving a presentation on XML,
why not start with these 10 points?"
---
http://www.w3c.org/TR/2000/REC-xml-20001006
(XML)Abstract
"The Extensible Markup Language (XML) is a subset of SGML that is
completely described in this document. Its goal is to enable generic
SGML to be served, received, and processed on the Web in the way that
is now possible with HTML. XML has been designed for ease of
implementation and for interoperability with both SGML and HTML."
---
*3 S.E.A.S - Virtual Interaction Configuration (VIC) - VISION OF VISIONS!*
*~ ~ ~ Advancing How we Perceive and Use the Tool of Computers!*
Timothy Rue What's *DONE* in all we do? *AI PK OI IP OP SF IQ ID KE*
Email @ mailto:tim...@mindspring.com >INPUT->(Processing)->OUTPUT>v
Web @ http://www.mindspring.com/~timrue/ ^<--------<----9----<--------<
Tim
"Timothy Rue" <thre...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Below you will find such information that should make it clear that W3C
> came along after the Fact of HTML. And as such, has a goal of making XML
> wide spread after the Fact of W3C.
>
> W3C "assumed" some sort of control or authority over something that
> existed and was evolving before they existed.
Oh do shutup. Just read the whole damn W3C web site to yourself,
*learn* about what it's all about, and use the information.
The rest of us don't need to hear you rant on about it. None of us
are worried about the W3C. Most of us are glad they're their.
It's not some conspiracy. There needed to be one body (that wasn't
commercially oriented), in order to keep HTML publicly viable.
Standards organisations often come into the scene after the fact.
> If the W3C really was the defining standard of HTML they apparently want
> to be seen as, then why aren't they the standard everyone uses.
Because someone else always thinks they can do something better, when
all they're really doing is something different, something that
doesn't work properly for everyone else.
It's because of them, that HTML is workable on the Amiga, Mac, IBM
clone, Linux, web TV boxes, web appliances, etc. If it weren't for
them, Microsoft would have completely taken over (in their usual
hostile manner), and made *everything* *only* work on their systems,
as they're currently doing with a lot of web based services.
Timothy Rue
OK, went to the W3C site to get Amaya - Turned out I had to download it
three times because the HTTP accessible version is apparently corrupted,
for it failed to completely download twice. Went to FTP and got it.
Amaya I would say is strictly for the expermentation of new stuff, as it
is very blocky and choppy in trying to move the page you are editing,
around. Though it is, best I could tell for what little time I spent on
it, WYSIWUG.
Thought I also get HTMLtidy.... The page has some other mentioned (linked
to) software that makes use of HTMLtidy.
I found "1stPage 2000" which seems to include HTMLtidy (not sure if it is
integrated or a plugin)
What 1stPage 2000 is, is a web page editor that seems very similiar
CoffeeCup, at least in initial layout appearance. CoffeeCup is Shareware,
1stPage is not, it free. 1stPage seems to be a more complex application
but probably not much harder to use than CoffeeCup, or even easier
depending on which mode you use (normal, easy, advanced/expert, or
hardcore.)
Overall I'd have to do a more heavy duty comparison to better know which
one is the better one. but I think it would be 1stPage, as it seems to
be more industrial strength in many ways while also being able to put it
into easy mode for the beginner (I don't think Coffeecup has any sort of
mode change). I wouldn't be supprised CoffeeCup to be something of a
lesser knockoff of 1stPage, but to be sure they are both what I would call
very good web page editors.
Back to HTMLtidy (which probably can be integrated into CoffeeCup - as
there is a place to define external apps).
HTMLtidy has a number of options, but I just left it at it's default
(installed) settings and checked both the javascript and non-javascript
versions of my home page (which are now both accessible on my site)
I tried, source formatting only, Upgrade to stylesheets (which I'll
further comment on), Convert to XML and the TidyHTML format and fix.
All of them and on both my pages, broke my HTML code (or at least that is
the indication I get from a warning window titled "Internet Explorer
Script Error - only I'm not running IE and doing this in the version of my
page that has no javascript). Good thing there is an undo button (made it
easier to test these things).
The condition of my code before trying these things is that I used the w3c
validator to get the non-javascript version working to the best of what the
validator wants. There are two simple attributes I didn't fix and because
they are non-existant minor for browsers that don't accept them, and there
are the URLs that the validator doesn't like, but I can't change them, and
have them still work. I *Suspect* it is these URL that is resulting in
TidyHTML not working to clean and fix my code, but instead breaking
working code.
HTML stands for HyperText Markup Language
Repeat after me: HyperText Markup Language!
What does this have to do with URLs?
Or more to the point: How the hell come the W3C doesn't seem to know the
difference between the HyperText Markup Language and the Text that it
marks up?
Or at least I can ask that of the Validator and TidyHTML, developed by???
(both of which identify the valid URLs in my pages as non-valid HTML)
This sorta causes me to recall the ATX lack of a hard on/off power switch
problem. (Which I understand may be illegal in at least one country. Where
adding a power switch to the back side power supply is enough to make it
legal?)
But it doesn't end there!
In using TidyHTML to convert to CSS (style sheets) a results window opens
and within it is a list of warnings (about the URLs but it doesn't know
they are URLs) and in previewing the page I get the above mentioned IE
script error window(S) <many more than one]. Upon hunting the first few
errors at line number and char number them down, I realize these errors
aren't real, suggesting something somewhere else is causing this (The
URLs?).
Anyway Within the results window for the CSS conversion results and below
the warnings:
"You are recommended to use CSS to specify the font and properties such as
it's size and color. This will reduce tthe size if HTML files abd make
them easier maintain compared with using <FONT> elements"
^
"to" (missing)
First off, recommending something after it's been applied is not a show of
intelligence, but another indication of "not knowing the difference", in
this case between before and after.
But here is the real kicker (and where I want to grab the party
responsible, by the throught and squeeze enough where they cannot talk.
Slap them up one side the head breaking that eardrum, so they cannot be
distracted by their own damn noise and just below eardrum breaking level
(to flood out any other noise) ask them (in their remaining ear) "What
The FUCK is that?!" regarding the details of the "CSS recommendation".
For the "one" thing that caused alot of errors to be generated by the
validator was using <FONT> is a way that was streamline and works in
fundamental logic as well as all browsers I have tried. But the Validator
didn't like this. Errors that to correct in a manner acceptable to the
validator results in my having to put alot more <font> and </font> tags in
(not to mention the attributes I used in them).
In short: The "Specification" or "Standard" that the W3C is promoting
creates a problem where there is in fact NONE, and then recommends
a "solution" more complex (fater) than doing it right to begin with. And
as Complexity is, there is more that can go wrong/break. Besides the
numerious IE script errors, My page doesn't look the same with this
recommended modification (small difference but a difference where there
should be none.) Not to mention again that this modification actually
added more to my page in size than the original way I did it.
To put this into one word, and answer my question, that word is *SCAM!!!*
Though I think the term W3C uses is "deprecated"
And again I seem to want to recall the ATX lack of a hard power button.
And the Word "illegal". Which reminds me of "MicroSoft" mentality.
W3C needs to get the hell off the drunken stuper of the political bottle
and out of the anti-trust (winning by unfair advantage - but winning what?)
mentality supporting neck of the woods. So as to not create a mental
bottle neck in using HTML for simple things by simple people. Hell they
got XML to fuck with all they want. Greedy bastards ain't gonna "win"
any-thin by makin it fat, ugly and stupid!
Industry mentality at it peak of stupidity viewed thru reflective
recursion. Where is it and/or it's reflection, going to show up next?
Feel free to forward this to the W3C, for those who subscribe.
And for those who want to brush up on CSS to argue with (and show your
recursive reflection of stupidity):
What's wrong with the FONT element?
http://www.mcsr.olemiss.edu/~mudws/font.html
From a link near the top of "what's new?" @ http://www.w3.org/Style/
WaSP Browser Upgrade Campaign:
http://www.webstandards.org/upgrade/pr.html
Cascading Style Sheets
http://www.htmlhelp.com/reference/css/
and from here /\..to...here \/
Style Sheet Dependence
http://www.htmlhelp.com/reference/css/dependence.html
Remember, I'm posting this from an Amiga!!!!
Paul Copsey
Timothy Rue <thre...@earthlink.net> wrote:
[Snipped - see thread for additional proof that Tim has no concept of
reality]
Tim, WTF are you posting this here for?
Paul
Timothy Rue
>Paul
Geee, I thought Reality included whether or not you are gonna be able to
view any pages at all thru amiga browsers in the nit to distant future.
Funny, sometimes I can view Amiga sites, like Amiga.org, because of the
coding it sometimes uses and crashes my system.
bulk_trap
> Below you will find such information that should make it clear that W3C
> came along after the Fact of HTML. And as such, has a goal of making XML
> wide spread after the Fact of W3C.
>
> W3C "assumed" some sort of control or authority over something that
> existed and was evolving before they existed.
>
> Given the open source Amaya, the concept of the validator (which would be
> more intelligent to be able to use off line and integrated within the
> editing environment) and HTMLtidy (of course integrated into the editor),
> there really is no excuse for a great deal of the noise people have given
> me regarding HTML.
Yes, it would be a good idea for web page creation/editing programs
to include a validator to check the HTML. Although this might turn out
to be embarrassing because, as others have pointed out, these programs
often turn out buggy HTML code.
Tx
news:q8q61ugojbcv81s8t...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 08 Dec 2001 23:06:47 GMT,
> "Timothy Rue" <thre...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > Below you will find such information that should make it clear that W3C
> > came along after the Fact of HTML. And as such, has a goal of making XML
> > wide spread after the Fact of W3C.
> >
> > W3C "assumed" some sort of control or authority over something that
> > existed and was evolving before they existed.
>
> Oh do shutup. Just read the whole damn W3C web site to yourself,
> *learn* about what it's all about, and use the information.
>
HTML, obviously it's not my code that's at fault, the standards must be
wrong. Just like if my power button doesn't work the way I think it should,
it's obviously the fault of the whole computing industry. And I see no
contradiction whatsoever in espousing open standards with one breath, and
then attacking a body that maintains open standards with the next, no sir,
that ain't hypocrisy.
Tx
Tim
"Timothy Rue" <thre...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> HTMLtidy has a number of options, but I just left it at it's default
> (installed) settings and checked both the javascript and non-javascript
> versions of my home page (which are now both accessible on my site)
>
> I tried, source formatting only, Upgrade to stylesheets (which I'll
> further comment on), Convert to XML and the TidyHTML format and fix.
>
> All of them and on both my pages, broke my HTML code (or at least that is
> the indication I get from a warning window titled "Internet Explorer
> Script Error - only I'm not running IE and doing this in the version of my
> page that has no javascript). Good thing there is an undo button (made it
> easier to test these things).
XML isn't well supported on many browsers, yet. Neither on the
servers. The Opera browser probably has the better support of XML.
There's nothing particularly stunning in that news. Nor this:
Style sheets are supported, more; but still suffer a general lack of
support. And consistent support. Unless you need to use them,
because they can do something that's not easy, or possible, to do with
just HTML, I wouldn't bother.
If you rely on CSS to style your pages, then as soon as someone
browses your site, using a non-CSS supporting browser, the pages look
very plain, or even mangled.
So what do you do? Use HTML style on the pages, and CSS? The HTML
styling codes make the CSS redundant (they're used first).
> HTML stands for HyperText Markup Language
>
> Repeat after me: HyperText Markup Language!
>
> What does this have to do with URLs?
The limitations of the character sets used to record the addresses in
the HTML file, and the methods of parsing the contents, require
encoding in many situations.
> In using TidyHTML to convert to CSS (style sheets) a results window opens
> and within it is a list of warnings (about the URLs but it doesn't know
> they are URLs) and in previewing the page I get the above mentioned IE
> script error window(S) <many more than one]. Upon hunting the first few
> errors at line number and char number them down, I realize these errors
> aren't real, suggesting something somewhere else is causing this (The
> URLs?).
Unless you actually give some examples, you're not saying anything
very useful, here.
> Anyway Within the results window for the CSS conversion results and below
> the warnings:
>
> "You are recommended to use CSS to specify the font and properties such as
> it's size and color. This will reduce tthe size if HTML files abd make
> them easier maintain compared with using <FONT> elements"
> ^
> "to" (missing)
>
> First off, recommending something after it's been applied is not a show of
> intelligence, but another indication of "not knowing the difference", in
> this case between before and after.
Some semblance of HTML knowledge is required of the person using the
program.
> "What The FUCK is that?!" regarding the details of the "CSS recommendation".
You're mentioning that out of context with everything else that you're
trying to do. What are you *actually* complaining about?
Have you read the CSS specifications? (http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2)
There's less to read than the HTML specs, you may as well read them.
> For the "one" thing that caused alot of errors to be generated by the
> validator was using <FONT> is a way that was streamline and works in
> fundamental logic as well as all browsers I have tried. But the Validator
> didn't like this. Errors that to correct in a manner acceptable to the
> validator results in my having to put alot more <font> and </font> tags in
> (not to mention the attributes I used in them).
<font> is often used incorrectly. How are you trying to use it?
> In short: The "Specification" or "Standard" that the W3C is promoting
> creates a problem where there is in fact NONE,
There is. Just because people are doing non-standard things doesn't
mean there isn't a standard.
and then recommends
> a "solution" more complex (fater) than doing it right to begin with.
That's a fair comment on using CSS, in many cases. It's best use is
for complex sites, where you'd like to be able to centrally control
the style, or provide different versions for different media.
e.g.
A fancy version for most web browsers.
A version that prints all black text, on white paper, no background
colours, etc (for printing to paper).
Extra aural information for blind users, or just for spoken
information.
etc.
Just by reformatting the same page information, rather than doing lots
of different pages.
(Three different style sheets, to restyle 100 pages, is easier than
making 300 pages.)
> My page doesn't look the same with this recommended modification
> (small difference but a difference where there should be none.)
Without examples, that comment isn't worth making, publicly.
Have you got a before and after example? Do you want to try and find
a solution, or just complain about it?
> Not to mention again that this modification actually added more
> to my page in size than the original way I did it.
And your point is? Many of those familiar with HTML coding are
already aware of that.
> And for those who want to brush up on CSS to argue with (and show your
> recursive reflection of stupidity):
>
> What's wrong with the FONT element?
> http://www.mcsr.olemiss.edu/~mudws/font.html
So what? Most of us have known that for ages.
> From a link near the top of "what's new?" @ http://www.w3.org/Style/
> WaSP Browser Upgrade Campaign:
> http://www.webstandards.org/upgrade/pr.html
Idiotic idea.
It's the same idea as the game coders; make each game require a more
speccy machine, so you're forever upgrading.
And the same idea as web sites that require you to install some
plug-in to use their site. They mightn't have one for your browser,
or operating system. And it may not be safe to use.
> Cascading Style Sheets
> http://www.htmlhelp.com/reference/css/
So? There's a whole site there. Is there something you don't
understand, don't like, agree with???
> Style Sheet Dependence
> http://www.htmlhelp.com/reference/css/dependence.html
Same as a point, or few, that I've made already.
> Remember, I'm posting this from an Amiga!!!!
And your point is?
I'm guessing, you mean that using CSS is useless for web browsing on
your Amiga? That's old news to all of us.
Gary Beeton
> If the W3C really was the defining standard of HTML they apparently want
> to be seen as, then why aren't they the standard everyone uses.
Er, because of people like you who are too lazy to follow standards perhaps?
--
Gary Beeton
Timothy Rue
>--
>Gary Beeton
What does the word *Uniform* mean to you?
John Burns
LOL
Sad thing is that Tim won't realise you're being sarcastic ;)
Gary Beeton
> What does the word *Uniform* mean to you?
Um, the men in the white suits are coming to take you away? :) Sorry
Tim, I couldn't resist.
But seriously, I've never really understood where the term 'URL' came
from. It seems like an overly cryptic expression to me. Perhaps all
the best TLA's were already taken.
--
Gary Beeton
Rick Hodger
It means "Uniform Resource Locator", and rolls off the tounge much
better than something like "GPAS" (Generic Protocol and Addressing
System, too close to GPRS) :)
But URLs are actually uniform, it's just to most people a URL is a
website address, whereas the URL RFC actually covers "ftp://",
"mailto:" and a whole host of others, including details for
username/password usage and port numbers.
--
Rick Hodger
Tx
[...]
> > a "solution" more complex (fater) than doing it right to begin with.
>
> That's a fair comment on using CSS, in many cases. It's best use is
> for complex sites, where you'd like to be able to centrally control
> the style, or provide different versions for different media.
>
the 'hover' pseudo class to do text rollover is very easy and neat, no
scripting or applets required. Browsers that lack the necessary css2 support
will simply see the text without the effect.
Tx
Tim
>> What does the word *Uniform* mean to you?
On Tue, 11 Dec 2001 06:31:32 GMT,
"Gary Beeton" <gbe...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> Um, the men in the white suits are coming to take you away? :) Sorry
> Tim, I couldn't resist.
Please don't....... resist. Go quietly, go in peace. Our peace.
> But seriously, I've never really understood where the term 'URL' came
> from. It seems like an overly cryptic expression to me. Perhaps all
> the best TLA's were already taken.
Or you could just call it an address. ;-)
But answering Tim, yet again, it's a uniform (consistent) manner of
addressing something (locating a resource - although it's a /little/
nonsensical when applied to an e-mail address).
Computer jargon has always been a bit unusual in it's use of the
English language, though. Much like legal language.
***************************************************************
***************************************************************
*** ***
*** The scheme of /how/ you do the addressing is uniform. ***
*** ***
***************************************************************
***************************************************************
e.g. protocol://domain/path
http://www.example.com/let-it-be/
ftp://ftp.example.com/tired-of-this.txt
mailto:give-it...@example.com
How you actually type the address isn't so important. Be that using
the direct letters, numerical IPs, character equivalent codes
I'm sure that there's only one person, here, who has trouble seeing a
pattern in how the addresses are formed, giving them a uniform
approach of doing it.
Tim Rue reminds me of my math teacher. When faced with a losing
battle (i.e. having to give someone a 100% mark), he's say he didn't
understand something you wrote.
Tim Rue might improve, if he'd do more reading, and less talking. And
paid attention to instructions.
Tim
"Tim" <T...@localhost.invalid> wrote in message
>> That's a fair comment on using CSS, in many cases. It's best use is
>> for complex sites, where you'd like to be able to centrally control
>> the style, or provide different versions for different media.
On Tue, 11 Dec 2001 09:55:44 -0000,
"Tx" <to...@send.me.no.spam.hadland.co.uk> wrote:
> Although CSS can be a slim way to implement some things, for example using
> the 'hover' pseudo class to do text rollover is very easy and neat, no
> scripting or applets required. Browsers that lack the necessary css2 support
> will simply see the text without the effect.
I've recently been playing with CSS, and found that while you can do
some pretty things with it. It's application is just as variable,
across different browsers, as how they all render HTML slightly
differently from each other.
Some, not so "slightly" differently, but *radically* differently.
HTML always was, and probably always will be, a vague layout language,
that was how it was designed, and the idea is sensible. It's meant to
be flexible, so the same data can be used in a variety of different
reading circumstances. Trying to be specific about layout, just
stuffs things up badly. Even PDF fouls that up (smudgy in-line
graphics, anyone?).
Long ago I came to the conclusion that <i>italicising</i> text, and
<b>bolding</b> it, the HTML way, is by far the simplest and most
compatible way to do things. Just to give a couple of examples for
where CSS is over the top for /styling/ a page.
Other things are better with CSS, like encasing paragraphs in a
coloured box, instead of improperly using tables. But more browsers
support tables, even if just simply, than those that support CSS.
Browsers ideas about letting users specify their own CSS, to override
a sites, are far less than practical, too. Not all the page
attributes get overridden, and some are worse if overridden (if
they've done something special, requiring a special colour scheme to
read it, and you undo it, that page becomes even worse).
Using CSS, now, is in a similar position as to when frames first came
out. It took a while before they could be widely used.
Timothy Rue
>"Timothy Rue" <thre...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:834.744T1308T9...@earthlink.net...
>> What does the word *Uniform* mean to you?
>Um, the men in the white suits are coming to take you away? :) Sorry
>Tim, I couldn't resist.
I knew that was likely to come. But they were here and apparently they
didn't recognize how much I'm worth.
>But seriously, I've never really understood where the term 'URL' came
>from. It seems like an overly cryptic expression to me. Perhaps all
>the best TLA's were already taken.
I don't know but when a site returns a url and whatever else tacked on to
it, that it returns to me, I can expect to be able to use that returned
string to get back to where I got it from. (unless where I got it from is
no longer existing or accessable)
And to be able to get there without having to convert it to some sort of
selected encrypted character set so that it can be decrypted by the
software in my system before it gets sent out.
Rick Hodger
> On 11-Dec-01 01:31:32 Gary Beeton <gbe...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> >"Timothy Rue" <thre...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >news:834.744T1308T9...@earthlink.net...
>
> >> What does the word *Uniform* mean to you?
>
> >Um, the men in the white suits are coming to take you away? :) Sorry
> >Tim, I couldn't resist.
>
> I knew that was likely to come. But they were here and apparently they
> didn't recognize how much I'm worth.
But Timmy, after all the uninformed ranting about broken standards in
happy use by 99% of the planet, we definatly recognise how much you're
worth.
> >But seriously, I've never really understood where the term 'URL' came
> >from. It seems like an overly cryptic expression to me. Perhaps all
> >the best TLA's were already taken.
>
> I don't know but when a site returns a url and whatever else tacked on to
> it, that it returns to me, I can expect to be able to use that returned
> string to get back to where I got it from. (unless where I got it from is
> no longer existing or accessable)
Are you possibly referring to session ID's? A common thing used on
shopping carts to ensure that no two people can "cross wires" (so to
speak) on a website?
> And to be able to get there without having to convert it to some sort of
> selected encrypted character set so that it can be decrypted by the
> software in my system before it gets sent out.
Surely you don't mean standard URL encoding? Turning binary and other
characters into their ASCII codes for usage in scripts? That's been in
use since about the second week of the web's existence. I'll explain:
If I have a script at http://localhost/script.cgi and I want to pass
it a parameter, a string if you will, without having the user post a
form, I would simply call the link as
"http://localhost/script.cgi?string=blah".
If that string includes a space, "blah blah", we have a problem.
Neither the URL specification nor the HTTP protocol allows for spaces.
If I pass "http://localhost/script.cgi?string=blah blah" to a server,
all the script will receive is "blah".
To avoid this, you encode it, turning the space into another character
so that it will be recognised. so "blah blah" becomes "blah+blah".
Similarly, if I tried to pass a plus symbol (+) it would get turned
into it's ASCII character prepended with a "%" symbol to indicate it
should be decoded. "%2B" for those that are interested.
It's not really that hard to understand, and you yourself should never
have to manually decode a URL encoded string unless you are trying to
do something wierd and possibly illegal, like feeding someone's
script/webserver strange characters (aka Unicode attack). All the web
browsers that I know of, including Voyager, IBrowse and AWeb all
handle it perfectly.
--
Rick Hodger
Tim
>>> What does the word *Uniform* mean to you?
On 11-Dec-01 01:31:32 Gary Beeton <gbe...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>> Um, the men in the white suits are coming to take you away? :) Sorry
>> Tim, I couldn't resist.
On Wed, 12 Dec 2001 00:49:14 GMT,
"Timothy Rue" <thre...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> I knew that was likely to come.
I think we've all been expecting men in white coats to come for you,
sometime or other. Probably with a nice new long sleeved shirt for
you.
>> But seriously, I've never really understood where the term 'URL' came
>> from. It seems like an overly cryptic expression to me. Perhaps all
>> the best TLA's were already taken.
> I don't know but when a site returns a url and whatever else tacked on to
> it, that it returns to me, I can expect to be able to use that returned
> string to get back to where I got it from. (unless where I got it from is
> no longer existing or accessable)
>
> And to be able to get there without having to convert it to some sort of
> selected encrypted character set so that it can be decrypted by the
> software in my system before it gets sent out.
That's one of the limitations of HTML documents. You're just going to
have to learn to live with it. Ampersands, and some other characters,
just can't be used on their own, in certain places. Not a
particularly brilliant design, but we're stuck with it.
How do think the Chinese, feel, for example, not being able to
directly use their own language in internet addresses? Yours is a
minor gripe. HTML is "coding," not /just/ "plain" text.
Rick Hodger
> How do think the Chinese, feel, for example, not being able to
> directly use their own language in internet addresses? Yours is a
> minor gripe. HTML is "coding," not /just/ "plain" text.
Actually, it's entirely possible now to register a domain written in
chinese, arabic and a few other Asian languages. It's a pretty new
thing though....been around for less than a year I think, and only a
handful of registries support it.
--
Rick Hodger
Timothy Rue
>"Timothy Rue" <thre...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:<1422.745T831T12...@earthlink.net>...
>> On 11-Dec-01 01:31:32 Gary Beeton <gbe...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>> >"Timothy Rue" <thre...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> >news:834.744T1308T9...@earthlink.net...
>>
>> >> What does the word *Uniform* mean to you?
>>
>> >Um, the men in the white suits are coming to take you away? :) Sorry
>> >Tim, I couldn't resist.
>>
>> I knew that was likely to come. But they were here and apparently they
>> didn't recognize how much I'm worth.
>But Timmy, after all the uninformed ranting about broken standards in
>happy use by 99% of the planet, we definatly recognise how much you're
>worth.
In other words you still don't know the definition of *Uniform*?
Well thank for your support that I should NOT have to encode or decode a
url, in order to use it, that I have received from the location the url
identifies.
BTW, that's an example of being *Uniform*! It is what it is and without
change.
Timothy Rue
>"Timothy Rue" <thre...@earthlink.net> wrote
>>>> What does the word *Uniform* mean to you?
>
>On 11-Dec-01 01:31:32 Gary Beeton <gbe...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>> Um, the men in the white suits are coming to take you away? :) Sorry
>>> Tim, I couldn't resist.
>On Wed, 12 Dec 2001 00:49:14 GMT,
>"Timothy Rue" <thre...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> I knew that was likely to come.
>I think we've all been expecting men in white coats to come for you,
>sometime or other. Probably with a nice new long sleeved shirt for
>you.
Was that what they were wearing? Looked like straight-jackets to me.
Hmmm, guess it would take two of them to drive one vehicle, huh?
>>> But seriously, I've never really understood where the term 'URL' came
>>> from. It seems like an overly cryptic expression to me. Perhaps all
>>> the best TLA's were already taken.
>> I don't know but when a site returns a url and whatever else tacked on to
>> it, that it returns to me, I can expect to be able to use that returned
>> string to get back to where I got it from. (unless where I got it from is
>> no longer existing or accessable)
>>
>> And to be able to get there without having to convert it to some sort of
>> selected encrypted character set so that it can be decrypted by the
>> software in my system before it gets sent out.
>That's one of the limitations of HTML documents. You're just going to
>have to learn to live with it. Ampersands, and some other characters,
>just can't be used on their own, in certain places. Not a
>particularly brilliant design, but we're stuck with it.
How come you haven't yet come to understand the difference between HTML code
and the url that it is marking up? Are you as W3C progam?
>How do think the Chinese, feel, for example, not being able to
>directly use their own language in internet addresses? Yours is a
>minor gripe. HTML is "coding," not /just/ "plain" text.
Geee, I guess they would put it in quotes following the hypertext
link/reference indicator: href=
Just like I do.
as can be indicated in some email headers and message content
-From: 程眏︽綪硁砰@hihimail.com
-To: 舧禣更刚ノ@hihimail.com
-Subject: ︽綪ぃ―腊眤瞴1货7窾呼隔ㄏノ讽い
and another example where the top is in english and the bottom in Chinese
(though what you see is a character set translation from the bit level
constant, meaning the binary base hasn't been altered, only it's mapping
to a higher level character set that is not the intended chinese set. The
machine still gets the bit sequence all the same. And this ain't HTML, but
a url and character set mapping issues.)
The China International Furniture Network ,...
The link : Ms Wu, Ms Wang, Ms Luo
TEL: +86-0765-8838091
Fax: +86-0765-8838092
E-MAIL: 77...@777f.com
se...@777f.com
www.777f.com (International Furniture network,china)
www.777yp.com (China International Yellow Pages)
The Furniture Purchasing Center
China International Furniture network
您是否对心仪已久的家具�......
中国国际家具网 www.777f.com
家具采购服务中心
联系人：伍小玲、罗瑞琼、王艳、
采购热线：0765-8838091、8838092
传 真：0765-8838091
E-MAIL：77...@777f.com se...@777yp.com
地 址：广东顺德乐从国际家具博览中心二楼商务中心
邮 编：528315
Tim
>>> I don't know but when a site returns a url and whatever else tacked on to
>>> it, that it returns to me, I can expect to be able to use that returned
>>> string to get back to where I got it from. (unless where I got it from is
>>> no longer existing or accessable)
...[snip]...
>>> And to be able to get there without having to convert it to some sort of
>>> selected encrypted character set so that it can be decrypted by the
>>> software in my system before it gets sent out.
On 12-Dec-01 04:15:52 Rick Hodger <ri...@simpleftp.co.uk> wrote:
>> Surely you don't mean standard URL encoding? Turning binary and other
>> characters into their ASCII codes for usage in scripts? That's been in
>> use since about the second week of the web's existence. I'll explain:
>>
>> If I have a script at http://localhost/script.cgi and I want to pass
>> it a parameter, a string if you will, without having the user post a
>> form, I would simply call the link as
>> "http://localhost/script.cgi?string=blah".
>>
>> If that string includes a space, "blah blah", we have a problem.
>> Neither the URL specification nor the HTTP protocol allows for spaces.
>> If I pass "http://localhost/script.cgi?string=blah blah" to a server,
>> all the script will receive is "blah".
>>
>> To avoid this, you encode it, turning the space into another character
>> so that it will be recognised. so "blah blah" becomes "blah+blah".
>> Similarly, if I tried to pass a plus symbol (+) it would get turned
>> into it's ASCII character prepended with a "%" symbol to indicate it
>> should be decoded. "%2B" for those that are interested.
>>
>> It's not really that hard to understand, and you yourself should never
>> have to manually decode a URL encoded string unless you are trying to
>> do something wierd and possibly illegal, like feeding someone's
>> script/webserver strange characters (aka Unicode attack). All the web
>> browsers that I know of, including Voyager, IBrowse and AWeb all
>> handle it perfectly.
"Timothy Rue" <thre...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Well thank for your support that I should NOT have to encode or decode a
> url, in order to use it, that I have received from the location the url
> identifies.
Actually, he did give at least one example of where to use encoding.
And so have other people, too.
It's not a case of supporting /your/ point of view, where just because
you want to do it your way, and someone else says it worked for me,
your point is proved. It's not (proved). And the exercise is
completely pointless anyway. Neither of you have a say in the
development of the standards.
"Limited" experience of what has worked for some people, doesn't prove
that /that/ particular way to do things is right. The web is full of
examples for where that's proved to be incorrect.
The recommendation is to encode certain characters, anywhere they're
used in a HTML file, including where URIs have been typed into a href
link. The recommendation isn't made without good reason.
You've seen them fail in one parser, I've seen un-encoded ampersands
fail in other situations, still. If anything, this point is proved;
that un-encoded specially significant characters, fail to work.
Proving that something fails, is more significant that proving that
you can *sometimes* get away with cutting corners.
Though, in your case. Who cares... It's not as if your web site
contains anything remotely resembling vital information.
Tim
"Timothy Rue" <thre...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> How come you haven't yet come to understand the difference between
> HTML code and the url that it is marking up? Are you as W3C progam?
The real question, is; why can't you see that everything typed into a
HTML file, is *part of* that HTML? (Including any web page addresses
typed within an HTML tag.)
The entire content of an HTML file is subject to the limitations of
HTML coding.
Timothy Rue
Why create such false limits?
Good thing the browsers I've tried don't.
You do realize it is possible to redefine the elements and attributes of
HTML so that they are both compatable with all that has been created
(won't break what works) while also having these false limitations
removed.
i.e. <FONT> into a "stack" element, as many browser probably do anyway.
Tim
"Timothy Rue" <thre...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> How come you haven't yet come to understand the difference between
>>> HTML code and the url that it is marking up? Are you as W3C progam?
On 13-Dec-01 06:22:37 Tim <T...@localhost.invalid> wrote:
>> The real question, is; why can't you see that everything typed into a
>> HTML file, is *part of* that HTML? (Including any web page addresses
>> typed within an HTML tag.)
>>
>> The entire content of an HTML file is subject to the limitations of
>> HTML coding.
On Thu, 13 Dec 2001 19:28:51 GMT,
"Timothy Rue" <thre...@earthlink.net> wrote:>
> Why create such false limits?
They're not "false" limits, even if they are limits that could have
been avoided, to a large degree.
e.g. General English of the ampersand, is with a space either side of
it. It would have been easy to declare that an ampersand typed, that
way (i.e. green eggs & ham), shouldn't need encoding.
Since the use of am ampersand for character code equivalents is
moderately strict (ampersand, immediately followed by a lower-case
entity, and then {usually} immediately followed by a semi-colon), that
example could work.
Note that relying on being able to omit the closing
semi-colon is very foolish. It's often not supported.
But embedding an ampersand in a string blahblah&blahblah is a
situation that needs more explicit control.
Or they could have just picked a character, as the special code
character, that's not normally used in text. Or even a combination
that'd never be used together, normally, but only for code.
e.g. &&entity-name;;
> Good thing the browsers I've tried don't.
That's still misleading you.
Why do so many web sites fail to work? Because the coder only
bothered to check them in some web browsers; browsers with browser
coding faults, and browsers that were too tolerant of HTML coding
faults.
> You do realize it is possible to redefine the elements and attributes of
> HTML so that they are both compatable with all that has been created
> (won't break what works) while also having these false limitations
> removed.
Redefining things will only work if the browser supports that. Not
all browsers support all things. Relying on something special isn't a
wise idea.
Timothy Rue
>On Thu, 13 Dec 2001 02:43:39 GMT,
>"Timothy Rue" <thre...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>>> How come you haven't yet come to understand the difference between
>>>> HTML code and the url that it is marking up? Are you as W3C progam?
>On 13-Dec-01 06:22:37 Tim <T...@localhost.invalid> wrote:
>>> The real question, is; why can't you see that everything typed into a
>>> HTML file, is *part of* that HTML? (Including any web page addresses
>>> typed within an HTML tag.)
>>>
>>> The entire content of an HTML file is subject to the limitations of
>>> HTML coding.
>On Thu, 13 Dec 2001 19:28:51 GMT,
>"Timothy Rue" <thre...@earthlink.net> wrote:>
>
>> Why create such false limits?
>They're not "false" limits, even if they are limits that could have
>been avoided, to a large degree.
>e.g. General English of the ampersand, is with a space either side of
>it. It would have been easy to declare that an ampersand typed, that
>way (i.e. green eggs & ham), shouldn't need encoding.
.
.
.
There is a nice article on slashdot regarding the W3C.
I copied and pasted the URLs from Groups Google of this and one other
related thread to a comment I made.
And I didn't have to encode the ampersands in the Google URLs.
And they still work in the posted comment.
Go figure!
but the validator and tidyHTML can't handle it.
Go Figure!&!
bulk_trap
> And I didn't have to encode the ampersands in the Google URLs.
That's because some browsers have various hacks to try and work around
invalid HTML.
Tim
"Timothy Rue" <thre...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> I copied and pasted the URLs from Groups Google of this and one
> other related thread to a comment I made.
>
> And I didn't have to encode the ampersands in the Google URLs.
>
> And they still work in the posted comment.
>
> Go figure!
What sometimes works, doesn't always work. But trying to get coders
to understand what's *wrong* with the "but it works for me!" attitude
seems to be a lost cause.
They just don't understand. Which is why debugging tools point out
the errors to them:
> but the validator and tidyHTML can't handle it.
Because they're checking in a /strict/ manner for what "shouldn't" be
there.
It's an error. Believe the error message.
Timothy Rue
Wrong! W3C is not the defacto standard. Their tools only represent their
recommendations. On further inspection upon what mindsets make up the
W3C, it is not supprising that they present themselves as being greater
than they really are.
There is nothig stopping you or anyone else from going over to slashdot
and reading the comments, following links and even responding.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/12/14/130207&mode=thread
Without having known the perspectives of others, I came to my own
conclusions as to what I think of the W3C. Now I'm finding out I'm far
from being alone.
There is another matter I've come to recognize as well. And that is about
you Tim. You are leaving such a trail that is typical of some kid trolling
for information and then using what they have read to present themselves
as something more than they are. And that is besides the obvious trolling
you have done.
John Burns
>http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/12/14/130207&mode=thread
Of course you're not alone the internet is full of idiots like you.
>There is another matter I've come to recognize as well. And that is about
>you Tim. You are leaving such a trail that is typical of some kid trolling
>for information and then using what they have read to present themselves
>as something more than they are. And that is besides the obvious trolling
>you have done.
<Begin Rue-speak translation>
You (Tim) are obviously more knowledgeable in this context than I (Rue) so I'd
better call you a troll/plagarist rather than admit defeat.
<End Rue-speak translation>
BTW Timmy given the amount of posts you make quoting various, (un-amiga), references
in an effort to appear knowledgeable this statement of yours only shows your own
hypocracy.
Tim
"Timothy Rue" <thre...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> I copied and pasted the URLs from Groups Google of this and one
>>> other related thread to a comment I made.
>>>
>>> And I didn't have to encode the ampersands in the Google URLs.
>>>
>>> And they still work in the posted comment.
>>>
>>> Go figure!
On 15-Dec-01 04:12:51 Tim <T...@localhost.invalid> wrote:
>> What sometimes works, doesn't always work. But trying to get coders
>> to understand what's *wrong* with the "but it works for me!" attitude
>> seems to be a lost cause.
>>
>> They just don't understand. Which is why debugging tools point out
>> the errors to them:
>>> but the validator and tidyHTML can't handle it.
>> Because they're checking in a /strict/ manner for what "shouldn't" be
>> there.
>>
>> It's an error. Believe the error message.
On Sat, 15 Dec 2001 15:40:30 GMT,
"Timothy Rue" <thre...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Wrong! W3C is not the defacto standard. Their tools only represent their
> recommendations. On further inspection upon what mindsets make up the
> W3C, it is not supprising that they present themselves as being greater
> than they really are.
Hmm, lets see. Where is HTML "defined"? The W3C. If you write HTML
3.2, 4.0, 4.01, or XHTML 1.0, you're using a language defined by
/them/.
If you write a browser, to comply with some web standards, which
standards do you use? The only "standards" that are "defined." The
ones posted by the W3C.
If you write using some perversion of HTML, something non-standard;
which browser are people supposed to use to read it?
You've had it explained to you, several times, why there's going to be
a problem with using &image typed directly in an HTML document, be
that a URI, or something else. But you continue to bleat that you
want to be able to do that.
Have a little read of some of the history of the W3C, and you'll see
someone's name, involved in it, who's credited with being the man
behind the existence of the internet. They are people with long
backgrounds in the internet. People with credible credentials.
Unlike you, and a bunch of other whingers.
> There is nothig stopping you or anyone else from going over to slashdot
> and reading the comments, following links and even responding.
>
> http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/12/14/130207&mode=thread
>
>
> Without having known the perspectives of others, I came to my own
> conclusions as to what I think of the W3C. Now I'm finding out I'm far
> from being alone.
And that'd be - happy in the company of other like-minded childish
little twits who don't like the rules of the game, and wants to just
do what they feel like, with scant regard for everybody else.
> There is another matter I've come to recognize as well. And that is about
> you Tim. You are leaving such a trail that is typical of some kid trolling
> for information and then using what they have read to present themselves
> as something more than they are. And that is besides the obvious trolling
> you have done.
The one doing the trolling is you (knowing that you'd get around to
this, after all of your arguments failed, and you've been thoroughly
trounced on the knowledge stakes).
You've been "trolling" *for* information, for years, not liking what
you've been told, and keeping on going hoping for someone to say what
you want to hear. Having an argument, for the sake of having an
argument.
I, and others, have been *providing* you with information. Correct
information. Correcting your misinformation. But you don't want the
correct information.
The majority is wrong, and you're right; is your way of thinking. A
deranged point of view, from even the most simplistic analysis.
You've been trolling the group for a very long time, ranting all sorts
of utter nonsense. Picking arguments with people about things you
don't know about. Getting bitchy with those who happen to know what
they're talking about, and bother to tell you that you're a whacko.
There are other people who have opposing points of views, about
things, but don't go to the ridiculous extremes, that you do, to try
and browbeat everyone else into agreeing with them.
You really are nuts. It doesn't take anybody long to realise just how
nuts you are. They've only got to read a few days worth of usenet
posts. Everyone, but you, knows what a troll is. Show any normal
person, who understands what trolling means, a history of your
participation in usenet, and not only will they tell you that you're a
troll, and a mental case, they'll not want to have much to do with
you. You're a world famous idiot. And you earnt that reputation all
by yourself.
Just briefly skimming through that slashdot address, there's nothing
new. Just more bitching, and nobody actually doing anything
constructive. Just like you. No matter how much you whine about not
liking internet standards, you're not going to do anything to improve
anything.
Oh, and I'm happy to tell you that my 32nd birthday was a few weeks
ago. And I'm someone whom presents themselves as what they actually
are.
Unlike you, who continually exposes their ignorance, while attempting
to lecture the world on something that they clearly have little
knowledge of. And has never learnt when to shut their mouth, and let
people wonder if you're a fool, instead of proving it.
I don't suppose that you realise, that if you'd constructively
criticised some aspect of HTML specifications; discussed something
that was genuinely dumb, and not just something you don't like; not
continually tried to push some idiotic point of view; you wouldn't be
getting the pounding you so richly deserve.
HTML works rather well, and so does the W3C. The problem is people
who make bad use of it.
Greg Tallent
wrote:
>On 11-Dec-01 01:31:32 Gary Beeton <gbe...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>"Timothy Rue" <thre...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>news:834.744T1308T9...@earthlink.net...
>
>>> What does the word *Uniform* mean to you?
>
>>Um, the men in the white suits are coming to take you away? :) Sorry
>>Tim, I couldn't resist.
>
>I knew that was likely to come. But they were here and apparently they
>didn't recognize how much I'm worth.
I can't imagine why, we all know you're worth about as much as a wooden
nickel...
While you think you're worth billions, we know that's only in Monopoly
money.
Marcel DeVoe
Tell me about it! So is that why I'm now getting *spam* mail from *Taiwan*
in incomprehensible characters? And YAM complains about incomplete links
or something whenever I try to open one. :-(
--
Marcel J. DeVoe - mde...@shore.net - Team *AMIGA*
A4091scsi CV64 96 megs CDRW M1764-17" Catweasel FUSION/Emplant
A4000/060 CyberStorm MKII overclocked 66mhz - see "How to Overclock!"
and "DIY A4000 Tower for $45" @ http://www.shore.net/~mdevoe
Rick Hodger
> Rick Hodger <ri...@simpleftp.co.uk> wrote:
> > Tim <T...@localhost.invalid> wrote in message news:<a4de1u8015he2e0mh...@4ax.com>...
> >
> >> How do think the Chinese, feel, for example, not being able to
> >> directly use their own language in internet addresses? Yours is a
> >> minor gripe. HTML is "coding," not /just/ "plain" text.
>
> > Actually, it's entirely possible now to register a domain written in
> > chinese, arabic and a few other Asian languages. It's a pretty new
> > thing though....been around for less than a year I think, and only a
> > handful of registries support it.
>
> Tell me about it! So is that why I'm now getting *spam* mail from *Taiwan*
> in incomprehensible characters? And YAM complains about incomplete links
> or something whenever I try to open one.
More than likely, someone in Taiwan or China has trawled the
newsgroups for email addresses and has caught yours, just like it
caught mine. I've been seeing those emails too.
I can tell you though, that complaining won't do any good. Taiwan and
a few other countries down there are notorious for not giving a damn
about crackers and spammers. I even remember finding one server that
had been cracked and was being used to port scan entire
networks....and the admin knew, yet refused to do anything about it.
--
Rick Hodger
Tim
>>> Actually, it's entirely possible now to register a domain written in
>>> chinese, arabic and a few other Asian languages. It's a pretty new
>>> thing though....been around for less than a year I think, and only a
>>> handful of registries support it.
Marcel DeVoe <mde...@shore.net> wrote in message
news:<CyeU7.229$Ti2....@news.shore.net>...
>> Tell me about it! So is that why I'm now getting *spam* mail from *Taiwan*
>> in incomprehensible characters? And YAM complains about incomplete links
>> or something whenever I try to open one.
On 20 Dec 2001 01:46:03 -0800,
ri...@simpleftp.co.uk (Rick Hodger) wrote:
> More than likely, someone in Taiwan or China has trawled the
> newsgroups for email addresses and has caught yours, just like it
> caught mine. I've been seeing those emails too.
Despite the niceties of providing people with your e-mail address,
allowing them to respond personally, it's taken advantage of too
often. By spam harvesters and aggressive flamers who think that you
won't mind personal replies, and that it's okay to be even worse than
they'd write in public.
> I can tell you though, that complaining won't do any good. Taiwan and
> a few other countries down there are notorious for not giving a damn
> about crackers and spammers. I even remember finding one server that
> had been cracked and was being used to port scan entire
> networks....and the admin knew, yet refused to do anything about it.
Which leaves you with a couple of choices:
Try and convince their upstream providers to dump them.
Post their details in some cracking group, and let them bring the
system to its knees, until it dies, or the admins get interested in
security.
Timothy Rue
>Rick Hodger <ri...@simpleftp.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
>> I can tell you though, that complaining won't do any good. Taiwan and
>> a few other countries down there are notorious for not giving a damn
>> about crackers and spammers. I even remember finding one server that
>> had been cracked and was being used to port scan entire
>> networks....and the admin knew, yet refused to do anything about it.
>Which leaves you with a couple of choices:
>Try and convince their upstream providers to dump them.
>Post their details in some cracking group, and let them bring the
>system to its knees, until it dies, or the admins get interested in
>security.
That tells alot about you both.
Perhaps you can provide some links to support such comments?
Sounds like a conspiracy to me........
Tim
>>> I can tell you though, that complaining won't do any good. Taiwan and
>>> a few other countries down there are notorious for not giving a damn
>>> about crackers and spammers. I even remember finding one server that
>>> had been cracked and was being used to port scan entire
>>> networks....and the admin knew, yet refused to do anything about it.
On 20-Dec-01 08:01:39 Tim <T...@localhost.invalid> wrote:
>> Which leaves you with a couple of choices:
>>
>> Try and convince their upstream providers to dump them.
>>
>> Post their details in some cracking group, and let them bring the
>> system to its knees, until it dies, or the admins get interested in
>> security.
On Thu, 20 Dec 2001 17:12:37 GMT,
"Timothy Rue" <thre...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> That tells alot about you both.
That we don't like spam or hacking. That such things should be
controlled as close to the source as possible, if the service provider
will not control their system, that they need to be controlled
externally.
It should have been readily obvious to anybody, that my second comment
is a deliberate smart-alec comment. No smilies, notwithstanding.
i.e. Not to be taken too seriously. Though, it would actually have
the desired effect.
> Perhaps you can provide some links to support such comments?
Why should we have to? If he's being stuffed around, he is. He
hasn't said who by, so he's not trying to attack some particular group
without evidence. I don't know of any hacking groups, but I'm sure it
wouldn't be hard to find some.
> Sounds like a conspiracy to me........
You idiot...
Marcel DeVoe
>>> Tell me about it! So is that why I'm now getting *spam* mail from *Taiwan*
>>> in incomprehensible characters? And YAM complains about incomplete links
>>> or something whenever I try to open one.
>
>> More than likely, someone in Taiwan or China has trawled the
>> newsgroups for email addresses and has caught yours, just like it
>> caught mine. I've been seeing those emails too.
The odd and very stupid thing of it is that this is an English speaking
group and a Taiwanese spammer even if he were to get a few Chinese
speakers from English groups, posters are likely to be Chinese themselves
and frequent Chinese newsgroups anyways and it would have been better to
just trawl them. It's just impractical and very stupid (did I say it was
stupid? ;)
>> I can tell you though, that complaining won't do any good. Taiwan and
>> a few other countries down there are notorious for not giving a damn
>> about crackers and spammers. I even remember finding one server that
>> had been cracked and was being used to port scan entire
>> networks....and the admin knew, yet refused to do anything about it.
Assholes.
> Which leaves you with a couple of choices:
> Try and convince their upstream providers to dump them.
Ever try to talk to a Chinese man? I work with a few. Nothing you say
will make them change their minds.
> Post their details in some cracking group, and let them bring the
> system to its knees, until it dies, or the admins get interested in
> security.
I like the last one best.
Rick Hodger
> Rick Hodger <ri...@simpleftp.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>> I can tell you though, that complaining won't do any good. Taiwan and
> >>> a few other countries down there are notorious for not giving a damn
> >>> about crackers and spammers. I even remember finding one server that
> >>> had been cracked and was being used to port scan entire
> >>> networks....and the admin knew, yet refused to do anything about it.
> On 20-Dec-01 08:01:39 Tim <T...@localhost.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> Which leaves you with a couple of choices:
> >>
> >> Try and convince their upstream providers to dump them.
> >>
> >> Post their details in some cracking group, and let them bring the
> >> system to its knees, until it dies, or the admins get interested in
> >> security.
>
>
> On Thu, 20 Dec 2001 17:12:37 GMT,
> "Timothy Rue" <thre...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > That tells alot about you both.
>
> That we don't like spam or hacking. That such things should be
> controlled as close to the source as possible, if the service provider
> will not control their system, that they need to be controlled
> externally.
Although complaining to the upstream provider also frequently produces
no results. Point in case (194.130.xx.xx is one of my servers):
10:59:29.296193 xxxx.xxxx.xxxx.essentkabel.com > 194.130.xx.xx: icmp:
echo reply
10:59:31.303816 xxxx.xxxx.xxxx.essentkabel.com > 194.130.xx.xx: icmp:
echo reply
10:59:31.308281 xxxx.xxxx.xxxx.essentkabel.com > 194.130.xx.xx: icmp:
echo reply
10:59:33.295668 xxxx.xxxx.xxxx.essentkabel.com > 194.130.xx.xx: icmp:
echo reply
10:59:33.299272 xxxx.xxxx.xxxx.essentkabel.com > 194.130.xx.xx: icmp:
echo reply
10:59:33.303747 xxxx.xxxx.xxxx.essentkabel.com > 194.130.xx.xx: icmp:
echo reply
10:59:33.308134 xxxx.xxxx.xxxx.essentkabel.com > 194.130.xx.xx: icmp:
echo reply
10:59:33.312217 xxxx.xxxx.xxxx.essentkabel.com > 194.130.xx.xx: icmp:
echo reply
10:59:33.316679 xxxx.xxxx.xxxx.essentkabel.com > 194.130.xx.xx: icmp:
echo reply
10:59:33.644374 130.207.xx.xx > 194.130.xx.xx: icmp: echo reply
10:59:33.645939 130.207.xx.xx > 194.130.xx.xx: icmp: echo reply
10:59:33.648221 130.207.xx.xx > 194.130.xx.xx: icmp: echo reply
Note the timestamps. Note there is no ICMP packets. These are
"heartbeat" packets from a DDoS tool. I have been complaining to
essentkabel.com (a dutch ADSL/Cable company) and their upstream
(Level3) for -months-, with absoloutely no response. This machines
have obviously been hacked into, yet their owners obviously no don't
care. What am I supposed to do?
My mail servers all run virus checkers and anti-spam systems. And spam
and viruses still get through. But if the upstream providers
themselves made an effort, and cut these people off at the source
(rather than relying on anti-spam techniques on servers receiving
mail, just cut off the connection to the server dishing out the spam),
we'd see far less spam (at least) around.
> > Perhaps you can provide some links to support such comments?
>
> Why should we have to? If he's being stuffed around, he is. He
> hasn't said who by, so he's not trying to attack some particular group
> without evidence. I don't know of any hacking groups, but I'm sure it
> wouldn't be hard to find some.
It's common ettiquite between system admins -not- to announce stuff
like that to the world. It could be -you- that gets hacked next. And
if you do, and someone announces it to the planet, it can be very
financially damaging.
The sad thing is, is that most of these crackers are simply looking
for somewhere to launch attacks from, usually against other cracking
groups. A perfect example was the last round of Outlook worms, I
forget the exact name, but it was created by four 15 year old isreali
kids to DoS members of another cracking group.
My own network traffic in work rarely exceeds 100Kb/s. We have an
agreement with the upstream, and the program is in place on the
router, that if our system hits more than 800Kb/s sustained (we have
8Mb/s available) the router cuts us off. This prevents both incoming
and the possibility of outgoing DoS attacks. Not brilliant...but it's
worked twice so far. Scans and basic FTP/HTTP attacks happen
practically every few minutes.
> > Sounds like a conspiracy to me........
>
> You idiot...
It -is- Timmy. He has try to get his ideas for paranoid conspiracy
theories somewhere.
--
Rick Hodger
Tim
>>>>> I can tell you though, that complaining won't do any good. Taiwan and
>>>>> a few other countries down there are notorious for not giving a damn
>>>>> about crackers and spammers. I even remember finding one server that
>>>>> had been cracked and was being used to port scan entire
>>>>> networks....and the admin knew, yet refused to do anything about it.
On 20-Dec-01 08:01:39 Tim <T...@localhost.invalid> wrote:
>>>> Try and convince their upstream providers to dump them.
Tim <T...@localhost.invalid> wrote:
>> That we don't like spam or hacking. That such things should be
>> controlled as close to the source as possible, if the service provider
>> will not control their system, that they need to be controlled
>> externally.
On 21 Dec 2001 03:21:54 -0800,
ri...@simpleftp.co.uk (Rick Hodger) wrote:
> Although complaining to the upstream provider also frequently produces
> no results. Point in case (194.130.xx.xx is one of my servers):
>
> 10:59:29.296193 xxxx.xxxx.xxxx.essentkabel.com > 194.130.xx.xx: icmp: echo reply
> 10:59:31.303816 xxxx.xxxx.xxxx.essentkabel.com > 194.130.xx.xx: icmp: echo reply
> 10:59:31.308281 xxxx.xxxx.xxxx.essentkabel.com > 194.130.xx.xx: icmp: echo reply
> 10:59:33.295668 xxxx.xxxx.xxxx.essentkabel.com > 194.130.xx.xx: icmp: echo reply
> 10:59:33.299272 xxxx.xxxx.xxxx.essentkabel.com > 194.130.xx.xx: icmp: echo reply
> 10:59:33.303747 xxxx.xxxx.xxxx.essentkabel.com > 194.130.xx.xx: icmp: echo reply
> 10:59:33.308134 xxxx.xxxx.xxxx.essentkabel.com > 194.130.xx.xx: icmp: echo reply
> 10:59:33.312217 xxxx.xxxx.xxxx.essentkabel.com > 194.130.xx.xx: icmp: echo reply
> 10:59:33.316679 xxxx.xxxx.xxxx.essentkabel.com > 194.130.xx.xx: icmp: echo reply
> 10:59:33.644374 130.207.xx.xx > 194.130.xx.xx: icmp: echo reply
> 10:59:33.645939 130.207.xx.xx > 194.130.xx.xx: icmp: echo reply
> 10:59:33.648221 130.207.xx.xx > 194.130.xx.xx: icmp: echo reply
>
> Note the timestamps. Note there is no ICMP packets. These are
> "heartbeat" packets from a DDoS tool. I have been complaining to
> essentkabel.com (a dutch ADSL/Cable company) and their upstream
> (Level3) for -months-, with absolutely no response. This machines
> have obviously been hacked into, yet their owners obviously no don't
> care. What am I supposed to do?
While not the proper solution, can /your/ provider provide some
firewalling to help you? It won't stop the external problem, but may
take the load off the link between you and your ISP, and your own
internal firewalling.
Other solutions are remoter sanctions against the source of the
hacking. If their ISP or upstream providers won't do something, they
can get blackbanned by some other services that might be a serious
restriction. e.g. Like how an ISP can be severely isolated, by many
other services, for allowing spam mail. Once their own customers end
up with limited net access, they start to leave, cutting into the ISPs
profitability.
> My mail servers all run virus checkers and anti-spam systems. And spam
> and viruses still get through. But if the upstream providers
> themselves made an effort, and cut these people off at the source
> (rather than relying on anti-spam techniques on servers receiving
> mail, just cut off the connection to the server dishing out the spam),
> we'd see far less spam (at least) around.
It's odd that ISPs can't be stuffed; after all, they pay for the
bandwidth being used. It can't be profitable to waste it.
Timothy Rue
[snip]
>Ever try to talk to a Chinese man? I work with a few. Nothing you say
>will make them change their minds.
regarding the whole Chinese deal, character set and all regarding HTML
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/12/21/0442229&mode=thread&threshold=0
"..... the World Intellectual Property Organization's prediction that in
less than 10 years, Chinese will be the most widely-used language on the
web."
Rick Hodger
> Rick Hodger <ri...@simpleftp.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>>>> I can tell you though, that complaining won't do any good. Taiwan and
> >>>>> a few other countries down there are notorious for not giving a damn
> >>>>> about crackers and spammers. I even remember finding one server that
> >>>>> had been cracked and was being used to port scan entire
> >>>>> networks....and the admin knew, yet refused to do anything about it.
>
> On 20-Dec-01 08:01:39 Tim <T...@localhost.invalid> wrote:
>
> >>>> Try and convince their upstream providers to dump them.
>
> Tim <T...@localhost.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> That we don't like spam or hacking. That such things should be
> >> controlled as close to the source as possible, if the service provider
> >> will not control their system, that they need to be controlled
> >> externally.
>
> On 21 Dec 2001 03:21:54 -0800,
> ri...@simpleftp.co.uk (Rick Hodger) wrote:
>
> > Although complaining to the upstream provider also frequently produces
> > no results. Point in case (194.130.xx.xx is one of my servers):
[SNIP]
> > Note the timestamps. Note there is no ICMP packets. These are
> > "heartbeat" packets from a DDoS tool. I have been complaining to
> > essentkabel.com (a dutch ADSL/Cable company) and their upstream
> > (Level3) for -months-, with absolutely no response. This machines
> > have obviously been hacked into, yet their owners obviously no don't
> > care. What am I supposed to do?
>
> While not the proper solution, can /your/ provider provide some
> firewalling to help you? It won't stop the external problem, but may
> take the load off the link between you and your ISP, and your own
> internal firewalling.
It's already firewalled (our upstream link is an RJ45 cable into the
next office, where it gets plugged into a UUnet router on a couple of
155Mb/s links). But it still costs us money.
> Other solutions are remoter sanctions against the source of the
> hacking. If their ISP or upstream providers won't do something, they
> can get blackbanned by some other services that might be a serious
> restriction. e.g. Like how an ISP can be severely isolated, by many
> other services, for allowing spam mail. Once their own customers end
> up with limited net access, they start to leave, cutting into the ISPs
> profitability.
Yeah, I'm considering asking UUnet to put a block on the router from
Level3. They can do that...but I'm sure they'd rather not. The problem
is that we get charged for anything being transported across
UUnet...we don't get charged for stuff traveling around our PoP (Point
of Presence). And I don't know if we'll still get charged if it gets
stopped on the UUnet border.
One of the problems of course, is that when you start blocking stuff,
it can cause trouble. For example, most of our machines have ICMP
packets firewalled....but every so often we get someone phoning and
complaining that he can't ping his server. It also means that if you
want to do any sort of remote link monitoring, you have to think up
another way to do it.
> > My mail servers all run virus checkers and anti-spam systems. And spam
> > and viruses still get through. But if the upstream providers
> > themselves made an effort, and cut these people off at the source
> > (rather than relying on anti-spam techniques on servers receiving
> > mail, just cut off the connection to the server dishing out the spam),
> > we'd see far less spam (at least) around.
>
> It's odd that ISPs can't be stuffed; after all, they pay for the
> bandwidth being used. It can't be profitable to waste it.
Some of the ISPs have "pink" contracts though. They are paid
specifically by the spammers to be allowed to spam. There was also a
recent article I read, where this engineer claims to have seen entire
blocks of IP addresses suddenly pop into existence, be used to spam a
few hundred thousand email addresses, and then the block disappears
again. He came to the conclusion that either there's a fault in all
routers allowing this to happen, or someone in one of the IP
allocation organisations is doing this on the side.
--
Rick Hodger
Marcel DeVoe
> On 21-Dec-01 03:05:00 Marcel DeVoe <mde...@shore.net> wrote:
> [snip]
>>Ever try to talk to a Chinese man? I work with a few. Nothing you say
>>will make them change their minds.
> regarding the whole Chinese deal, character set and all regarding HTML
> http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/12/21/0442229&mode=thread&threshold=0
> "..... the World Intellectual Property Organization's prediction that in
> less than 10 years, Chinese will be the most widely-used language on the
> web."
I REALLY doubt that.
Timothy Rue
>Timothy Rue <thre...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> On 21-Dec-01 03:05:00 Marcel DeVoe <mde...@shore.net> wrote:
>> [snip]
>>>Ever try to talk to a Chinese man? I work with a few. Nothing you say
>>>will make them change their minds.
>> regarding the whole Chinese deal, character set and all regarding HTML
>> http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/12/21/0442229&mode=thread&threshold=0
>> "..... the World Intellectual Property Organization's prediction that in
>> less than 10 years, Chinese will be the most widely-used language on the
>> web."
>I REALLY doubt that.
I don't. Or perhaps you mean WIPO didn't say it?
you might do a search for commets from 3seas (me) and consider what I say
over and over again.