Posting in HTML (Community)

Posting in HTML // Community

1  2  |  

moria

May 18, 2001, 1:55pm
since this came up in a number of threads I am posting some of the reasons
why HTML posting is not a good idea, although to the best of my knowledge
people only ask for non-html because of common courtesy not because its a
rule.

Why you shouldn't:-

1) generally HTML posts are advertising.. although you may have HTML
posters and readers not everyone has, so some of your audience won't get to
see them.

2) in these days of virii, its now possible to embed a virus in HTML or in a
JPG and so, those who are concerned about such things wont get to see the
posts, cause if you read a newsgroup post in html with a virii in it you
have got it before your anti-virus can kick in. Those who know will have
deleted it before it downloads so theres no risk.

3) if you post in HTML you can recieve in HTML making it much more likely
that you will get a virii from a newsgroup.

4) its an inflated message size.. a 1k post with a link to a 48k image is
much more likely to be read than those that see a 48k post and just delete
it cause its obviously HTML.

5) some people kill over a certain message size or kill anything in HTML so
its just not downloaded.

6) some people still have to pay to download headers and messages by the
minute so anything over a 1 or 2k post will be auto filtered out.

7) because of the virus risk, some ISP's filter out HTML before it even gets
to the possibility of downloading it.

If you want your posts to actually be read, then posting in HTML is a bad
way forward cause a lot of your potential audience won't actually ever see
its there:)

Why you might:-

1) you don't give a damn about virii and are happy to get one or transmit
one.

2) you don't give a damn about anyone else possibly getiing one.

3) you don't give damn about people having to pay more to read your posts.

4) you're doing it to get a rise out of people.

5) youre a newbie and don't realise any of the above.

Personally I don't care cause my ISP filters HTML from newsgroups before we
see them, so I see none of them:)

Hope this helps.

Moria

kah

May 18, 2001, 2:39pm
you forgot something: if everybody posted in HTML, it would mean a general
increase of needed storage space of 300%!! (not just the AWCI that would
suffer, cuzz to read posts you have to download the exact same data stored
on the server!) this is because the average post (ASCII) to these NGs are
1kb large, but those exact same posts in HTML become 3kb large...

KAH
PS. same thing for attachments, upload them to your homepage and provide a
link :-))

[View Quote]

chucks party

May 18, 2001, 2:46pm
ok but this still does not tell me why you can't post in html, what
difference does it make if it's on a webpage as html or if it's on a post,
it's still html any way you slice it so those same people you said won't see
it still won't see it if there is a link to it, right? Also in the
guidelines that wizard posted, nowhere does it say, do not use html,
personally for me 49k is not a big d/l even for a webpage, most webpages are
much larger than that and is this what they see if they don't view html?

----- Original Message -----
From: chucks party
Newsgroups: community
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 3:55 PM
Subject: PLAY NAME THAT TUNE TONITE

PLAY NAME THAT TUNE TONITE ON
NEW YORK WORLD
Thursday 12am VRT
newyork 48n 11.8w 180
at the Studio 54 Club

If this is what they see without html I still don't see what the problem is
in getting the message, I think for those that enjoy seeing html on a post
then they should have that option and for those that don't they can easily
remove the html tags and only view rich text format if it's that much of a
concern to them to not get a virus. I mean really, let's just all stop
opening web pages for fear we might get a virus or something, maybe you can
get a virus that way but I'm not going to stop going to websites because
there is a small risk of it happening or I can view all my webpages in rich
text format if I am that concerned about it. My enjoyment of using html is
not any lesser than someones dissatisfaction with it and I have used other
NGs and MBs where it was not ever a problem using html, this must just be an
AW NG hangup or something in my own personal opinion and from expierience
using other such posting arenas. So I say adjust your own settings the way
you like if you don't want it, don't force other people to do things the way
it happens to concern you. Adjust your own settings to avoid receiving html
so people who like html pages can still post them without being discourteous
to them.



[View Quote]

moria

May 18, 2001, 3:37pm
see point 4 and point 6:)

Moria


[View Quote]

moria

May 18, 2001, 3:39pm
not true..

web page opening although html is protected to a much greater extent than
HTML posting in a newsgroup.. its opened by a different program in a
different package with different protection levels.

I know you wont understand, I assumed you were in category 3 4 and 5 of why
you would post in HTML anyway.

and sorry, didnt see your spam advertising the first time:) It was auto
deleted.

Moria



[View Quote] > posts.
> we

casay

May 18, 2001, 3:50pm
Take your head out of the sand and read moria's post again... but sigh,
looks like you're one of the people that only care about themselves not
others.. You seem to fall into all the catagories of why you might post in
HTML except #5 because you DO know better!

Yes, in Wizard's link it DOES say to NOT post in html- try scrolling down
all the way to section 3.5!!!!!! Only use ASCII (plain) text
*can't wait till the tribal meeting....*
Casay
Casay as Eep -"You idiot twitf*** moron pissant, have no grip on logic. Now
evolve already...and get over yourself."
*feels MUCH better now ;-) *


[View Quote]

sw comit

May 18, 2001, 9:36pm
*boggled* I don't care what you guys say or think, I just tested a 6 kb
HTML post and I noticed no difference and I'm on a ye ol' 56 modem. I'm
only really responding to this to test something though ;)

--
SW Comit
swcomit at swcity.net
Mayor of SW City
http://www.swcity.net
President of Community Linkage Commission
http://comlinkage.tripod.com


[View Quote]

john viper

May 18, 2001, 11:45pm
> ok but this still does not tell me why you can't post in html, what
> difference does it make if it's on a webpage as html or if it's on a
> post, it's still html any way you slice it so those same people you
> said won't see it still won't see it if there is a link to it, right?
> Also in the guidelines that wizard posted, nowhere does it say, do not
> use html, personally for me 49k is not a big d/l even for a webpage,
> most webpages are much larger than that and is this what they see if
> they don't view html?

Common Courtesy. Like I said before, It takes a good 10 seconds to download
a newsgroup post -- its more fun to not have to wait to read a message.

Another point that I forgot to mention in the netiquette speech above is
that some people do not have HTML news readers -- I use a news reader that
does not support HTML. Why not use Netscape or Outlook Express? Netscape
is just about the buggiest thing I have ever seen (although 6 is pretty
nice, I will stick with Mozilla) and OE is just clunky, and the filters do
not work.

_____________________________
John Viper
jviper at jtsoft.net
http://www.jtsoft.net

shred

May 19, 2001, 12:48am
Some people download all messages and read them offline.

Look at this scenario:

300 posts 1-2KB each (text)
300 posts 3-6 KB each (HTML)

If you aren't lucky enough to be on broadband, then 300KB-600KB is a lot
more convenient to download than 900KB-1.8 MB.

It all adds up, you see.

[View Quote]

jfk2

May 19, 2001, 12:52am
Chuck... Most newsgroups readers have no idea what hatm looks like.
they will almost allways know what a music file is or a picture file is...
BUT html file... NOPE. that is best left to a web browser. As you can see...
I don't even post in WEB codes. I never have nor will i ever begin. And
many times people don't use a newsgroups reader to obtain their files.
Some people & i'm one of them that do it will use a picture sucker or
news binarries grabber program where all you tell it is gif,jpg,mid,mp3,zip
and let it loose in the correct directories and watch your hard drive fill
up really fast if you are on a cable or dsl line. I wouldn't be interested
in any html files. And since most html files contain some person that
is pushing come look at me for $36.95 a month deals... I simply delete
any of the htnkl files i ever come across in the newsgroups.

WHY don't i post in WEB codes? Look at what your NEWSGROUPS reader is
putting out...
< = quote to a newsgroups reader.
< = could also be the beginning of some html code too
<B> = line break in a web page.
But that simple web code an make some newsgroup readers go nuts.
Butin here... If you were ever to post using web codes... It would be best to
explain your moves. [ = < and ] = > and then you would be all set to use
all the html codes you want without playing games with most newsgroups raders.
[b] = line break
[[[YES BOYS & GIRLS... i have come accross some different text languages
that use [] for their codes. In that case you have to make do with {} instead.
]]]

chucks party <Chucks_Party at hotmail.com> wrote in
<3b0551d8 at server1.Activeworlds.com>:

>ok but this still does not tell me why you can't post in html, what
>difference does it make if it's on a webpage as html or if it's on a post,
>it's still html any way you slice it so those same people you said won't see
>it still won't see it if there is a link to it, right? Also in the
>guidelines that wizard posted, nowhere does it say, do not use html,
>personally for me 49k is not a big d/l even for a webpage, most webpages are
>much larger than that and is this what they see if they don't view html?
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: chucks party
>Newsgroups: community
>Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 3:55 PM
>Subject: PLAY NAME THAT TUNE TONITE

just in

May 19, 2001, 6:00am
Moria

Unless you are referring to an exe or some other file with its extention
altered into htm or jpg, I am not aware of any viruses being delivered
through htm, and opening a jpg will certainly not deliver a virus. To be
infected the file must actually *do* something, either as a running program
(exe, vbs) , or as a macro (doc).

If you know differently, please let us know with a web reference?

Thanks Justin

> 2) in these days of virii, its now possible to embed a virus in HTML or in
a
> JPG and so, those who are concerned about such things wont get to see the
> posts, cause if you read a newsgroup post in html with a virii in it you
> have got it before your anti-virus can kick in. Those who know will have
> deleted it before it downloads so theres no risk.
>

chucks party

May 19, 2001, 6:53am
I will make html pages for all my advertisements then so everyone can view
them, they look pretty darn good too if I do say so myself, hehehe That is
good enough reason for me to do it that way cause I want everyone to be able
to enjoy them, and thankyou to those that replied with the useful
information :)

faber

May 19, 2001, 9:02am
"moria" <moria at colony.co.uk> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:3b054601 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> Why you shouldn't:-
>
> 2) in these days of virii, its now possible to embed a virus in HTML or in a
> JPG and so, those who are concerned about such things wont get to see the
> posts, cause if you read a newsgroup post in html with a virii in it you
> have got it before your anti-virus can kick in. Those who know will have
> deleted it before it downloads so theres no risk.

It would help if you would not spread false information. JPGs cannot carry virii.

> 4) its an inflated message size.. a 1k post with a link to a 48k image is
> much more likely to be read than those that see a 48k post and just delete
> it cause its obviously HTML.

Any attachment would infalte the posting to 48k, while HTML would not, unless
it contains images, which you could count as attachments.

> 7) because of the virus risk, some ISP's filter out HTML before it even gets
> to the possibility of downloading it.

I really question this statement. Its not the business of the ISP to filter out HTML.

> Personally I don't care cause my ISP filters HTML from newsgroups before we
> see them, so I see none of them:)

Does your ISP filter the news you get from activeworlds.com ?

Faber

andras

May 19, 2001, 10:09am
[View Quote] The picture itself doesn't - it is true but knowing the "nice features" of Windows/OE - you can have an attachments called nicepicture.jpg.vbs where the vbs extension will be hidden so the recipient will try to open it thinking it is a picture. (Remember the Anna Kurnikova(sp) virus?)

>
>
> Any attachment would infalte the posting to 48k, while HTML would not, unless
> it contains images, which you could count as attachments.

Disagree again - several newsreader posts the message in both HTML and ASCII (take a look for example Sexy Eye's recent post - 29 lines inflated to 129 lines!)

>
>
> I really question this statement. Its not the business of the ISP to filter out HTML.

I agree with this one. It is hard to believe that an ISP is doing "content" filtering. Yes - if they replicate a newsgroup - they can filter it, but the straight access can't be touched.

Andras

moria

May 19, 2001, 1:25pm
okay your choice, but will answer a few points in the text..


[View Quote] ermmm yes they can:)

I quote from symantecs site..

VBS.Vierika at mm
Discovered on: March 5, 2001
Last Updated on: March 5, 2001 at 01:33:07 PM PST

VBS.Vierika at mm is a worm that emails itself to all addresses in the Outlook
address book with the following email attributes:

Subject: Vierika is here
Body text: Vierika.jpg
Attachment: Vierika.JPG.vbs

Although not a jpg, it appears in HTML friendly readers AS a jpg and
therefore people open assuming its just a picture.

This virus attatches itself to all .jpg files .zip files and various
others, so if you are infected, by sending someone a jpg from your machine,
or to a newsgroup, you are transmitting the virus.

This is not an isolated virus, its just one of the latest types.

>
is
delete

>
> Any attachment would infalte the posting to 48k, while HTML would not,
unless
> it contains images, which you could count as attachments.

I didn't say attatchment, I said with a link to an image.

A one line message with a one line link in it makes a two line message under
1k. A picture attatchment makes for 40k or more of message which could be
on the link for those interested.

>
gets
>
> I really question this statement. Its not the business of the ISP to
filter out HTML.
>
we
>
> Does your ISP filter the news you get from activeworlds.com ?
>

Yep, all newsgroups are reposted, access is not via the origional source..
you can go to the origional source, but its better this way, no dumb 40k
messages or HTML postings.:)


Moria

moria

May 19, 2001, 1:28pm
Justin, see my response to faber further down, if you are infected and you
send a jpg to someone, the virrii will rename the file to xxxxxxx.jpg.vbs
and pass the virus. The body text will just say xxxxxx.jpg. If someone
clicks the link before checking the full extension you will get the virus,
so although I agree that a jpg itself cannot include the virus, the virus
can be transmitted by sending a jpg either in mail or in an HTML post if the
jpg is opened as part of the post and the jpg is embedded as a
xxxxxxx.jpg.vbs.

Moria


[View Quote]

moria

May 19, 2001, 1:45pm
hey good imitation casay:))

had me fooled:)))))

Moria

[View Quote] > Casay as Eep -"You idiot twitf*** moron pissant, have no grip on logic.
Now
> evolve already...and get over yourself."
> *feels MUCH better now ;-) *
>

datedman

May 19, 2001, 7:17pm
Look, if you don't have bandwidth, GET YOUR OWN GODDAMNED NEWSGROUP it's the
21st Century ya know. Back when half the people on the Net had a 14.4
connect, complaints about bandwidth wasting had some validity. Now most of
them are just a sign of brain rot or something, witness Eep. :)

[View Quote] > Some people download all messages and read them offline.
>
> Look at this scenario:
>
> 300 posts 1-2KB each (text)
> 300 posts 3-6 KB each (HTML)
>
> If you aren't lucky enough to be on broadband, then 300KB-600KB is a lot
> more convenient to download than 900KB-1.8 MB.
>
> It all adds up, you see.
>
[View Quote]

ananas

May 19, 2001, 7:47pm
Bad argument :

- The bandwidth is not only affected by the line from the
reader to his ISP.

- Why waste ressources if it isn't neccessary, just because
they are available? This philosophy makes many windows
programs so bad.

[View Quote] --
"_
|
/\
\ /
__/ /_

wing

May 19, 2001, 8:37pm
Hey, some of these messages take ages to DL on 56k, those are the ones that truly deserve complaining.
[View Quote]

shred

May 19, 2001, 8:54pm
[View Quote] >Look, if you don't have enough bandwidth, GET YOUR OWN GODDAMNED NEWSGROUP.
It's the
>21st Century, you know. Back when half of the people on the Net had a
14.4KB/s
>connection, complaints about bandwidth wasting had some validity. Now most
of
>the complaints are just a sign of the complainer's brain rot or something -
witness Eep. :)

I'm afraid Eep's brain ISN'T rotting; he actually makes sense. Have YOU had
a CAT scan recently?

If you don't feel like adding constructive and *remotely* polite
criticism/comments to my post, then just shut up (or behold thy magical
filter) :P.

sw comit

May 19, 2001, 11:43pm
Why would you download them all...they only take a matter of seconds to
load. Well I guess it would matter if your ISP doesn't give you unlimited
access per month/year now that I think about it =)

--
SW Comit
swcomit at swcity.net
Mayor of SW City
http://www.swcity.net
President of Community Linkage Commission
http://comlinkage.tripod.com


[View Quote]

jfk2

May 20, 2001, 5:41am
I can see why Just In posted like that. And yes he and everyone would want a
URL here. Ok. My favorite one is this.
---------------------------
www.trend.com = Looking on the top of your browser as that site loads
you will see Trend Micro home, antivirus software, alerts, advisery, virus,
worm, trojan - [my browser type] Microsoft Internet Explorer
---------------------------
And on the upper left of what loads click on Virus Information.
To me this is the better & more informative of the sites around.
It tells you of all the current ones for the past month or so and any
alerts or what may be at HIGH or Medium or low risk types.
And you can do searches for anything you think you might have or
are just courious to find out info about it.
For those of you that want some more virus info sites...
---------------------------------
at at at I'm not going to test all of these out. I prefer my favorite one
at at at But if you want this list so be it. You will just have to check
at at at these all out to see if they work OR not work.
---------------------------------
From: TipWorld <tipworld at boing.topica.com>
Subject: Virus Alert [LISTS OF KNOWN VIRUSES - 01/01/2001]

AntiViral Toolkit Pro
http://www.avp.ch/avpve/

Computer Associates
http://www.cai.com/virusinfo/encyclopedia/

F-Secure
http://www.datafellows.com/vir-info/

McAfee
http://vil.mcafee.com

Sophos
http://www.sophos.com/virusinfo/analyses/

Stiller
http://www.stiller.com/common.htm

Symantec
http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/vinfodb.html

Trend
http://www.antivirus.com/vinfo/virusencyclo/default.asp

Virus Bulletin
http://www.virusbtn.com/VirusInformation/
----------------------------------
at at at AND this...
----------------------------------
I will bet that most of those are virus hoaxes, which are
more common than viruses. For information on hoaxes, visit these Web
sites:

Vmyths.com
http://www.vmyths.com

HoaxBusters
http://hoaxbusters.ciac.org

Urban Myths
http://www.urbanmyths.com
---------------------------------------
at at at And this might help the really courious person out somewhat.
---------------------------------------
Crack Talk Newsletter Free Edition

9-1-00

Editor: Terry Blount


Source Code for about 50 hostile java apps that can hijack a computer.
http://metro.to/mladue/hostile-applets/SourceCode.html

Source code for viruses and backdoors
http://www.antionline.com/cgi-bin/anticode/anticode.pl

More dangerous stuff:
(This site ROCKS!)
http://www.kobayashi.cjb.net/

http://www.tlsecurity.net/

~~~~~~~~~~

Excellent roundup of security web sites
http://www.pcworld.com/current_issue/article/0,1212,17759+6+0,00.html
-------------------------------
at at at For those of you that are a little courious as to how i get this type
at at at of info... Here is the address to find things from my latest
at at at members edition of this newsletter
-------------------------------
To:
From: Terry <cracktalk at ispchannel.com>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 21:31:44
Subject: Crack Talk Member's Edition 5-17-1
Status: OR


Crack Talk Member's Edition

5-17-1

Editor: Terry Blount
---------------------------------
Enjoy it.



just in <Justefyde at hotmail.com> wrote in <3b062823 at server1.Activeworlds.com>:

>Moria
>
>Unless you are referring to an exe or some other file with its extention
>altered into htm or jpg, I am not aware of any viruses being delivered
>through htm, and opening a jpg will certainly not deliver a virus. To be
>infected the file must actually *do* something, either as a running program
>(exe, vbs) , or as a macro (doc).
>
>If you know differently, please let us know with a web reference?
>
>Thanks Justin
>
>a

jfk2

May 20, 2001, 6:12am
WOW!!! you seem to be one of the real old timers like me to the NewsGroups.
But i can remember all the way back to the days of 600 BAUD DIP SWITCHED
MODEMS. And back in those golden oldie days... [Text on a screen went
about as fast as a real slow typist]
And back then... most people got their info from bbs's rather than Newsgroups.
I didn't start to really enjoy being in-line until the
2400 BAUD DIP SWITCHED MODEM came out... at least then the ANSI Graphics
loaded halfway decently and you could play the ANSI Graphics of the on-line
games pretty nicely [Stackem Door Game] and all your messages for most anyone
that had a modem came from the bbs that was connected to FIDONET with the most
of what they had to offer. [My favorite part of FIDONET was the FILEBONE...
Figures with me though as i was one of the biggest file leaches any bbs
operator had ever seen]. If i wasn't in the QWK Offline Downloader
for offline reading of QWK Messages Forums... It was Downloading 20 megs of
files on a 2400 DIP SWITCHED MODEM. And back in those days... You sure as
heck never used ZMODEM... That was Zmodem beware of lost files protocal.
It was more common to use Y-1k CRC Modem or X-512-CRC modem protocal.
and if you wasted bandwidth... The darn bbs operator BANED you from
messages groups for up to 6 months until you got lots of smarts.
And what would count as wasted bandwidth? SIMPLE ANSWER IS...
On your QWK Messages replies using your offline QWK reader...
1 - Use of too many quotes in your messages... [You do notice that I for
the most part kill off most of that. MY BBS PAST TOUGHT ME WELL EARNED
LESSONS...
2 - This example would do it too...
On the bottom of the QWK Offline message reader you would get ONE line of text.
It was called a TAG LINE. And this one line of text usually had something
funny in there. BUT if you tried to add tooo much more than that ONE line
that could be grounds for... BBS SYSOP [System Admin] ACTION ON YOU.

-- TAG LINE BELOW THIS -- This comes from my Emails --
A Thief Wants Your Money. But A Dr. Wants Your Blood & Your Money
------------------------------------------------------



datedman <russell at synergycorp.com> wrote in
<3B06E304.5BF16D06 at synergycorp.com>:

>Look, if you don't have bandwidth, GET YOUR OWN GODDAMNED NEWSGROUP it's the
>21st Century ya know. Back when half the people on the Net had a 14.4
>connect, complaints about bandwidth wasting had some validity. Now most of
>them are just a sign of brain rot or something, witness Eep. :)
>
[View Quote]

faber

May 20, 2001, 11:02am
"moria" <moria at colony.co.uk> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:3b069050 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
[View Quote]
What you quoted ("Although not a jpg") does not apply to jpgs, nor to html.

It applies to vbs files that appear to be images or something else.

You cannot blame the existance of vbs files on the files they pretends to be. the first .vbs virus pretendet to be a text file, now
what ? bann text files ?

Faber

>
> Yep, all newsgroups are reposted, access is not via the origional source..
> you can go to the origional source, but its better this way, no dumb 40k
> messages or HTML postings.:)

I question this again. news.activeworlds.com is

a) not connected to other news servers (so not part of the Usenet) and
b) requires authorization.

therefore your ISP will most likely not relay activeworlds news to you and or allow you to post there.

You are talking about a direct connection of your newsreader to the news.activeworlds.com server. And HTML filteren is therefore
either done at your end or not at all.

Faber

moria

May 20, 2001, 11:19am
[View Quote] > What you quoted ("Although not a jpg") does not apply to jpgs, nor to
html.
>
> It applies to vbs files that appear to be images or something else.
>
> You cannot blame the existance of vbs files on the files they pretends to
be. the first .vbs virus pretendet to be a text file, now
> what ? bann text files ?

Yep in effect.

if someone attatches one or sends it to me and I don't know them, or what
they are sending.. ANY attatchment of unknown or dubious source gets an
automatic delete.

If you have this virus on your machine and send me a jpg from your machine,
it will arrive at mine with the name of the jpg in the text but with the
virus attached in the attatchment. Therefore, you send me a jpg I get a
virus.. to start going on about the type of file is splitting hairs and
does you little credit when what were trying to do here is protect those
with non-geek lifestyles:)


> I question this again. news.activeworlds.com is
>
> a) not connected to other news servers (so not part of the Usenet) and
> b) requires authorization.
>
> therefore your ISP will most likely not relay activeworlds news to you and
or allow you to post there.
>
> You are talking about a direct connection of your newsreader to the
news.activeworlds.com server. And HTML filteren is therefore
> either done at your end or not at all.

yep done at my end, via my ISP, the fact its not on usenet and its a direct
server is irrelevant. My ISP has the ability to route any transmission
to/from a newserver.. its called a service and helps people to stay away
from having to run their own firewall etc.

Its not a question of an argument, it was a set of reasons as to why posting
in HTML was not considered good.

To the normal user it can appear that a jpg has a virus embedded in it. it
IS possible to transmit a virus in HTML encoded pages or messages. This is
not in question and depending on your security you will either get a warning
or it will just download into your machine and run. Your point is that the
file type although saying it is one thing is actually another I dont
disagree with, however if you don't post in HTML none of this is relevant:)

I accept your the fount of all knowledge, but basically if you want to post
in HTML go for it.. it really doesnt worry me cause I won't see it:)

Moria

kah

May 20, 2001, 11:44am
¨how dare you insult the great Eep?? LOL ;-))

KAH

[View Quote]

wing

May 20, 2001, 1:33pm
I have one word for your condition-Paranoia. I use my primary email address in Usenet and have only ever seen one virus come from
that direction, which because I'm a slightly mature user and I had "Show file extensions" enabled I could see "blowme.jpg.vbs" as
opposed to "blowme.jpg". Not that I wanted to look at this loser anyway. Then theres the general spam virii. Never seen the ones
that get the headlines, just stupid ones like happy99. Don't even run a virus scanner. Last week, just for grins, I ran McAfee.
Total Virii count was.... Anyone wanna guess? ZERO.
[View Quote]

tony m

May 20, 2001, 3:23pm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faber

May 21, 2001, 2:35pm
"moria" <moria at colony.co.uk> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:3b07c473$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
[View Quote] Ok. You want to bann unknown attachements or the opening of it. That is ok, and is not related to HTML posting at all :)

> or allow you to post there.
> news.activeworlds.com server. And HTML filteren is therefore
>
> yep done at my end, via my ISP, the fact its not on usenet and its a direct
> server is irrelevant. My ISP has the ability to route any transmission
> to/from a newserver.. its called a service and helps people to stay away
> from having to run their own firewall etc.

Ok, I stop questioning it :) Sounds like a rare but perfectly valid service.

> Its not a question of an argument, it was a set of reasons as to why posting
> in HTML was not considered good.
>
> To the normal user it can appear that a jpg has a virus embedded in it. it
> IS possible to transmit a virus in HTML encoded pages or messages. This is
> not in question and depending on your security you will either get a warning
> or it will just download into your machine and run. Your point is that the
> file type although saying it is one thing is actually another I dont
> disagree with, however if you don't post in HTML none of this is relevant:)

I disagree, as attachments would still be able to carry virusesi and they are not related to HTML.
I would prefer to target the "real" enemy (attachements, viruses, very large postings (html or not)),
stuff like that. "No HTML" is a rule that is in fact something very different with the side-effect of fortunately
eliminating only SOME of the risks that are out there.

I mean, everything you said applies to web browsing as well, and we didn't stick to plain text there, did we ? :)

Using HTML for a little style like bold or underline or a word in red is nothing that should be attacked by a general misleading
rule.

One more thing: I never saw a virus that did as much damage as the protection against it did. Costs for anti-virus-software, false
virus warnings, fear, etc, maybe we have yet to see the big strike, but so far, all viruses ever seen in the wild did not cause the
end of the world as we know it.

Faber

1  2  |  
Awportals.com is a privately held community resource website dedicated to Active Worlds.
Copyright (c) Mark Randall 2006 - 2022. All Rights Reserved.
Awportals.com   ·   ProLibraries Live   ·   Twitter   ·   LinkedIn