Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > HTML on Usenet

Reply
Thread Tools

HTML on Usenet

 
 
Steve Crook
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-22-2009
Hi all,

Please excuse me if my question is a little off-topic for this group but
the level of activity in here suggests it's a good place to ask an HTML
related question.

I'm the current maintainer of the Usenet filtering software, Cleanfeed.
(http://www.mixmin.net/cleanfeed)
At the moment, Cleanfeed places HTML postings to Usenet into four
categories:

MIME posts with HTML attached files
HTML posts (Content-Type: Text/HTML)
MIME Multipart/Alternatives with HTML components
Any HTML with embedded <img src=> tags

In general Multipart HTML is broadly accepted across Usenet providing a
Text alternative is included. Image tags are rejected everywhere,
except the microsoft hierarchy where pretty much anything goes. The
same is True for non-MIME Text/HTML content.

I'm in the process of refining some of the HTML filters and would
appreciate some feedback on what groups/sub-hierarchies should be
exempted from these rules. One simple approach would be to allow HTML
to any group with a '.html' element in its name but I'm sure there are
exceptions to such a simple statement. Embedded images are another area
where I'd appreciate views on their acceptability.

Steve
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Jonathan N. Little
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-22-2009
Steve Crook wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Please excuse me if my question is a little off-topic for this group but
> the level of activity in here suggests it's a good place to ask an HTML
> related question.
>
> I'm the current maintainer of the Usenet filtering software, Cleanfeed.
> (http://www.mixmin.net/cleanfeed)
> At the moment, Cleanfeed places HTML postings to Usenet into four
> categories:
>
> MIME posts with HTML attached files
> HTML posts (Content-Type: Text/HTML)
> MIME Multipart/Alternatives with HTML components
> Any HTML with embedded<img src=> tags
>

<snip>

Correct me if I am wrong, but unless it is a binary newsgroup all
content must be plain text in Usenet. To do otherwise is a common newbie
mistake that usually results in a good flaming...

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Steve Crook
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-22-2009
On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 08:48:08 -0500, Jonathan N. Little wrote in
Message-Id: <hebfer$65p$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>:

> Correct me if I am wrong, but unless it is a binary newsgroup all
> content must be plain text in Usenet. To do otherwise is a common newbie
> mistake that usually results in a good flaming...


That's certainly a view that many people share and I for one wouldn't
dispute it. I think there are exceptions though, such as the microsoft
hierarchy I mentioned previously where HTML seems to be widely accepted,
probably due to the functionality of Outlook and it's offspring.
There's also a "clari" hierarchy that contains a high ratio of HTML.

At least for the big-8 and alt, (excluding binaries), I'd like to take
the stance that all posts are text only, or at least contain a
text/plain element. I wanted to gather opinions from a group related
specifically to HTML to see if it was contentious. You reply suggests
it's not.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jonathan N. Little
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-22-2009
Steve Crook wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 08:48:08 -0500, Jonathan N. Little wrote in
> Message-Id:<hebfer$65p$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>:
>
>> Correct me if I am wrong, but unless it is a binary newsgroup all
>> content must be plain text in Usenet. To do otherwise is a common newbie
>> mistake that usually results in a good flaming...

>
> That's certainly a view that many people share and I for one wouldn't
> dispute it. I think there are exceptions though, such as the microsoft
> hierarchy I mentioned previously where HTML seems to be widely accepted,
> probably due to the functionality of Outlook and it's offspring.
> There's also a "clari" hierarchy that contains a high ratio of HTML.
>
> At least for the big-8 and alt, (excluding binaries), I'd like to take
> the stance that all posts are text only, or at least contain a
> text/plain element. I wanted to gather opinions from a group related
> specifically to HTML to see if it was contentious. You reply suggests
> it's not.



--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jonathan N. Little
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-22-2009
Steve Crook wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 08:48:08 -0500, Jonathan N. Little wrote in
> Message-Id:<hebfer$65p$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>:
>
>> Correct me if I am wrong, but unless it is a binary newsgroup all
>> content must be plain text in Usenet. To do otherwise is a common newbie
>> mistake that usually results in a good flaming...

>
> That's certainly a view that many people share and I for one wouldn't
> dispute it. I think there are exceptions though, such as the microsoft
> hierarchy I mentioned previously where HTML seems to be widely accepted,
> probably due to the functionality of Outlook and it's offspring.
> There's also a "clari" hierarchy that contains a high ratio of HTML.


I think it is a matter of *server* not the *client*. Plain text is much
smaller storage and transport-wise.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
richard
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-24-2009
On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 12:27:19 +0000 (UTC), Steve Crook wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Please excuse me if my question is a little off-topic for this group but
> the level of activity in here suggests it's a good place to ask an HTML
> related question.
>
> I'm the current maintainer of the Usenet filtering software, Cleanfeed.
> (http://www.mixmin.net/cleanfeed)
> At the moment, Cleanfeed places HTML postings to Usenet into four
> categories:
>
> MIME posts with HTML attached files
> HTML posts (Content-Type: Text/HTML)
> MIME Multipart/Alternatives with HTML components
> Any HTML with embedded <img src=> tags
>
> In general Multipart HTML is broadly accepted across Usenet providing a
> Text alternative is included. Image tags are rejected everywhere,
> except the microsoft hierarchy where pretty much anything goes. The
> same is True for non-MIME Text/HTML content.
>
> I'm in the process of refining some of the HTML filters and would
> appreciate some feedback on what groups/sub-hierarchies should be
> exempted from these rules. One simple approach would be to allow HTML
> to any group with a '.html' element in its name but I'm sure there are
> exceptions to such a simple statement. Embedded images are another area
> where I'd appreciate views on their acceptability.
>
> Steve


It has been a standard practice for a number of years now that unless it is
plain text, with no html, no images, no binaries, then it is allowed in the
group. Anything else must be posted to a binary group.

The only exceptions are the "stationery" groups and those who have
established charters allowing the binaries.

A few years back I did create a group called alt.binaries.html for the sole
purpose of posting web pages for review. But no one was interested.

Most servers will cancel a binary posted a to a text only group.
 
Reply With Quote
 
richard
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-24-2009
On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 14:54:20 +0000 (UTC), Steve Crook wrote:

> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 08:48:08 -0500, Jonathan N. Little wrote in
> Message-Id: <hebfer$65p$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>:
>
>> Correct me if I am wrong, but unless it is a binary newsgroup all
>> content must be plain text in Usenet. To do otherwise is a common newbie
>> mistake that usually results in a good flaming...

>
> That's certainly a view that many people share and I for one wouldn't
> dispute it. I think there are exceptions though, such as the microsoft
> hierarchy I mentioned previously where HTML seems to be widely accepted,
> probably due to the functionality of Outlook and it's offspring.
> There's also a "clari" hierarchy that contains a high ratio of HTML.
>
> At least for the big-8 and alt, (excluding binaries), I'd like to take
> the stance that all posts are text only, or at least contain a
> text/plain element. I wanted to gather opinions from a group related
> specifically to HTML to see if it was contentious. You reply suggests
> it's not.


I believe you should read the charters of the groups before allowing html
encoded stuff to be posted. The main reason you find it in some groups is
because OE is one of few clients that can allow the translation. Ergo, you
need OE to read it or view it. As many clients simply ignore the encoding.
When html is posted and read as pure text, it is hard to read the content.
 
Reply With Quote
 
richard
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-24-2009
On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 11:37:46 -0500, Jonathan N. Little wrote:

> Steve Crook wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 08:48:08 -0500, Jonathan N. Little wrote in
>> Message-Id:<hebfer$65p$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>:
>>
>>> Correct me if I am wrong, but unless it is a binary newsgroup all
>>> content must be plain text in Usenet. To do otherwise is a common newbie
>>> mistake that usually results in a good flaming...

>>
>> That's certainly a view that many people share and I for one wouldn't
>> dispute it. I think there are exceptions though, such as the microsoft
>> hierarchy I mentioned previously where HTML seems to be widely accepted,
>> probably due to the functionality of Outlook and it's offspring.
>> There's also a "clari" hierarchy that contains a high ratio of HTML.

>
> I think it is a matter of *server* not the *client*. Plain text is much
> smaller storage and transport-wise.


The server does nothing more than store the article. It could care less
what the format is. the client does the translating.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Harlan Messinger
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-24-2009
richard wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 11:37:46 -0500, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>
>> Steve Crook wrote:
>>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 08:48:08 -0500, Jonathan N. Little wrote in
>>> Message-Id:<hebfer$65p$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>:
>>>
>>>> Correct me if I am wrong, but unless it is a binary newsgroup all
>>>> content must be plain text in Usenet. To do otherwise is a common newbie
>>>> mistake that usually results in a good flaming...
>>> That's certainly a view that many people share and I for one wouldn't
>>> dispute it. I think there are exceptions though, such as the microsoft
>>> hierarchy I mentioned previously where HTML seems to be widely accepted,
>>> probably due to the functionality of Outlook and it's offspring.
>>> There's also a "clari" hierarchy that contains a high ratio of HTML.

>> I think it is a matter of *server* not the *client*. Plain text is much
>> smaller storage and transport-wise.

>
> The server does nothing more than store the article. It could care less
> what the format is. the client does the translating.


Read again: "Plain text is much smaller *storage and transport-wise*".
The server does care about those things. Whether the additional size
makes a significant difference has to be addressed, but storage and
transport *are* server concerns.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Terence
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-24-2009
One e-mail service I can use, automatically treats any HTM content in
a incoming message from abroad as SPAM, labels it as such and deletes
it. Some various Forums which offer e-mailed content, work as normal
text but any other formatted text (e.g. HM) gets eliminated (as do
many forms of attatched files based solely on the suffix name and not
the content...).
Output HTM is allowed.
Also note that non-english languages are full of upper half ascii-
table symbols.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
posting an html file to usenet groups richard HTML 7 01-10-2011 02:57 AM
Re: Usenet abuse (addressed to Usenet admins) Mike Easter Computer Support 5 01-18-2010 09:18 AM
Re: Usenet abuse (addressed to Usenet admins) Tony Computer Support 0 01-17-2010 06:05 PM
firefox html, my downloaded html and firebug html different? Adam Akhtar Ruby 9 08-16-2008 07:55 PM
Help Settle a Debate - Usenet Postings in HTML Sens Fan Happy In Ohio Computer Support 18 11-08-2005 10:49 PM



Advertisments