From: Martin Ambuhl <mambuhl AT earthlink DOT net>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: Ban HTML postings?
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 11:22:00 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <199810300322 DOT WAA20999 AT indy DOT delorie DOT com> <3639B657 DOT 6E759728 AT phreaker DOT net>
Organization: Nocturnal Aviation
X-Posted-Path-Was: not-for-mail
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0
Lines: 27
NNTP-Posting-Host: 1cust17.tnt11.nyc3.da.uu.net
X-ELN-Date: Fri Oct 30 08:25:17 1998
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I)
Message-ID: <3639E7A8.5354C709@earthlink.net>
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Nicolas Blais wrote:
> 
> Uhmm, why don't we ban 1999 cars too?  I mean, that old, very old 1985
> works just great.  Okay, I admit it it's not as good looking as the 1999
> one, but hey, changes are bad! How many people would rather have a
> 1999?  Now how many people would rather have HTML formatting?  Same
> people.  (Geez, text in 1998, how low have _they_ sunk?)
> 
> Yep, I think I made my opinion. (No harm intended)

The purpose of posting is communication.  The fact is that that many
newsreaders are not capable of handling HTML.  The correct analogy
should be "would you rather have a new car of the 1985-type that can go
everywhere, or a 1999 car which breaks down as soon as it leaves the
Autobahn?"


> 
> DJ Delorie wrote:
> >
> > You know, I could reconfigure my gateway and listserver to reject
> > mail/postings of type text/html or multipart/alternative...


-- 
Martin Ambuhl (mambuhl AT earthlink DOT net)
Note: mambuhl AT tiac DOT net will soon be inactive