University District (Seattle) temperature, 4:30 a.m.:
_...@jeff_relf.seattle.invalid
University District (Seattle) temperature, 4:30 a.m.: wUnderGround.COM/cgi-bin/findweather/getForecast?query=98195 JeffRelf.F-M.FM/Weather.Men.PNGSome of the CSS·3 that was used to alter the page: JeffRelf.F-M.FM/userContent.CSS @-moz-document domain(wunderground.com) { .innerContent > :nth-Child(5) > tBody > :First-Child > :nth-Child(3) > :First-Child > :nth-Child(2) { Width: 1260px !important; } tD.taC { Min-Width: 233px !important; } :not(#▲) { Font-size: 27px !important; } tR, tBody, DIV#stickerBox > :nth-Child(2) > :First-Child { Display: Block !important; } form:not(#▲), A:not(#▲), UL:not(#▲), Center:not(#▲), P:not(#▲), img:not(#▲) , DIV#stickerBox > :Not( :nth-Child(2) ) , Body > :Not( #mainContent ) , #mainContent > tBody > :Not( :First-Child ) , #mainContent > tBody > :First-Child > :Not( #right ) , #mainContent > tBody > :First-Child > #right > :Not( .innerFrame ) , .innerFrame > :Not( .innerContent ), .innerContent > :Not( :nth-Child(5) ) , .innerContent > :nth-Child(5) > tBody > :Not( :First-Child ) , .innerContent > :nth-Child(5) > tBody > :First-Child > :Not( :First-Child ):Not( :nth-Child(3) ) , .innerContent > :nth-Child(5) > tBody > :First-Child > :First-Child > :Not( :nth-Child(9) ) , .innerContent > :nth-Child(5) > tBody > :First-Child > :First-Child > :nth-Child(9) > :Not( Table ) , .innerContent > :nth-Child(5) > tBody > :First-Child > :First-Child > :nth-Child(9) > Table tD:First-Child , .innerContent > :nth-Child(5) > tBody > :First-Child > :nth-Child(3) > :Not( :First-Child ) , .innerContent > :nth-Child(5) > tBody > :First-Child > :nth-Child(3) > :First-Child > :Not( :nth-Child(2) ) { Display: None !important; } }
Whiskers
>
> <PRE>
> University District (Seattle) temperature, 4:30 a.m.:
>
> wUnderGround.COM/cgi-bin/findweather/getForecast?query=98195
> JeffRelf.F-M.FM/Weather.Men.PNG
[...]
What was the point in using "text/html" for that message? The only HTML
feature you used was to 'embed' the URL of an image on a web page. All
the newsreaders I've ever used are perfectly capable of recognising
correctly formatted URLs in text/plain messages, and making them selectable
or 'clickable' if the user wants to follow them.
I don't think it's polite to try to trick a newsreader into visiting a
remote URL without first asking the user.
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
Son of Serpent Esq
> I don't think it's polite to try to trick a newsreader into visiting a
> remote URL without first asking the user.
I'll second that.
Double-A
> University District (Seattle) temperature, 4:30 a.m.: wUnderGround.COM/cgi-bin/findweather/getForecast?query=98195 JeffRelf.F-M.FM/Weather.Men.PNGSome of the CSS·3 that was used to alter the page: JeffRelf.F-M.FM/userContent.CSS @-moz-document domain(wunderground.com) { .innerContent > :nth-Child(5) > tBody > :First-Child > :nth-Child(3) > :First-Child > :nth-Child(2) { Width: 1260px !important; } tD.taC { Min-Width: 233px !important; } :not(#▲) { Font-size: 27px !important; } tR, tBody, DIV#stickerBox > :nth-Child(2) > :First-Child { Display: Block !important; } form:not(#▲), A:not(#▲), UL:not(#▲), Center:not(#▲), P:not(#▲), img:not(#▲) , DIV#stickerBox > :Not( :nth-Child(2) ) , Body > :Not( #mainContent ) , #mainContent > tBody > :Not( :First-Child ) , #mainContent > tBody > :First-Child > :Not( #right ) , #mainContent > tBody > :First-Child > #right > :Not( .innerFrame ) , .innerFrame > :Not( .innerContent ), .innerContent > :Not( :nth-Child(5) ) , .innerContent > :nth-Child(5) > tBody > :Not( :First-Child ) , .innerContent > :nth-Child(5) > tBody > :First-Child > :Not( :First-Child ):Not( :nth-Child(3) ) , .innerContent > :nth-Child(5) > tBody > :First-Child > :First-Child > :Not( :nth-Child(9) ) , .innerContent > :nth-Child(5) > tBody > :First-Child > :First-Child > :nth-Child(9) > :Not( Table ) , .innerContent > :nth-Child(5) > tBody > :First-Child > :First-Child > :nth-Child(9) > Table tD:First-Child , .innerContent > :nth-Child(5) > tBody > :First-Child > :nth-Child(3) > :Not( :First-Child ) , .innerContent > :nth-Child(5) > tBody > :First-Child > :nth-Child(3) > :First-Child > :Not( :nth-Child(2) ) { Display: None !important; } }
Whatever you're doing wipes out the clickaible "Other Option" field at
the top of Google's page for the post.
Double-A
_...@jeff_relf.seattle.invalid
Why are images a problem ? I've been on dail·up for many years;
Google/FireFox shows my (HTML·only) post like this:
JeffRelf.F-M.FM/Google_Groups_Post.PNG
Google.COM/group/alt.free.newsservers/browse_thread/thread/215c45986f16c6b3#
news:_@Jeff_Relf.Seattle.2009_Sep14.5.00am.Bt
The tiny green·square tells me there's an image there;
to view it, I left-click it while the right-button is down.
The size of the <img> depends on if it's the only·child of <BODY> or not,
and if it's in Google·Maps ("GUnload()") or not:
Body:not(#▲) > img:Only-Child /* Fill the screen, overflow it */
{ Min-Height: 850px !important; Min-Width: 100% !important; }
Body:Not( [ onunload="GUnload()" ] ) > :not(#▲) img
, Body:not(#▲) > img:Not( :Only-Child )
{ Min-Width: 1.2em !important;
Width: Auto !important; Height: Auto !important;
Background: RGB( 0, 77, 77 ) !important; }
_...@jeff_relf.seattle.invalid
When people want to mix, they either go to a bar and drink or
go to church for desperately·needed hope (“God” is on their side!).
Usenet is our church.
I don't know why you (Mr. Duck) brought up binaries;
Apparently, Google·Groups doesn't have the band·width for that.
I was talking about plain ol' images, <img> tags, not binaries.
Google·Groups is a fine addition to Usenet, if you ask me.
HTML, CSS and JavaScript ·add· to (Unicode) plain·text, extending it.
By the way, what charset are you using ?
if Windows-1252 (poor choice), please say so.
_...@jeff_relf.seattle.invalid
Forecast for Zip·Code 98195 (University of Washington): JeffRelf.F-M.FM/Weather.Men.PNG wUnderGround.COM/cgi-bin/findweather/getForecast?query=98195
Whiskers
>
> Why are images a problem ? I've been on dail·up for many years;
> Google/FireFox shows my (HTML·only) post like this:
>
> JeffRelf.F-M.FM/Google_Groups_Post.PNG
> Google.COM/group/alt.free.newsservers/browse_thread/thread/215c45986f16c6b3#
> news:_@Jeff_Relf.Seattle.2009_Sep14.5.00am.Bt
>
> The tiny green·square tells me there's an image there;
> to view it, I left-click it while the right-button is down.
>
> The size of the <img> depends on if it's the only·child of <BODY> or not,
> and if it's in Google·Maps ("GUnload()") or not:
[...]
You should consider users other than yourself, and software other than
whatever you happen to use.
If someone is reading newsgroups using software that automatically fires
up some sort of 'web browser' on encountering a 'text/html' Content-Type,
the embedded URL in your post will be fetched without the user doing
anything. This is what happens with slrn if I tell metamail to use Opera
for text/html, for example. (Normally I have metamail use Lynx, which
behaves more safely of course; I think Dillo is also 'safe').
But there is no need to use HTML or embedded URLs to invite people to visit
a web page; just include a properly formatted URL in the plain text, and
almost all newsreaders can recognise it and make it easily accessible to
the user. <http://jeffrelf.f-m.fm/Google_Groups_Post.PNG> is a correctly
formatted URL; JeffRelf.F-M.FM/Google_Groups_Post.PNG is not (it's just a
file name in standard Unix format - the protocol is required to turn it
into a URL).
Whiskers
>
> Forecast for Zip·Code 98195 (University of Washington):
>
> JeffRelf.F-M.FM/Weather.Men.PNG
> wUnderGround.COM/cgi-bin/findweather/getForecast?query=98195
[...]
Here is what slrn on its own makes of your post
<http://www.imagebam.com/image/8b8b7548944504>.
Here is Lynx having a go (fired up by slrn calling metamail which in turn
pipes the article to Lynx) <http://www.imagebam.com/image/0e1b7d48944281>.
So (disregarding your bizarre use of UTF-8/unicode characters), what
benefit is there for anyone (even you!) in claiming a Content-Type of
text/html?
_...@jeff_relf.seattle.invalid
Why worship Windows-1252 so much, Mr. Whiskers ?
My UTF-8 signature (U+FeFF) tells Google I'm using UTF-8.
This line tells Google I'm using UTF-8/HTML:
Content-Type: Text/HTML; charset=UTF-8
You chose to ignore that, Google didn't,
so Google·Groupers and MSN·TV users are happy and you aren't.
·······················
By the way, I recently made Google·Maps use the entire window.
An aerial view of the University of Washington, my stomping grounds:
JeffRelf.F-M.FM/Google.Maps.JPG
Maps.Google.COM/maps?q= 4547 19th Ave NE Seattle
Now, for < img> and < DIV> tags.
I distinguish Google·Maps from other sites using this CSS:
Body:Not( [ onresize="resizeApp()" ] ):Not(.firefox)
...mainly Because the location of certain branches (in the DOM·inmspector)
aren't true for JavaScript·generated tags (they're under < BODY> ).
But also because some sites have Google·Maps merged into their HTML,
so “ oonunload="GUnload()" ” gives false-positives.
What I really need is an “else” or a “not”, like this:
@-moz-document !domain(maps.google.com)
{ .... } else
{ DIV#map
{ Position: Static !important;
Min-Height: 840px !important; Min-Width: 1260px !important; }
Body > :Not(#page), #page > :Not(#main_map), #main_map > :Not(#map)
, DIV#ds, DIV#links, DIV#tileContainer DIV.gmnoprint
, A, Input, Body > :First-Child, ul, form, DIV#panel
{ Display: None !important; } }
_...@jeff_relf.seattle.invalid
Oops, I meant:
Whiskers
>
> <PRE>
Who said anything about Windows-1252?
> My UTF-8 signature (U+FeFF) tells Google I'm using UTF-8.
> This line tells Google I'm using UTF-8/HTML:
> Content-Type: Text/HTML; charset=UTF-8
>
> You chose to ignore that, Google didn't,
> so Google·Groupers and MSN·TV users are happy and you aren't.
[...]
I have no quarrel with use of UTF-8 when it's appropriate. But your use of
text/html seems to be pointless; you aren't even using it to do things
that text/plain can't manage perfectly well (and Google and WebTV seem to
manage too). Not to mention that HTML has no place in usenet.
_...@jeff_relf.seattle.invalid
“ Who said anything about Windows-1252 ? ”, you (Whiskers) ask ? “ Who said anything about Windows-1252 ? ”, are you clueless ? Your lame·ass screen·shot (poorly hosted) showed your browser (Lynx) displaying my UTF-8 as if it were Windows-1252 ―― Why ? I ask. Why Windows-1252 ? did “God” himself tell you to use it ? Is that why you (un·like Google and Micro·Soft) ignored the clues ? HTML ·adds· to plain·text, taking nothing away. You can have HTML ·and· plain·text, it's not “one or the other”. un·like your lame·ass “web·master”, mine (FastMail.FM) tells me who's accessing my site, when. Imagine a Usenet·bot looking up IP addesses... why not ? Speaking of which, I cleaned·up some web·pages. Try doing this with plain·text (you can't): ip-address-lookup-v4.com/lookup.php?ip=59.167.219.14 JeffRelf.F-M.FM/IP.to.Domain.PNG JeffRelf.F-M.FM/IP.to.Domain.XML javascript: window.external.AddSearchProvider( "http://JeffRelf.F-M.FM/IP.to.Domain.XML");GeoBytes.COM/IpLocator.htm?GetLocation&ipaddress=59.167.219.14 JeffRelf.F-M.FM/IP.to.City.PNG JeffRelf.F-M.FM/IP.to.City.XML javascript: window.external.AddSearchProvider( "http://JeffRelf.F-M.FM/IP.to.City.XML");
Images.Google.COM/images?q=Botan JeffRelf.F-M.FM/Google_Images.JPG
JeffRelf.F-M.FM/userContent.CSS
Whiskers
>
> <PRE>
> “ Who said anything about Windows-1252 ? ”, you (Whiskers) ask ?
> “ Who said anything about Windows-1252 ? ”, are you clueless ?
>
> Your lame·ass screen·shot (poorly hosted)
A free service, requiring no account or log-in to post images to it,
supported by advertising. What's wrong with that?
> showed your browser (Lynx)
> displaying my UTF-8 as if it were Windows-1252 ―― Why ? I ask.
>
> Why Windows-1252 ? did “God” himself tell you to use it ?
My Lynx was set to assume a character set of ISO-8859-1, and I hadn't
bothered to change that just for the sake of posting a screenshot of your
post. My point was, and is, nothing to do with the character encoding -
it's to do with your pointless and disruptive use of text/html.
> Is that why you (un·like Google and Micro·Soft) ignored the clues ?
Why are you persisting in not responding to my criticism of your use of
HTML?
> HTML ·adds· to plain·text, taking nothing away.
> You can have HTML ·and· plain·text, it's not “one or the other”.
Wrong. HTML is for constructing 'web pages' with hyperlinks and other
such tomfoolery. There is no reason to use it in newsgroups.
> un·like your lame·ass “web·master”,
> mine (FastMail.FM) tells me who's accessing my site, when.
I couldn't care less who looks at the images I post to ImageBam - they're
almost all screenshots of one thing or another which I want to share with
a newsgroup or web forum. I wouldn't use it for something I want to
retain control over.
> Imagine a Usenet·bot looking up IP addesses... why not ?
>
> Speaking of which, I cleaned·up some web·pages.
> Try doing this with plain·text (you can't):
[...]
What has manipulating web pages got to do with posting to usenet? (I did
look at <http://JeffRelf.F-M.FM/IP.to.Domain.PNG> but that just seems to
be an ugly 'wrapper' for the whois command - which does work perfectly
well in plain text, without going anywhere near any web site).
_...@jeff_relf.seattle.invalid
With few exceptions (e.g. my white·list) I don't auto·load images.
Others could do the same, if they wanted to.
Exactly 4 people downloaded the map I posted showing my home/university
(i.e. “Google.Maps.JPG” in an <img> element, posted 1.5 days ago).
Junior@Tiaot wasn't one of them, though he posted to the thread.
First was Double-A (via Google), then treBert (MSN·TV),
then you (slrn), then Brad·Guth (Google).
Double-A, treBert and Brad·Guth might've wanted only the text,
the not the map, but they got it anyway... big deal (not).
Whiskers
>
Thank you for posting in text/plain.
_...@jeff_relf.seattle.invalid
Auto·loading an <img> tag ·should· be up to you ―― not me.
You shouldn't need to thank (or rebuke) me.
Son of Serpent Esq
>
> Auto·loading an <img> tag ·should· be up to you ―― not me.
> You shouldn't need to thank (or rebuke) me.
Dude, we thought you could take it; never expected you to run
off to your room crying like a little girl.
<img src="http://gnu.org/graphics/baby-gnu.png" alt="Baby Relf">
Get well soon! ;)
Michael Moroney
> HTML?
Jeff seems to have focus problems. He also diverts the discussion when
it's not going his way.
>> HTML adds to plaintext, taking nothing away.
>> You can have HTML and plaintext, it's not one or the other.
>Wrong. HTML is for constructing 'web pages' with hyperlinks and other
>such tomfoolery. There is no reason to use it in newsgroups.
HTML also adds risks. HTML spam email was a favorite way for malware
spreaders to send out viruses until filters and clients added protection.
Even images have privacy issues. Spammers regularly add webbugs (which
are just images) to HTML email spam to verify their lists (see which
emails get opened) and to track the success of email spam "campaigns".
We see Jeff has discovered tracking by images, and can apparently figure
out who is reading his drek.
A while back HTML usenet posts were somewhat popular. Mostly by spammers.
Some have added killfile entries to deal with that and I think a few
usenet providers won't propagate such posts as well.
A very restricted HTML (sort of a super rich text, including fonts, sizes,
all kinds of character sets for Jeff to play with, colors, bold/italics/
blink etc) properly designed (with the security of a malcontent vs. a
naive user in mind) might be a good addition to email and usenet. But
even images (anything fetchable from a website) have some issues.
Son of Serpent Esq
>> Why are you persisting in not responding to my criticism of your use of
>> HTML?
>
> Jeff seems to have focus problems. He also diverts the discussion when
> it's not going his way.
Jeff is a sissy!
>>> HTML adds to plaintext, taking nothing away.
>>> You can have HTML and plaintext, it's not one or the other.
>
>>Wrong. HTML is for constructing 'web pages' with hyperlinks and other
>>such tomfoolery. There is no reason to use it in newsgroups.
>
> HTML also adds risks. HTML spam email was a favorite way for malware
> spreaders to send out viruses until filters and clients added protection.
> Even images have privacy issues. Spammers regularly add webbugs (which
> are just images) to HTML email spam to verify their lists (see which
> emails get opened) and to track the success of email spam "campaigns".
> We see Jeff has discovered tracking by images, and can apparently figure
> out who is reading his drek.
>
> A while back HTML usenet posts were somewhat popular. Mostly by spammers.
> Some have added killfile entries to deal with that and I think a few
> usenet providers won't propagate such posts as well.
>
> A very restricted HTML (sort of a super rich text, including fonts, sizes,
> all kinds of character sets for Jeff to play with, colors, bold/italics/
> blink etc) properly designed (with the security of a malcontent vs. a
> naive user in mind) might be a good addition to email and usenet. But
> even images (anything fetchable from a website) have some issues.
There is no way HTML will ever work on usenet. Microsoft ruined any
chance of that *ever* working when they released that piece of shit
newsreader. Spammers would have never switched to HTML if not for
all the exploits in everything Microsoft.
If anything new happens on usenet to extend features and allow
any text formatting, it will need to be something totally new and
basically starting from scratch. PHP or some other scripting
language maybe.
_...@jeff_relf.seattle.invalid
MicroSoft Office responds to commands, and people pay for it.
Google responds to commands, advertizers support it.
Issue a command on UseNet and all you get is Waaah!plonk!Waaah!
or “ What does this have to do with OS/2 ? ”.
Michael Moroney
I don't know why you're crying like a little girl again. And I thought
you said you didn't plonk anyone.
_...@jeff_relf.seattle.invalid
You (Robb) informed us: “ This isn't Microsoft Office or gooble territory, bitch. ;) ”. I use MicroSoft's Visual C++ and “macros” (a.k.a. VBA for Word, Excel and Visual Studio) to pay my rent. MicroSoft gets ·paid· because they respond to ·complex· commands from professionals (kinda like me, but richer). Google gets ·paid· (by advertizers) because they respond to ·semi·complex· commands from hordes of Plain·Janes. UseNet is much simpler, the commands are simple; its back·end servers are just dishing out blocks of bytes, much less complex than a Qwest.COM or a USBank.COM, for example. P.S. I think Double·A's trying (and failing) to contact the real Tholen, not the bot.
_...@jeff_relf.seattle.invalid
Never in my life have I had to worry about “job security”.
Last time I wanted a job, 16+ years ago, I had several offers.
I posted a note on the bulletin board of a computer lab.
I've held that job even since then, 16+ years ago.
Things might be different now that I'm so decrepit, I don't know.
I should get a second job, just to be safe, but I'm too fat and lazy.
Although I owe an un·godly amount of child·support
(after penalties and interest), my ex·wife hasn't come after me.
She could seize my checking account 40 years from now, if she wanted.
Sal Hepatica
Well, that's sure a mixed bag of blessings, Jeff, I don't know exactly
what advice to give you.
But on a slightly different topic, what would you say if some admin here
would create, say, alt.test.jeff.relf.seattle, or alt.test.utf8? Does
that appeal?