>From: Alberto Monteiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: Will a new server mean new sever software? >Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 18:41:23 -0300 (EST) > >Jon Gabriel wrote: > > > >> In response to an HTML post, it should return the > >> last year's digest to the offender! <evil grin> > > > > > > Considering the rather nasty reaction we've gotten > > from several list members whenever anyone has > > inadvertently posted in html, perhaps we should > > arrange for *them* to get last years digest..... > > ><serious>
Alberto being serious? You're an imposter, aren't you?!!! *grin* >In a perfect world, each user should have several >options, namely: > >(a) if I post in HTML, should the listserver change >it to plain text? > >(b) if I post in plain text, should the listserver >change it to HTML? On AOL, I subscribe to several 'announcement' lists that provide this option to subscribers. I'm not familiar with listserv software, but I have to believe that the first option, if possible, would benefit both current and newbie list members. Current list members would no longer be subject to infrequent attacks by an annoyed minority of brinnellers for doing nothing more harmful than posting to brin-l from their native ISP's. We would probably also eliminate complaints against newbie brinellers who would merely be attempting to participate in our online discourse. I don't think the second option would even be necessary. Just have a program in place that automatically strips html codes from messages before it sends them to the list. > >(c) if I post an attachment [bigger than x bytes], >should the listserver eliminate it? Well, I would be willing to bet that every single digest subscriber would answer with a resounding *YES* if asked. If digest subscribers are inconvenienced by large binary posts, why not put a system in place that addresses their problem? >(d) if someone posts in HTML, should the listserver >send it to me in HTML, in plain text, or eliminate it? > >(e) if someone posts in plain text, should the >listserver sent it to me in HTML, in plain text, or >eliminate it? See the answer to (a) and (b). As far as I can tell, there's essentially no difference between these two questions and the first two you asked. >(f) if someone posts an attachment [bigger than >x bytes, of file type .<extension>, etc] should >the listserver send it to me, or filter it, or >filter it and the message that used it? A good question. Do you think that such filtering would be considered censorship or not? >But as long as we live in a real world, it seem >that the best policy is each one of us sending >_only_ plain text and no attachments. ></serious> I now post from a much less convenient web-based e-mail account out of politeness. Other people do this as well. Wouldn't it be nice if our convenience was taken into consideration as well? If the software exists to make these changes to the list, then why shouldn't we consider it? Wouldn't *that* be the best policy? Jon [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
