Focus on second window

[Richard Cornford]

Lee wrote:

... but I don't find it reasonable to
test to see if the user has sabotaged his own browser.

Have you noticed the spate of questions along the lines of:-

Q: "Pop-up windows no longer work on my browser, why is that?"

- or:-

Q: "Why is this unusual code appearing on all of the web
sites I visit?"

A: "You are running Norton Internet Security (or similar)."

R: "Oh, I didn't know it did that".

Some users clearly don't know they are sabotaging their own browser. It
may not be unreasonable to make it their problem, but if you are trying
to sell them things it probably is a good idea to try to accommodate
them to the extent that it is feasible/practical because it is the
seller who looses out in that relationship.

It also makes me think that the recent survey quoting 14% for the use of
pop-up blokers on the Internet could not have been very accurate as if
the user's don't know they are using one how are they going to tell
anyone else?

Richard.

 

[Lee]

Richard Cornford said:

Lee wrote:


Have you noticed the spate of questions along the lines of:-

Q: "Pop-up windows no longer work on my browser, why is that?"

- or:-

Q: "Why is this unusual code appearing on all of the web
sites I visit?"

A: "You are running Norton Internet Security (or similar)."

R: "Oh, I didn't know it did that".

Some users clearly don't know they are sabotaging their own browser. It
may not be unreasonable to make it their problem, but if you are trying
to sell them things it probably is a good idea to try to accommodate
them to the extent that it is feasible/practical because it is the
seller who looses out in that relationship.

One of the most important rules of USENET is that the person
who misspells "loses" loses the argument. However, you make
an excellent case against using popups in web sites that are
trying to sell things to ignorant users. Such sites should
be as simple as possible to avoid any source of confusion.

People who are capable of understanding that their popup
blocker is broken shouldn't have that fact hidden from them.

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn said:

There's nothing wrong with my From address, [...]

IBTD!

| The "From" line contains the electronic mailing address of the |
person who sent the message, in the Internet syntax. [...] (RFC
1036 "Standard for interchange of USENET messages", section 2.1.1)

My From line does contain the electronic mailing address of the
person who sent the message, [...]

No, it does not. What part of "A mailbox receives mail." do I need
you to send as a presentation so that you can hopefully understand it?

but in a different syntax.

You are disregarding the (specified) syntax.

One that requires the human who wants to send me mail to use common
sense to make the necessary modification. Certainly you're not going
to deny that this satisfies the intent of the RFC, are you?

The RFC (1036, 2822) says nothing about humans interfering with headers,
it specifies data formats so that machines can transmit information
between people. The intention of these RFCs is to specify formats to
provide for interoperability of the Net.

Besides, how you suggest a human will know what part of the munged
address that should be removed in order to send the e-mail to you?
By capitalizing it? You have not the slightest idea how the Internet
works. Take for example a person that does not understand the language
you have chosen to mung the address. And take for example my address:
It is valid, but if all people would follow your lousy excuse of
burdening others with your (spam) problems, they would remove the
"spam" substring and thus *make it invalid*.

[...] I'm not going to change it, even if you do.

Maybe you *are* going to change it. You are not only disregarding
the Netiquette Guidelines and violating Internet/Usenet standards
but (therefore) also the Acceptable Use Policy of your service provider.

Nuff said, score adjusted.


PointedEars

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

(<http://www.interhack.net/pubs/munging-harmful/>)

<snip>

The arguments on that page are self-undermining. [...]
I wouldn't take its author seriously, you shouldn't expect
anyone else to either.

That is a great beat-me-dead argument. If you have nothing
else to say I suggest you be quiet on the subject.


PointedEars

 

[Richard Cornford]

Richard Cornford said:

One of the most important rules of USENET is that the person
who misspells "loses" loses the argument.

Fair enough, I concede.

Richard.

 

[Lee]

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn said:

Lee schrieb:

My From line does contain the electronic mailing address of the
person who sent the message, [...]

No, it does not.

Obviously, it does.
I assume that you've even sent email to it, by now.

You are disregarding the (specified) syntax.

Yes. Exactly. That's what I said.
I choose to disregard the syntax suggested in the RFC and use
one that is readable by [English speaking] humans, but generally
not by software. Any email sent by machines would be ignored,
anyway. You're complaining that I'm preventing messages that
would be ignored from arriving in my mailbox. Why do you care?
Aren't there some other windmills that you could be subduing?

Besides, how you suggest a human will know what part of the munged
address that should be removed in order to send the e-mail to you?
By capitalizing it? You have not the slightest idea how the Internet
works. Take for example a person that does not understand the language
you have chosen to mung the address. And take for example my address:
It is valid, but if all people would follow your lousy excuse of
burdening others with your (spam) problems, they would remove the
"spam" substring and thus *make it invalid*.

Nothing that I've done suggests that it would be reasonable
for anybody to remove the "spam" substring from your message.
I capitalized the portion to be removed, as per the consensus
standard (I also replaced the letter "O" with a zero, just
in case the address harvesters catch on to that standard).

Finally, you need to think through the argument that people
who don't understand my language might have trouble parsing
my address in order to send me email. I don't think I need
to point out the flaw, do I?

 

[Lee]

Richard Cornford said:

Fair enough, I concede.

No! No!

You're supposed to complain about petty attacks on spelling
or grammar, and then I respond about how spelling and grammar
influence people's opinions, but misspelling at least one
word in the process.

Haven't you done this before?

 

[DU]

Maybe you *are* going to change it. You are not only disregarding
the Netiquette Guidelines and violating Internet/Usenet standards
but (therefore) also the Acceptable Use Policy of your service provider.

Nuff said, score adjusted.


PointedEars

PointedEars, you like to spend an awful lot of time and typing on the
email address form of posters and at trying to tame them your way, on
proper etiquette. I think you miss the whole point of discussing and
posting in this newsgroup.

DU

 

[Richard Cornford]

Richard Cornford said:

No! No!

You're supposed to complain about petty attacks on spelling
or grammar, and then I respond about how spelling and grammar
influence people's opinions, but misspelling at least one
word in the process.
LOL

Haven't you done this before?

No, I never argue about spelling and grammar. I agree that they are
important, but I am dyslexic so I probably will never be good a
spelling, or learn the formal rules of English grammar. That leaves me
unqualified to argue either way so I don't argue at all. But I don't
mind having my mistakes pointed out (within reason) because that way I
can identify them and try to avoid repeating them.

Richard.

 

[Richard Cornford]

That is a great beat-me-dead argument.

Suite yourself. I just thought you might actually be trying to convince
someone of your case at some point.

If you have nothing else to say
I suggest you be quiet on the subject.

OK, I don't have anything to say on the subject. I can't think of
anything more worthless or predictably futile to be doing with my time
than debating munged e-mail addresses.

Richard.

 

[DU]

Suite yourself. I just thought you might actually be trying to convince
someone of your case at some point.




OK, I don't have anything to say on the subject. I can't think of
anything more worthless or predictably futile to be doing with my time
than debating munged e-mail addresses.

Richard.

Well, on this subject, you could say that PointedEars is very
controlling: that would hopefully help a bit the next upcoming people
who are going to run into his "internet standards violation, usenet
standards violation, destruction of working internet structures"
cruisade. LOL!

DU