Re: HTML Posting, Microsoft.* newsgroups and USENET (with a hint of USENET II)

From: John Kelly (nospam_at_no.spam)
Date: 05/18/04 

Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 10:48:18 GMT

Mr, Eddy,

    You really should get behind your employers stance on this issue. Your
personal opinions whilst of some interest to those with their own agenda are
of no real interest here,,,,I believe in fact that you are breaking your own
companies rules by not including the disclaimer at the end of your
message..Your comments on usenet and whether this newsgroup is part of
usenet indicates that you do not seem to know what Microsoft has posted on
this issue themselves...please see their FAQ on the subject...its posted
somewhere above this little lot.
.
"John Eddy [MSFT]" <johneddy@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:ueuHz3GPEHA.1644@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hi everyone,
>
> For those of you who don't know me, I'm the Newsgroups Administrator here
at
> Microsoft and I was asked to stop by and weigh in on the concerns of
USENET
> 'rules', HTML Posting, Microsoft.* and USENET, and probably a couple other
> things that I'll touch upon as I type.
>
> Are the microsoft.* newsgroups part of USENET?

    YES, read your own companies FAQ on the subject, something you should
have done before posting your reply.

>
> Maybe. It all depends on how you define USENET. Most people, such as
> myself, will define USENET solely as the loose conglomeration of servers
> around the world that freely exchange information over NNTP
>
(http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&c2coff=1&oi=defmore&q=defin
e:USENET.)
> Others might narrow the definition down to cover only the Big 8
heirarchies
> (comp., humanities., misc., news., rec., sci., soc., talk.) and sometimes
> alt. Like I said, I would consider microsoft.* to be part of the USENET
> community.
>
> So what about USENET 'rules,' netiquette and HTML?
>
> There are a lot of web pages that discuss netiquette and USENET. A quick
> google will show you that much. RFC1855
> (http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html) discusses a bit of netiquette,
but
> does not discuss HTML posts. The Rules of Conduct for the Microsoft
> Newsgroups (http://www.microsoft.com/communities/conduct/default.mspx)
don't
> talk about HTML posting either. So, as far as I (in my position) am
> concerned, there is no rule against posting to microsoft.* newsgroups in
> HTML format.

    The next time a virus is spread by this method that uses a microsoft
vulnerability I will inform microsoft of your comments...and that you are
using your position again to defend an untenable position held by
others....lincluding someone who calls him self a professional PAPAJOHN!!

>
> There have been rules mentioned that do forbid posting in HTML
> (http://www.usenet2.org/rules.txt.) These rules are strictly for USENET
II,
> a project started back in 1997 as a 'gated' community that was designed to
> cut out the spam that has been troubling USENET. The microsoft.*
newsgroups
> are not part of USENET II (see http://www.usenet2.org/groups.html for the
> list of their groups) and the rules of USENET II are not relevant.
>
> You said you 'in your position.' Does that mean you have a different
> personal opinion?

    Are you talking to yourself here???
>
> Yes. I won't stand in anyones way of posting HTML to microsoft.*
newsgroups
> because, as I have said, there are no official rules against it.

    Thanks for that info, I will file that away as well
>
> However, as a USENET *user*, I recommend against it. It generates bulk to
a
> message and, 9 times out of 10, does not add anything in the way of
content
> to a message that could not be done in plain text.
>
> But how much bulk does it actually add?

    Irrelevant, not to do with the reason for raising this issue in the
first place

>
> Take this post for example. Posting in plain text gives me a post size of
> 4k, according to Outlook Express. Posting in HTML gives me a post size of
> 10k. While that doesn't sound like much, multiply it out by replication
> across USENET, downloading to user machines, and it grows quickly.
>
> While this is generally a no-no, I do ask that if you have any questions
> regarding this information, please cc me on your posted reply. I do not
> regularly monitor this newsgroup.

    You appear to have put your position on the line hear Mr. Eddy, on
reflection, was that wise? I am looking forward to the next vulnerability
report that uses messages as a transport medium.

    At the end of the day the MVP (lol) PAPAJOHN is finally being forced
into learning how to use OUTLOOK, its taken around six months from the time
he said he could not reply to a digitally signed message because he did not
know how to do it (Press one button this means)

    I wonder how much more time it will take to see him explain what "things
repair themselves" mean, what a TRACERT is, Tuning up RAM actually means
((not for capturing video...for writing it back to the hard drive)

John Kelly