441 HTML Tags?

[Ivan Shmakov]

Just got "441 HTML Tags" while trying to post to c.i.www.misc.
(Posted instead as news:***@violet.siamics.net via E-S.)

I wonder if the criteria in use are perhaps too strict? Consider,
for example, the news:alt.html group: the use of HTML tags is
ought to make perfect sense there, no?

TYC.

[kensi]

Post by Ivan Shmakov
Just got "441 HTML Tags" while trying to post to c.i.www.misc.
I wonder if the criteria in use are perhaps too strict? Consider,
for example, the news:alt.html group: the use of HTML tags is
ought to make perfect sense there, no?
TYC.

Yeah, AIOE seems to be going filter-happy again, and worse, they're
*not* documenting all these new filters over at:

https://news.aioe.org/index.php?%20id=access-restrictions

as promised.

Indeed, in the section "Forbidden expressions in the body of articles" I
do not see any fragments of HTML code listed, and the section "Forbidden
crosspost among groups" does not mention that there seems to be a
restriction also in comp.os.os2.*, which I ran into when trying to draw
a certain kOok into alt.checkmate recently. The ko0k in question was
also posting via AIOE, quite recently, and was not affected, indicating
that the filter rule was added in the past week or so. But not added to
the documentation page for filter rules ...

[Sn!pe]

Post by kensi

Post by Ivan Shmakov
Just got "441 HTML Tags" while trying to post to c.i.www.misc.
I wonder if the criteria in use are perhaps too strict? Consider,
for example, the news:alt.html group: the use of HTML tags is
ought to make perfect sense there, no?
TYC.

Yeah, AIOE seems to be going filter-happy again, and worse, they're
https://news.aioe.org/index.php?%20id=access-restrictions
as promised.
Indeed, in the section "Forbidden expressions in the body of articles" I
do not see any fragments of HTML code listed, and the section "Forbidden
crosspost among groups" does not mention that there seems to be a
restriction also in comp.os.os2.*, which I ran into when trying to draw
a certain kOok into alt.checkmate recently. The ko0k in question was
also posting via AIOE, quite recently, and was not affected, indicating
that the filter rule was added in the past week or so. But not added to
the documentation page for filter rules ...

You appear to have mistaken alt.checkmate for alt.usenet.kooks, Paul.

[Aioe]

Post by kensi
Indeed, in the section "Forbidden expressions in the body of articles" I
do not see any fragments of HTML code listed,

Here you are confusing.
Section "Forbidden expressions in the body of articles" lists all
expressions that are forbidden inside the body of each article.
An HTML post does NOT include some forbidden expression in the body but
HTML code and so markers are not shown in that page.

Post by kensi
and the section "Forbidden
crosspost among groups" does not mention that there seems to be a
restriction also in comp.os.os2.*,

there is *NO* access restriction in comp.os.os2.*

when my server rejects a local message, sender should query
https://news.aioe.org/tools/rejected-articles/

[😉 Good Guy 😉]

Post by Ivan Shmakov
Just got "441 HTML Tags" while trying to post to c.i.www.misc.
I wonder if the criteria in use are perhaps too strict? Consider,
for example, the news:alt.html group: the use of HTML tags is
ought to make perfect sense there, no?
TYC.

People should use HTML whenever they can because this is 21st century
and any steps to block HTML is not only futile but silly and waste of
time. If people are allergic to HTML then clearly they should not be on
Internet. Internet has changed since the rules by were made by people
who thought they know better.

[Aioe]

Post by Ivan Shmakov
Just got "441 HTML Tags" while trying to post to c.i.www.misc.

S.)

Post by Ivan Shmakov
I wonder if the criteria in use are perhaps too strict?

The program I use to filter the messages posted by my users before
publishing them was written about twenty years ago when the html tags
inside the usenet posts were a problem because OE was full of bugs and
this made them dangerous. Nowadays, it is probably useless to completely
block the html tags because the programs have fewer bugs.
At the same time, at the moment I have doubts whether it is better to
completely remove any control about the presence of html tags inside the
messages or to limit the control only to certain specific groups (where
html tags are used to commit abuses).
At this time the control is completely disabled to see what happens to
try, probably this part of postfilter will be rewritten completely as
soon as possible.
In any case, thanks for the report that was very welcome.