HTML/Yahoo Solution - Final Release

So, your HTML authoring email program needs to be in "styled text" (HTML)
authoring mode. Save your HTML authored email original with your email program
upon creation, not on Yahoo's ("hoo" knows) system of today...

Robert Walkers solution for prior archives sounds great, but I bet you folks
will be archiving old posts like crazy, stung by surprizes such as that of
late...

With Eudora, under Tools - Options - Styled Text , Under "When sending mail with
styled text (HTML)", only "Send styled only" need be selected (as opposed to
"Send both plain and styled", though that is also acceptable).

With Eudora, at least one character must be colored (in any color OTHER THAN
black), and Eudora automatically switches from a "plain text" authoring mode to
a "HTML" authoring mode. It also appears that, although Eudora has switched to
"HTML mode", that text as well as other characters which one chooses as black in
color are assigned a *slightly* different horizontal width per "space" (on your
keyboard spacebar). Therefore, mixing black with other colors in diagrams is
probably a loser, but diagrams can be "all color" (made up of colors other than
black), or "all black" (I think). Will test both below. Both diagrams should
line up, starting eight (spacebar) spaces from the left:

__ __ __ __
|__|__|__|__|
|__|__|__|__|

__ __ __ __
|__|__|__|__|
|__|__|__|__|

Best Regards, J Gill

--- In tuning@y..., J Gill <JGill99@i...> writes:

Well, when I try to Reply To or Forward my post #31356, I get a blank
screen...

But that doesn't stop me from saving the message (or message portion
of interest) to the Windows Clipboard (CTRL + C), and pasting it back
into this Reply window (CTRL + V):

HEY, IT WORKED! (SEE BELOW). NOTE: THE COLOR DIAGRAM WAS (of course)
RENDERED IN BLACK, BUT IT SURVIVED "TOPOLOGICALLY UNSCATHED" (WHILE
THE ORIGINALLY BLACK COLORED DIAGRAM SUFFERED A BIT FROM THE RIDE
(WITH ONE LINE MYSTERIOUSLY SKEWED BY A SPACE.

IT LOOKS LIKE IT WORKS OUT BEST TO STICK TO "ALL-COLOR" DIAGRAMS (NO
BLACK SEGMENTS). I CAN SURE THINK OF WORSE FATES THAN THAT!

HERE GOES, J GILL ;)

From: J Gill <JGill99@i...>
Date: Tue Dec 11, 2001 7:53 am
Subject: HTML/Yahoo Solution - Final Release

So, your HTML authoring email program needs to be in "styled text"
(HTML) authoring mode. Save your HTML authored email original with
your email program upon creation, not on Yahoo's ("hoo" knows) system
of today...

Robert Walkers solution for prior archives sounds great, but I bet
you folks will be archiving old posts like crazy, stung by surprizes
such as that of late...

With Eudora, under Tools - Options - Styled Text , Under "When
sending mail with styled text (HTML)", only "Send styled only" need
be selected (as opposed to "Send both plain and styled", though that
is also acceptable).

With Eudora, at least one character must be colored (in any color
OTHER THAN black), and Eudora automatically switches from a "plain
text" authoring mode to a "HTML" authoring mode. It also appears
that, although Eudora has switched to "HTML mode", that text as well
as other characters which one chooses as black in color are assigned
a *slightly* different horizontal width per "space" (on your keyboard
spacebar). Therefore, mixing black with other colors in diagrams is
probably a loser, but diagrams can be "all color" (made up of colors
other than black), or "all black" (I think). Will test both below.
Both diagrams should line up, starting eight (spacebar) spaces from
the left:

__ __ __ __
|__|__|__|__|
|__|__|__|__|

__ __ __ __
|__|__|__|__|
|__|__|__|__|

Best Regards, J Gill

JG,

--- In tuning@y..., "unidala" <JGill99@i...> wrote:
> Both diagrams should line up, starting eight (spacebar) spaces from
> the left:

They don't, because I am not using HTML formatting. I know you are
trying to find a helpful solution, but getting more and more
complicated, and getting into more and more 'formatting' issues is
muddying the waters.

Want ascii text diagrams? Upload a text file to the files area. No
problem. No mucking with html-enabled mail programs, etc.

Cave drawings were less hassle...

Cheers,
Jon

The (pasted in) Reply, in being transformed from "all-color" (other
than black) to black text by Yahoo, does choke the second-time-around
(pasted in Reply or Forward), behaving precisely like the black text
of the original post #31356 (that is, just a tad flaky, hence
unreliable).

So, if you want to reply to a post containing a beautiful (all-color)
diagram, the "quoted" post being replied to will be colorless and
look (potentially) flaky, maybe (in the worst case) collapsed like a
limp pinata on the left margin. Seems perfect for replying prima-
donnas who would rather "start all over" and do it "their way",
anyway!.... *~<|:o Lousy for referring to another's diagram as you
author a reply, however (in all sober seriousness...).

Say goodbye to ASCII text graphics, its becoming an (ugh) HTML world!

Enjoy, J Gill

--- In tuning@y..., "unidala" <JGill99@i...> wrote:
>
> Well, when I try to Reply To or Forward my post #31356, I get a
blank
> screen...
>
> But that doesn't stop me from saving the message (or message
portion
> of interest) to the Windows Clipboard (CTRL + C), and pasting it
back
> into this Reply window (CTRL + V):
>
> HEY, IT WORKED! (SEE BELOW). NOTE: THE COLOR DIAGRAM WAS (of
course)
> RENDERED IN BLACK, BUT IT SURVIVED "TOPOLOGICALLY UNSCATHED" (WHILE
> THE ORIGINALLY BLACK COLORED DIAGRAM SUFFERED A BIT FROM THE RIDE
> (WITH ONE LINE MYSTERIOUSLY SKEWED BY A SPACE.
>
> IT LOOKS LIKE IT WORKS OUT BEST TO STICK TO "ALL-COLOR" DIAGRAMS
(NO
> BLACK SEGMENTS). I CAN SURE THINK OF WORSE FATES THAN THAT!
>
>
> HERE GOES, J GILL ;)
>
>
> From: J Gill <JGill99@i...>
> Date: Tue Dec 11, 2001 7:53 am
> Subject: HTML/Yahoo Solution - Final Release
>
> So, your HTML authoring email program needs to be in "styled text"
> (HTML) authoring mode. Save your HTML authored email original with
> your email program upon creation, not on Yahoo's ("hoo" knows)
system
> of today...
>
> Robert Walkers solution for prior archives sounds great, but I bet
> you folks will be archiving old posts like crazy, stung by
surprizes
> such as that of late...
>
> With Eudora, under Tools - Options - Styled Text , Under "When
> sending mail with styled text (HTML)", only "Send styled only" need
> be selected (as opposed to "Send both plain and styled", though
that
> is also acceptable).
>
> With Eudora, at least one character must be colored (in any color
> OTHER THAN black), and Eudora automatically switches from a "plain
> text" authoring mode to a "HTML" authoring mode. It also appears
> that, although Eudora has switched to "HTML mode", that text as
well
> as other characters which one chooses as black in color are
assigned
> a *slightly* different horizontal width per "space" (on your
keyboard
> spacebar). Therefore, mixing black with other colors in diagrams is
> probably a loser, but diagrams can be "all color" (made up of
colors
> other than black), or "all black" (I think). Will test both below.
> Both diagrams should line up, starting eight (spacebar) spaces from
> the left:
>
> __ __ __ __
> |__|__|__|__|
> |__|__|__|__|
>
> __ __ __ __
> |__|__|__|__|
> |__|__|__|__|
>
>
> Best Regards, J Gill

Jon!

I myself have previously resisted the HTML authoring bit in my Eudora
program (and I believe that Netscape and Outlook have it, too). But,
in the end, it's fairly simple (in Eudora, anyway):

(1) Create your graphic diagram, as before; and

(2) Choose one or more color(s) OTHER THAN BLACK for all characters
which make up your diagram (which can be done in one fell swoop); and

(3) Post the message.

DOWNSIDE: Once you lose the HTML color information (by pasting a
message to be Replied To or Forwarded into the (blank) Yahoo message
box, the color (and the reliablity of the - now black text -
diagram's appearance) disappears. Granted, not perfect ...

HOWEVER: Your HTML copy of your original post is backed up on your
(and not Yahoo, or anybody else's), system, ensuring the integrity of
your original posts, AND you can copy HTML to the Windows clipboard
from Internet Explorer, and paste it (as HTML) into Eudora email
compositions (and, I bet, Netscape and Outlook email compositions,
too). Doing the above tasks seems a lot easier, more straight-
forward, and quicker than the process of creating most of the
diagrams which I see you folks taking the time to carefully create!

Best Regards, J Gill :)

--- In tuning@y..., "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> JG,
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "unidala" <JGill99@i...> wrote:
> > Both diagrams should line up, starting eight (spacebar) spaces
from
> > the left:
>
> They don't, because I am not using HTML formatting. I know you are
> trying to find a helpful solution, but getting more and more
> complicated, and getting into more and more 'formatting' issues is
> muddying the waters.
>
> Want ascii text diagrams? Upload a text file to the files area. No
> problem. No mucking with html-enabled mail programs, etc.
>
> Cave drawings were less hassle...
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

J,

--- In tuning@y..., "unidala" <JGill99@i...> wrote:
> I myself have previously resisted the HTML authoring bit in my
> Eudora program (and I believe that Netscape and Outlook have it,
> too).

One of the main reasons I *don't* enable HTML mail support in Eudora
(and *especially* for anyone using Outlook!!) is that is where a fair
number of viruses have propigated (sp?). Outlook users can get an
HTML mail sent to them with a script that automatically executes,
etc, and bingo! Worms are flying...

The other point is that there are still people on this list that get
the emails sent to them, and send to the list, using text-only email
programs. The reasons are many (habit, sight-impaired, mail systems
at university departments, etc.) and I believe that for communication
to be effective it must reach the largest audience, which frequently
means the lowest common denominator (LCD, math folks?).

> Doing the above tasks seems a lot easier, more straight-
> forward, and quicker than the process of creating most of the
> diagrams which I see you folks taking the time to carefully create!

Unbelievable as it may seem, even a learning curve that gentle will
sometimes be a hassle to those who type onto the screen and like what
they see!

OK, enough from me on this. I don't tend to post ascii diagrams, and
just hope that enough people who *do* will find a way to

1. make them clear and correct to the largest audience
2. preserve the content independent of the display medium

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@y..., "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> J,
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "unidala" <JGill99@i...> wrote:
> > I myself have previously resisted the HTML authoring bit in my
> > Eudora program (and I believe that Netscape and Outlook have it,
> > too).
>
> One of the main reasons I *don't* enable HTML mail support in
Eudora
> (and *especially* for anyone using Outlook!!) is that is where a
fair
> number of viruses have propigated (sp?).

I'm no virus expert. With that in mind, I religiously avoid Outlook,
too, because its "Preview" mode appears to be capable of launching
some viruses, worms, etc., and its address book (with so many
security holes in Outlook) seems to have been "hijacked" by many of
them. I don't use Netscape Communicator, so I don't know what
vulnerabilities it may have, or similar "preview" launching abilities.

My understanding is that other than Outlook VB Scripting and "preview
window" vulnerabilities, executable "pathogens" are not propagated in
the HTML *message* itself of email programs, but in the launching of
*attachments*. This would seem to be a fairly easy thing to be
concious of (deliberately launching attachments). I don't receive
very much in the way of emails, and am virtually spam-free (from
deliberate secrecy practices with my email addresses). If I *did*
receive tons of email every day (as would be the case if I were, like
you, subscribed to receive all the posted messages of these Yahoo
groups), it might a bit more confusing, but viewing *messages* per-se
should (I believe) be safe (please correct me if I am wrong, anyone).

> Outlook users can get an
> HTML mail sent to them with a script that automatically executes,
> etc, and bingo! Worms are flying...

The VB Scripts are (I think) the danger (which, I am told, are not
necessary for one's IE browser to adequately resolve the great
majority of websites). Maybe using Outlook requires that VB Scripts
be enabled. Dunno... If , not, that could be disabled without pain.

> The other point is that there are still people on this list that
get
> the emails sent to them, and send to the list, using text-only
email
> programs. The reasons are many (habit, sight-impaired, mail systems
> at university departments, etc.) and I believe that for
communication
> to be effective it must reach the largest audience, which
frequently
> means the lowest common denominator (LCD, math folks?).

You make a good point here. Nerd-stuff has a way of not being
accessible to the many. I've confused, and been confused, before.

> > Doing the above tasks seems a lot easier, more straight-
> > forward, and quicker than the process of creating most of the
> > diagrams which I see you folks taking the time to carefully
create!
>
> Unbelievable as it may seem, even a learning curve that gentle will
> sometimes be a hassle to those who type onto the screen and like
what
> they see!

I agree. It wasn't till this "formatting" juggernaut that I got
around to figuring out a bunch of things relating to these
particulars, myself. It would be a shame to create a "twain" (text vs
HTML) that could never "meet" (and it is a bit of a "one or the
other" situation, as I find it).

> OK, enough from me on this. I don't tend to post ascii diagrams,
and
> just hope that enough people who *do* will find a way to
>
> 1. make them clear and correct to the largest audience
> 2. preserve the content independent of the display medium
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

Good points (though I'm still dreaming of multi-colored musico-
mandalas which you could - safely - view from the comfort of your web
browser)... Too bad that what (should) be simple always seems to get
all screwed up by the complexities which our "bells and whistles"
necessitate. Here's to "minimalism" and "mass accessability"!

J Gill

In-Reply-To: <9v5k0j+c921@eGroups.com>
In article <9v5k0j+c921@eGroups.com>, JGill99@imajis.com (unidala) wrote:

> My understanding is that other than Outlook VB Scripting and "preview
> window" vulnerabilities, executable "pathogens" are not propagated in
> the HTML *message* itself of email programs, but in the launching of
> *attachments*. This would seem to be a fairly easy thing to be
> concious of (deliberately launching attachments). I don't receive
> very much in the way of emails, and am virtually spam-free (from
> deliberate secrecy practices with my email addresses). If I *did*
> receive tons of email every day (as would be the case if I were, like
> you, subscribed to receive all the posted messages of these Yahoo
> groups), it might a bit more confusing, but viewing *messages* per-se
> should (I believe) be safe (please correct me if I am wrong, anyone).

How timely!

<http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/12/11/2125224&mode=nocomment>

> > The other point is that there are still people on this list that
> get
> > the emails sent to them, and send to the list, using text-only
> email
> > programs. The reasons are many (habit, sight-impaired, mail systems
> > at university departments, etc.) and I believe that for
> communication
> > to be effective it must reach the largest audience, which
> frequently
> > means the lowest common denominator (LCD, math folks?).
>
> You make a good point here. Nerd-stuff has a way of not being
> accessible to the many. I've confused, and been confused, before.

That should be highest common factor. I use a text-only e-mail program
because it's the only way I can send e-mail from my "home" address from
work, and read Usenet. One problem that becomes apparent when you do this
is that HTML e-mail is hugely bloated. So if everybody sent it, I'd have
to wait that bit longer to download it all.

The problem with spam is that an HTML message could embed web bugs or
cookies that verify your address with the sender's database. Yahoo also
does this to count their advertising hits -- I know because I used
Netscape Communicator for a while.

So it's a nice idea, but if you really want to publish HTML, the best
place to do it remains a website.

Incidentally, Robert says his archive program has been broken by recent
changes at Yahoo. So does anybody have a complete archive of e-mails in
one place? It should be easier to get a script to run through that than
keep hacking the web interface.

Graham

--- In tuning@y..., graham@m... wrote:

> How timely!
>
> <http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/12/11/2125224&mode=nocomment>
>
> The problem with spam is that an HTML message could embed web bugs
or
> cookies that verify your address with the sender's database. Yahoo
also
> does this to count their advertising hits -- I know because I used
> Netscape Communicator for a while.
>
> So it's a nice idea, but if you really want to publish HTML, the
best
> place to do it remains a website.

JG: Indeed, after my "best laid plans" (and all the experiments), the
stability of HTML formatting alone (emailed to myself its only a
little bit fubarred, but by reaching Yahoo it *really* gets
fubarred), without considering "pathogens", just plain stinks!!!

The "slashdot" domain document is *really* rather chilling.
Little "call home" trojans to advertisers using the browser to
connect can be excised by programs like "AdAware", etc. My ZoneAlarm
Pro software firewall does a great job of stopping any other
executables from "calling-home" without authorization, and also
blocks all the standard ports (A+ grade from the
http://www.grc.com "Shields Up" security test) from sniffing and
hijacking, etc. So, I've been feeling pretty good about it all
(avoiding Outlook, disabling VB scripting in IE, etc.)...

Uuuuughhhhh! The worst indicator (as I'll bet you also know) is the
*depth* of the corner which Microshaft has "painted itself into":

<<Now Microsoft has a problem. Because they chose to ignore the
standard for handling downloaded files, Microsoft has painted
themselves into a corner. If Microsoft suddenly changes how their
browser handles downloaded files, tens of thousands (PERHAPS HUNDREDS
OF THOUSANDS?>>

JG: Oh shit, oh dear!...

<<any webpage which downloads files) of webpages "designed for IE"
will have to be rewritten. No doubt this is the issue their
programmers are wrestling with right now. It's a fundamental design
issue - Microsoft designed their web browser with the goal of doing
what was best for Microsoft (evading anti-trust charges) rather than
doing what was best for their users. In fact a proper "fix" of this
hole probably involves de-integrating their browser and local file
handling to some extent.

If you routinely browse with Internet Explorer or read mail with
Outlook, keep in mind that any web page you visit or any email you
open can take over your computer, steal sensitive files, destroy your
machine, anything. This has been true for at least two and half
years. And keep in mind that you can't fix the problem, you must rely
on Microsoft to do it, if they so choose.>>

JG: "Gag me"..... Think that I'll fire up the respectable (and ever
improving) Opera browser (have you used Opera?). Still, I've been
spoiled by the ease with which IE interfaces with MS Office (damn!)..

Graham, thanks for the info (sometimes the truth hurts)!

Sincerely, J Gill

--- In tuning@y..., graham@m... wrote:
> How timely!
>
> <http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/12/11/2125224&mode=nocomment>

Exactly.

> That should be highest common factor. I use a text-only e-mail
> program because it's the only way I can send e-mail ...

Yep, I knew it.

> One problem that becomes apparent when you do this
> is that HTML e-mail is hugely bloated. So if everybody sent it,
> I'd have to wait that bit longer to download it all.

Can we say "bandwidth", class?

> The problem with spam is that an HTML message could embed web bugs
> or cookies that verify your address with the sender's database.

No kidding. I didn't bring this stuff up just to be contrary, so
thanks, Graham, for also pointing this out.

> So it's a nice idea, but if you really want to publish HTML, the
> best place to do it remains a website.

I'm gonna start tattooing that on people...

> Incidentally, Robert says his archive program has been broken by
> recent changes at Yahoo. So does anybody have a complete archive
> of e-mails in one place?

I get the digest, so I don't know if that's a help. I've trashed a
few of them, but if Robert wants the ones I have he can let me know
and we can find list members that might have the missing digests I
didn't keep.

Cheers,
Jon

Hi Jon,

> > Incidentally, Robert says his archive program has been broken by
> > recent changes at Yahoo. So does anybody have a complete archive
> > of e-mails in one place?
>
> I get the digest, so I don't know if that's a help. I've trashed a
> few of them, but if Robert wants the ones I have he can let me know
> and we can find list members that might have the missing digests I
> didn't keep.

It's okay, I've got the digests. As far as I know it is complete, but if there
are any gaps I will let everyone know. My program can make an archive from them
- main thing is getting the digests out of Outlook Express, which I can
do. (I use the old Win 3.1 recorder to record key strokes and menu commands
actually, works after a fahion, though I'm sure there are more high tech
ways of doing it. There seems to be no export to text command in OE).

My program can't work with the new on-line format because it needs the <PRE>
</PRE> tags.

It could extract the messages from the on-line expanded message list I suppose.
- with some more programming, AND if I could figure out how to program the
cookies.

However best is if Yahoo are interested in cooperating, and I've written
to them about it. Would have done that long ago if it wre easier to
get through to the help desk.

I made the point that they could maybe earn a little from selling
archives on cd for the more academic / research type groups, at
reasonable price, and offered use of my program for that if they
were interested.

I have been very cautious about releasing the program itself as
a robot has considerable potential to be a nuisance to
web administrtors / engineers, and this is of similar ilk.
(It's because of the bandwidth involved in downloading so many
files).

It follows the robot writers guidelines.

Alternatively, if I don't hear from Yahoo, or they aren't interested,
or want to impose impossible conditions on it or something,
maybe I'll just remove the downloading part of the
program and release it as one to make archives from digests??

That part of it is working pretty well now with the Yahoo digests.
Last time I did anything on it, it still wasn't quite right with the
Mills ones for some reason, and I need to do a little more work on that part.

So anywya, depends on whether I hear from Yahoo and what they say.
I can make a CD, at some point, once I have CD writer, and the
new archives are fine. The old Mills ones are a bit glitchy
still, and need a little work some time when I can get round to
it...

Robert

--- In tuning@y..., "Robert Walker" <robertwalker@n...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_31356.html#31435

>
> That part of it is working pretty well now with the Yahoo digests.
> Last time I did anything on it, it still wasn't quite right with the
> Mills ones for some reason, and I need to do a little more work on
that part.
>
> So anywya, depends on whether I hear from Yahoo and what they say.
> I can make a CD, at some point, once I have CD writer, and the
> new archives are fine. The old Mills ones are a bit glitchy
> still, and need a little work some time when I can get round to
> it...
>
> Robert

Hello Robert!

I'm assuming *both* the Mills list and the Onelist\Yahoo list files
can all easily fit on one CD?? I *certainly* would be interested in
one of those CDs... even if parts of it were only searchable by
digest... Gee, I'd easily part with $20 or $30 for such a CD...
possibly more if pressed...

Joseph

This seems relevant to "tuning" (since a *working*, and not "hacked"
computer is an all-around asset in posting/reading group messages)!

--- In tuning@y..., graham@m... wrote:

JG wrote: ...viewing *messages* per-se
should (I believe) be safe (please correct me if I am wrong, anyone).

>GB: How timely!
>
> <http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/12/11/2125224&mode=nocomment>
>
>Graham

J Gill: Here is the link to Microsoft to get the (Dec 13
released) "security" (ha!) patch for IE browser (versions 5.5 SP-2
and version 6.0).

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/downloads/critical/Q313675/default
.asp

I downloaded the (still available) "SP-1", and it is the SAME as IE
5.5 [that is, MS named its IE 5.5 (from 5.0) update as "IE 5.5 SP-1"].
Rather confusing (as usual from MS)...

Now I'm glad that I chose to *not* update IE 5.5 (aka IE 5.5 SP-1),
wanting to hear what troubles might evolve in the later (IE 5.5 SP-2
and IE 6.0) incarnations.

It appears that the new "security patch" should not (or at least need
not) be applied to IE 5.5 SP-1 (check IE's Help - About Internet
Explorer for version information).

Regards, J Gill

This seems relevant to "tuning" (since a *working*, and not "hacked"
computer is an all-around asset in posting/reading group messages)!

--- In tuning@y..., graham@m... wrote:

JG wrote: ...viewing *messages* per-se
should (I believe) be safe (please correct me if I am wrong, anyone).

>GB: How timely!
>
> <http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/12/11/2125224&mode=nocomment>
>
>Graham

J Gill: Here is the link to Microsoft to get the (Dec 13
released) "security" (ha!) patch for IE browser (versions 5.5 SP-2
and version 6.0).

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/downloads/critical/Q313675/default
.asp

I downloaded the (still available) "SP-1", and it is the SAME as IE
5.5 [that is, MS named its IE 5.5 (from 5.0) update as "IE 5.5 SP-1"].
Rather confusing (as usual from MS)...

Now I'm glad that I chose to *not* update IE 5.5 (aka IE 5.5 SP-1),
wanting to hear what troubles might evolve in the later (IE 5.5 SP-2
and IE 6.0) incarnations.

It appears that the new "security patch" should not (or at least need
not) be applied to IE 5.5 SP-1 (check IE's Help - About Internet
Explorer for version information).

Regards, J Gill