Laser marking/directing system

Yeah, but if you ignore RFC2549, the receive end won't know what to do, and... then your goose is cooked, as the saying goes.

In communication, it's wisest to adhere to any available convention. Even if it means greek letters like pi and omega show up... or phrases in Latin that are repeated ad nauseum.

On a sunny day (Mon, 20 Dec 2021 00:22:02 -0800 (PST)) it happened whit3rd snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote in snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

Well did you notice most people here put the links as text without '<>'. Not only in this newsgroup but im all groups I read,

Do not force crap limitation standards on others, same as was with html. If people are too dumb to download a link no need to engage with them. Usenet is free format, go by rfc. Get a good newsreader And anybody who can read and cut and paste and use Linux can use wget to get a file:

wget

end of discussion, that downunder insulting guy is beyond help. the other slow one too. My mistake, had the filter off.

Jan Panteltje snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com wrote in news:sppmmc$rch$1 @gioia.aioe.org:

This panjan retard ran off. What a pussy. Hey JanPanTardje, you're a pussified dumbfuck who got caught with your "I follow conventions" pants down. Once caught, instead of LEARNING, you still bark out childish baby bullshit. Good, job, pussified putz! NOT! Just like Trump and his Trumpers. How did you get so f****ng Trumplike stupid way over there, boy?

There /is/ a standard - you put < > brackets around the link. It has been the standard of Usenet and email for a long time (probably since email and the web left the realms of universities and technical users, and became popular with the great unwashed). Every decent client program understands < > around a link to ensure that it works correctly regardless of where the text line breaks go.

Bracketed links are single-click from any decent newsreader on Linux.

This newsgroup is a fine testament to people writing exactly what they want with a total disregard for anyone else. But if you want people to follow your links, then it is best to follow the standards.

On a sunny day (Mon, 20 Dec 2021 14:49:57 +0100) it happened David Brown snipped-for-privacy@hesbynett.no wrote in <spq1m5$u5c$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:

Usenet is specified by rfc977 and friends Point me to a text that sais '<link>' is required Maybe you noticed or maybe not, many people put links here, most do not bother with your concepts and do not use '<>'.

That maybe YOUR reader only wants '<>' means you should get a real one!

Bye

Sorry, but you have /completely/ missed the point.

Brackets around links are not a Usenet-specific feature. They are standard for text-based information exchange, including emails and Usenet. They were introduced long after the original Usenet RFC's.

But it's your choice. You can continue to post links in a somewhat unhelpful manner - you are not alone in that. Or you can post links in a way that is more convenient for everyone else. Consider /why/ you are posting a link - is it for your own benefit, or for other people?

David Brown snipped-for-privacy@hesbynett.no wrote in news:spqcuk$djk$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:

Despite his location, he is TrumpTainted.

If it involves helping another, he is not down for it.

On a sunny day (Mon, 20 Dec 2021 18:02:12 +0100) it happened David Brown snipped-for-privacy@hesbynett.no wrote in <spqcuk$djk$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:

No way standard for emails

It is like html was pushed into usenet long ago It came and went.

probably wasted on people who cannot cut and paste and use a browser or wget. I post for my own fun, it if helps anyone fine, if not fine too, Sometimes I am not on usenet for month, well you know when that flying saucer lands I usually hike, they let me because I fixed it for them long ago. You would not believe what them aliens do with your postings,

Jan Panteltje snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com wrote in news:spqh65$1bcu$1 @gioia.aioe.org:

Bullshit, you f****ng retard.

It is called auto-link recognition.

Now that the client engines actually examine text strings, most see links without them.

That does NOT, however remove the FACT that this standard has been around longer than you have been claiming to be a know it all SED total retard.

Got away from you...

Yes and no. The most common way is <>. A standard is emerging in the field, as always driven by necessity. Or more to the point, annoyance with wrapped urls not working, and often being impractical to sort out.

This kind of experience driven development is precisely how all the RFCs came about, and TCP/IP vanquished ISO-OSI and the seven layers.

Not necessary to remove the brackets. Just click the link within, and the browser or email client or whatever should be able to figure it out, despite line breaks.

I'll grant that there are older browsers and clients that don't do this, or do it correctly, but most current-update versions do.

Which works for short links. Which links grow longer as the email trail grows with nested quoting.

True enough. There are no bracket police to fight off with a sharpened penguin.

Joe Gwinn

Joe Gwinn snipped-for-privacy@comcast.net wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

It is all about being considerate of others. Or as is in this case, deliberately NOT being considerate of others, despite the convention being around for quite some time. He ain't shittin' this kid. He knew about it. He's one of those 'thumbs his nose at conventions' kind of guy. Works for great progress in some instances, typically not, however as the last 5 years have succinctly proven