[nflug] RE: Copy of Red Hat 7.2

[ptgoodman]

John Nichel wrote:

> ptgoodman wrote:
> <snip>
>
>> I think it has all blown over and the necessary objections to things 
>> have been made. I will not post with embedded HTML again, although I 
>> would not complain if someone else did. I am curious about something 
>> and maybe you can help. When someone specifies a link to a site in 
>> this group or elsewhere, that link shows up on my screen in blue and 
>> underlined. Is that HTML?
>
>
> It's not HTML if the mail was sent in plain text.  Depends on your 
> reader; many clients with take a text URL and turn it into a hyperlink 
> for you.
>
Thanks for the information. My mail client does indeed turn text URLs 
into a hyperlink. And I've seen my Email software turn a text URL into a 
hyperlink as it is typed before sending.

I don't object to the modification of the FAQ to strongly advise against 
embedded HTML in NFLUG posts, not that my objection would matter. My 
objection might be in how it is enforced. Would one get the death 
penalty upon first offense or would the group moderator or someone 
simply Email the offender advising them of NFLUG policy? The beauty of 
the Internet _was_ that it offered complete freedom in what and how 
things were expressed. Now, it seems that everybody wants to impose 
rules, though I recognize that there are often good reasons for them. 
Having never been even slightly offended by HTML in Emails,  UG or NG 
posts, I see no compelling reason to ban HTML. It was and is hard to 
imagine that my underlining a single character would set off such a 
chain of events, but it has.

ptg
_______________________________________________
nflug mailing list
nflug at nflug.org
http://www.nflug.org/mailman/listinfo/nflug