What have they done!?

T

Toby A Inkster

Jonathan said:
Works in SeaMonkey 1.1.1, Firefox 2.0.0.3, Mozilla 1.7.12 and Opera
7.54-9.2.

Probably more by luck than anything else though. Try:

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN">
<title/Title/<p/Para/

Should be a page with title "Title" and a single paragraph "Para".

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
Geek of ~ HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python*/Apache/Linux

* = I'm getting there!
 
S

SpaceGirl

Too many years ago to remember I got my first lesson in
creating HTM pages and here's what an entire HTM file
with the letter X then looked like.

«html»«body»X«/body»«/html»

The world moves on, as does technology. HTML is just a container; the
biggest growth area online at the moment is Flash based video... and
that certainly won't work over a 56k modem. It's the way of things; if
you don't keep up with technology you get left behind and left out.
Should the world slow down because you've not kept up? No. I agree
that there is a lot of bloat on the net, but there's nothing that can
really be done about it. I was reading in the paper today that there
are tentative plans (if they find the money) to upgrade the UK cable
networks to 240Mbit. Even a HUGE bloated page would load in a fraction
of a second, a page that would take a year to load on 56Kb...
 
J

Jonathan N. Little

Toby said:
Probably more by luck than anything else though. Try:

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN">
<title/Title/<p/Para/

Should be a page with title "Title" and a single paragraph "Para".


In Gecko nothing displays and in IE/Opera

"<title/Title/<p/Para/"
 
J

John Hosking

aioe-user said:
Agreed, as for the actual reason in this universe it's because
Thunderbird wouldn't post it with html tags in it and replacing
them was two second fix.

Don't know what version of Thunderbird you're using (or what universe
you're in), but my Thunderbird has no problem posting/handling

I do't think that was ever the idea.

Why not? That's what you described.
It's the output from the w3c validator, the URL is shown.

Most of which we've all seen before (especially the "you may use the W3C
checked logo..." bit), but you had to post it all. What about the poor
folks with a 56K modem?
 
J

Jonathan N. Little

John said:
aioe-user wrote:

Don't know what version of Thunderbird you're using (or what universe
you're in), but my Thunderbird has no problem posting/handling

To OP:

"Tools > Account Settings" go to news server account "news..." go to
"Composition & Addressing" and uncheck "Compose messages in HTML format"
 
D

dorayme

Toby A Inkster said:
This can be reduced to:

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN">
<title//<p>X

and it will still validate. Won't actually *work* in any browser that I
can think of, but it will validate.

Works in Safari, and FF and a favourite of yours, Opera.
 
J

John Hosking

Jonathan said:
John said:
Don't know what version of Thunderbird you're using (or what universe
you're in), but my Thunderbird has no problem posting/handling
HTML:
[/QUOTE]


To OP:

"Tools > Account Settings" go to news server account "news..." go to 
"Composition & Addressing" and uncheck "Compose messages in HTML format"[/QUOTE]

Ah. Yes, that would do it. Hadn't thought of that.
 
A

asdf

Jonathan N. Little said:
Nope since he is still using it.

Let me spell it out for him, even though *you* think you have a phony
email address, you have created one that *could* be real, and worst is the
domain "no.org" is *real*. Someone pays for it, the Lawca Corp. Which
means the spam that is generated for *your* phony email address *their*
mailserver has to deal with! Now do you see the offense?
[snip]

Methinks that if somebody registers a domain called 'no.org' and runs a
mailserver under it, then they are *asking* for trouble. :)))))
 
J

Jonathan N. Little

asdf said:
Methinks that if somebody registers a domain called 'no.org' and runs a
mailserver under it, then they are *asking* for trouble. :)))))
asdf.com is also registered domain, are you associated with "ASDF
Publication"? Again if you feel you must munge your email, pick
something that ABSOLUTELY CANNOT be a domain. Here try (e-mail address removed)!
 
A

asdf

Jonathan N. Little said:
asdf.com is also registered domain, are you associated with "ASDF
Publication"? Again if you feel you must munge your email, pick something
that ABSOLUTELY CANNOT be a domain. Here try (e-mail address removed)!


....again... if somebody picks asdf.com as a domain, they need their bumps
read. dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb.
 
J

Jonathan N. Little

asdf said:
...again... if somebody picks asdf.com as a domain, they need their bumps
read. dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb.
It's not *if* it is *have* http://www.asdf.com/ the dumb part is how
easily you could prevent the problem if you would not use a possibly
valid domain for your munge email...
 
T

Toby A Inkster

asdf said:
...again... if somebody picks asdf.com as a domain, they need their bumps
read. dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb.

asdf.com has existed for 8.5 years. Why is it "dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb"?

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
http://tobyinkster.co.uk/
Geek of ~ HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python*/Apache/Linux

* = I'm getting there!
 
G

Greg N.

asdf said:
...again... if somebody picks asdf.com as a domain, they need their bumps
read.

It is unsmart to assume a random 4-letter domain does not really exist.
Just about any 4-letter combination is a valid domain. Try it.
 
J

Jukka K. Korpela

Scripsit asdf:
...again... if somebody picks asdf.com as a domain, they need their
bumps read. dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb.

There are many ways to declare in public that you are much worse than an
idiot.

Idiots cannot help being what they are. People who behave like idiots, as
you keep doing, shouldn't really be called idiots; that would be an insult
to idiots.

Hopefully, though, you have now decided to keep using the same forged
identity, so you will not disturb experienced participants of Usenet
discussions the least.
 
B

Bernhard Sturm

aioe-user said:
Jukka K. Korpela wrote:

Copy/paste/measure will give you the numbers

Just a question: how big is the minimal TCP/IP packet-size? Do you
really think it makes a difference if you transport 28 bytes instead of
128 bytes? With the former you will just have more overhead, that's all.
IMHO This is purely an academic issue and not of real-world importance.

cheers
Bernhard
 
A

asdf

Jonathan N. Little said:
It's not *if* it is *have* http://www.asdf.com/ the dumb part is how
easily you could prevent the problem if you would not use a possibly valid
domain for your munge email...

adsf.com is a boring attempt at hijacking a common qwerty key combo. It
provides nothing useful. It contributes nothing. Don't believe me? Try this:
http://www.asdf.com/whatisasdf.html. It's crap. It's rubbish. It contributes
nothing. If they are dumb enough to register it, I am more than happy to
overload their email server. Simple as that.
 
A

asdf

Toby A Inkster said:
asdf.com has existed for 8.5 years. Why is it "dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb"?
[snip of boring crap]

Have you looked at the site? It's rubbish. It's a boring attempt to capture
random keystrokes.
 
A

asdf

Jukka K. Korpela said:
Scripsit asdf:


There are many ways to declare in public that you are much worse than an
idiot.

Idiots cannot help being what they are. People who behave like idiots, as
you keep doing, shouldn't really be called idiots; that would be an insult
to idiots.

Hopefully, though, you have now decided to keep using the same forged
identity, so you will not disturb experienced participants of Usenet
discussions the least.
pathetic. try again.
 
J

Jonathan N. Little

asdf said:
adsf.com is a boring attempt at hijacking a common qwerty key combo. It
provides nothing useful. It contributes nothing. Don't believe me? Try this:
http://www.asdf.com/whatisasdf.html. It's crap. It's rubbish. It contributes
nothing. If they are dumb enough to register it, I am more than happy to
overload their email server. Simple as that.

Whatever, that is their business, they have registered not you. Your
attitude speaks to your character. PLONK
 
A

asdf

Jonathan N. Little said:
Whatever, that is their business, they have registered not you. Your
attitude speaks to your character. PLONK

Boring as doggie do-do. It doesn't matter, that's the point. If they are
that dumb, then so be it.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
473,769
Messages
2,569,582
Members
45,057
Latest member
KetoBeezACVGummies

Latest Threads

Top