Stephen Henning wrote:
Wake up. That is not HTML, it is a URL. They are certainly appropriate
in any group.

Yes. Posting a url is appropriate. Using a pageful of HTML to do it is not.

You may have seen an almost ordinary looking message (which is another
reason the HTML was more pointless), but people who don't have HTML
turned-on in their newsreaders (and they shouldn't have to) saw something
like what's below. (I disabled some of the tag in a hope that you can see
it, too.)


(!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"
(HTMLHEAD
(META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1"
(META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2668" name=3DGENERATOR
(STYLE/STYLE
(/HEAD
(BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff
(DIV(FONT face=3DCourier size=3D2Spend some time at this site - lots =
of good info,=20
including a section on proper pruning techniques./FONT/DIV
(DIV(FONT face=3DCourier size=3D2(A=20
href=3D"http://www.hydrangeashydrangeas.com"http://www.hydrangeashydrang=
eas.com/A/FONT/DIV/BODY/HTML

Not only was it HTML, but it was overwrought HTML that resulted in something
that when seen in an HTML-enabled newsreader looked not much different than
plain text. The same actual result could have been done with one-tenth the
mark-up code. But even plain text wouldn't have differed much except that
there would have been line-breaks, which actually would have made it more
readable!

--
Warren H.

==========
Disclaimer: My views reflect those of myself, and not my
employer, my friends, nor (as she often tells me) my wife.
Any resemblance to the views of anybody living or dead is
coincidental. No animals were hurt in the writing of this
response -- unless you count my dog who desperately wants
to go outside now.
Have an outdoor project? Get a Black & Decker power tool::
http://www.holzemville.com/mall/blackanddecker/