Dan writes:

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 07:57:56 -0500, Al Arduengo
wrote:


True, many can handle it but it is considered poor practice and highly
discouraged to use HTML in both email and newsgroup postings.

I've always wondered about this. Why is it "considered poor practice
and highly discouraged"? What's the big deal? Plain text is so,
well, plain. HTML allows things like bolding and underlining, both
of which have advantages.

This is not 1973 any more. Usenet does not need to be restricted to
plain text any more than web pages need to be restricted to plain text
so lynx will still work.

Dan

Dan,

This is addressed in any usenet faq. However in my opinion the reasons
html is a nono is because of 1) the fact that not ALL news readers can
handle it, 2) spam comes hidden in html and use of it makes it
difficult to filter based on words in the message body and 3) it is a
waste of disk space and bandwidth. You can in most cases use
rudimentary formats like *bold* or _underline_ or *REAL BOLD* plus
some others that escape me.

And I agree that this is not 1973 anymore but the use of complex html,
java, etc on web pages forces some to have to upgrade equipment
or software when it may not be easily done. Usenet should use text
simply because then *everyone* can enjoy it and not just those who
post in html or can read it.

I am not flaming anyone. To each his/her own. But the usenet
ettiquette is put forth for a reason.

Cheers!

--
remove NUNYA to email me
~/.signature