From: "Arthur" <arfa AT clara DOT net>
To: <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: RE: Ban HTML postings?
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 22:44:18 -0000
Message-ID: <000001be0456$d55b94c0$334d08c3@arthur>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <8D53104ECD0CD211AF4000A0C9D60AE32447D7@probe-2.Acclaim-Euro.net>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

> DJ Delorie writes:
> > You know, I could reconfigure my gateway and listserver to reject
> > mail/postings of type text/html or multipart/alternative...
>
> I think that is a great idea. There is no reason for anyone to use
> these formats other than for sending binary files, which aren't
> appropriate in a newsgroup in any case.

Apart from alt.binaries.* of course :-)

> My only concern is how this would affect the mail<->news gateway. You
> couldn't stop people sending HTML messages to the newsgroup, so there
> is a danger that a lot of news traffic could simply end up being missed
> by people on the mailing list. I presume that you would be able to set
> up some kind of autoreply for these messages, explaining the problem
> and telling people how to correct it? That would at least cover
> newsgroup posts from those people who give valid reply addresses...
>
> To the person who compared this with banning 1999 cars: that is a
> very bad analogy. A more apt comparison would be if someone designed
> a new type of car which didn't go any faster than the 1980 model,
> used more petrol, and required the entire road network to be
> converted to rail, preventing the older cars from being driven at
> all :-)

Or if the new cars prevented a good percentage of the population to be
unable to drive them - ever.

James Arthur
jaa AT arfa DOT clara DOT net
ICQ#15054819