From list-managers-owner Wed Jan 1 10:44:04 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id KAA29691 for list-managers-outgoing; Wed, 1 Jan 1997 10:30:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from deepthought.armory.com (deepthought.armory.com [192.122.209.42]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id KAA29675 for ; Wed, 1 Jan 1997 10:30:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from clovis by deepthought.armory.com id aa13235; 1 Jan 97 10:30 PST Received: by clovis.nerdnosh.org (1.65/waf) via UUCP; Wed, 01 Jan 97 10:26:57 PST for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: List politics? From: Tim Bowden Message-ID: Date: Wed, 01 Jan 97 10:09:25 PST In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19961231234704.008b8964@znyx.com> Organization: NERDNOSH - the story conference as cyber-community! Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Alan Deikman ; Wed, 1 Jan 1997 14:47:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from ra.cyberca.com (ra.cyberca.com [192.234.55.25]) by cyberca.com (8.6.8.1/SCA-6.6) with SMTP id WAA16495 for ; Wed, 1 Jan 1997 22:47:10 GMT Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970101224314.0071467c@isis.cyberca.com> X-Sender: jennings@isis.cyberca.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 01 Jan 1997 17:43:14 -0500 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.com From: Penn Jennings Subject: Re: List politics? Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I have been reading several response to "List Politics?" and it appears that I'm in the minority. I guess that I could be wrong in thinking that list users that harass other list member and possibly disrupt the a list should have their actions corrected. However, before I decide that I'm wrong I would like to ask a question. There is almost no real community that a person can harass other people with some authoritative entity taking action. You cannot harass people at work and keep your job. You cannot harass you neighbors without suffering civil and/or criminal penalties. How long could you alienate people at a bar or night club before being tossed out. So my question is: Why is ok to harass people in mailing lists? I am forced to conclude that one of statements below must be true. 1. The net some how absolves people of personal responsibility. 2. The net removes normal expectations of protection and decency from online communities? 3. List managers should not police their list members or don't want to police their members. As I stated above, since I'm in the minority I must consider my position carefully. I'm not saying that the other opinions are at all wrong. I'm just stating a postion. __________________________________________________________________ Copyright 1996 (c) Penn Jennings Penn Jennings jennings@cyberca.com http://www.cyberca.com/~jennings/ The road to evil is paved with good intentions. From list-managers-owner Wed Jan 1 15:13:54 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id PAA20016 for list-managers-outgoing; Wed, 1 Jan 1997 15:11:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx1.eskimo.com (mx1.eskimo.com [204.122.16.48]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id PAA19990 for ; Wed, 1 Jan 1997 15:11:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from eskimo.com (berg@eskimo.com [204.122.16.13]) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA11973; Wed, 1 Jan 1997 15:10:24 -0800 From: Berg Received: by eskimo.com (8.7.6) id PAA00914; Wed, 1 Jan 1997 15:10:22 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 1 Jan 1997 15:10:22 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199701012310.PAA00914@eskimo.com> To: jennings@cyberca.com Subject: Re: List politics? Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Gotta agree with ya. If someone starts harassing other members of the lists I run, I warn them once, and if they keep it up, I bounce them, and then ban them from resubscribing for a month. If they keep at it after the moneth, I warn them one more time (not nearly as politely this time), and if they persist, they are not going to be allowed back on, ever. I make it clear from the start that abusive behavior is not welcome on my lists, and that regardless of what the listmembers say, the buck stops here, with me. I once got a little "delegation" of sorts from the members, and the end result was, after some investigation, warning some of the people who asked me to intervene, not the guy who they were trying to get rid of. From list-managers-owner Wed Jan 1 17:28:53 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id RAA27828 for list-managers-outgoing; Wed, 1 Jan 1997 17:21:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from netcomsv.netcom.com (uucp8.netcom.com [163.179.3.8]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id RAA27821 for ; Wed, 1 Jan 1997 17:20:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from duke.sagarmatha.com by netcomsv.netcom.com with UUCP (8.6.12/SMI-4.1) id RAA28306; Wed, 1 Jan 1997 17:09:58 -0800 Received: by duke (Smail3.1.28.1 #64) id m0vfbYQ-000gdJC; Wed, 1 Jan 97 17:02 PST Message-Id: From: james@sagarmatha.com (James C. Armstrong) Subject: Re: List politics? To: jennings@cyberca.com (Penn Jennings) Date: Wed, 1 Jan 1997 17:02:42 -0800 (PST) Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.com In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19970101224314.0071467c@isis.cyberca.com> from "Penn Jennings" at Jan 1, 97 05:43:14 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk According to unnamed sources, Penn Jennings is alleged to have written => I have been reading several response to "List Politics?" and it appears that => I'm in the minority. I guess that I could be wrong in thinking that list => users that harass other list member and possibly disrupt the a list should => have their actions corrected. However, before I decide that I'm wrong I => would like to ask a question. => => There is almost no real community that a person can harass other people with => some authoritative entity taking action. You cannot harass people at work => and keep your job. You cannot harass you neighbors without suffering civil => and/or criminal penalties. How long could you alienate people at a bar or => night club before being tossed out. So my question is: Why is ok to harass => people in mailing lists? I am forced to conclude that one of statements => below must be true. => => 1. The net some how absolves people of personal responsibility. => 2. The net removes normal expectations of protection and decency => from online communities? => 3. List managers should not police their list members or don't want to => police their members. => => => As I stated above, since I'm in the minority I must consider my position => carefully. I'm not saying that the other opinions are at all wrong. I'm => just stating a postion. If I remember correctly, the original complaint was not about abusive behavior in the list, but between list subscribers in private email. This is a very different situation. If someone is on one of my mailing lists, harrassing other users, they would get the axe. The amount of warning they get depends on the nature of the harrassment and my mood when I find out. Usually, it's pretty quick. When people are harrassing each other in email, then it isn't my responsibility as a list manager to discipline the users in question. I may be willing to mediate, but odds are I won't have the time. In this case, it is the business of the respective site administrators to discipline their users. The original situation, if I have remembered it correctly, falls under the latter category. -- James C. Armstrong, Jr. | It's time to taste what you most fear james@sagarmatha.com (home) | Right Guard will not help you here. | Brace yourself, my dear! | It's a holiday in Cambodia! From list-managers-owner Wed Jan 1 19:58:53 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id TAA02252 for list-managers-outgoing; Wed, 1 Jan 1997 19:44:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from antares.mcs.anl.gov (mcs.anl.gov [140.221.9.6]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id TAA02243 for ; Wed, 1 Jan 1997 19:44:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from mcs.anl.gov (obie.mcs.anl.gov [140.221.5.129]) by antares.mcs.anl.gov (8.6.10/8.6.10) with ESMTP id VAA29452; Wed, 1 Jan 1997 21:43:31 -0600 Message-Id: <199701020343.VAA29452@antares.mcs.anl.gov> To: Penn Jennings cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM, rackow@antares.mcs.anl.gov Subject: Re: List politics? In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 01 Jan 1997 17:43:14 EST." <1.5.4.32.19970101224314.0071467c@isis.cyberca.com> Date: Wed, 01 Jan 1997 21:43:30 -0600 From: Gene Rackow Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Penn Jennings made the following keystrokes: > > 1. The net some how absolves people of personal responsibility. No, it doesn't, but people do tend to flame in mail where they would otherwise get a punch in the nose or bounced from the bar, etc. Loss of personal contact means more that you'd think. > 2. The net removes normal expectations of protection and decency > from online communities? No, I expect people to act in a civil and responsible manner. I have a list of those that I do not think fit that banner and ignore them as much as possible. So far I haven't been presented a real "problem" with someone on a list. Most just go away on their own or they grow up. > 3. List managers should not police their list members or don't want to > police their members. This is the difficult one, and the one that could put you at risk. That said, I still think you could be right on most of your issues. I don't want to police my mailing lists, nor do I think I should need to. Tell the people to act like professionals and not like 2yr olds in the sandbox. If a couple kids start fighting, either everyone becomes unhappy or the trouble makers (both parties) get removed from the play area. :-( Why both parties? Well, because neither was able to act in a reasonable enough manner to stop the problem on their own. I don't really think that you are in the minority, but there tend to be lots of facts that get dropped when dealing with these situations. I've been down this road a number of times, and it tends to be that the ones complaining are also the ones at the root cause of the problem. Remember that email and usenet don't carry the facial expressions and facial tones as does personal contact. It's really easy to miss judge something and even easier to overlook the obvious. The procedure that I now take in mailing lists and user that I run systems for is: 1st, don't get pulled into the middle of it. 2nd, be really careful how you word things to both sides involved with the conflict. 3rd, do not assume guilt on either side. 4th, ask for copies of ALL the messages in regards to this matter from both sides. These messages should be the full message with all headers in tact. You can't make a decission with only part of the evidence. Dates are important as well as all the content. (This is where most complainers will fall short. They only keep the critical parts of messages to prove their point, and have deleted the slime they have thrown, in some cases first.) 5th, review the issues involved, and then if you think that someone is doing wrong, get someone else to review the facts for you and see if they agree. Now if action is warrented, cover your tush. Contact the admins of the machine/system that the mailing list is being run from and state the actions you are taking and give the evidence as to why. Make sure they are aware of what you are doing up front so that they can be prepared for any backlash that occurs. If it's a company machine make sure your boss knows what is going on as well and agrees. Then take the needed actions. If no action is needed, then reply to both parties involved that you can see how this "could be" a problem, but it is not something that warrents action by you as list maintainer. If they continue to have problems with each other, then they can take their evidence to a legal type and see what they want to do from there. (again I doubt if this will happen) Their other choice is to leave the mailing list and start their own where they can do what they want and not worry about the fight. The other problem that comes in to play is various "rights" that people think they have. If you leave the position of list maintainer and go into list moderation, which you would be doing if you cut someone from the list for their viewpoint or comments to others on the list, then you become a target of law suites as well. Since you stopped joe from posting, you should also stop sam, and since you didn't I'm going to sue for harrassment and stress, etc. Your the target now as well as the parties involved. I can't rememeber with of the big (aol, compuserve, etc) companies lost on this as they were doing content checks and failed to stop a flame war. The judge said that since they were acting as moderators, they couldn't do half a job so they lost big bucks plus all the legal fees. DON'T put yourself in such a position. --gene From list-managers-owner Wed Jan 1 20:44:01 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id UAA04411 for list-managers-outgoing; Wed, 1 Jan 1997 20:42:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from cyberca.com (isis.cyberca.com [206.42.216.51]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id UAA04404 for ; Wed, 1 Jan 1997 20:42:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from ra.cyberca.com (ra.cyberca.com [192.234.55.25]) by cyberca.com (8.6.8.1/SCA-6.6) with SMTP id EAA17914; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 04:42:21 GMT Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970102043822.0073bc28@isis.cyberca.com> X-Sender: jennings@isis.cyberca.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 01 Jan 1997 23:38:22 -0500 To: Gene Rackow From: Penn Jennings Subject: Re: List politics? Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.com Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 09:43 PM 1/1/97 -0600, you wrote: >The other problem that comes in to play is various "rights" that people think they >have. If you leave the position of list maintainer and go into list moderation, >which you would be doing if you cut someone from the list for their viewpoint or >comments to others on the list, then you become a target of law suites as well. I doubt that any court would conclude that any has a RIGHT to be on a list. Courts HAVE concluded that list managers have responsiblies to curtail list members behavior. >Since you stopped joe from posting, you should also stop sam, and since you didn't >I'm going to sue for harrassment and stress, etc. Your the target now as well >as the parties involved. I can't rememeber with of the big (aol, compuserve, etc) >companies lost on this as they were doing content checks and failed to stop a >flame war. The judge said that since they were acting as moderators, they couldn't >do half a job so they lost big bucks plus all the legal fees. DON'T put yourself >in such a position. I belive that it was Prodigy and I'm not talking about moderating. I am talking about protecting list members from Unusal attacks or abuse. I belive that a Texas court DID take some form of action against a person for "email harassment". In a civil suit I would belive that juries and judges would frown on a list manager more for not doing any thing in the face of numerous complaints from multiple people than they would for you booting someone off your list or doing nothing. My point is: As the man in charge you should try to stay out of things. However, you do have a responsiblity to sometimes step in and make the hard choices. Remeber, a list is NOT a right and it is NOT a Democrocy. It is a free service subject to the will of the party running it. __________________________________________________________________ Copyright 1996 (c) Penn Jennings Penn Jennings jennings@cyberca.com http://www.cyberca.com/~jennings/ The road to evil is paved with good intentions. From list-managers-owner Wed Jan 1 21:28:55 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id VAA06320 for list-managers-outgoing; Wed, 1 Jan 1997 21:19:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from chinet.chinet.com.chinet.com (chinet.chinet.com [206.158.147.18]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id VAA06302 for ; Wed, 1 Jan 1997 21:19:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost by chinet.chinet.com.chinet.com (8.6.10/SMI-4.1) id FAA05544; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 05:18:24 GMT Date: Wed, 1 Jan 1997 23:18:23 -0600 (CST) From: "Adam H. Kerman" To: list-managers Subject: Re: List politics? In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19970102043822.0073bc28@isis.cyberca.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >From: Penn Jennings >Date: Wed, 01 Jan 1997 23:38:22 -0500 >At 09:43 PM 1/1/97 -0600, Gene Rackow wrote: >>The other problem that comes in to play is various "rights" that people think >>they have. If you leave the position of list maintainer and go into list >>moderation, which you would be doing if you cut someone from the list for >>their viewpoint or comments to others on the list, then you become a target >>of law suites as well. >I doubt that any court would conclude that any has a RIGHT to be on a list. >Courts HAVE concluded that list managers have responsiblies to curtail list >members behavior. >My point is: As the man in charge you should try to stay out of things. >However, you do have a responsiblity to sometimes step in and make the hard >choices. The list manager has no responsibilities whatsoever for stopping the exchange of rude e-mail messages between 2 list members. He should not get in the middle, nor assume that he is capable of changing anyone's behavior. He certainly should not take it upon himself to examine the contents of the messages to decide whether or not there is harassment. If he really feels sympathetic, he could mention that procmail, elm's filter, and other such programs exist to deal with unwanted mail. From list-managers-owner Wed Jan 1 22:14:16 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id WAA08133 for list-managers-outgoing; Wed, 1 Jan 1997 22:05:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from kitsune.swcp.com (kitsune.swcp.com [198.59.115.2]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id WAA08126 for ; Wed, 1 Jan 1997 22:05:48 -0800 (PST) Received: (from lazlo@localhost) by kitsune.swcp.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) id XAA10715 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Wed, 1 Jan 1997 23:05:21 -0700 Message-Id: <199701020605.XAA10715@kitsune.swcp.com> Subject: Re: List politics? To: list-managers@greatcircle.com (lm) Date: Wed, 1 Jan 1997 23:05:21 -0700 (MST) From: "Lazlo Nibble" X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25 PGP3 *ALPHA*] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I don't get involved in private-email spats unless they drift onto the list, but if one of my list members was ripping off other members -- as is alleged in the case that started this thread -- you bet your ass I would get involved, and I don't think any list admin should feel shy about doing so, either. -- ::: Lazlo (lazlo@swcp.com; http://www.swcp.com/lazlo) From list-managers-owner Wed Jan 1 23:28:53 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id XAA10771 for list-managers-outgoing; Wed, 1 Jan 1997 23:19:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from cyberca.com (isis.cyberca.com [206.42.216.51]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id XAA10742 for ; Wed, 1 Jan 1997 23:19:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from ra.cyberca.com (ra.cyberca.com [192.234.55.25]) by cyberca.com (8.6.8.1/SCA-6.6) with SMTP id HAA18588 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 07:19:15 GMT Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970102071516.0071d070@isis.cyberca.com> X-Sender: jennings@isis.cyberca.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 02 Jan 1997 02:15:16 -0500 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com From: Penn Jennings Subject: Re: List politics? - The End Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 11:18 PM 1/1/97 -0600, you wrote: >The list manager has no responsibilities whatsoever for stopping the exchange >of rude e-mail messages between 2 list members. He should not get in the >middle, nor assume that he is capable of changing anyone's behavior. He >certainly should not take it upon himself to examine the contents of the >messages to decide whether or not there is harassment. > Lets look at a worst case: Lets assume that you run a free list for who cares what. In Jan and Feb many users complain that a list member threatens to kill them and they inform you and you do nothing and leave the person on your list. In Mar a new user joins your list and is threaten by the same user. In Apr the user does get killed by this person. The victims family sues you for negligence because you took no action. They claim that if you had just kicked the person off of the list in Jan or Feb this murder would have never occurred. They believe that a person could reasonably expect that the list manager would remove dangerous members or warn new members that a danger may exist. NEGLIGENCE involves carelessness that injures another person. There are 4 parts to Negligence: 1. Duty. 2. Breaking a standard of care. 3. Proximate Cause 4. Damages. 1. As a list manager you DO HAVE duties and responsibilities. Just ask Prodigy. I think that the judge stated that their duty began once they were aware of the problem or should have been aware. Duties almost always exist where danagers exist. In this case you do have a duty to do something. 2. The standard of care is based on what the ordinary, reasonable and prudent person would do. Such a person WOULD take some action against a user in the light of multiple complaints from multiple people about the same person. 3. Clearly, if you had kicked the vile user off when the problems first occurred the murder would not have occurred. If you had informed the new user was threating the kill poeple he/she may not have joined the list. 4. The dead person was obviously damaged. I would assume that Prodigy had as good attorney as you could get and a court stated that list manager ARE responsible for some actions. Why are you not? I'm not an attorney but I will share this with you. My day job is with a 30 Billion dollar corporation at which I am one of the Webmaster. The legal department demanded that we NOT receive email to the Webmaster account. Their reason was basically this "Once you are notified of certain types of events you have a legal and moral obligation to take action." They did not want a Webmaster responsible for a 30 billion corporation loosing a multimillion dollar law suit. The odds of you successfully defending yourself against the law suit above is slim I think. The question is not DO you have responsibilities. The question is HOW MUCH responsibly do you have. Although this has gone into legal areas my original Idea was this: If I, as a list manager, have spent months or years building an online community I am not going to allow 1 nutty member to destroy it? OK. I'm done with this topic. __________________________________________________________________ Copyright 1996 (c) Penn Jennings Penn Jennings jennings@cyberca.com http://www.cyberca.com/~jennings/ The road to evil is paved with good intentions. From list-managers-owner Wed Jan 1 23:43:55 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id XAA11126 for list-managers-outgoing; Wed, 1 Jan 1997 23:31:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from chinet.chinet.com.chinet.com (chinet.chinet.com [206.158.147.18]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id XAA11110 for ; Wed, 1 Jan 1997 23:31:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost by chinet.chinet.com.chinet.com (8.6.10/SMI-4.1) id HAA09395; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 07:29:44 GMT X-Received: from cyberca.com () by chinet.chinet.com ; 2 JAN 97 00:37:17 CDT X-Received: from ra.cyberca.com (ra.cyberca.com [192.234.55.25]) by cyberca.com (8.6.8.1/SCA-6.6) with SMTP id GAA18430; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 06:38:17 GMT Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970102063421.00729c5c@isis.cyberca.com> X-Sender: jennings@isis.cyberca.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 02 Jan 1997 01:34:21 -0500 To: "Adam H. Kerman" From: Penn Jennings Subject: Re: List politics? Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 11:18 PM 1/1/97 -0600, you wrote: >The list manager has no responsibilities whatsoever for stopping the exchange >of rude e-mail messages between 2 list members. He should not get in the >middle, nor assume that he is capable of changing anyone's behavior. He >certainly should not take it upon himself to examine the contents of the >messages to decide whether or not there is harassment. > Lets look at a worst case: Lets assume that you run a free list for who cares what. In Jan and Feb many users complain that a list member threatens to kill them and they inform you and you do nothing and leave the person on your list. In Mar a new user joins your list and is threaten by the same user. In Apr the user does get killed by this person. The victims family sues you for negligence because you took no action. They claim that if you had just kicked the person off of the list in Jan or Feb this murder would have never occurred. They believe that a person could reasonably expect that the list manager would remove dangerous members or warn new members that a danger may exist. NEGLIGENCE involves carelessness that injures another person. There are 4 parts to Negligence: 1. Duty. 2. Breaking a standard of care. 3. Proximate Cause 4. Damages. 1. As a list manager you DO HAVE duties and responsibilities. Just ask Prodigy. Duties almost always exist where danagers exist. 2. The standard of care is based on what the ordinary, reasonable and prudent person would do. Such a person WOULD take some action against a user in the light of multiple complaints from multiple people about the same person. 3. Clearly, if you had kicked the vile user off when the problems first occurred the murder would not have occurred. If you had informed the new user was threating the kill poeple he/she may not have joined the list. 4. The dead person was obviously damaged. I would assume that Prodigy had as good attorney as you could get and a court stated that list manager ARE responsible for some actions. Why are you not? I'm not an attorney but I will share this with you. My day job is with a 30 Billion dollar corporation at which I am one of the Webmaster. The legal department demanded that we NOT receive email to the Webmaster account. Their reason was basically this "Once you are notified of certain types of events you have a legal and moral obligation to take action." They did not want a Webmaster responsible for a 30 billion corporation loosing a multimillion dollar law suit. The odds of you successfully defending yourself against the law suit above is slim I think. The question is not DO you have responsibilities. The question is HOW MUCH responsibly do you have. OK. I'm done with this topic. __________________________________________________________________ Copyright 1996 (c) Penn Jennings Penn Jennings jennings@cyberca.com http://www.cyberca.com/~jennings/ The road to evil is paved with good intentions. From list-managers-owner Wed Jan 1 23:46:50 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id XAA11456 for list-managers-outgoing; Wed, 1 Jan 1997 23:38:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from chinet.chinet.com.chinet.com (chinet.chinet.com [206.158.147.18]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id XAA11449 for ; Wed, 1 Jan 1997 23:38:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost by chinet.chinet.com.chinet.com (8.6.10/SMI-4.1) id HAA09523; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 07:37:24 GMT Date: Thu, 2 Jan 1997 01:37:23 -0600 (CST) From: "Adam H. Kerman" To: list-managers Subject: Re: List politics? In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19970102063421.00729c5c@isis.cyberca.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >From: Penn Jennings >Date: Thu, 02 Jan 1997 01:34:21 -0500 >At 11:18 PM 1/1/97 -0600, Adam H. Kerman wrote: >>The list manager has no responsibilities whatsoever for stopping the exchange >>of rude e-mail messages between 2 list members. He should not get in the >>middle, nor assume that he is capable of changing anyone's behavior. He >>certainly should not take it upon himself to examine the contents of the >>messages to decide whether or not there is harassment. [your hypothetical example of a series of threats and a murder] >NEGLIGENCE involves carelessness that injures another person. There are 4 >parts to Negligence: > 1. Duty. > 2. Breaking a standard of care. > 3. Proximate Cause > 4. Damages. >1. As a list manager you DO HAVE duties and responsibilities. Sure, the duties of a responsible list manager. But, you are not a policeman nor a psychiatrist and you do not provide private security to your members. You are in no position to judge the seriousness of the threat. I suggest that you expose yourself to even greater liability if you hold yourself out to be a predictor of human behavior, or claim to be able to control the actions of your list members. You have no responsibilities in this matter. All you can do is to advise the recipient of the threats to make a police complaint or seek a restraining order. If the police or some other expert asks you to remove the threat maker, do it. But, don't just do it on your own; it could provoke him. >2. The standard of care is based on what the ordinary, reasonable and prudent >person would do. Such a person WOULD take some action against a user in the >light of multiple complaints from multiple people about the same person. A prudent person does not claim to be an expert in human behavior. In a situation this serious, a responsible person would seek expert advice. >3. Clearly, if you had kicked the vile user off when the problems first >occurred the murder would not have occurred. This is not logical. This person was not under your control. >If you had informed the new user was threating the kill poeple he/she may not >have joined the list. Not only that, a potential list member might conclude that the list manager himself was dangerous, as he runs a list that attracts psychopaths. >4. The dead person was obviously damaged. But, not by the list manager. >I would assume that Prodigy had as good attorney as you could get and a court >stated that list manager ARE responsible for some actions. Why are you not? It wasn't done on the list! You cannot claim to provide security to your list members, nor that you are an expert in violent behavior. If you know of criminal acts, you are obligated to report it. But, you didn't receive the threat, the list member did. The obligation is on that person to make the complaint. Use of e-mail to make threats is a criminal offense. Now, if the list member refused to cooperate with the police, what exactly could you do? You didn't receive the message; you have no evidence of a crime. >I'm not an attorney but I will share this with you. My day job is with a 30 >Billion dollar corporation at which I am one of the Webmaster. The legal >department demanded that we NOT receive email to the Webmaster account. Their >reason was basically this "Once you are notified of certain types of events >you have a legal and moral obligation to take action." They did not want a >Webmaster responsible for a 30 billion corporation loosing a multimillion >dollar law suit. Gee, you didn't know that you were the gatekeeper when you agreed to maintain the Web pages? How did your corporate attorney decide that you would be completely irresponsible with your e-mail messages? I trust that a responsible employee of your company who received an allegation of a product defect would notify someone responsible at your company. Do your attorneys require that all incoming mail is shredded in case of allegations? Your attorney is merely covering his own ass by giving you a worst-case scenario. It's not necessarily good advice, which is what you are paying him for. Don't read into it any more than that. From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 2 00:29:02 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id AAA13129 for list-managers-outgoing; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 00:26:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from server.postmodern.com (server.postmodern.com [207.33.130.54]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id AAA13106 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 00:26:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from 207.33.130.51 (derrida.postmodern.com [207.33.130.51]) by server.postmodern.com (8.7.5/mcb-960422) with SMTP id AAA08195; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 00:17:25 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <32CB711E.5D35@postmodern.com> Date: Thu, 02 Jan 1997 00:26:09 -0800 From: "Michael C. Berch" Reply-To: mcb@postmodern.com Organization: Postmodern Consulting, California USA X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Macintosh; I; 68K) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: list-managers CC: Penn Jennings Subject: Re: List politics? References: <1.5.4.32.19970102063421.00729c5c@isis.cyberca.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I think this may be well on its way to being beaten into the ground, but I feel it's necessary to point out that there's some very suspect legal reasoning here, presumably generated by speculating from a few oversimplified principles. Penn Jennings wrote: > Lets look at a worst case: > [facts omitted] > > NEGLIGENCE involves carelessness that injures another person. There are 4 > parts to Negligence: > 1. Duty. > 2. Breaking a standard of care. > 3. Proximate Cause > 4. Damages. > > 1. As a list manager you DO HAVE duties and responsibilities. Just ask > Prodigy. Duties almost always exist where danagers exist. Vastly oversimplified; you have simply assumed into existence a duty which is unlikely to actually exist. Yes, a list manager has duties and responsbilities (especially to the owner of the site, for example), but I don't know of any theory of law that requires you to act as a guarantor of the safety of list members against harm from third parties, except under some very narrow and well-defined conditions. "Duty", in the law of negligence, is a very specific and technical term. One rarely owes a special duty of care to someone whom one has not directly placed at risk, or to whom one does not have a special relationship (i.e., a fiduciary). For example, in American jurisprudence, if you pass someone in the street who is bleeding to death, you cannot be held liable if you simply ignore them and walk on, so long as it wasn't you who put them at risk in the first place, or unless you owed them a special duty because of a relationship (your child, your employee, someone you had agreed to supervise, etc.) That may sound cold-hearted, but that's tort law. In the exact words of my Torts professor lo these many years ago, "Never assume the existence of a duty." > 2. The standard of care is based on what the ordinary, reasonable and > prudent person would do. Such a person WOULD take some action against a > user in the light of multiple complaints from multiple people about the same > person. It's unlikely that not doing so is a violation of the standard of care (even assuming there was a duty of care in the first place). Murders arising out of e-mail threats are sufficiently uncommon that it is arguably not unreasonable simply to ignore the threat. Or to analyze it and come to the conclusion that kicking the person off the list would make it *more* likely that harm would come to an innocent party. > 3. Clearly, if you had kicked the vile user off when the problems first > occurred the murder would not have occurred. Whoooah there, pardner! That's the greatest leap of faith yet! Proximate cause (legal cause) is just as tricky as the duty of care, and you can't just assume that since Y followed X, Y was caused by X. That would be a *very* tough proof problem. > 4. The dead person was obviously damaged. OK, 1 out of 4. :-) > I'm not an attorney but I will share this with you. My day job is with a 30 > Billion dollar corporation at which I am one of the Webmaster. The legal > department demanded that we NOT receive email to the Webmaster account. > Their reason was basically this "Once you are notified of certain types of > events you have a legal and moral obligation to take action." Sigh. More lawyers who do not understand the Internet. In a good company, they are overruled by managers who understand the risks involved but realize that business considerations often outweigh legally-valid but implausible worst-case scenarios. -- Michael C. Berch Member of the California Bar (and yeah, I did get an "A" in Torts) mcb@postmodern.com / mcb@greatcircle.com From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 2 00:58:56 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id AAA14642 for list-managers-outgoing; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 00:46:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id AAA14633 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 00:46:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from [207.167.80.70] (zamboni.plaidworks.com [207.167.80.70]) by plaidworks.com (8.6.9/A/UX 3.1) with ESMTP id AAA14478; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 00:46:29 -0800 X-Sender: chuq@solutions.apple.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <32CB711E.5D35@postmodern.com> References: <1.5.4.32.19970102063421.00729c5c@isis.cyberca.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 2 Jan 1997 00:44:14 -0800 To: mcb@postmodern.com, list-managers From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: List politics? Cc: Penn Jennings Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 12:26 AM -0800 1/2/97, Michael C. Berch wrote: >>The legal >> department demanded that we NOT receive email to the Webmaster account. >> Their reason was basically this "Once you are notified of certain types of >> events you have a legal and moral obligation to take action." > >Sigh. More lawyers who do not understand the Internet. In a good >company, they are overruled by managers who understand the risks >involved but realize that business considerations often outweigh >legally-valid but implausible worst-case scenarios. Good, god. What do those lawyers do with paper mail that's sent to the company? Lazlo Toth would be proud of them. You know, people make fun of Apple's laywers, but they know better than this... I'll have to pass it along to them, so they can get a good giggle... -- Chuq Von Rospach (chuq@solutions.apple.com) Software Gnome Apple Server Marketing Webmaster Plaidworks Consulting (chuqui@plaidworks.com) ( +-+ The home for Hockey on the net) I got no name or number/ I just hand out the lumber. But if I get a chance to play/ I'm going to show 'em. -- Stick Boy (The Hanson Brothers, SUDDEN DEATH) From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 2 06:44:19 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id GAA28162 for list-managers-outgoing; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 06:34:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from gateway.segue.com (gateway.segue.com [192.12.233.12]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id GAA28155 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 06:33:56 -0800 (PST) Received: (from news@localhost) by gateway.segue.com (8.7.1/8.7.1) id JAA25147 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 09:33:29 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: gateway.segue.com: news set sender to using -f Received: from segue1.segue.com(192.12.23.1) by gateway.segue.com via smap (V1.3) id sma025141; Thu Jan 2 09:33:18 1997 Received: from [192.12.23.174] (natick.segue.com [192.12.23.174]) by segue1.segue.com (8.7.1/8.7.1) with SMTP id JAA09999 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 09:33:17 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199701021433.JAA09999@segue1.segue.com> To: "list-managers@GreatCircle.COM" Subject: Re: List politics? Date: Thu, 02 Jan 97 09:29:26 -0500 From: Rich Lenihan X-Mailer: E-Mail Connection v2.5.03 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk There's one practical consideration that has been left unexplored in this thread. That is, if the dispute between the various list-members has gone "off-list," how does removing any of the parties from the list help anyone? I suggest that you point the complaining member to the offending member's postmaster and have them (the complainant) pursue the matter with that responsible authority. Having said that, I think that there are (at least) several good reasons for removing someone from a mailing list. Harassment is one of them. -Rich -- Rich Lenihan System/Network Administrator rich@segue.com 617.796.1247 (voice) 617.796.1610 (fax) Segue Software, Inc. 1320 Centre Street Newton Centre, MA 02159 USA From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 2 07:29:23 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id HAA01420 for list-managers-outgoing; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 07:19:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from gauntlet-1.trusted.com (gauntlet-1.trusted.com [204.254.155.2]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id HAA01374 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 07:19:02 -0800 (PST) Received: by gauntlet-1.trusted.com; id KAA00460; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 10:24:04 -0500 Received: from dira.rv.tis.com(10.0.1.43) by gauntlet-1.trusted.com via smap (V3.1.1) id xma000458; Thu, 2 Jan 97 10:23:45 -0500 Received: (from mark@localhost) by dira.rv.tis.com (8.7.4/8.7.3) id KAA10718 for List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 10:12:24 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 2 Jan 1997 10:12:24 -0500 (EST) From: Mark Sienkiewicz Message-Id: <199701021512.KAA10718@dira.rv.tis.com> To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: List manager duties Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >1. As a list manager you DO HAVE duties and responsibilities. Just ask >Prodigy. I think that the judge stated that their duty began once they were >aware of the problem or should have been aware. Duties almost always exist >where danagers exist. In this case you do have a duty to do something. Prodigy imposed the duty on themselves. The court found that they were responsible for the material on their system because of the amount of filtering/moderating that they did. In the case you are probably referring to, they failed to follow through sufficiently. I never promised to protect my list members from being murdered by other list members. And, unlike Prodigy, I have no contract with them. It might be more interesting to ask what *are* the duties of a list manager. Here's what I can think of in a few minutes: 1. Prevent your list from interfering with other organizations network services. e.g. You have a duty to correct a configuration error that floods a non-subscriber with mail. This is a standard duty that everyone has -- you do not cause damages to your fellow citizens. 2. If people are paying to be on your list, you have a duty to keep it operating and a duty to do anything else you stated in your contract. If there is no contract with your subscribers, I don't think you even have a duty to make sure the list works, though under #1 above, you have a duty to process unsubscribe requests if your list is actually sending out messages. Can you think of any other duties? Where might they come from? From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 2 07:59:02 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id HAA03492 for list-managers-outgoing; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 07:47:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from webdreams.com (www.webdreams.com [192.80.84.132]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id HAA03475 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 07:47:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost by webdreams.com (5.65v3.2/1.1.10.5/29Aug96-0251AM) id AA02107; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 10:46:40 -0500 Date: Thu, 2 Jan 1997 10:46:40 -0500 (EST) From: Brock Rozen To: Mark Sienkiewicz Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: List manager duties In-Reply-To: <199701021512.KAA10718@dira.rv.tis.com> Message-Id: X-Url: http://www.webdreams.com/~brozen Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Thu, 2 Jan 1997, Mark Sienkiewicz wrote: > 1. Prevent your list from interfering with other organizations > network services. e.g. You have a duty to correct a configuration > error that floods a non-subscriber with mail. This is a standard > duty that everyone has -- you do not cause damages to your fellow > citizens. > > 2. If people are paying to be on your list, you have a duty to > keep it operating and a duty to do anything else you stated > in your contract. > > If there is no contract with your subscribers, I don't think > you even have a duty to make sure the list works, though under > #1 above, you have a duty to process unsubscribe requests if > your list is actually sending out messages. Agreed, on all points. But I'd like to further restrict things on the unsubscriptions. You have a duty to allow somebody to unsubscribe themselves from the list, if they originally requested the subscription. If you placed them on the list, then you should handle the unsubscription, if they cannot figure out how to use the list software. I have tens of lists, the biggest one having over ten thousand people on it. I can't handle all of the un/subscription myself, and I get paid for this! We never subscribe people to the list ourselves, and thus feel no responsibility to perform the unsubscriptions manually. Actually, whenever somebody asks me to do it, I send them a message telling htem how to do it themselves. Of course, if somebody tries and can't do it, then I'll help them. Otherwise, it's not a responsibility, just a nicety. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Brock Rozen | brozen@webdreams.com | http://www.webdreams.com/~brozen | ------------------------------------------------------------------------- From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 2 08:14:56 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id IAA04388 for list-managers-outgoing; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 08:02:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id IAA04381 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 08:01:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from [207.167.80.70] (zamboni.plaidworks.com [207.167.80.70]) by plaidworks.com (8.6.9/A/UX 3.1) with ESMTP id IAA24452; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 08:02:07 -0800 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199701021512.KAA10718@dira.rv.tis.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 2 Jan 1997 07:54:43 -0800 To: Mark Sienkiewicz , List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: List manager duties Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 7:12 AM -0800 1/2/97, Mark Sienkiewicz wrote: >Prodigy imposed the duty on themselves. The court found that they >were responsible for the material on their system because of the >amount of filtering/moderating that they did. In the case you are >probably referring to, they failed to follow through sufficiently. > >I never promised to protect my list members from being murdered by >other list members. And, unlike Prodigy, I have no contract with >them. This, by the way, is an imprtant concept. You set expectations in your intro material and list rules. You can also legally limit your responsibilities there. -- Chuq Von Rospach (chuq@solutions.apple.com) Software Gnome Apple Server Marketing Webmaster Plaidworks Consulting (chuqui@plaidworks.com) ( +-+ The home for Hockey on the net) I got no name or number/ I just hand out the lumber. But if I get a chance to play/ I'm going to show 'em. -- Stick Boy (The Hanson Brothers, SUDDEN DEATH) From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 2 09:14:24 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id JAA09519 for list-managers-outgoing; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 09:01:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from kitsune.swcp.com (kitsune.swcp.com [198.59.115.2]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id JAA09492 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 09:01:41 -0800 (PST) Received: (from lazlo@localhost) by kitsune.swcp.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) id KAA12805 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 10:01:07 -0700 Message-Id: <199701021701.KAA12805@kitsune.swcp.com> Subject: Re: List politics? To: list-managers@greatcircle.com (lm) Date: Thu, 2 Jan 1997 10:01:07 -0700 (MST) From: "Lazlo Nibble" X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25 PGP3 *ALPHA*] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > There's one practical consideration that has been left unexplored in this > thread. That is, if the dispute between the various list-members has gone > "off-list," how does removing any of the parties from the list help anyone? People keep forgetting that the original question was about one list member who was apparently defrauding other list members. The actual transactions may well have taken place off the list, but I certainly don't think that's any reason to let the thief stay *on* the list. -- ::: Lazlo (lazlo@swcp.com; http://www.swcp.com/lazlo) From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 2 09:24:49 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id JAA10479 for list-managers-outgoing; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 09:13:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from netcom8.netcom.com (netcom8.netcom.com [192.100.81.117]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id JAA10453 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 09:13:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (grafolog@localhost) by netcom8.netcom.com (8.6.13/Netcom) id RAA20757; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 17:12:07 GMT Date: Thu, 2 Jan 1997 17:12:07 +0000 (GMT) From: jonathon X-Sender: grafolog@netcom8 To: Penn Jennings cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: List politics? - The End In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19970102071516.0071d070@isis.cyberca.com> Message-ID: x-no-archive: yes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Thu, 2 Jan 1997, Penn Jennings wrote: > In Jan and Feb many users complain that a list member threatens to kill them > and they inform you and you do nothing and leave the person on your list. > > In Mar a new user joins your list and is threaten by the same user. In Apr > the user does get killed by this person. The victims family sues you for > negligence because you took no action. They claim that if you had just > kicked the person off of the list in Jan or Feb this murder would have never > occurred. They believe that a person could reasonably expect that the list > manager would remove dangerous members or warn new members that a danger may > exist. > NEGLIGENCE involves carelessness that injures another person. There are 4 > parts to Negligence: > 1. Duty. > 2. Breaking a standard of care. The only standard of care is to try to keep the list running. > 3. Proximate Cause > 4. Damages. > 1. As a list manager you DO HAVE duties and responsibilities. Just ask > Prodigy. I think that the judge stated that their duty began once they were Prodigy was filtering e-mail. More specifically, private messages that Prodigy considered to be inappropriate were deleted, prior to delivery. If your list is not moderated, this precedent is inapplicable. If your list is moderated, it might be applicable, if, and only if, the list-owner is not the only person who posts to the list. > aware of the problem or should have been aware. Duties almost always exist > where danagers exist. In this case you do have a duty to do something. Also note that said threats were heresay. Not admissable as evidence. > 2. The standard of care is based on what the ordinary, reasonable and > prudent person would do. Such a person WOULD take some action against a > user in the light of multiple complaints from multiple people about the same > person. Would they? Not true. Take a look at the meow-brigade and the havoc they play on systems. Take a look at how easy it is for CyberPromotions to get new net connections. Or even take the hypothetical death threat example. Does the person making the death threat have the means to carry it out? Does s/he have a stated plan? If either of those is unknown, the best assumption to make is that the death threat will not be carried out, but an awareness of what is going on around one's self is needed. Statistically, once a death threat has been made, the odds of it actually being carried out, are less than 1 in 100 000. From personal experience, I suspect it is closer to 1 in 1 000 000. > 3. Clearly, if you had kicked the vile user off when the problems first > occurred the murder would not have occurred. If you had informed the new Doesn't follow. Subscribers can resubscribe using different names and email addresses. > user was threating the kill people he/she may not have joined the list. Maybe I'm being blase, but death threats are a dime a dozen, and about as dangerous to the health of an individual, as smoking a straight camel. > I would assume that Prodigy had as good attorney as you could get and a > court stated that list manager ARE responsible for some actions. Why are > you not? Because the Prodigy case didn't state that. Reread very carefully waht it did state, and how it defined those terms. > The odds of you successfully defending yourself against the law suit above > is slim I think. Case dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. No defence needed. No trial ever comes about. > The question is not DO you have responsibilities. The question is HOW MUCH Only if the post is made to the list, does the list manager have any responsibilities. And even those are limited. xan jonathon grafolog@netcom.com *********************************************************** Are there any good books about "The War of Northern Agression"? Are there any good books about "The War of Southern Rebellion"? From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 2 10:59:13 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id KAA18888 for list-managers-outgoing; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 10:47:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from hotstar.net (hotstar.net [204.191.136.8]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id KAA18866 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 10:46:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from widgette (ts11-12.tor.iSTAR.ca [204.191.138.32]) by hotstar.net (8.7.3/8.7) with SMTP id NAA23780; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 13:48:26 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970102185127.006d28d0@inforamp.net> X-Sender: dlj@inforamp.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 02 Jan 1997 13:51:27 -0500 To: Mark Sienkiewicz From: David Lloyd-Jones Subject: Re: List manager duties Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 10:12 AM 1/2/97 -0500, Mark Sienkiewicz wrote: >>1. As a list manager you DO HAVE duties and responsibilities. Just ask >>Prodigy. I think that the judge stated that their duty began once they were >>aware of the problem or should have been aware. Duties almost always exist >>where danagers exist. In this case you do have a duty to do something. > >Prodigy imposed the duty on themselves. The court found that they >were responsible for the material on their system because of the >amount of filtering/moderating that they did. In the case you are >probably referring to, they failed to follow through sufficiently. > >I never promised to protect my list members from being murdered by >other list members. And, unlike Prodigy, I have no contract with >them. Whether or not this follows from the duties of a webmeister, it certainly follows from one's duties as a citizen. -dlj. From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 2 12:15:05 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id MAA25709 for list-managers-outgoing; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 12:00:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from chinet.chinet.com.chinet.com (chinet.chinet.com [206.158.147.18]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id MAA25688 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 12:00:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost by chinet.chinet.com.chinet.com (8.6.10/SMI-4.1) id TAA16501; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 19:58:23 GMT Date: Thu, 2 Jan 1997 13:58:20 -0600 (CST) From: "Adam H. Kerman" To: list-managers Subject: Re: List manager duties In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19970102185127.006d28d0@inforamp.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >From: David Lloyd-Jones >Date: Thu, 02 Jan 1997 13:51:27 -0500 >At 10:12 AM 1/2/97 -0500, Mark Sienkiewicz wrote: >>I never promised to protect my list members from being murdered by other list >>members. And, unlike Prodigy, I have no contract with them. >Whether or not this follows from the duties of a webmeister, it certainly >follows from one's duties as a citizen. Nonsense. Only an employed security guard has such a duty. Your duty as a citizen is to report a crime, and sending a death threat via e-mail is a crime. What are you planning to do? Follow your list member around all day? From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 2 13:05:30 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id MAA01771 for list-managers-outgoing; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 12:53:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailjay.creighton.edu (mailjay.creighton.edu [147.134.2.15]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id MAA01261 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 12:49:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from bluejay.creighton.edu by mailjay.creighton.edu with SMTP (1.38.193.5/16.2) id AA02327; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 14:48:39 -0600 Date: Thu, 2 Jan 1997 14:48:39 -0600 (CST) From: Virtual Joe To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: findmail.com instructions In-Reply-To: <199612310900.BAA15261@miles.greatcircle.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Go to http://www.findmail.com/faq.html and read #6. It offers easy instructions regarding removing findmail.com from your lists and who to contact to make sure they stay off. #7 offers help on keeping individual messages from being archived. This is purely informational and I have not tried any of this. I am not drawing moral conclusions by offering this tidbit- I just happened to find it on the net. I am in no way connected to findmail.com, so please, no flames required. *:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:* *: Joe Ducharme jduche@creighton.edu :* *: Creighton University Omaha, NE USA 68178 :* *: < http://www.creighton.edu/~jduche/>> :* *: "Time flies like an arrow, Fruit flies like a banana." :* *:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:* From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 2 13:16:19 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id NAA03220 for list-managers-outgoing; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 13:06:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailjay.creighton.edu (mailjay.creighton.edu [147.134.2.15]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id NAA03213 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 13:06:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from bluejay.creighton.edu by mailjay.creighton.edu with SMTP (1.38.193.5/16.2) id AA02327; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 14:48:39 -0600 Date: Thu, 2 Jan 1997 14:48:39 -0600 (CST) From: Virtual Joe To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: findmail.com instructions In-Reply-To: <199612310900.BAA15261@miles.greatcircle.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Go to http://www.findmail.com/faq.html and read #6. It offers easy instructions regarding removing findmail.com from your lists and who to contact to make sure they stay off. #7 offers help on keeping individual messages from being archived. This is purely informational and I have not tried any of this. I am not drawing moral conclusions by offering this tidbit- I just happened to find it on the net. I am in no way connected to findmail.com, so please, no flames required. *:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:* *: Joe Ducharme jduche@creighton.edu :* *: Creighton University Omaha, NE USA 68178 :* *: < http://www.creighton.edu/~jduche/>> :* *: "Time flies like an arrow, Fruit flies like a banana." :* *:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:* From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 2 13:59:57 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id NAA05900 for list-managers-outgoing; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 13:47:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from hotstar.net (hotstar.net [204.191.136.8]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id NAA05878 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 13:47:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from widgette (ts11-12.tor.iSTAR.ca [204.191.138.32]) by hotstar.net (8.7.3/8.7) with SMTP id QAA01638; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 16:48:30 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970102215131.006d1294@inforamp.net> X-Sender: dlj@inforamp.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 02 Jan 1997 16:51:31 -0500 To: "Adam H. Kerman" From: David Lloyd-Jones Subject: Re: List manager duties Cc: list-managers Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 01:58 PM 1/2/97 -0600, Adam H. Kerman wrote: >>From: David Lloyd-Jones >>Date: Thu, 02 Jan 1997 13:51:27 -0500 > >>At 10:12 AM 1/2/97 -0500, Mark Sienkiewicz wrote: >>>I never promised to protect my list members from being murdered by other list >>>members. And, unlike Prodigy, I have no contract with them. > >>Whether or not this follows from the duties of a webmeister, it certainly >>follows from one's duties as a citizen. > >Nonsense. Only an employed security guard has such a duty. Your duty as a >citizen is to report a crime, and sending a death threat via e-mail is a crime. > >What are you planning to do? Follow your list member around all day? > Nope. You got it right: I'd report the threat to the police where the guy lived. -dlj. From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 2 14:14:26 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id OAA07223 for list-managers-outgoing; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 14:01:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from garcon.unicom.com (garcon.unicom.com [192.108.105.37]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id OAA07212 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 14:01:33 -0800 (PST) Received: (from chip@localhost) by garcon.unicom.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA07699; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 16:03:23 -0600 (CST) From: Chip Rosenthal Message-Id: <199701022203.QAA07699@garcon.unicom.com> Subject: Re: AOL DNS troubles? To: brad@his.com (Brad Knowles) Date: Thu, 2 Jan 1997 16:03:23 -0600 (CST) Cc: cmilam@cap.af.mil (Milam Charles R. 1LT CAP), list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: from "Brad Knowles" at Dec 29, 1996 03:24:38 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL0a10] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Brad Knowles writes: > At 7:18 PM -0500 12/23/1996, Chip Rosenthal wrote: > >Looks like AOL broke their DNS. The MX records used to point to round > >robins of A RRs. Now they are pointing to CNAMEs. That's illegal. > >They should fix it. > > I used to think it was illegal, too. However, after > conversations with Paul Vixie and other DNS gurus, it is now my > understanding that this is not the greatest solution, but is not > technically illegal OK ... so everything I know *is* wrong. I glanced through RFC-1912 ("Common DNS Errors"), STD-13 ("Domain Name System"), and STD-14 ("Mail Routing and the Domain System"). I've found lots of "should nots" and "ought nots", but the only "must not" was one specific case in STD-14 having to deal with elimination of target MXes. I'm kind of bothered that this deeply entrenched "fact" seems to be wrong. -- Chip Rosenthal * Unicom Systems Development * URL: http://www.unicom.com/ * 4868D8BE10C86BDE 6017000BA783998E Helmet good. Law bad. From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 2 14:28:22 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id OAA08001 for list-managers-outgoing; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 14:08:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from ayla.idyllmtn.com (ayla.idyllmtn.com [206.16.238.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id OAA07959 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 14:08:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from gates.idyllmtn.com (gates.idyllmtn.com [206.16.238.103]) by ayla.idyllmtn.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id OAA09505; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 14:03:11 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970102135652.0076f71c@mail.idyllmtn.com> X-Sender: kynn@mail.idyllmtn.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Thu, 02 Jan 1997 14:17:02 -0800 To: Virtual Joe From: Kynn Bartlett Subject: Re: findmail.com instructions Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 02:48 PM 1/2/97 -0600, Virtual Joe wrote: >Go to http://www.findmail.com/faq.html and read #6. It offers easy >instructions regarding removing findmail.com from your lists and who to >contact to make sure they stay off. #7 offers help on keeping individual >messages from being archived. Yes, this is known information, but it still doesn't excuse the fact that what findmail.com are doing is wrong. I very much dislike the concept that thousands of list owners would have to go and alter their mailing list setup _just_ because findmail.com says so. Sooner or later I'll get around to my rebuttal to the findmail.com FAQ statement that they're "just like the web search engines". Here's something to get you started, though: * Web search engines (such as AltaVista) may download your web pages, but their goal is to get people to visit your page, not to provide the information to everyone else and cut you out of the deal. When you go to any of them, you get, at best, a "summary" or maybe the first paragraph or so. * findmail.com, on the other hand, will apparently be providing _my_ content (the mailing lists' messages) on _their_ site. This is completely different. A search engine's quoting of the first few lines of my web page is "fair use" and serves to get people to visit the page. findmail.com's wholesale quoting of everything that's been sent to my mailing lists is _not_ fair use, and in fact detracts from the value of my lists. * robots.txt has pretty much been around as long as there have been web search engines; it's something that evolved early on in the creation of the web. Thus, most webmasters _should_ know about it; it's an official internet standard, right? * Mailing lists, on the other hand, have been around the net long, long before some Stanford CS dept employee got the idea of making findmail.com -- to try to come along now and say "okay, here's what you need to start doing, or else your lists are fair game for me!" is silly. Next week, slurpmail.com or findstuff.com might come and tell you, "okay, you have to put in X-Don't-Slurp" headers on your messages -- who _are_ these people, and why do they think that they have the right to dictate to me, in effect, "make these changes or else I'll consider your copyright null and void"? Bogus. Bogus, bogus, bogus. -- /\ /\ /\ /\ Kynn Bartlett / kynn@idyllmtn.com / \ / \/ \ / \ Idyll Mountain Internet / \ //\ /\ \ / \ '_| _` // \/ \__\ '_| _` HTML Writers Guild Governing Board Member From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 2 15:14:37 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id PAA14496 for list-managers-outgoing; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 15:12:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from cinna.ultra.net (cinna.ultra.net [199.232.56.8]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id PAA14489 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 15:11:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from voyager (d129.wal.ma.ultra.net [146.115.77.129]) by cinna.ultra.net (8.7.4/ult1.04) with SMTP id SAA24948; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 18:09:03 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19970102230918.00387554@pop.ma.ultranet.com> Reply-To: stanr@sunspot.tiac.net X-Sender: stanr@pop.ma.ultranet.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 02 Jan 1997 18:09:18 -0500 To: David Lloyd-Jones From: Stan Ryckman Subject: Re: List manager duties Cc: "Adam H. Kerman" , list-managers Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 04:51 PM 1/2/97 -0500, David Lloyd-Jones wrote: >Nope. You got it right: I'd report the threat to the police where the guy >lived. Just how do you propose to determine where the guy lives? Or whether it's even a guy? Are you an expert at forged email addresses? (Hint: where am I sending *this* from? You can probably work it out pretty much from my headers, but I've done nothing to hide the actual source.) There's still *NO* duty here anyway. You can make a case for a "moral obligation" for some peoples' definition of "moral", but "duty as a citizen?" No. It's not there. Cite a law, please. Stan. From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 2 15:23:30 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id PAA13383 for list-managers-outgoing; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 15:00:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from netcom17.netcom.com (netcom17.netcom.com [192.100.81.130]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id OAA13166 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 14:59:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (grafolog@localhost) by netcom17.netcom.com (8.6.13/Netcom) id WAA08943; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 22:59:09 GMT Date: Thu, 2 Jan 1997 22:59:09 +0000 (GMT) From: jonathon X-Sender: grafolog@netcom17 To: Kynn Bartlett cc: Virtual Joe , List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: findmail.com instructions In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970102135652.0076f71c@mail.idyllmtn.com> Message-ID: x-no-archive: yes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Thu, 2 Jan 1997, Kynn Bartlett wrote: > * robots.txt has pretty much been around as long as there have been > web search engines; it's something that evolved early on in the > creation of the web. Thus, most webmasters _should_ know about > it; it's an official internet standard, right? More or less true. And now that some of the search engines are also looking at the Meta Header "Robots follow, index" or "Robots no-index, no-follow" that seems to be evolving as a semi-unofficial, pseudo-standard, individual pages can opt out of web engine indexing. > * Mailing lists, on the other hand, have been around the net long, > might come and tell you, "okay, you have to put in X-Don't-Slurp" Findmail's header for non-submission is not the same as excite.com's, or any of the other things that archive usenet. How many people want to add 30 headers, so their message won't be archived in places they have never heard of, by people they don't know, for unknown reasons? Findmail.com seems to think that that is an acceptable practice, though. I'd seriously consider a SLAPP against FindMail.COM, except I don't have pockets that are deep enough. OTOH, setting FindMail.com up, as a defendent in an EEOC suit does have a certain amount of appeal. xan jonathon grafolog@netcom.com *********************************************************** Are there any good books about "The War of Northern Agression"? Are there any good books about "The War of Southern Rebellion"? From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 2 15:44:04 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id PAA16378 for list-managers-outgoing; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 15:32:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from ibp.dti.net (ibp.dti.net [199.93.169.129]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id PAA16179 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 15:30:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by ibp.dti.net; id SAA14091; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 18:29:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.dti.net(206.252.128.10) by ibp via smap (V1.3) id sma014087; Thu Jan 2 18:29:35 1997 Received: from localhost (mrais@localhost) by mail.dti.net (8.8.4/1.2/rdf) with SMTP id SAA18700 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 18:29:26 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 2 Jan 1997 18:29:25 -0500 (EST) From: Michael Rais To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Suggestions Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Does anyone have any suggestions about what lists deal with Majordomo code and administration... This list is interesting, but I need to focus on code and administration issues... --mrais@dti.net From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 2 16:14:44 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id QAA18524 for list-managers-outgoing; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 16:02:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from bolero.rahul.net (bolero.rahul.net [192.160.13.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id QAA18505 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 16:02:32 -0800 (PST) Received: by bolero.rahul.net id AA22552 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM); Thu, 2 Jan 1997 16:02:01 -0800 Message-Id: <199701030002.AA22552@bolero.rahul.net> To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: findmail.com instructions In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970102135652.0076f71c@mail.idyllmtn.com> Date: Thu, 02 Jan 97 16:02:01 -0800 From: Michelle Dick Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Kynn wrote: > > Sooner or later I'll get around to my rebuttal to the findmail.com > FAQ statement that they're "just like the web search engines". do they really say that? I agree that it is totally bogus. If findmail wishes to act like a web search engine and review my public list, summarize it in their own words, limit quoting to fair use excerpts, provide key word searching on contents with only a pointer to my list (not the content itself) as a result of the key word searching, then I'll gladly consider adopting a standard flag that will let automated reviewers know my wishes concerning review (I permit them provided there are no mailto: URLs pointing to me or my list addresses). I wouldn't even mind too much if the content copying included full-text of the *list intro* messages only. But, if they are going to be a *subscriber* to my list, they have to behave like one and read the human-oriented intro texts which detail the rules that all subscribers are obligated to follow if they wish to be a member of my list. Otherwise they are no different than spammers who use others' resources without consent. -- Michelle Dick artemis@rahul.net East Palo Alto, CA From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 2 16:24:20 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id QAA19792 for list-managers-outgoing; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 16:13:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from server.postmodern.com (server.postmodern.com [207.33.130.54]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id QAA19750 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 16:13:03 -0800 (PST) Received: (from mcb@localhost) by server.postmodern.com (8.7.5/mcb-960422) id QAA11806; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 16:03:43 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199701030003.QAA11806@server.postmodern.com> From: mcb@postmodern.com (Michael C. Berch) Date: Thu, 2 Jan 1997 16:03:43 +0000 In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.5 10/14/92) To: Michael Rais , List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Suggestions Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Michael Rais writes: > Does anyone have any suggestions about what lists > deal with Majordomo code and administration... > This list is interesting, but I need to focus on > code and administration issues... Majordomo-Users@GreatCircle.COM for Majordomo-specific administration issues, including problems, questions, and suggestions. Majordomo-Workers@GreatCircle.COM for contacting the current developers and maintainers, information about patches and releases, etc. Both are available via majordomo@greatcircle.com. -- Michael C. Berch Great Circle Associates Postmaster/List Manager mcb@greatcircle.com / mcb@postmodern.com From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 2 16:44:42 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id QAA22237 for list-managers-outgoing; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 16:33:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from kitsune.swcp.com (kitsune.swcp.com [198.59.115.2]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id QAA22230 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 16:33:31 -0800 (PST) Received: (from lazlo@localhost) by kitsune.swcp.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) id RAA21241; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 17:32:45 -0700 Message-Id: <199701030032.RAA21241@kitsune.swcp.com> Subject: Re: Suggestions To: mrais@dti.net (Michael Rais) Date: Thu, 2 Jan 1997 17:32:45 -0700 (MST) From: "Lazlo Nibble" Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: from "Michael Rais" at Jan 2, 97 06:29:25 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25 PGP3 *ALPHA*] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > Does anyone have any suggestions about what lists > deal with Majordomo code and administration... > This list is interesting, but I need to focus on > code and administration issues... Try majordomo-users. It's run off majordomo@greatcircle.com. -- ::: Lazlo (lazlo@swcp.com; http://www.swcp.com/lazlo) From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 2 16:58:54 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id QAA22792 for list-managers-outgoing; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 16:40:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.proper.com (mail.proper.com [206.86.127.224]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id QAA22770 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 16:40:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from [165.227.249.100] (dharma.proper.com [165.227.249.100]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA03943 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 16:40:48 -0800 (PST) X-Sender: paulh@mail.proper.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970102135652.0076f71c@mail.idyllmtn.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 2 Jan 1997 16:41:35 -0800 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Paul Hoffman Subject: Re: findmail.com instructions Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >Thus, most webmasters _should_ know about > it; it's an official internet standard, right? No and no. There is no easy way to find out about it, and robots.txt is not even vaguely an official standard. Most people find out about robots.txt the same way you found out about the proposal from archive.org: from reading mailing lists or books about how to run a server. In other words, this is still a new field. Your opinions are as good as the next person's. It doesn't seem like there is consensus on this list about whether what findmail.com is doing is bad, ok, or good. --Paul Hoffman --Internet Mail Consortium From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 2 17:00:30 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id QAA23514 for list-managers-outgoing; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 16:47:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from cinna.ultra.net (cinna.ultra.net [199.232.56.8]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id QAA23450 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 16:46:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from voyager (d103.wal.ma.ultra.net [146.115.77.103]) by cinna.ultra.net (8.7.4/ult1.04) with SMTP id TAA28576; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 19:46:17 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19970103004631.0035799c@pop.ma.ultranet.com> Reply-To: stanr@sunspot.tiac.net X-Sender: stanr@pop.ma.ultranet.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 02 Jan 1997 19:46:31 -0500 To: "Joshua D. Baer" From: Stan Ryckman Subject: Re: findmail.com Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 09:07 AM 12/31/96 -0500, Joshua D. Baer wrote: >Pardon the quotes from multiple messages... I hope to be saving bandwidth... > >> Which does not imply that anyone who feels like it is free to >>redistribute the >> contents of that forum. If you think otherwise, please point us to the >> relevant copyright law. > >Maybe my understanding of findmail.com is incorrect, but I saw them as >something like DejaNews. > >Are they like DejaNews? A publicly accessible search engine? AFAIK, they're just collecting right now, and will decide what they're "like" later. You can bet that they'll use the data to recover their investment and make money later, though. You are assuming that DejaNews isn't violating copyright -- something that I don't assume. Sooner or later, someone will probably sue them. >> >Those who ultimately will decide these issues use predecessors, >> >precedents. What would be the forerunner for the notion that anything >> >you write to a `public forum' may be freely copied? > >Are they selling the content, or making it freely available? If they give it away freely, but surrounded by all sorts of advertising (some of which you may object to), is it "selling?" Not that selling's relevant to copyright law; you have no right to take a book I write, photocopy it, and give away the copies. It's my intellectual property, thank you, and I get to decide how it's disposed of. Nor may you consider yourself "allowed to do so" unless I put "X-No-Redistribute" on the first page of the book. You just don't have the right to get around copyright by inventing rules like that. >> Think of building a cd-rom archive of Time Magazine articles. Think how >> quickly Time would own your car and computer.... > >Except that I wouldn't think of Time magazine as a public forum, since it >doesn't accept (regularly) contributions from all of the readers. I know of no mailing lists which are public forums. All are hosted on privately-owned computers, and both the computers and the lists are maintained and run by private citizens and/or corporations. Sometimes money changes hands, sometimes not; however, they are still private. The source of the contributions is irrelevant. For a list, the individuals retain copyright to their submissions whether or not they assert it, and the list owner has a "compilation copyright." In the case of Time, contributors are paid for their contributions (in return for which they assign copyright to Time), or in the case of letters to the editor, other details may apply between Time and the submitter, but in no case does an outside party acquire distribution rights to them. >> To use Usenet as an example, when you post an article, you set in >> motion a very large chain of automatic events which result in copying >> of your (implicitly copyrighted) work. Historically and currently, >> this has consisted of copies on news servers (the normal case), >> news-to-mail gateways, magnetic-tape-based feeds, news-to-Web >> gateways, online and offline private archives, online public archives >> (e.g., DejaNews), archival media (e.g., CD-ROMs) and distribution by >> printed copy. All of these are (or have been) normal ways of >> distributing netnews articles. and that's the distribution mechanism, which doesn't grant anyone rights for further distribution in any manner, such as printing a book full of Usenet articles (other than your own). >I'm not saying _all_ mailing lists are public forums, but some are designed >as such, including most of the lists I run. Which ones are? Unless you require submitters to explicitly transfer copyright to you, and then explicitly place the contents in the public domain, they (the submitters) *still* maintain copyright even if "public" by whatever definition you may have of "public." >Some obviously aren't. For >example, a mailing list which distributes a monthly newsletter on cooking >would obviously be copywrighted and protected. What makes that "obvious" as opposed to a mailing list discussing what Vanna White wears on every "Wheel of Fortune" show? I don't see the difference. >While anyone can subscribe >and the information is freely available, it's clearly not a public forum. >Then look at this list... when I post it I don't know exactly who is >reading it and I don't care... it's my contribution to the forum. And if it shows up in next year's Encyclopedia Brittanica, you're entitled to be incensed (and probably have a valid lawsuit), because it's not what you were writing for. >I don't think someone can resell this content. However, if I contribute it >freely to a public forum, I do it understanding that it may end up on >search engines and archives. Archives as *part of the list* are OK. Search engines are OK; if they point to my web page, I can take down or change the web page at my whim. As a list owner, I can take down or restrict access to my archives. But taking my list, copying it, and making it available to others (for profit or not, with advertising or not, in context or not) without advance written permission is a clear violation of copyright. Cheers, Stan Ryckman (stanr@tiac.net) From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 2 17:29:45 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id RAA27294 for list-managers-outgoing; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 17:27:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from ayla.idyllmtn.com (ayla.idyllmtn.com [206.16.238.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id RAA27287 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 17:26:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from gates.idyllmtn.com (gates.idyllmtn.com [206.16.238.103]) by ayla.idyllmtn.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id RAA11448; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 17:23:21 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970102173101.006e7d14@mail.idyllmtn.com> X-Sender: kynn@mail.idyllmtn.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Thu, 02 Jan 1997 17:37:13 -0800 To: Paul Hoffman From: Kynn Bartlett Subject: Re: findmail.com instructions Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 04:41 PM 1/2/97 -0800, Paul Hoffman wrote: >>Thus, most webmasters _should_ know about >> it; it's an official internet standard, right? >No and no. There is no easy way to find out about it, and robots.txt is not >even vaguely an official standard. Most people find out about robots.txt >the same way you found out about the proposal from archive.org: from >reading mailing lists or books about how to run a server. Oh? Okay, which book about running mailing lists mentions the archive.org proposal? I probably haven't bought that book yet? >In other words, this is still a new field. Your opinions are as good as the >next person's. It doesn't seem like there is consensus on this list about >whether what findmail.com is doing is bad, ok, or good. Sorry, did you really mean to say that mailing lists are a new field? Now, the _web_ might be a new field -- MAYBE -- but mailing lists have been around since the dawn of time. FindMail isn't doing anything that's in a "new field", sorry. By the way, your "consensus" argument is a straw man, you realize. No one ever claimed there's a consensus on the list, nor have any of us expected there would be. You're right when you say that my opinions are as good as the next person's -- as long as we're talking in generalities. When we're talking about _my_ lists, though, it's certain truth that my opinion is far more important than Joe Schmoe random person who's decided to set up a new company using my hard work. >--Paul Hoffman >--Internet Mail Consortium What is the 'Internet Mail Consortium'? And what is your role in it? -- /\ /\ /\ /\ Kynn Bartlett / kynn@idyllmtn.com / \ / \/ \ / \ Idyll Mountain Internet / \ //\ /\ \ / \ '_| _` // \/ \__\ '_| _` HTML Writers Guild Governing Board Member From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 2 18:14:23 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id SAA04064 for list-managers-outgoing; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 18:11:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.proper.com (mail.proper.com [206.86.127.224]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id SAA04048 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 18:11:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from [165.227.249.100] (dharma.proper.com [165.227.249.100]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA04953 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 18:11:42 -0800 (PST) X-Sender: paulh@mail.proper.com (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970102173101.006e7d14@mail.idyllmtn.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 2 Jan 1997 18:12:43 -0800 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Paul Hoffman Subject: Re: findmail.com instructions Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >Oh? Okay, which book about running mailing lists mentions the >archive.org proposal? I probably haven't bought that book yet? Nope, because (as far as I know) there are no books about running a mailing list. There are a few chapters in the O'Reilly "Managing Internet Information Services" book, but I have seen almost nothing else. >Sorry, did you really mean to say that mailing lists are a new field? No, I meant that coming up with generally accepted rules for them is. There are no RFCs, only a small handful of Internet Drafts, no books. Even this mailing list, which I think is the biggest one talking about how to run the non-technical side of mailing lists, probably represents well under 10% of mailing list managers. >FindMail isn't doing anything >that's in a "new field", sorry. I disagree. They're the first one to publicly state that they're archiving mailing lists with the intention of making the contents available in a probably-commercial product. As you corretly pointed out earlier today, what they're doing isn't even that much like the Web archiving services, and any publishing that they do will certainly break new ground in copyright and appropriate use discussions. >You're right when you say that my opinions are as good as the next >person's -- as long as we're talking in generalities. When we're >talking about _my_ lists, though, it's certain truth that my opinion >is far more important than Joe Schmoe random person who's decided to >set up a new company using my hard work. Absolutely agree. And the actions you take to follow up your opinions will be even more important, particularly to other list managers. >What is the 'Internet Mail Consortium'? And what is your role in >it? We're the trade group for the Internet mail industry, and I'm one of the directors. You can find out more about us at . Please don't interpret anything I say as supporting what findmail is doing: I don't and IMC doesn't. Like any other vendor, they'll generate good or bad will based on their actions with their customers and suppliers. So far, the reviews are pretty mixed. --Paul Hoffman --Internet Mail Consortium From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 2 18:28:57 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id SAA05225 for list-managers-outgoing; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 18:23:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from cyberca.com (isis.cyberca.com [206.42.216.51]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id SAA05214 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 18:23:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from ra.cyberca.com (ra.cyberca.com [192.234.55.25]) by cyberca.com (8.6.8.1/SCA-6.6) with SMTP id CAA23160 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 02:23:01 GMT Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970103021902.0070df8c@isis.cyberca.com> X-Sender: jennings@isis.cyberca.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 02 Jan 1997 21:19:02 -0500 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.com From: Penn Jennings Subject: List Manager Duties - Legal Advice Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I have talked to 2 attorneys about this subject. I also sent mail to a friend at the State Attorney General Office but have not gotten a reply yet. Here is the conclusion from 2 attorneys as it relates to negligence. As the List MANAGER (Note the word manager) you MAY be negligent if you fail to protect members from dangers that are foreseeable and avoidable. If several users complain that one of your members has threatened to kill them and you do nothing you may be "knee deep in the doo-doo" if that member does kill or harm someone. Why? Once you were notified of the danger future damage was definitely foreseeable the next question is was it avoidable from the perspective of a ordinary, reasonable and prudent person. Since we all remove users when their mailboxes fill or their accounts are removed, member removal is a valid action. Both attorneys agreed that they would remove a threatening or very abusive user at once. One stated that he might give the member a warning. They both thought that the offending member had very few rights in this case, if any (That may change if the list charges money. A paying member might have more rights). One attorney thought that they would immediately post a disclaimer stating to all current and new members that: You shall hold harmless this list and the list administration for all... The list administration makes not warrantees about blah, blah... All list users assume responsibilities for use of this list... The list administration is not responsible for the action of list members... The administration remove users from this for any reason.... The list administrator runs this as a free service and shall not be held responsible for any income loss or damages. blah, blah.. I think that you get the idea. So the smart thing is to have a disclaimer. Both attorney agreed that as the manager you do have duties. One of the keys to avoiding a negligence suit is by doing (or not doing) what a Prudent, reasonable and ordinary person would do. PLEASE: Do not send me lay person opinions of law. My mail box is folding under the weight people telling me that list managers have no legal duties. After receiving legal advice from people who have passed the bar I think I'm all set. :) __________________________________________________________________ Copyright 1996 (c) Penn Jennings Penn Jennings jennings@cyberca.com http://www.cyberca.com/~jennings/ The road to evil is paved with good intentions. From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 2 20:00:34 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id TAA11471 for list-managers-outgoing; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 19:52:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from garcon.unicom.com (garcon.unicom.com [192.108.105.37]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id TAA11462 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 19:52:08 -0800 (PST) Received: (from chip@localhost) by garcon.unicom.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA23401; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 21:53:11 -0600 (CST) From: Chip Rosenthal Message-Id: <199701030353.VAA23401@garcon.unicom.com> Subject: a tale of two archivers [was: findmail.com instructions] To: paulh@imc.org (Paul Hoffman) Date: Thu, 2 Jan 1997 21:53:11 -0600 (CST) Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: from "Paul Hoffman" at Jan 02, 1997 06:12:43 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL0a10] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Paul Hoffman writes: > Please don't interpret anything I say as supporting what findmail is doing: > I don't and IMC doesn't. Like any other vendor, they'll generate good or > bad will based on their actions with their customers and suppliers. So far, > the reviews are pretty mixed. It's fascinating comparing the responses towards Findmail and Reference. Reference is taking a bit of heat right now for a mass mailing they did, but I don't sense it's quite the battering that Findmail is taking. The two organizations take exact polar opposite approaches to the archiving issue. Findmail says, "If you don't say anything, we'll take it from you." Reference says, "If you don't say anything, we won't touch it." My vote: although the Reference mass-mailing raises some vexing issues, I award the clue to Eric Allman and the folks at Reference. -- Chip Rosenthal * Unicom Systems Development * URL: http://www.unicom.com/ * 4868D8BE10C86BDE 6017000BA783998E Helmet good. Law bad. From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 2 21:45:30 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id VAA19200 for list-managers-outgoing; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 21:30:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from mule0.mindspring.com (mule0.mindspring.com [204.180.128.166]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id VAA19131 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 21:29:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from tracey.mindspring.com (user-168-121-55-2.dialup.mindspring.com [168.121.55.2]) by mule0.mindspring.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP id AAA12490 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 00:29:28 -0500 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970103052945.006cc9fc@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: tracey@pop.mindspring.com (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 02 Jan 1997 23:29:45 -0600 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: "Enforcement Coordinator (Tracey McCartney)" Subject: Re: List Manager Duties - Legal Advice Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 09:19 PM 1/2/97 -0500, Penn Jennings wrote: >I have talked to 2 attorneys about this subject. I also sent mail to a >friend at the State Attorney General Office but have not gotten a reply yet. >Here is the conclusion from 2 attorneys as it relates to negligence. > >As the List MANAGER (Note the word manager) you MAY be negligent if you fail >to protect members from dangers that are foreseeable and avoidable. If >several users complain that one of your members has threatened to kill them >and you do nothing you may be "knee deep in the doo-doo" if that member does >kill or harm someone. Why? Once you were notified of the danger future >damage was definitely foreseeable the next question is was it avoidable from >the perspective of a ordinary, reasonable and prudent person. Since we all >remove users when their mailboxes fill or their accounts are removed, member >removal is a valid action. This makes *no* sense. If one of my users is threatening to kill another, what duty do I have to unsubscribe the threatening party? That will not prevent his threatening other users. I may have other duties, but I think taking the offending party off the list is not really aimed at the real problem. The issue, as you state, is whether the danger is avoidable. Maybe, but it likely won't be headed off by taking someone off a mailing list, unless I've missed something. > >PLEASE: Do not send me lay person opinions of law. My mail box is folding >under the weight people telling me that list managers have no legal duties. >After receiving legal advice from people who have passed the bar I think I'm >all set. :) Well, this is the opinion of someone who *has* passed the bar. I don't know what kind of scenario you laid out for those attorneys, but this really makes no sense. It's like saying, "You know that X is stalking Y with the intent to kill him/her, so you have a duty to immediately have X's car towed for being in a loading zone." Tracey McCartney, Esq. fair_housing-owner@majordomo.pobox.com From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 2 22:00:33 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id VAA20794 for list-managers-outgoing; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 21:52:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from ayla.idyllmtn.com (ayla.idyllmtn.com [206.16.238.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id VAA20787 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 21:52:26 -0800 (PST) Received: (from kynn@localhost) by ayla.idyllmtn.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) id VAA13686; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 21:48:56 -0800 From: Kynn Bartlett Message-Id: <199701030548.VAA13686@ayla.idyllmtn.com> Subject: Re: a tale of two archivers [was: findmail.com instructions] To: chip@unicom.com (Chip Rosenthal) Date: Thu, 2 Jan 1997 21:48:55 -0800 (PST) Cc: paulh@imc.org, List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <199701030353.VAA23401@garcon.unicom.com> from "Chip Rosenthal" at Jan 2, 97 09:53:11 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Interesting, I've not heard of Reference before. I must not be on their spam lists. :) Can someone summarize for me, or forward their mass mailing privately? Thanks. --Kynn From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 2 22:14:43 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id WAA22242 for list-managers-outgoing; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 22:12:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from ayla.idyllmtn.com (ayla.idyllmtn.com [206.16.238.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id WAA22185 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 22:12:31 -0800 (PST) Received: (from kynn@localhost) by ayla.idyllmtn.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) id WAA13852; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 22:08:56 -0800 From: Kynn Bartlett Message-Id: <199701030608.WAA13852@ayla.idyllmtn.com> Subject: Re: List Manager Duties - Legal Advice To: jennings@cyberca.com (Penn Jennings) Date: Thu, 2 Jan 1997 22:08:56 -0800 (PST) Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19970103021902.0070df8c@isis.cyberca.com> from "Penn Jennings" at Jan 2, 97 09:19:02 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Penn Jennings wrote: > I have talked to 2 attorneys about this subject. I also sent mail to a > friend at the State Attorney General Office but have not gotten a reply yet. > Here is the conclusion from 2 attorneys as it relates to negligence. Dumb question, are these people on the net? Do they use email regularly? Do they have any concept of what a mailing list is? > As the List MANAGER (Note the word manager) you MAY be negligent if you fail > to protect members from dangers that are foreseeable and avoidable. If > several users complain that one of your members has threatened to kill them > and you do nothing you may be "knee deep in the doo-doo" if that member does > kill or harm someone. Why? Once you were notified of the danger future > damage was definitely foreseeable the next question is was it avoidable from > the perspective of a ordinary, reasonable and prudent person. Since we all > remove users when their mailboxes fill or their accounts are removed, member > removal is a valid action. Just one question -- how will removing someone from a mailing list prevent them from killing someone? Seriously, that's not a joke. I really want to know why you think booting someone off a mailing list will prevent death. Please answer this for me, because I just can't see the connection at all. > [snip] > One attorney thought that they would immediately post a disclaimer stating > to all current and new members that: > You shall hold harmless this list and the list administration for all... > The list administration makes not warrantees about blah, blah... > All list users assume responsibilities for use of this list... > The list administration is not responsible for the action of > list members... > The administration remove users from this for any reason.... > The list administrator runs this as a free service and shall not > be held responsible for any income loss or damages. blah, blah.. Yes, but they're lawyers. They think like this. That doesn't mean that it's necessary to include something in my 'Welcome to the List' message reading, "Idyll Mountain Internet is not responsible if someone from this list goes to your house and shoots you." I think your anonymous lawyer friends are full of it. > I think that you get the idea. So the smart thing is to have a disclaimer. > Both attorney agreed that as the manager you do have duties. One of the > keys to avoiding a negligence suit is by doing (or not doing) what a > Prudent, reasonable and ordinary person would do. Please tell me again how removing someone from a mailing list prevents murder? Thanks. > PLEASE: Do not send me lay person opinions of law. My mail box is folding > under the weight people telling me that list managers have no legal duties. > After receiving legal advice from people who have passed the bar I think I'm > all set. :) Please state their names and qualifications. You have provided no proof of anything. I can make up a dozen anonymous lawyers who agree with me, if I don't have to tell anyone who they are. Better yet, get them to join this mailing list. They -are- on the net, and they -do- know what mailing lists are, right? (If they can join this list without your assistance, then I'll start believing that they know what they're talking about when they give "legal advice" about mailing lists on the net.) --Kynn Bartlett Idyll Mountain Internet Postmaster Mailing List Manager, HTML Writers Guild From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 2 22:44:26 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id WAA23921 for list-managers-outgoing; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 22:35:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from shooter.bluemarble.net ([199.18.207.25]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id WAA23905 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 22:35:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (edit@localhost) by shooter.bluemarble.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id BAA14307; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 01:36:24 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 01:36:23 -0500 (EST) From: Paul E Kayak To: dlj@inforamp.net cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: ReList Mgrs Duties Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk David L-J, Thank you for your post, that to show concern is the duty of a citizen. It seemed (in my digest-form) the first note of compassion after a number of posts saying everybody for him- or her-self. Thanks. PK From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 2 22:58:56 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id WAA24715 for list-managers-outgoing; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 22:46:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from garcon.unicom.com (garcon.unicom.com [192.108.105.37]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id WAA24692 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 22:46:06 -0800 (PST) Received: (from chip@localhost) by garcon.unicom.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA00669; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 00:48:13 -0600 (CST) From: Chip Rosenthal Message-Id: <199701030648.AAA00669@garcon.unicom.com> Subject: Re: a tale of two archivers [was: findmail.com instructions] To: kynn@idyllmtn.com (Kynn Bartlett) Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 00:48:13 -0600 (CST) Cc: paulh@imc.org, List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <199701030548.VAA13686@ayla.idyllmtn.com> from "Kynn Bartlett" at Jan 02, 1997 09:48:55 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL0a10] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Kynn Bartlett writes: > Interesting, I've not heard of Reference before. I must not be on > their spam lists. :) Can someone summarize for me, or forward their > mass mailing privately? Thanks. No, because Paul J. Lucas uses X-No-Archive: in his news postings. I guess he doesn't want you to see it. -- Chip Rosenthal * Unicom Systems Development * URL: http://www.unicom.com/ * 4868D8BE10C86BDE 6017000BA783998E Helmet good. Law bad. From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 2 23:44:05 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id XAA28636 for list-managers-outgoing; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 23:38:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id XAA28618 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 23:38:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from [207.167.80.70] (zamboni.plaidworks.com [207.167.80.70]) by plaidworks.com (8.6.9/A/UX 3.1) with ESMTP id XAA16806; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 23:38:05 -0800 X-Sender: chuq@solutions.apple.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19970102230918.00387554@pop.ma.ultranet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 2 Jan 1997 23:25:29 -0800 To: stanr@sunspot.tiac.net, David Lloyd-Jones From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: List manager duties Cc: "Adam H. Kerman" , list-managers Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 3:09 PM -0800 1/2/97, Stan Ryckman wrote: >At 04:51 PM 1/2/97 -0500, David Lloyd-Jones wrote: > >>Nope. You got it right: I'd report the threat to the police where the guy >>lived. > >Just how do you propose to determine where the guy lives? It's not that tough, actually. Having done it once. You get on the horn with the admin of the machine, and you get them involved. Death threats and serious abuse generally get even hard to find admins to sit up and take notice. If not, whisper the word "lawyer"... (giggle) >There's still *NO* duty here anyway. I create a service for users to use. I have a duty to make that service as good as I can, and a duty to my users to make that service a thing they want to use. That includes making it a place where they don't feel harassed or abused. I would not want to invite people to a party at my home and have them beaten up in the back bedroom, either. I sort of feel I have a duty that if i have a guest in the house, they leave with all their teeth. I guess I'm retro or something. And, silly me, if I'm not willing to take on that duty, I shouldn't be running services for people. -- Chuq Von Rospach (chuq@solutions.apple.com) Software Gnome Apple Server Marketing Webmaster Plaidworks Consulting (chuqui@plaidworks.com) ( +-+ The home for Hockey on the net) I got no name or number/ I just hand out the lumber. But if I get a chance to play/ I'm going to show 'em. -- Stick Boy (The Hanson Brothers, SUDDEN DEATH) From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 2 23:46:49 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id XAA28649 for list-managers-outgoing; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 23:38:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id XAA28641 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 23:38:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from [207.167.80.70] (zamboni.plaidworks.com [207.167.80.70]) by plaidworks.com (8.6.9/A/UX 3.1) with ESMTP id XAA16810; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 23:38:25 -0800 X-Sender: chuq@solutions.apple.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199701030608.WAA13852@ayla.idyllmtn.com> References: <1.5.4.32.19970103021902.0070df8c@isis.cyberca.com> from "Penn Jennings" at Jan 2, 97 09:19:02 pm Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 2 Jan 1997 23:29:52 -0800 To: Kynn Bartlett , jennings@cyberca.com (Penn Jennings) From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: List Manager Duties - Legal Advice Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 10:08 PM -0800 1/2/97, Kynn Bartlett wrote: >Just one question -- how will removing someone from a mailing list prevent >them from killing someone? > >Seriously, that's not a joke. No, but it's missing the point. Most abuse on lists falls way short of physical violence. REmoving a user from a list removes the list from the easy reach of that user for abuse. If he continues to abuse members via private mail, the next step is going to his admin to get help in making him stop. > I really want to know why you think booting >someone off a mailing list will prevent death. Death is a symbol for the issues we're dealing with here, not necessarily a hard and fast reality. You're dealing with a detail as if it's the essential issue, when in reality, it's off in left field and hidden in a gopher hole. >Yes, but they're lawyers. They think like this. That's because tehy're trained in preventing other lawyers from separating you from your wallet.... >I think >your anonymous lawyer friends are full of it. I think you'd prefer to think we're all friends here and can work things out amicably. Unfortunately, that part of the internet died years ago. -- Chuq Von Rospach (chuq@solutions.apple.com) Software Gnome Apple Server Marketing Webmaster Plaidworks Consulting (chuqui@plaidworks.com) ( +-+ The home for Hockey on the net) I got no name or number/ I just hand out the lumber. But if I get a chance to play/ I'm going to show 'em. -- Stick Boy (The Hanson Brothers, SUDDEN DEATH) From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 2 23:49:36 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id XAA28563 for list-managers-outgoing; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 23:37:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id XAA28539 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 23:37:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from [207.167.80.70] (zamboni.plaidworks.com [207.167.80.70]) by plaidworks.com (8.6.9/A/UX 3.1) with ESMTP id XAA16799; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 23:37:26 -0800 X-Sender: chuq@solutions.apple.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19970103004631.0035799c@pop.ma.ultranet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 2 Jan 1997 23:21:00 -0800 To: stanr@sunspot.tiac.net, "Joshua D. Baer" From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: findmail.com Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 4:46 PM -0800 1/2/97, Stan Ryckman wrote: >You are assuming that DejaNews isn't violating copyright -- something >that I don't assume. Sooner or later, someone will probably sue them. I wonder. They're only taking information avaialble on a public news feed and distributing it to users. Their only difference is they're not distributing it via NNTP, but repackaging it with different front end. I don't see that their decision to make it available via HTTP using a huge mother search engine instead of using INN and NNTP protocols does a thing about copyright. Why is what they're doing different than what UUNET does? As far as I can tell, it's only protocols and presentation. Both are publically distributing public information. How is one therefore a copyright violation? >If they give it away freely, but surrounded by all sorts of advertising >(some of which you may object to), is it "selling?" Yes. And, in fact, they can give it away and still be in violation. Copyright violations don't need a monetary value attached -- it's the loss of rights that causes the violation. >Not that selling's relevant to copyright law; you have no right to take >a book I write, photocopy it, and give away the copies. Brings up an interesting question -- is Alta Vista in violation of people's copyrights? They suck down web pages, index them, and distribute the consolidated data. So are all the other crawlers. If Alta Vista is legally clean, why wouldn't findmail.com be? They seem to be doing effectively the same thing, only against e-mail. Why is it okay to do it to web, and not e-mail? Is it because we don't like the concept? Or because we already know the value of Alta vista and not these guys, so they don't count? Or is there soem essential difference that makes it okay one way but not the other? >>I'm not saying _all_ mailing lists are public forums, but some are designed >>as such, including most of the lists I run. > >Which ones are? Unless you require submitters to explicitly transfer >copyright to you, and then explicitly place the contents in the public domain, >they (the submitters) *still* maintain copyright even if "public" by whatever >definition you may have of "public." Generally, I don't think it matters. The user retains copyright on the individual message, and the list owner maintains copyright on the compilation of messages that is "the mailing list". Compuserve, et al, have shown and used compilation copyrights for a long time. It's pretty clear from a legal standpoint... >>Some obviously aren't. >What makes that "obvious" as opposed to a mailing list discussing I don't think it's at all obvious, especially in the strict legal definition, which is what really matter. We're looking at two witches, calling one good, and one bad, based on the clothes they wear, when taste in clothes is a personal opinion, not a legal fact.... -- Chuq Von Rospach (chuq@solutions.apple.com) Software Gnome Apple Server Marketing Webmaster Plaidworks Consulting (chuqui@plaidworks.com) ( +-+ The home for Hockey on the net) I got no name or number/ I just hand out the lumber. But if I get a chance to play/ I'm going to show 'em. -- Stick Boy (The Hanson Brothers, SUDDEN DEATH) From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 3 01:44:43 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id BAA07655 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 01:36:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from bolero.rahul.net (bolero.rahul.net [192.160.13.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id BAA07630 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 01:36:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from jive.rahul.net by bolero.rahul.net with SMTP id AA05799 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for ); Fri, 3 Jan 1997 01:36:07 -0800 Received: by jive.rahul.net (5.67b8/jive-a2i-1.0) id AA17412; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 01:36:05 -0800 Message-Id: <199701030936.AA17412@jive.rahul.net> To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: findmail.com In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 03 Jan 97 01:36:04 -0800 From: Michelle Dick Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Chuq wrote: > Brings up an interesting question -- is Alta Vista in violation of > people's copyrights? They suck down web pages, index them, and > distribute the consolidated data. So are all the other crawlers. If > Alta Vista is legally clean, why wouldn't findmail.com be? They seem to > be doing effectively the same thing, only against e-mail. Why is it > okay to do it to web, and not e-mail? Because Alta Vista doesn't provide the full-text of the web-pages at their site. They only provide content-based URLs pointing to the original data and a fair-use excerpt. > Or is there soem essential difference that makes it okay one way but > not the other? Yup, you can point to my actual content, you can review it, you can index, you can excerpt. But you cannot provide the actual full-text content itself without my permission. *BIG* difference. *CRUCIAL* difference. > I don't think it's at all obvious, especially in the strict legal > definition, which is what really matter. We're looking at two witches, > calling one good, and one bad, based on the clothes they wear, when > taste in clothes is a personal opinion, not a legal fact.... There is a cooking oriented book out which is nothing more than an index to several popular cookbooks. They indexed all the recipes, by title and ingredient. If you wanted oatmeal cookies you could look up in this book and it would tell you what page it was on in Joy of Cooking, in Betty Crocker, etc. You could then compare the recipes. Or if you remembered there was a recipe for stuffed zucchini in one of the books, but didn't recall which one, you looked it up in this index and found out which cookbook had it. This large recipe index book didn't have the actual recipes, just pointers based on the content in the cookbooks. This recipe index is like the web search engines. Findmail would be like doing this same indexing, but including all the recipes from all the books verbatum. The first is not a violation of copyright (and actually exists, BTW), the second would be. This is not a matter of "taste" at all. -- Michelle Dick artemis@rahul.net East Palo Alto, CA From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 3 02:14:06 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id CAA09062 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 02:01:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from bolero.rahul.net (bolero.rahul.net [192.160.13.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id CAA09025 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 02:01:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from jive.rahul.net by bolero.rahul.net with SMTP id AA07616 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for ); Fri, 3 Jan 1997 02:00:54 -0800 Received: by jive.rahul.net (5.67b8/jive-a2i-1.0) id AA17920; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 02:00:52 -0800 Message-Id: <199701031000.AA17920@jive.rahul.net> To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: findmail.com In-Reply-To: <199701030936.AA17412@jive.rahul.net> Date: Fri, 03 Jan 97 02:00:51 -0800 From: Michelle Dick Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I wrote: > Chuq wrote: > > > Or is there soem essential difference that makes it okay one way but > > not the other? > > Yup, you can point to my actual content, you can review it, you can > index, you can excerpt. But you cannot provide the actual full-text > content itself without my permission. *BIG* difference. *CRUCIAL* > difference. Just to further highlight this difference: Remember when Point was independent and was in the planning stages of their web site review book? They wanted to include screen shots of the sites they reviewed and pointed to. Since this would be reproducing the actual content and not just reviewing and pointing to the content through URLs, they actually went and got written, signed permission from each and every web site owner they planned to include. Without this signed permission, they did not, would not, copy the content (but merely review it). They did not whine and try to argue that the web site owners had to make it easy for them by including a special line in robots.txt. They realized that *copying* content was very different from indexing it. Now *this* is how responsible internet companies behave. -- Michelle Dick artemis@rahul.net East Palo Alto, CA From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 3 05:14:05 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id FAA18067 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 05:00:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from cyberca.com (isis.cyberca.com [206.42.216.51]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id FAA18059 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 05:00:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from ra.cyberca.com (ra.cyberca.com [192.234.55.25]) by cyberca.com (8.6.8.1/SCA-6.6) with SMTP id NAA25453; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 13:00:21 GMT Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970103125620.0071b5a0@isis.cyberca.com> X-Sender: jennings@isis.cyberca.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 03 Jan 1997 07:56:20 -0500 To: Kynn Bartlett From: Penn Jennings Subject: Re: List Manager Duties - Legal Advice Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 10:08 PM 1/2/97 -0800, you wrote: >Please tell me again how removing someone from a mailing list prevents >murder? Thanks. This was really very simple. Follow closely. In the example the List manager is made aware that a very serious threat exists on his. He take no action. This allows the threat to continue to exist. If someone joins the AFTER the threat was identified and is damaged by this threat you may be held partially responsible because the damage was foreseeable AND avoidable. A jury can decide that you ware a factor in the damage and say you were, lets say, 25% at fault. In a $1,000,000 suit that comes to..... Damn $250,000. A ordinary, reasonable prudent does not do NOTHING when they are notified that a threat exists and they are in charge. As the list manager you would have to something. You CAN argue about what to though. Wait let me get this right. You don't mind being sued. It might do like this. ATTORENY: Are you the list manager? YOU: Yes ATTORNEY: Are you in charge, do you make management and operation decisions? YOU: Yes ATTORNEY: Have you ever removed users from your list for any reason? YOU: Yes ATTORNEY: Did several users tell you "Bob Dole" was going kill them? YOU: Sure, many times. ATTORNEY: What did you do about that? YOU: Nothing ATTORNEY: Why? YOU: Hey, why should I? JUDGE: Jury, please remain seated.... >Please state their names and qualifications. You have provided no >proof of anything. I can make up a dozen anonymous lawyers who agree >with me, if I don't have to tell anyone who they are. > >Better yet, get them to join this mailing list. They -are- on the >net, and they -do- know what mailing lists are, right? (If they can >join this list without your assistance, then I'll start believing >that they know what they're talking about when they give "legal advice" >about mailing lists on the net.) Listen, I'm not being paid to provide this information to you and they are not either. I could care less if you don't believe me. PLEASE, contact your own local attorney. Dude! some of this is common sense... Stop and think about the incredibly ridiculous cases and awards in this country for just a second. This is a country were a lady can go to McDonalds, order a hot coffee, split it on HERSELF while driving and then blame McDonalds and win a multimillion dollar suit. Jenny Jones didn't kill anyone, however, the jury in criminal trial thought that should have taken more steps to protect her guests and said so. How much do you think it will cost her? I'm done with this topic. Next! __________________________________________________________________ Copyright 1996 (c) Penn Jennings Penn Jennings jennings@cyberca.com http://www.cyberca.com/~jennings/ The road to evil is paved with good intentions. From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 3 06:14:04 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id FAA21092 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 05:59:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from ifi.uio.no (ifi.uio.no [129.240.64.2]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id FAA21070 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 05:59:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from mne.ifi.uio.no (1232@mne.ifi.uio.no [129.240.65.76]) by ifi.uio.no with ESMTP (8.6.11/ifi2.4) id ; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 14:58:38 +0100 From: Kjetil Torgrim Homme Received: (from kjetilho@localhost) by mne.ifi.uio.no ; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 14:58:35 +0100 Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 14:58:35 +0100 Message-Id: <199701031358.4639.mne.ifi.uio.no@ifi.uio.no> To: jennings@cyberca.com CC: kynn@idyllmtn.com, list-managers@greatcircle.com In-reply-to: <1.5.4.32.19970103125620.0071b5a0@isis.cyberca.com> (message from Penn Jennings on Fri, 03 Jan 1997 07:56:20 -0500) Subject: Re: List Manager Duties - Legal Advice Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk [Penn Jennings] (orthography touched up the way I understand it to be meant) | In the example the List manager is made aware that a very serious | threat exists on his list. He takes no action. This allows the | threat to continue to exist. If someone joins the list AFTER the | threat was identified and is damaged by this threat you may be | held partially responsible because the damage was foreseeable AND | avoidable. A jury can decide that you are a factor in the damage | and say you were, let's say, 25% at fault. In a $1,000,000 suit | that comes to..... Damn $250,000. You're assuming the threat in itself causes damage. What threat are you having in mind? Obnoxious poster: "I will kill everyone who joins this list!" Newcomer: "Uh-ah! I will need to go to therapy now. It probably will cost me a million dollars before I have recovered. You'll all hear from my lawyer!" The newcomer should be fined for contempt, trying such a case. (A common occurence in Norway when American lawyers come over...) I'd say that removing the person making threats is a more dangerous action. If the intended victim isn't made aware of the danger he's in, he can't take action. It's the possible victim who should make the call whether contacting the police is necessary. Kjetil T. From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 3 06:44:49 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id GAA23795 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 06:43:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from mule1.mindspring.com (mule1.mindspring.com [204.180.128.167]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id GAA23787 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 06:42:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from LOCALNAME (user-168-121-55-2.dialup.mindspring.com [168.121.55.2]) by mule1.mindspring.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP id JAA16172 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 09:42:26 -0500 Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 09:42:26 -0500 Message-Id: <199701031442.JAA16172@mule1.mindspring.com> X-Sender: tracey@pop.mont.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Tracey McCartney Subject: Re: List Manager Duties - Legal Advice Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 07:56 AM 1/3/97 -0500, Penn Jennings wrote: >This was really very simple. Follow closely. In the example the List >manager is made aware that a very serious threat exists on his. He take no >action. This allows the threat to continue to exist. Okay, here is where this stops making sense. If a list member is threatening another list member, he can do so with or without being subscribed to the list. Maybe the list first brought him into contact with his victim, but without more facts, neither the list nor the list-manager created the threat. >Wait let me get this right. You don't mind being sued. It might do like this. > > >ATTORENY: Are you the list manager? >YOU: Yes > >ATTORNEY: Are you in charge, do you make management and operation decisions? >YOU: Yes > >ATTORNEY: Have you ever removed users from your list for any reason? >YOU: Yes > >ATTORNEY: Did several users tell you "Bob Dole" was going kill them? >YOU: Sure, many times. > >ATTORNEY: What did you do about that? >YOU: Nothing > >ATTORNEY: Why? >YOU: Hey, why should I? > On re-direct: DEFENSE ATTORNEY: If you had unsubscribed "Bob Dole" from your list, would he have continued to threaten Y? YOU: I think so. He was threatening Y via private e-mail. DEFENSE ATTORNEY: No further questions. The defense rests. >Jenny Jones didn't kill anyone, however, the jury in criminal trial thought >that should have taken more steps to protect her guests and said so. How >much do you think it will cost her? Jenny Jones' sin was to contrive a situation that was likely to lead to something bad. Unless you as a list-manager do the same thing, it's not your business. Tracey McCartney, Esq. Tracey McCartney fair_housing-owner@majordomo.pobox.com From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 3 07:15:28 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id HAA25398 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 07:01:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from iquest.net (iquest4z.iquest.net [206.246.190.254]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id HAA25364 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 07:01:24 -0800 (PST) Received: by iquest.net (Smail3.1.29.1 #5) id m0vgB77-003ioRC; Fri, 3 Jan 97 10:00 EST Received: (from alt@localhost) by aen.aen.org (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA10530; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 07:34:24 -0500 Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 07:34:23 -0500 (EST) From: Al Thompson To: "Enforcement Coordinator (Tracey McCartney)" cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: List Manager Duties - Legal Advice In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19970103052945.006cc9fc@pop.mindspring.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Fairly intimidating name you have there, by the way. On Thu, 2 Jan 1997, Enforcement Coordinator (Tracey McCartney) wrote: > Well, this is the opinion of someone who *has* passed the bar. I don't know > what kind of scenario you laid out for those attorneys, but this really > makes no sense. It's like saying, "You know that X is stalking Y with the > intent to kill him/her, so you have a duty to immediately have X's car towed > for being in a loading zone." Good analogy. I also worry about the advice that once you are told of a problem, you should immediately put up a disclaimer. Courts have regularly held that you can't disclaim away liability (not that I believe a list owner would necessarily be liable, morally or legally, for the off-list activities of his members). Can you imagine: "Caution, this product is defective and regularly blows up, but we assume no responsibility for death or dismemberment arising from its use." My big question is if we assume the duty to kick people from our lists for alleged illegal off-list activity, does this require us to kick someone if we are told they are smoking dope, or have beaten their wife, or exceeded the posted speed limit? The legendary slippery slope. . . . . I would prefer a disclaimer when people first subscribe that says "I am not your mother nor the cause of your personal problems. If you have a problem, take it up with the person who is one of the above." Just a lay-opinion. From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 3 07:29:46 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id HAA25987 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 07:08:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from netcom2.netcom.com (netcom2.netcom.com [192.100.81.108]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id HAA25970 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 07:08:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (grafolog@localhost) by netcom2.netcom.com (8.6.13/Netcom) id PAA23937; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 15:07:36 GMT Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 15:07:35 +0000 (GMT) From: jonathon X-Sender: grafolog@netcom2 To: Penn Jennings cc: Kynn Bartlett , list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: List Manager Duties - Legal Advice In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19970103125620.0071b5a0@isis.cyberca.com> Message-ID: x-no-archive: yes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Fri, 3 Jan 1997, Penn Jennings wrote: > This was really very simple. Follow closely. In the example the List > manager is made aware that a very serious threat exists on his. He take no A serious threat was alleged. No way to rate the seriousness of threat --- e-mail can be, and has been forged by alleged victims. > Wait let me get this right. You don't mind being sued. It might do like > this. First off, does the court where the case is taken have jurisdiction. Unless the list-manager, the list itself, and all of the list members are in the same state, it probably doesn't. Case dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Or, tie the case up for years argueing jurisdictional questions. Especially if several different countries can be involved. > ATTORNEY: Did several users tell you "Bob Dole" was going kill them? > YOU: Sure, many times. Users alleged that "Bob Dole" would kill them. Nothing to indicate that these were not fabrications. << & I have seen such things fabricated on mailing lists. >> > ATTORNEY: What did you do about that? > YOU: Nothing > > ATTORNEY: Why? > YOU: Hey, why should I? YOU: Hearsay evidence. X was an unpopular character on the mailing list. There is no way to tell whether or not the alleged e-mail X sent to Y was actually sent to Y by X, unless X digitally signs it. And that just proves that X wrote the message, doesn't say who X sent the message to. > Dude! some of this is common sense... The law does not follow common sense. Neither is the law always logical. > country for just a second. This is a country were a lady can go to > McDonalds, order a hot coffee, split it on HERSELF while driving and then I guess you didn't ever read the facts of that case. It was quite a bit different. > Jenny Jones didn't kill anyone, however, the jury in criminal trial thought > that should have taken more steps to protect her guests and said so. How > much do you think it will cost her? Jenny Jones also set her guests up. Which is not something that is done on mailing lists. xan jonathon grafolog@netcom.com *********************************************************** Are there any good books about "The War of Northern Agression"? Are there any good books about "The War of Southern Rebellion"? From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 3 09:01:42 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id IAA00293 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 08:51:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from ncar.UCAR.EDU (ncar.ucar.edu [192.52.106.6]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id IAA00219 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 08:50:53 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199701031650.JAA03216@ncar.ucar.EDU> Received: by ncar.ucar.EDU (NCAR 12/5/96/ NCAR Central Post Office 03/11/93) id JAA03216; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 09:50:16 -0700 (MST) Subject: Re: List Manager Duties - Legal Advice To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Fri, 3 Jan 97 9:50:14 MST In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19970103125620.0071b5a0@isis.cyberca.com>; from "Penn Jennings" at Jan 3, 97 7:56 am From: woods@ucar.edu (Greg Woods) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11] Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk QUESTION ON REDIRECT: Were any of the threats in question actually made on your mailing list? YOU: No. QoR: How do you know the threats were actually made? YOU: Because the palintiff in this case claimed they were. JUDGE: The jury will please stop laughing. QoR: Would removal of the alleged threatening person from your mailing list have prevented the threats from being made? YOU: No. JUDGE: The plaintiff counsel will please explain why I'm even hearing this case. I'd say it's nowhere near as cut and dried as you're making it sound. > I'm done with this topic. Next! While it's you're right not to respond further, this sounds awfully final for an opinion supported only by a couple of anonymous attorneys whose opinions were based solely on your undoubtedly biased presentation of the situation. You certainly haven't proven anything. The example of the McDonald's case, frequently used to show how "ridiculous" civil cases can be in this country, left out one important fact: McDonald's had previously been officially warned of this danger, and did nothing about it. This was more of a punitive award than a merit award. (I'm not saying that the awards in some civil cases aren't absurd, just that there's more to the McDonald's case than the popular view). --Greg From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 3 10:30:18 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id KAA09700 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 10:16:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from solutions.apple.com (solutions.apple.com [17.255.34.19]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id KAA09625 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 10:16:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from [17.221.41.213] (A17-221-41-213.apple.com [17.221.41.213]) by solutions.apple.com (8.6.10/A/UX 3.1) with ESMTP id KAA11406; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 10:15:32 -0800 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199701031358.4639.mne.ifi.uio.no@ifi.uio.no> References: <1.5.4.32.19970103125620.0071b5a0@isis.cyberca.com> (message from Penn Jennings on Fri, 03 Jan 1997 07:56:20 -0500) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 10:08:01 -0800 To: Kjetil Torgrim Homme , jennings@cyberca.com From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: List Manager Duties - Legal Advice Cc: kynn@idyllmtn.com, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 5:58 AM -0800 1/3/97, Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote: >You're assuming the threat in itself causes damage. Threats can and DO cause damage in and of themselves. I have been, for instance, been threatened more than once over the internet. Trust me, even threats aren't harmless. Having someone offer to track you down and work you over with a baseball bat, even if he's 1,500 miles away and a dweeb, slows you down and makes you just a bit more careful about life. (yes, it's happened. It's public record). It's real easy to talk theoretical and legalese, but trust me, when you've been in these situations, it's not so easy to make broad statements about how admins don't need to get involved. Excuse me for being common sense here, but bluntly, if someone's abusing me or my list members, or making threats or being offensive, I don't want the damn idiot on my list anyway! And if he's threatening bodily harm to someone, I don't give a damn if he's in Greenland locked up on a reindeer farm. All you need to do is guess wrong *once* to have to live with the results the rest of your life. Think about that one... You have a responsibilty to provide a place where your members feel safe congregating, or you're abusing YOUR responsibility as a host. Plain and simple. Jeez. -- Chuq Von Rospach (chuq@solutions.apple.com) Software Gnome Apple Server Marketing Webmaster Plaidworks Consulting (chuqui@plaidworks.com) ( +-+ The home for Hockey on the net) I got no name or number/ I just hand out the lumber. But if I get a chance to play/ I'm going to show 'em. -- Stick Boy (The Hanson Brothers, SUDDEN DEATH) From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 3 10:49:20 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id KAA12229 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 10:36:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from ayla.idyllmtn.com (ayla.idyllmtn.com [206.16.238.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id KAA12165 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 10:36:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from gates.idyllmtn.com (gates.idyllmtn.com [206.16.238.103]) by ayla.idyllmtn.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id KAA18169; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 10:32:47 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970103104635.0076fe4c@mail.idyllmtn.com> X-Sender: kynn@mail.idyllmtn.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Fri, 03 Jan 1997 10:46:41 -0800 To: Chuq Von Rospach From: Kynn Bartlett Subject: Re: List Manager Duties - Legal Advice Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 10:08 AM 1/3/97 -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: >At 5:58 AM -0800 1/3/97, Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote: >>You're assuming the threat in itself causes damage. >Threats can and DO cause damage in and of themselves. I have been, for >instance, been threatened more than once over the internet. Trust me, >even threats aren't harmless. Having someone offer to track you down >and work you over with a baseball bat, even if he's 1,500 miles away >and a dweeb, slows you down and makes you just a bit more careful about >life. (yes, it's happened. It's public record). Drink twice. >It's real easy to talk theoretical and legalese, but trust me, when >you've been in these situations, it's not so easy to make broad >statements about how admins don't need to get involved. How would an "admin" of some kind getting involved have saved you any stress? Especially when we're talking about today's Internet in which you can get connections for free (10/15/50/N hours free AOL, etc) left and right, and it's not as simple as reporting something to a school sysadmin anymore? >Excuse me for being common sense here, but bluntly, if someone's >abusing me or my list members, or making threats or being offensive, I >don't want the damn idiot on my list anyway! That's your _choice_, but it's not your _obligation_. I don't have any sort of civic duty or legal responsibility to make the same choice that you did. >And if he's threatening >bodily harm to someone, I don't give a damn if he's in Greenland locked >up on a reindeer farm. All you need to do is guess wrong *once* to have >to live with the results the rest of your life. Think about that one... Keep in mind, Chuq, that we're talking about threats made off the list in private email. Certainly you can control whatever goes across your list, but that's not the point. By the logic in your last sentence: Anyone on your lists should be able to throw anyone else off if they don't like them. If I don't like _you_, I should write to owner-list-managers@greatcircle.com and say "Chuq threatened my life!" Even if I can't prove it, dare the list owner take the chance? After all, guess wrong *once* and someone may be dead! His only choice is to throw you off, and report you to the authorities. Get real. >You have a responsibilty to provide a place where your members feel >safe congregating, or you're abusing YOUR responsibility as a host. >Plain and simple. A place? Hello? This is not your party analogy. You're providing a mailing list that people can join, and messages they can choose to receive. It's not your responsibility to ensure their "safety" at such a place -- because no such place exists. You are not there to ensure "safe feelings". You are there to provide a mailing list and run it according to your own rules. (Your personal rules may involve "making people feel safe" but they don't have to. Mine don't.) >Jeez. Geez right back at you. -- /\ /\ /\ /\ Kynn Bartlett / kynn@idyllmtn.com / \ / \/ \ / \ Idyll Mountain Internet / \ //\ /\ \ / \ '_| _` // \/ \__\ '_| _` HTML Writers Guild Governing Board Member From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 3 11:14:49 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id LAA15658 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 11:00:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from netcom8.netcom.com (netcom8.netcom.com [192.100.81.117]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id LAA15497 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 11:00:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (grafolog@localhost) by netcom8.netcom.com (8.6.13/Netcom) id SAA21284; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 18:59:33 GMT Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 18:59:33 +0000 (GMT) From: jonathon X-Sender: grafolog@netcom8 Reply-To: jonathon To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Not Spam, but not Not-Spam. Message-ID: x-no-archive: yes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk All: I've aquired the list-ownership of twenty different lists, which I will consolidate into one. These lists were manually run. These lists are more or less dormant. << The period of dormancy ranges from three months to two years. >> The former listowners used Eudora, or something similar to that. All people on these lists did request to be subscribed to the mailing lists I'll be taking over. Some may have requested to be unsubscribed, but for one reason or another that didn't happen. << Lost e-mail being the most common one. A full mailbox, by the former list-owner being another one. >> Question: Is it better to subscribe everybody to the new list, and unsubscribe them as requested, or to BCC everybody, asking them if they would like to be on the revamped list? Or do you know of a better option? xan jonathon grafolog@netcom.com grafolog@eskimo.com http://www.eskimo.com/~grafolog Owner: Graphology-L@Bolis.com ********************************************************************** * E-mail to grafolog@eskimo.com will be read by a mailbot. * ********************************************************************** From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 3 11:29:11 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id LAA16977 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 11:16:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from solutions.apple.com (solutions.apple.com [17.255.34.19]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id LAA16958 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 11:16:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from [17.221.41.213] (A17-221-41-213.apple.com [17.221.41.213]) by solutions.apple.com (8.6.10/A/UX 3.1) with ESMTP id LAA13463; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 11:16:16 -0800 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970103104635.0076fe4c@mail.idyllmtn.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 11:07:01 -0800 To: Kynn Bartlett , Chuq Von Rospach From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: List Manager Duties - Legal Advice Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk We just disagree, Kynn. I just hope you never have to live with the results of your philosophy. May you continue to be right. All you need to do is guess wrong once.... chuq -- Chuq Von Rospach (chuq@solutions.apple.com) Software Gnome Apple Server Marketing Webmaster Plaidworks Consulting (chuqui@plaidworks.com) ( +-+ The home for Hockey on the net) I got no name or number/ I just hand out the lumber. But if I get a chance to play/ I'm going to show 'em. -- Stick Boy (The Hanson Brothers, SUDDEN DEATH) From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 3 11:59:07 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id LAA18360 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 11:32:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from deepthought.armory.com (deepthought.armory.com [192.122.209.42]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id LAA18343 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 11:32:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from clovis by deepthought.armory.com id aa24942; 3 Jan 97 11:32 PST Received: by clovis.nerdnosh.org (1.65/waf) via UUCP; Fri, 03 Jan 97 11:27:36 PST for list-managers@greatcircle.com To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: List Manager Duties - Legal Advice From: Tim Bowden Message-ID: Date: Fri, 03 Jan 97 11:05:21 PST In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19970103125620.0071b5a0@isis.cyberca.com> Organization: NERDNOSH - the story conference as cyber-community! Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Penn Jennings writes: > At 10:08 PM 1/2/97 -0800, you wrote: > > >Please tell me again how removing someone from a mailing list prevents > >murder? Thanks. > > This was really very simple. Follow closely. The precedent I suppose was Netcom as a defendent in the action by the Scientology cult, which held the position not that Netcom was responsible for the copyright infringements going on at their site, but that they did nothing about it when informed of the alleged infraction. Their liability began, according to the plaintiffs, at the point they were informed of the violation. Court found for the plaintiffs, I believe, settled before appeal heard, but I may be wrong about that... Dueling legal beagles is funny. I'm reminded of Rivera Live, and all the fine-grain minutia ground out by the avid and frenetic attorneys on-camera, and how they all resembled the kids at Disneyland wildly flailing away with balsa-wood paddles to guide the pirate longboat which is pulled along by underwater cables. The Brentwood Butcher was free the instant the dull and bigoted jury was seated. Same with any jury trial; any cracked judgment is possible in any event. For instance, what would you believe would be the liability of McDonald's if a little old lady placed one of their hot coffee to-go cups between her legs and attempted to drive away like that? I would say so, too, but the jury in the case awarded granny over a mil. Ain't no guarantees is the moral, I guess... --- mailto:tcbowden@clovis.nerdnosh.org (Tim Bowden) Proud member of NERDNOSH (tm)! mailto:info@clovis.nerdnosh.org http://www.corcom.com/reloj/Nerdnosh.html From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 3 13:14:33 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id NAA27818 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 13:09:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from chinet.chinet.com.chinet.com (chinet.chinet.com [206.158.147.18]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id NAA27740 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 13:08:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost by chinet.chinet.com.chinet.com (8.6.10/SMI-4.1) id VAA15227; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 21:07:09 GMT Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 15:07:08 -0600 (CST) From: "Adam H. Kerman" To: list-managers Subject: Re: List Manager Duties - Legal Advice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >From: Chuq Von Rospach >Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 10:08:01 -0800 >You have a responsibilty to provide a place where your members feel safe con- >gregating, or you're abusing YOUR responsibility as a host. Plain and simple. It is not plain and simple. Anyone at all can send and receive e-mail whether or not they are on the Internet. You aren't providing a place, you are simply using network facilities for exchanging messages. You have no control over the networks nor their users. Furthermore, you're not the host. The only way you abuse your responsibilities is by making false claims that you can control the actions of others. From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 3 13:18:27 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id MAA26848 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 12:59:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from chinet.chinet.com.chinet.com (chinet.chinet.com [206.158.147.18]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id MAA26708 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 12:59:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost by chinet.chinet.com.chinet.com (8.6.10/SMI-4.1) id UAA15117; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 20:57:40 GMT Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 14:57:39 -0600 (CST) From: "Adam H. Kerman" To: list-managers Subject: Re: List Manager Duties - Legal Advice In-Reply-To: <199701031650.JAA03216@ncar.ucar.EDU> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >From: Greg Woods >Date: Fri, 3 Jan 97 9:50:14 MST >The example of the McDonald's case, frequently used to show how "ridiculous" >civil cases can be in this country, left out one important fact: McDonald's >had previously been officially warned of this danger, and did nothing about >it. This was more of a punitive award than a merit award. (I'm not saying that >the awards in some civil cases aren't absurd, just that there's more to the >McDonald's case than the popular view). Well, McDonald's made a business decision. Given that our franchisees are selling convenience, and not tasty food, and given that they are not paying enough to keep proper help, let's figure that they will make coffee in vast machines and keep it hot for a long time. In that case, given that we don't know how clean everything will be at all times, let's ask them to use water at a high enough temperature so that the bacteria that causes food poisoning cannot grow in the coffee. McDonald's actually did claim that the coffee was so hot, and the containers were designed to retain the heat, so that commuters could bring their breakfast home or to the office, and still know that their coffee hadn't cooled too much. And, they probably thought to themselves, how stupid would a person have to be to hold a cup of coffee BETWEEN her thighs while a passenger in a car? Or, possibly, it never even entered their minds that such a moron existed. McDonald's did nothing that was unreasonable. On the other hand, they should have been sued long ago for how bad a cup of coffee they used to make... From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 3 13:22:53 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id MAA24962 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 12:44:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from chinet.chinet.com.chinet.com (chinet.chinet.com [206.158.147.18]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id MAA24952 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 12:44:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost by chinet.chinet.com.chinet.com (8.6.10/SMI-4.1) id UAA14912; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 20:43:01 GMT Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 14:43:01 -0600 (CST) From: "Adam H. Kerman" To: list-managers Subject: Re: List Manager Duties - Legal Advice In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19970103125620.0071b5a0@isis.cyberca.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >From: Penn Jennings >Date: Fri, 03 Jan 1997 07:56:20 -0500 >In the example the List manager is made aware that a very serious threat >exists on his. He take no action. This allows the threat to continue to exist. You seem to be going out of your way to fail to see the point all the rest of us are trying to make. There is no dispute in this matter: A list owner (let's use the correct term) can add or delete a user for valid or capricious reasons. You have made no guarantee to your list members that you have screened potential members for psychotic behavior, or that you are keeping their e-mail address private. But, you continue to make the claim that somehow, if you only unsubscribe this psychotic person from the list, that you have PROTECTED your current and future list members from this person. I say to you, that rather than limiting your exposure to potential liability, you have INCREASED it. You have now made a claim that you cannot back up. The only prudent action to take in this circumstance is to tell the person who received the threat the truth, that you are in no position to help him. It is up to the person who received the threat to take appropriate action. You may suggest to him what that course of action is, but you cannot take it for him. But, you CANNOT, under any circumstances, tell him that you can PROTECT him from harm. Again, the person who received the threat should make a police report. If it is serious enough, he may wish to file a protection order, or hide. If he wishes to be free from harassing e-mail, he should filter it. >If someone joins the AFTER the threat was identified and is damaged by this >threat you may be held partially responsible because the damage was >foreseeable AND avoidable. The only way you could be held responsible was if it could be established that you controlled this person, or that you claimed to control this person. >A ordinary, reasonable prudent does not do NOTHING when they are notified that >a threat exists and they are in charge. As the list manager you would have to >something. You CAN argue about what to though. No. The person who receive the threat, not the list owner, is responsible for taking the action. You are NOT in charge of the threatener. >Wait let me get this right. You don't mind being sued. It might do like this. >ATTORENY: Are you the list manager? >YOU: Yes >ATTORNEY: Are you in charge, do you make management and operation decisions? >YOU: Yes >ATTORNEY: Have you ever removed users from your list for any reason? >YOU: Yes >ATTORNEY: Did several users tell you "Bob Dole" was going kill them? >YOU: Sure, many times. >ATTORNEY: What did you do about that? >YOU: Nothing WRONG. You wouldn't answer. Your attorney would leap up and say, "Objection, your Honor! Plaintiff has failed to lay a proper foundation for this line of questioning." The court would sustain the objection. And, the following question would not be asked. >ATTORNEY: Why? >YOU: Hey, why should I? Let's take this the other way. Suppose you removed the psychotic from your list. Suppose he killed someone he had threatened anyway. This would not insulate you from defending against a claim that you are not an expert in psychosis and that your actions provoked him. In America, anyone could make a claim against anyone else, no matter how ridiculous. >Jenny Jones didn't kill anyone, however, the jury in criminal trial thought >that should have taken more steps to protect her guests and said so. How >much do you think it will cost her? This is an entirely different circumstance. She was defending herself against a claim that she humiliated a guest, thus provoking him into killing another guest. As the hypothetical list owner, were you notified that a psychotic person was making threats, and did you encourage him to follow through? From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 3 13:29:21 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id NAA28466 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 13:17:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from prawn.fishy.net (flounder.fishy.net [206.156.56.34]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id NAA28447 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 13:17:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from sturgeon.fishy.net (sturgeon.fishy.net [172.16.1.3]) by prawn.fishy.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA196296; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 16:16:24 -0500 Received: (from bonnie@localhost) by sturgeon.fishy.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) id QAA39072; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 16:16:17 -0500 From: Bonnie Scott Message-Id: <199701032116.QAA39072@sturgeon.fishy.net> Subject: Re: findmail.com To: chuqui@plaidworks.com (Chuq Von Rospach) Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 16:16:16 -0500 (EST) Cc: stanr@sunspot.tiac.net, josh@skyweyr.com, List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: from "Chuq Von Rospach" at Jan 2, 97 11:21:00 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > > At 4:46 PM -0800 1/2/97, Stan Ryckman wrote: > > >You are assuming that DejaNews isn't violating copyright -- something > >that I don't assume. Sooner or later, someone will probably sue them. I think Stan's correct. > I wonder. They're only taking information avaialble on a public news > feed and distributing it to users. Their only difference is they're not > distributing it via NNTP, but repackaging it with different front end. > I don't see that their decision to make it available via HTTP using a > huge mother search engine instead of using INN and NNTP protocols does > a thing about copyright. > > Why is what they're doing different than what UUNET does? As far as I > can tell, it's only protocols and presentation. Both are publically > distributing public information. How is one therefore a copyright > violation? Exactly. When you submit your newsgroup posting or email message to a list, you, the author, are publishing the work via a pre-defined distribution mechanism. All propagations via that distribution stream are part of the initial "run" of copies of the message, which were triggered by the copyright owner. No one else has the right to make re-prints, in any form. > Brings up an interesting question -- is Alta Vista in violation of > people's copyrights? They suck down web pages, index them, and > distribute the consolidated data. So are all the other crawlers. If > Alta Vista is legally clean, why wouldn't findmail.com be? They seem to > be doing effectively the same thing, only against e-mail. Why is it > okay to do it to web, and not e-mail? > > Is it because we don't like the concept? Or because we already know the > value of Alta vista and not these guys, so they don't count? Or is > there soem essential difference that makes it okay one way but not the > other? There is an essential difference. Alta Vista is not re-publishing. They aren't making a copy available to others. They had the right to one copy, which they look at, slice, dice and shred, and their output is something they have done to analyse its properties. They are NOT making copies of the works for other people. Deja News is. They are offering someone else's works at a time and in a method that the original author did not intend by making the original posting. > Generally, I don't think it matters. The user retains copyright on the > individual message, and the list owner maintains copyright on the > compilation of messages that is "the mailing list". Compuserve, et al, > have shown and used compilation copyrights for a long time. It's pretty > clear from a legal standpoint... I hope so. :) Bonnie Scott Prodigy, Inc. > Chuq Von Rospach (chuq@solutions.apple.com) Software Gnome > Apple Server Marketing Webmaster From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 3 13:44:13 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id NAA29531 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 13:30:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from asylum.apocalypse.org (asylum.sf.ca.us [192.48.232.17]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id NAA29509 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 13:30:39 -0800 (PST) Received: (from jailbait@localhost) by asylum.apocalypse.org (8.8.4/8.6.12) id QAA22815; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 16:30:02 -0500 Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 16:30:02 -0500 From: Jailbait Message-Id: <199701032130.QAA22815@asylum.apocalypse.org> To: tcbowden@nerdnosh.org Subject: Re: List Manager Duties - Legal Advice Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk (I'm sorry. I know it has no mailing-list-manager content, but given the number of times people have referred to the case in the course of this discussion, I just can't hold back any longer.) As has been mentioned by other people, reading the facts of a given case is a good thing before making too many claims about it.... -------------- > > some nice lady was checking on her roast, with the oven door open, > > and her kid decided the door was a fun thing to bounce on, so did. > > repeatedly. apparently with the mother watching. > > This has GOT to be the same chick who drives around with a cup of > scalding-hot coffee clenched between her legs. leaving aside that one ought have a reasonable expectation of not requiring major surgery from having a common accident with a food product (that coffee would've been just as hot if you had ordered it and spilled it on yr hands while opening it at yr table to add sugar. as, apparently happened to hundreds of people who also sued mcdonalds for the same product; they were indeed serving it considerably hotter than the industry average. they were certainly serving it a lot hotter than in the coffee bar i worked in, if the infrequency with which any of us there suffered 3rd degree burns is any indication), that isn't even what happened. she was in her son's passenger seat, holding it for a moment as she took the lid off). allowing one's child to bounce on the open door of an oven in use seems an entirely different order of stupidty than holding one's coffee with one's knees for a moment while opening it. what actually happened, in detail: >From the October 24th, 1994 issue of National Law Journal, Letters section HEADLINE: Verdict Against McDonald's Is Fully Justified BYLINE: S. REED MORGAN, S. Reed Morgan & Associates, Houston I AM THE LAWYER who tried Stella Liebeck's case in Albuquerque, N.M., from Aug. 8-16. There has been a great uproar from people displeased at the size of the verdict, who see it as an example of the product of a runaway jury and a plaintiff who will not accept responsibility for her actions. Stella Liebeck, 79, purchased a cup of McDonald's coffee while a passenger in her grandson's automobile. Ms. Liebeck attempted to hold the cup securely between her knees while she removed the plastic lid. It tipped over, causing third-degree burns that necessitated hospitalization for eight days, whirlpool treatment for debridement of her wounds and skin grafting, and led to permanent scarring and disability for more than two years. The jury awarded her $ 200,000 in compensatory damages, reduced by 20 percent for her negligence, and $ 2.7 million in punitive damages. The following information was presented to an impartial jury, which found that the product is unreasonably dangerous and is sold in breach of the implied warranty of fitness imposed by the Uniform Commercial Code: McDonald's Corp. sold its coffee at 180-190 degrees Fahrenheit by corporate specification. McDonald's coffee, if spilled, could cause full-thickness burns (third degree to the muscle/fatty tissue layer) in two to seven seconds. McDonald's knew about this unacceptable risk for more than 10 years; it was brought to the company's attention by other lawsuits (more than 700 reported claims from 1982 to 1992). The company's witnesses testified that it did not intend to turn down the heat. McDonald's generates revenues in excess of $ 1.3 million daily from the sale of coffee alone. Ms. Liebeck's treating physician testified that this was one of the worst scald burns he had ever seen. Other expert witnesses termed the risk of harm from McDonald's coffee to be unacceptable. Most consumers don't know that coffee this hot causes such injuries. Nor do they know McDonald's made a practice of serving its coffee this hot. The jury applied the law of punitive damages to deter McDonald's and other similarly situated corporations from exposing consumers to this risk. It imposed a penalty of two days' revenue from coffee sales, or $ 2.7 million, for willfully ignoring the safety of customers who feed the McDonald's money tree. The system has numerous methods of overturning a verdict that is excessive. Why should we tolerate corporate irresponsibility? What's wrong with penalizing irresponsible behavior that injures consumers? The news media, the day after the verdict, established that coffee at the McDonald's in Albuquerque is now sold at 158 degrees. At that temperature, it would take about 60 seconds to cause third-degree burns. Mission accomplished. ------------------------------- From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 3 14:30:44 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id OAA03708 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 14:26:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from proxy3.ba.best.com (proxy3.ba.best.com [206.184.139.14]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id OAA03630 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 14:25:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from shellx.best.com (shellx.best.com [206.86.0.11]) by proxy3.ba.best.com (8.8.4/8.8.3) with ESMTP id OAA08986 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 14:19:53 -0800 (PST) Received: (from cnorman@localhost) by shellx.best.com (8.8.4/8.8.3) id NAA25453; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 13:48:36 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 13:48:36 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199701032148.NAA25453@shellx.best.com> From: Cyndi Norman To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM CC: cnorman@shellx.best.com Subject: List Politics Reply-to: cnorman@best.com Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I've had to deal with some sticky list issues so I thought I would share some of them in order to inject some reality into these hypothetical discussions. A year and a half ago, I had some extremely disruptive people (all from AOL accounts) come on to my list. I should have dumped them immediately but I was in the middle of moving cross-country and arriving homeless and keeping up with my manually-run list was not first on my priority list (though I tried). Three of these people started harressing one of my list members, a woman I had met on the list and had, by that point, become close friends with. She was a survivor of some particularly horrid childhood abuse and these people figured that out and used their knowledge of specifics to torment her in private email (not real hard...I figured out her history myself, from some posts she made, which is what led to us talking and then becoming friends. But they knew details about her that they must have gotton from someone who knew her). It would be accurate to say that they were stalking her. The email sent her over the edge and she came close to committing suicide. She ended up in a psych hospital over this, but did survive. I felt a duty as both her friend and as the person running the list where these cretins found her. Did I have a legal duty? probably not...if for no other reason that I kept offering to help her and she turned me down. She wanted the harressment to stop and appreciated my help but was too scared to either go to the police or provide me with anything concrete. I went to AOL to get their accounts removed and the person I worked with was wonderful and sympathetic but couldn't do anything without at least a copy of one offending email, which I couldn't give him (I'd never seen one myself but my friend read me parts over the phone and also quoted peices to me in email). She had written AOL herself but very vaugely; I wasn't permitted to give her name to them. All AOL could do was to tell me that the 3 users were in fact different people in different parts of the country, based on their billing statements. At least the bastards finally hung themselves. Despite having been off the list for quite some time, they continued to post to it (I have since moved the list and have automatic software so that only subscribers can post, but this was not the case then). As their posts became more and more unreasonable (one of them posted that I was going to hell because my SO at the time was the same gender as me), I forwarded them to AOL and got all of their accounts yanked. For whatever reason, this was indeed enough to keep them from continuing to harress my friend. I am not a laywer but I've dealt with legal issues before (e.g., TA'd a class a couple of times that covered the details of various supreme court cases). There is some precident in laws about battered spouses. Assuming that the victim is not a minor and is competent in their own affairs, a bystander has no legal obligation to report anything (moral obligation perhaps, but that is another matter). This also applies to professionals working with the victim, as I found out, much to my dismay, when I was a social worker and couldn't get any agency to take action unless the victim initiated the action. The best I could do was document all the evidence over time and hope that one day the victim would ask for the files to go to court with. I don't know if the fact that the abuse is taking place on your turf (so to speak) makes you legally liable for anything, but even if this were the case, that liability would most likely disappear by booting the offender off the list, even if you're not helping the victim by doing so (you are at least protecting future subscribers from being known to this offender). But the orginal question was not "do I have to boot the person to avoid being sued?" but rather "should I boot the person for the good of my list?" And the answer to that question of course depends on the nature of the list and the nature of the offense. In this particular case (a subscriber using the list to find people to defraud, while pretending to do legit business that is encouraged by the list), I would say that you should indeed unsubscribe the person, ban him from the list, and post a warning about him in case he should try to contact other people from the list. Cyndi -- _______________________________________________________________________________ "There's nothing wrong with me. Maybe there's Cyndi Norman something wrong with the universe." (ST:TNG) cnorman@best.com __________________________________________________ http://www.best.com/~cnorman From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 3 14:44:33 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id OAA05173 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 14:40:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from wordsmith.org (lrdc5.lrdc.pitt.edu [136.142.93.166]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id OAA05166 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 14:40:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from local (anu@localhost) by wordsmith.org (8.7.5/tethered+proc $Revision: 1.3 $) ID ; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 17:39:59 -0500 From: anu garg Message-Id: <199701032239.RAA06823@wordsmith.org> Subject: Re: findmail.com To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 17:39:59 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <199701032116.QAA39072@sturgeon.fishy.net> from "Bonnie Scott" at Jan 3, 97 04:16:16 pm Restrict: no-external-archive X-No-Archive: yes X-URL: http://www.wordsmith.org/~anu/anu.html X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk SunWorld has an article on Usenet/mailing list archives in their current issue, though it doesn't talk about findmail: "Internet archives: Who's doing it? And can you protect your privacy?" http://www.sun.com/sunworldonline/swol-01-1997/swol-01-archives.html -- Anu Garg anu@wordsmith.org http://www.wordsmith.org/~anu/anu.html From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 3 14:59:29 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id OAA04300 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 14:31:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from IQSC.COM (iqgate.iqsc.com [205.164.232.190]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id OAA04257 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 14:31:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from walker.iqsc.com by IQSC.COM with smtp (Smail3.1.29.1 #1) id m0vgI8B-000RXKC; Fri, 3 Jan 97 17:30 EST Received: from localhost by walker.iqsc.com with smtp (Smail3.1.29.1 #1) id m0vgIAl-0002ymC; Fri, 3 Jan 97 17:33 EST Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 17:33:06 -0500 (EST) From: Milt Webb X-Sender: milt@walker cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: findmail.com In-Reply-To: <199701032116.QAA39072@sturgeon.fishy.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Fri, 3 Jan 1997, Bonnie Scott wrote: > > > > At 4:46 PM -0800 1/2/97, Stan Ryckman wrote: > > > ...snipped > > There is an essential difference. Alta Vista is not re-publishing. They > aren't making a copy available to others. They had the right to > one copy, which they look at, slice, dice and shred, and their output > is something they have done to analyse its properties. They are NOT > making copies of the works for other people. Deja News is. They are > offering someone else's works at a time and in a method that the original > author did not intend by making the original posting. Just to clear this up for me a bit. I understand your comment regarding AltaVista slicing/dicing to create links to original content. But, they do have that 'Search Usenet' option and that seems to work just like DejaNews, with links to copied content that resides on their own servers. Am I right -or wrong? Milt Webb --- Milt Webb Dir.,Unix/Internet Technologies IQ Software Corp. (www.iqsc.com) 3295 River Exchange Drive Norcross GA 30092 770/446-8880 x245 (Fax)770/446-2481 .--. . .- -.-. . .- -. -.. --. --- --- -.. .-- .. .-.. .-.. From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 3 15:08:22 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id OAA06307 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 14:46:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from chinet.chinet.com.chinet.com (chinet.chinet.com [206.158.147.18]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id OAA06159 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 14:46:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost by chinet.chinet.com.chinet.com (8.6.10/SMI-4.1) id WAA17192; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 22:44:41 GMT Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 16:44:40 -0600 (CST) From: "Adam H. Kerman" To: list-managers Subject: DejaNews (was: findmail.com) In-Reply-To: <199701032116.QAA39072@sturgeon.fishy.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >From: Bonnie Scott >Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 16:16:16 -0500 (EST) [discussion of DejaNews presenting Usenet that had propogated with one method, but is searched with another] >When you submit your newsgroup posting or email message to a list, you, the >author, are publishing the work via a pre-defined distribution mechanism. All >propagations via that distribution stream are part of the initial "run" of >copies of the message, which were triggered by the copyright owner. No one >else has the right to make re-prints, in any form. I'm not following your argument. Obviously, DejaNews receives its Usenet feed in the usual manner. They provide a search engine. I would point out that this is not unusual: I can search for articles available to me on my NNTP host. The poster of a Usenet article is aware that his article will be propogated, but he does not have control over the method, nor the time it takes. Can the author of News posted via uucp complain about more recently developed methods? The only thing different about DejaNews is that the articles have unusually long expiration times. I doubt that this is something the poster of a Usenet article can complain about. He is aware that article expiration times are under the control of news administrators. He can only suggest when his articles should be expired through the use of the appropriate headers. But, even articles on DejaNews expire. Recently, nothing before 1995 has been available. They promise that 1994 will be available again, though. I suppose an argument can be made that DejaNews has no permission to add HTML to the articles. Nevertheless, how could an author claim to be economically damaged? From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 3 15:16:21 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id OAA07566 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 14:56:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from bolero.rahul.net (bolero.rahul.net [192.160.13.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id OAA07529 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 14:56:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from jive.rahul.net by bolero.rahul.net with SMTP id AA02826 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for ); Fri, 3 Jan 1997 14:55:52 -0800 Received: by jive.rahul.net (5.67b8/jive-a2i-1.0) id AA03708; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 14:55:45 -0800 Message-Id: <199701032255.AA03708@jive.rahul.net> To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: findmail.com In-Reply-To: <199701032116.QAA39072@sturgeon.fishy.net> Date: Fri, 03 Jan 97 14:55:45 -0800 From: Michelle Dick Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Bonnie wrote: > > Exactly. When you submit your newsgroup posting or email message to a list, > you, the author, are publishing the work via a pre-defined distribution > mechanism. All propagations via that distribution stream are part of the > initial "run" of copies of the message, which were triggered by the copyright > owner. No one else has the right to make re-prints, in any form. I think Usenet is a special case. Its distribution method specifically involves making copies and distributing them to others, not just keeping them for one's private use. I'd consider Deja News in the clear because I consider there to be implicit permission granted for electronic redistribution of the news stream. But, I've no idea how the various courts would handle its copyright status. It is extremely misleading to use Usenet as an example in analogies because of its uniqueness. It is, and will probably always be, a very special case. Besides, Deja News could just set up nntp server for the 6 months of messages they maintain and put a cgi front end on to poll the nntp server for the message and massage it to present it. Would be just like a customized web browser that read news. The vast majority of mailing lists do not carry implicit or explicit permission for mass electronic redistribution. Further, they have owners, which the newsgroups do not. Findmail is correct to use web search engines as an analogy to their service. Web sites do not carry implicit permission for mass electronic redistribution and do have owners. They are incorrect in the implications. The implications should have been: do what Point (a web search engine) did: slurp/review/index as one likes, but when redistributing content, get written permission. -- Michelle Dick artemis@rahul.net East Palo Alto, CA From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 3 15:31:11 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id PAA10954 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 15:19:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from cesium.clock.org (cesium.clock.org [17.255.4.43]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id PAA10916 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 15:19:39 -0800 (PST) Received: by cesium.clock.org id <119170-10127>; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 15:19:01 -0800 From: Jean Marie Diaz To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: findmail.com Message-Id: <97Jan3.151901pst.119170-10127+17@cesium.clock.org> Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 15:18:56 -0800 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 17:33:06 -0500 (EST) From: Milt Webb Just to clear this up for me a bit. I understand your comment regarding AltaVista slicing/dicing to create links to original content. But, they do have that 'Search Usenet' option and that seems to work just like DejaNews, with links to copied content that resides on their own servers. Am I right -or wrong? What AltaVista returns to you on a Usenet search is the result of a search on their own news server, which "copies content" just like any other functioning news server. Articles expire in accordance with local policy -- it's not like DejaNews, which keeps it all forever. Ambar From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 3 15:38:03 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id PAA11407 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 15:23:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from prawn.fishy.net (flounder.fishy.net [206.156.56.34]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id PAA11373 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 15:23:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from sturgeon.fishy.net (sturgeon.fishy.net [172.16.1.3]) by prawn.fishy.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA314634; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 18:21:55 -0500 Received: (from bonnie@localhost) by sturgeon.fishy.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) id SAA113720; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 18:21:54 -0500 From: Bonnie Scott Message-Id: <199701032321.SAA113720@sturgeon.fishy.net> Subject: Re: findmail.com To: milt@iqsc.com (Milt Webb) Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 18:21:54 -0500 (EST) Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: from "Milt Webb" at Jan 3, 97 05:33:06 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > On Fri, 3 Jan 1997, Bonnie Scott wrote: > > > > > > At 4:46 PM -0800 1/2/97, Stan Ryckman wrote: > > > > > ...snipped > > > > There is an essential difference. Alta Vista is not re-publishing. They > > aren't making a copy available to others. They had the right to > > one copy, which they look at, slice, dice and shred, and their output > > is something they have done to analyse its properties. They are NOT > > making copies of the works for other people. Deja News is. They are > > offering someone else's works at a time and in a method that the original > > author did not intend by making the original posting. > > Just to clear this up for me a bit. I understand your comment regarding > AltaVista slicing/dicing to create links to original content. But, they do > have that 'Search Usenet' option and that seems to work just like > DejaNews, with links to copied content that resides on their own servers. > Am I right -or wrong? Sorry--I forgot about AltaVista's news search. I though we were talking about the Web search index. Digital DOES provide access to a copy of the news postings, but I don't see any older than the second week of November. Would there be a different verdict against Altavista (hypothetically speaking) if - the results of the search were displayed using a special application that translated the standard news spool into HTML at the time of the link - the messages themselves were stored in a relational database and regurgitated when needed Just a thought. The second would (I think) obvoiusly be copyright infringement. The first is not so obvious. You're talking about a different type of news reader, in a way. Bonnie Scott > Milt Webb From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 3 15:44:14 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id PAA13541 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 15:40:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from gauntlet-1.trusted.com (gauntlet-1.trusted.com [204.254.155.2]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id PAA13532 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 15:40:00 -0800 (PST) Received: by gauntlet-1.trusted.com; id SAA11162; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 18:45:12 -0500 Received: from dira.rv.tis.com(10.0.1.43) by gauntlet-1.trusted.com via smap (V3.1.1) id xma011159; Fri, 3 Jan 97 18:45:06 -0500 Received: (from mark@localhost) by dira.rv.tis.com (8.7.4/8.7.3) id SAA22640 for List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 18:33:34 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 18:33:34 -0500 (EST) From: Mark Sienkiewicz Message-Id: <199701032333.SAA22640@dira.rv.tis.com> To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: DejaNews Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I don't think DejaNews infringes on any copyrights. By posting an article to USENET, you are granting an implied license to millions of people to make copies of your article. The big question is where does that implied license end? Certainly it applies to copies of the article stored in the news spool. You *expected* me to make a copy in my news spool. Now suppose I take the following actions: 1) I get a newsfeed and I let anybody read news from it. 2) I get an indexing tool and build an index of my news spool. I update it every night. 3) I set it to expire articles after 7305 days (i.e. 20 years). Now I still have the same articles in the same news spool. They are accessible for an arbitrarily long time. There's a really cool index. Have I infringed on any copyrights? I don't think so -- I am operating under the implied license. How is this different from DejaNews? From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 3 15:45:47 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id PAA10966 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 15:20:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from chinet.chinet.com.chinet.com (chinet.chinet.com [206.158.147.18]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id PAA10902 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 15:19:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost by chinet.chinet.com.chinet.com (8.6.10/SMI-4.1) id XAA17630; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 23:18:02 GMT Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 17:18:02 -0600 (CST) From: "Adam H. Kerman" To: list-managers Subject: Re: List Politics In-Reply-To: <199701032148.NAA25453@shellx.best.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >From: Cyndi Norman >Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 13:48:36 -0800 (PST) >Three of these people started harressing one of my list members, a woman I had >met on the list and had, by that point, become close friends with.... It would >be accurate to say that they were stalking her. The email sent her over the >edge and she came close to committing suicide. >I felt a duty as both her friend and as the person running the list where >these cretins found her. Did I have a legal duty? probably not...if for no >other reason that I kept offering to help her and she turned me down. She >wanted the harressment to stop and appreciated my help but was too scared to >either go to the police or provide me with anything concrete. It sounds like you took reasonable actions, in this case. I trust that your friend was not claiming that you are responsible for her further psychological injuries, or her suicide attempt. One thing you said though bothers me. If she had accepted your help, would that have posed a legal duty on you? Quite frankly, you should have been blunt with her and NOT offered help. I would have offered to advise her on what steps SHE must take to help herself. And, I would have tried to make it as clear as possible that she was the only one who could do it. Semantics, I know. >I don't know if the fact that the abuse is taking place on your turf (so to >speak) makes you legally liable for anything, but even if this were the >case, that liability would most likely disappear by booting the offender >off the list, even if you're not helping the victim by doing so (you are at >least protecting future subscribers from being known to this offender). Again, you are assuming responsibility a list owner simply doesn't have. It's not your turf, you are not in control. And, there is nothing you can do to protect future subscribers. All they would need to do is send the harassing e-mail from a different system than the one they subscribed to your list from. >But the orginal question was not "do I have to boot the person to avoid being >sued?" but rather "should I boot the person for the good of my list?" And the >answer to that question of course depends on the nature of the list and the >nature of the offense. As far as I'm concerned, it's your call. And, you have no obligation to be fair or consistent. Just don't claim to be doing it to protect other list members. From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 3 15:51:27 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id PAA13674 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 15:41:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from ns.sbbs.se (ns.sbbs.se [194.16.248.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id PAA13666 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 15:41:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from ns.sbbs.se by ns.sbbs.se (NTMail 3.02.09) with ESMTP id ga136116 for ; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 00:41:33 +0100 Received: by ppp48.sbbs.se with Microsoft Mail id <01BBF9D7.BA609FC0@ppp48.sbbs.se>; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 00:39:22 +0100 Message-ID: <01BBF9D7.BA609FC0@ppp48.sbbs.se> From: Sebastian Stache To: "'List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM'" Subject: Re: List Manager Duties - Legal Advice Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 00:39:05 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="---- =_NextPart_000_01BBF9D7.BA609FC0" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk ------ =_NextPart_000_01BBF9D7.BA609FC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Way to go Kjetil T: >Obnoxious poster: "I will kill everyone who joins this list!" >Newcomer: "Uh-ah! I will need to go to therapy now. It probably will > cost me a million dollars before I have recovered. You'll all hear > from my lawyer!" > >The newcomer should be fined for contempt, trying such a case. (A >common occurence in Norway when American lawyers come over...) Or Sweden. It's nice to find that you still posess some of the qualities, such as humour, we bred in the 17th century. ------ =_NextPart_000_01BBF9D7.BA609FC0 Content-Type: application/ms-tnef Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 eJ8+IhYXAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAEIgAcAGAAAAElQTS5NaWNy b3NvZnQgTWFpbC5Ob3RlADEIAQ2ABAACAAAAAgACAAEEkAYATAEAAAEAAAAMAAAAAwAAMAMAAAAL AA8OAAAAAAIB/w8BAAAAWQAAAAAAAACBKx+kvqMQGZ1uAN0BD1QCAAAAAExpc3QtTWFuYWdlcnNA R3JlYXRDaXJjbGUuQ09NAFNNVFAATGlzdC1NYW5hZ2Vyc0BHcmVhdENpcmNsZS5DT00AAAAAHgAC MAEAAAAFAAAAU01UUAAAAAAeAAMwAQAAAB4AAABMaXN0LU1hbmFnZXJzQEdyZWF0Q2lyY2xlLkNP TQAAAAMAFQwBAAAAAwD+DwYAAAAeAAEwAQAAACAAAAAnTGlzdC1NYW5hZ2Vyc0BHcmVhdENpcmNs ZS5DT00nAAIBCzABAAAAIwAAAFNNVFA6TElTVC1NQU5BR0VSU0BHUkVBVENJUkNMRS5DT00AAAMA ADkAAAAACwBAOgEAAAACAfYPAQAAAAQAAAAAAAADY0IBBIABACcAAABSZTogTGlzdCBNYW5hZ2Vy IER1dGllcyAtIExlZ2FsIEFkdmljZQDUDAEFgAMADgAAAM0HAQAEAAAAJwAFAAYACwEBIIADAA4A AADNBwEABAAAACUAOQAGAD0BAQmAAQAhAAAAQTdCNzE3NkZCRTY1RDAxMTk0MDMwMEEwMjREODU1 RUUAFAcBA5AGADwEAAAUAAAACwAjAAAAAAADACYAAAAAAAsAKQAAAAAAAwAuAAAAAAADADYAAAAA AEAAOQDQXthOz/m7AR4AcAABAAAAJwAAAFJlOiBMaXN0IE1hbmFnZXIgRHV0aWVzIC0gTGVnYWwg QWR2aWNlAAACAXEAAQAAABYAAAABu/nPTtZvF7eoZb4R0JQDAKAk2FXuAAAeAB4MAQAAAAUAAABT TVRQAAAAAB4AHwwBAAAADAAAAHplYkBzYmJzLnNlAAMABhBSxoU1AwAHEH8BAAAeAAgQAQAAAGUA AABXQVlUT0dPS0pFVElMVDpPQk5PWElPVVNQT1NURVI6IklXSUxMS0lMTEVWRVJZT05FV0hPSk9J TlNUSElTTElTVCJORVdDT01FUjoiVUgtQUhJV0lMTE5FRURUT0dPVE9USEVSAAAAAAIBCRABAAAA qQIAAKUCAAD/BAAATFpGdQw4khL/AAoBDwIVAqQD5AXrAoMAUBMDVAIAY2gKwHNldO4yBgAGwwKD MgPGBxMCgyIzD3poZWwDIERsGmcCgzQERgIAcHJx3DEgCFUHsgKAfQqACM/FCdk7GG8xMjgCgAqB gw2xC2BuZzEwNRQg4QsDbGkzNg3wC1UVwQsL8BLwYwBAIFdheeAgdG8gZx4AC0YS8jMMARZwb3QF kAVAS2rbEgADEVQcjxagOgqHHn83H4IhjR0JPiH/H2RPYjBub3hpCGAEIHBvAnMfcHI6ICJJIEsD 8BURayfiZXYEkHmVAiBlJ8BoHgBqbwuAaQQgdGgEACAcMCdAIf4iI28kfx7OB8EFoAeAJ3KAVWgt YWghICe1PyjQCYAd5R3xKaAEkGFwcx3QJqB3Li6ABUAfQWJ9AaBsHdAn0ipfK28eziDLBaAnQCAH gCBhNSAn4Tsm0AOgZAbwC2AR4CBivw3ABbAo4CewEcAogCAYcK8FoCiBCYAwkFkIYCcVEX8HQAMg FPAKwDG/Ms8z3yDPA1I1IB3QC2B3eQSQKj/fOf87DyNfPk8/X1QU8C7xyS2UIHMpEHVsLzA2gD88 MAuALyE2oTTRAjBlbV0FMCwd4CigC4BnREB1MxGwNVFjYRHwMJAoQT9Ab0F/Hs4toQRgA6BvY/Zj CHAJ8GMo4AuAB7AFsL53HcEpAAnwE3AtwWlHEL8DoDzEBCAtoksQKIEuTlBeKUefHScKjxzcTwXA U+53CYAJ8DCSJwQgAwBLkb8d8UTxLzERwAVAKLB1RECvH/EDICchB5BzUDVzTdOiZi/SIHF1B0Bp H/DPB5BGEEakBCBodQRgCHB/RhBSYDZwGHFLsVA1VjIxLjcpoDTQCfB0CHB5Li9QP09fWnIXkQBc 4AAAAAMAEBAAAAAAAwAREAEAAABAAAcwsNpZJs/5uwFAAAgwsNpZJs/5uwEeAD0AAQAAAAUAAABS ZTogAAAAAAMADTT9NwAAKzA= ------ =_NextPart_000_01BBF9D7.BA609FC0-- From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 3 15:59:09 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id PAA15265 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 15:58:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from ayla.idyllmtn.com (ayla.idyllmtn.com [206.16.238.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id PAA15257 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 15:58:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from gates.idyllmtn.com (gates.idyllmtn.com [206.16.238.103]) by ayla.idyllmtn.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id PAA22742 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 15:54:42 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970103160833.00b4cb84@mail.idyllmtn.com> X-Sender: kynn@mail.idyllmtn.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Fri, 03 Jan 1997 16:08:38 -0800 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com From: Kynn Bartlett Subject: Re: List Politics Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 01:48 PM 1/3/97 -0800, Cyndi Norman wrote: >But the orginal question was not "do I have to boot the person to avoid >being sued?" but rather "should I boot the person for the good of my list?" Which original question? I think that everyone agrees that, for the good of the list, troublemakers can and should be booted at the whim of the list owner. There's no reason I have to allow any sort of nasty person to have access to my list. The real disagreement came about when people started claiming that the list owner has a _legal obligation_ to boot people, which is just so bogus as to be silly. :) >And the answer to that question of course depends on the nature of the list >and the nature of the offense. In this particular case (a subscriber using >the list to find people to defraud, while pretending to do legit business >that is encouraged by the list), I would say that you should indeed >unsubscribe the person, ban him from the list, and post a warning about him >in case he should try to contact other people from the list. This is an entirely sensible approach. -- /\ /\ /\ /\ Kynn Bartlett / kynn@idyllmtn.com / \ / \/ \ / \ Idyll Mountain Internet / \ //\ /\ \ / \ '_| _` // \/ \__\ '_| _` HTML Writers Guild Governing Board Member From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 3 15:59:40 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id PAA13030 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 15:34:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from web.net (web.net [142.75.1.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id PAA13001 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 15:33:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from [204.191.185.30](really [204.191.185.30]) by web.net via sendmail with esmtp id for ; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 18:35:33 -0500 (EST) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #1 built 1996-Oct-8) X-Sender: grant@pop.web.net Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 16:28:25 -0700 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Grant Neufeld Subject: MailList Specification Headers Proposal Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk There is a web page which contains the whole discussion paper (which I'm updating as I receive comments): http://arpp.carleton.ca/midas/mail/list-header.html The initial discussion has been primarily taking place on the ListMom-Talk m= ail list . Having just received the info about the List-Managers list, and read a bit of the archives to make sure this would be an appropriate post, I'm also opening this discussion here. ----------------------------------- List Specification Headers Proposal Discussion Paper; Version 0.0.4; January 3, 1997 Grant Neufeld - Note: This is a discussion document only and as such is subject to tremendous, contradictory change. It is not a standard, nor even a proposed standard. Introduction ------------ The following is a discussion of the beginning of a possible proposal for new RFC type headers to be used to identify mailing list features and command sets to mail clients. It is expected that by implementing a standard format for list server identifier headers, mail client software developers could implement interface features to make mail list control easier for users (when the headers are present). For example, GUI mail client could potentially offer buttons to un/subscribe, get list info, or switch to digest mode. An important consideration in this discussion is avoiding adding a tonne of new headers and `bulking up` messages that are already often heavy with headers and other administrative info (list info footers). The IETF has not been contacted yet because this is just a preliminary discussion. Once something a bit more solid has been put together, this proposal may be presented to a formal standards process. Syntax ------ are required elements. [token] are optional elements. There are currently seven (7) headers being considered. The first two (ListCommands and ListInfo) should probably be combined into one somehow (like it says, this is just a discussion paper). List-Commands: (This might be better named "List-Control") ; [; [comma separated list of command abbreviations]] List-Info: [comma separated list of list attributes] List-Post:
[; [text token to prepend to subject]] Additionally, it may be useful to include the following basic commands in the message header: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: An URL for the user to get information and help with the list, and possibly for web-controlled subscription management. List-URL: (alternatively, the already in use: X-URL: ) Optional header listing the subscriber's particular settings." List-Settings: [comma separated list of command abbreviations] Version =46or the purpose of this discussion paper: 0 (zero) Used to designate the version of the List Specification Headers being used. Command Abbreviations These are used to identify which types of commands the list supports. The abbreviations consist of three characters from A to Z (generally uppercase, although applications should treat them as case-insensitive). If the server`s syntax for the command deviates from the standard for the command, the abbreviation will be followed by a period and the specific term used by the server. E.g., a server that uses the term "remove", instead of the standard "unsubscribe", would list "UNS.remove". Syntaxes using spaces, periods, brackets, colons or semicolons will have to be quoted (either ` or ") as in "UNS.`remove #UAD`". Some commands require variable fields to be filled in. For example, the "subscribe" command requires the name of the list being subscribed to (#LST). Currently defined variables are: `#LST` listname, `#USR` user`s real name, `#UAD` user`s email address, `#PSW` user`s password (for the listserver). ABB - STANDARD SYNTAX - DESCRIPTION ----=3D---------------------=3D----------------------- SUB - subscribe #LST - subscribe to list UNS - unsubscribe #LST - unsubscribe from list DIG - set digest #LST - receive digests REG - set nodigest #LST - regular messages, not digest format ACK - set ack #LST - acknowledgements (sender receives messages they've posted) HLP - help #LST - get help file INF - info #LST - get info file PSW - set password #PSW - set password IND - get index #LST - index, to retrieve back digests TOP - set topics #LST - topics only =46UL - set full-head #LST - full headers SHT - set short-head #LST - short headers NCK - set no-ack #LST - no acknowledgements (note that the 'standard syntax' listed here is not the real thing yet. I just put in quick placeholders to express the idea of what I'm talking about. Please don't hurt me ;-) List Attributes These are used to identify various aspects of the list. ABB - DESCRIPTION ----=3D-------------------------------------------- MOD - moderated list ANN - announcements only list PRI - private list NWS - newsletter (periodical) list ADV - advertising list (although who would want to identify their advertising mail outs as such...) ENC - list includes/allows file enclosures NOE - enclosures not permitted PWR - password required for commands =46IL - file distribution list ACH - you MAY archive this list PUB - public list _________________________________________________________________________ SMALL PRINT: Discussion Paper Only - not intended for general use until such time as it has undergone some form of peer-review or standards formalization. Copyright =A91997 by Grant Neufeld. This document may not be redistributed in any form without prior permission of the author. Permission is granted to redistribute in whole or in part on the electronic mailing lists list-managers and listmom-talk listed at the beginning of this document. [This copyright is being held to prevent this paper from being redistributed outside of its intended audience. When a formal proposal for standardization is made, the distribution restrictions will be lifted, and the formal proposal will most likely be placed in the public domain or under the control of a recognized standards body.] -- gneufeld@ccs.carleton.ca grant@kagi.com http://arpp.carleton.ca/ O- <*> From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 3 16:07:06 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id PAA14832 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 15:54:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from ns.sbbs.se (ns.sbbs.se [194.16.248.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id PAA14804 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 15:54:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from ns.sbbs.se by ns.sbbs.se (NTMail 3.02.09) with ESMTP id la136121 for ; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 00:54:50 +0100 Received: by ppp48.sbbs.se with Microsoft Mail id <01BBF9D9.9575DED0@ppp48.sbbs.se>; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 00:52:39 +0100 Message-ID: <01BBF9D9.9575DED0@ppp48.sbbs.se> From: Sebastian Stache To: "'List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM'" Cc: "'grafolog@netcom.com'" Subject: Good books Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 00:52:34 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="---- =_NextPart_000_01BBF9D9.9575DED0" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk ------ =_NextPart_000_01BBF9D9.9575DED0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit grafolog@netcom.com wrote: > Are there any good books about "The War of Northern > Agression"? > > Are there any good books about "The War of Southern > Rebellion"? Oh yes, plenty, take a look at http://www.newzis.ge/mein.kampf/. ------ =_NextPart_000_01BBF9D9.9575DED0 Content-Type: application/ms-tnef Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 eJ8+IicXAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAEIgAcAGAAAAElQTS5NaWNy b3NvZnQgTWFpbC5Ob3RlADEIAQ2ABAACAAAAAgACAAEEkAYAuAIAAAIAAAAMAAAAAwAAMAMAAAAL AA8OAAAAAAIB/w8BAAAAWQAAAAAAAACBKx+kvqMQGZ1uAN0BD1QCAAAAAExpc3QtTWFuYWdlcnNA R3JlYXRDaXJjbGUuQ09NAFNNVFAATGlzdC1NYW5hZ2Vyc0BHcmVhdENpcmNsZS5DT00AAAAAHgAC MAEAAAAFAAAAU01UUAAAAAAeAAMwAQAAAB4AAABMaXN0LU1hbmFnZXJzQEdyZWF0Q2lyY2xlLkNP TQAAAAMAFQwBAAAAAwD+DwYAAAAeAAEwAQAAACAAAAAnTGlzdC1NYW5hZ2Vyc0BHcmVhdENpcmNs ZS5DT00nAAIBCzABAAAAIwAAAFNNVFA6TElTVC1NQU5BR0VSU0BHUkVBVENJUkNMRS5DT00AAAMA ADkAAAAACwBAOgEAAAACAfYPAQAAAAQAAAAAAAADDQAAAAMAADAEAAAACwAPDgEAAAACAf8PAQAA AEUAAAAAAAAAgSsfpL6jEBmdbgDdAQ9UAgAAAQBncmFmb2xvZ0BuZXRjb20uY29tAFNNVFAAZ3Jh Zm9sb2dAbmV0Y29tLmNvbQAAAAAeAAIwAQAAAAUAAABTTVRQAAAAAB4AAzABAAAAFAAAAGdyYWZv bG9nQG5ldGNvbS5jb20AAwAVDAIAAAADAP4PBgAAAB4AATABAAAAFgAAACdncmFmb2xvZ0BuZXRj b20uY29tJwAAAAIBCzABAAAAGQAAAFNNVFA6R1JBRk9MT0dATkVUQ09NLkNPTQAAAAADAAA5AAAA AAsAQDoAAAAAAgH2DwEAAAAEAAAAAAAABAIB+Q8BAAAARQAAAAAAAACBKx+kvqMQGZ1uAN0BD1QC AAABAGdyYWZvbG9nQG5ldGNvbS5jb20AU01UUABncmFmb2xvZ0BuZXRjb20uY29tAAAAAKWMAQSA AQALAAAAR29vZCBib29rcwDHAwEFgAMADgAAAM0HAQAEAAAANAAiAAYANQEBIIADAA4AAADNBwEA BAAAACwAHgAGACkBAQmAAQAhAAAAQUJCNzE3NkZCRTY1RDAxMTk0MDMwMEEwMjREODU1RUUAHwcB A5AGAAwDAAAUAAAACwAjAAAAAAADACYAAAAAAAsAKQABAAAAAwAuAAAAAAADADYAAAAAAEAAOQBQ /qIw0fm7AR4AcAABAAAACwAAAEdvb2QgYm9va3MAAAIBcQABAAAAFgAAAAG7+dEwoW8Xt6xlvhHQ lAMAoCTYVe4AAB4AHgwBAAAABQAAAFNNVFAAAAAAHgAfDAEAAAAMAAAAemViQHNiYnMuc2UAAwAG EDQVHqUDAAcQtwAAAB4ACBABAAAAZQAAAEdSQUZPTE9HQE5FVENPTUNPTVdST1RFOkFSRVRIRVJF QU5ZR09PREJPT0tTQUJPVVQiVEhFV0FST0ZOT1JUSEVSTkFHUkVTU0lPTiI/QVJFVEhFUkVBTllH T09EQk9PS1NBQk8AAAAAAgEJEAEAAACaAQAAlgEAAGADAABMWkZ10r84cv8ACgEPAhUCpAPkBesC gwBQEwNUAgBjaArAc2V07jIGAAbDAoMyA8YHEwKDBjMERgIAcHJxMSAXCFUHsgKDNA96aGVs0QMg RGxnAoM1A8UUs6ESInN0ZW0CgH0KgIsIzwnZOxoPMTI4AoAHCoENsQtgbmcxMDXDFCALA2xpMzYN 8AtVaxLyAdAgCcBhAhAZoGdMQG4SAAWgbS4f0SD2dwNgGOA6C0YUIQvwEvDaYwBAIAqFCoU+HiwK oB0gYmMFQQGRE3FlIHRXFvAkoQBweR8AbwRwIHkG4G9rBCABoAhgBUAiklQW8CBXCsFvZgew+xmx JOFuCocg3yLPI9sJwcUEEGkCICI/ICvgJ8//KN8p7iwfLS8p7yRfJW8me35TJkEngi8vMD8xTzJT UvxlYhcBK5MKix3bIT8K7CE7qU9oIHkHkCwgswtQCfB0eT6gAZBrMyFeIBmgM/AzMAVAaAJAcFA6 Ly93QKAuH6B3wnoEAC5nZS8HgAuAAC5rYW1wZi8uCzxVGTEAQvAAAAMAEBAAAAAAAwAREAEAAABA AAcwAO9uEND5uwFAAAgwAO9uEND5uwEeAD0AAQAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAwANNP03AAC9xQ== ------ =_NextPart_000_01BBF9D9.9575DED0-- From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 3 17:14:35 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id RAA19856 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 17:08:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.zip.com.au (mail.zip.com.au [203.12.97.4]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id RAA19841 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 17:08:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from SJOG (flash3.zip.com.au [203.12.97.98]) by mail.zip.com.au (8.7.5/8.7.5) with SMTP id MAA27975 for ; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 12:06:32 +1100 Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 12:06:32 +1100 Message-Id: <199701040106.MAA27975@mail.zip.com.au> X-Sender: leslim@zip.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.1.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Leslie Lim Subject: Re: List Manager Duties - Legal Advice Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Hi Sebastian, I am unable to open your attachement. Can you tell me what programme I should use to open and read it? Thanks very much, Les. At 12:39 AM 1/4/97 +0100, you wrote: >Way to go Kjetil T: > >>Obnoxious poster: "I will kill everyone who joins this list!" >>Newcomer: "Uh-ah! I will need to go to therapy now. It probably will >> cost me a million dollars before I have recovered. You'll all hear >> from my lawyer!" >> >>The newcomer should be fined for contempt, trying such a case. (A >>common occurence in Norway when American lawyers come over...) > >Or Sweden. It's nice to find that you still posess >some of the qualities, such as humour, we bred in >the 17th century. > >Attachment Converted: D:\EUDO-PRO\ATTACH\ReListMa > From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 3 17:28:58 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id RAA20486 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 17:20:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE (segate.sunet.se [192.36.125.6]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id RAA20479 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 17:20:21 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199701040120.RAA20479@miles.greatcircle.com> Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <2.3CCB7758@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 2:19:54 +0100 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by SEARN.SUNET.SE (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 3561; Sat, 04 Jan 97 02:13:48 +0100 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin ERIC@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2c/1.8c) with RFC822 id 8821; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 02:13:48 +0100 Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 01:34:39 +0100 From: Eric Thomas Subject: Re: DejaNews To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: Message of Fri, 3 Jan 1997 18:33:34 -0500 (EST) from list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk By posting a usenet article, I am granting the implicit permission to the site I am posting it to to redistribute it, at a minimum, (i) to other adjacent sites with a news feed, with the license applying to this third party recursively, and (ii) to any person interested in reading my article from the site in question. The technical protocols used to carry the data around are irrelevant. If I choose to feed my downstream sites using the XYZTP protocol rather than NNTP, I'm still copying the same data using the same kind of medium. It's like using DHL vs UPS. I think that, given the nature and reach of usenet, you ought to be able to make a case that, by posting an article to usenet, you are pretty much giving unlimited permission to redistribute the article in electronic form over a computer network. This claim would be based on the fact that anyone with a computer and a modem can successfully apply to receive a usenet feed, and get permission not only to copy your article but also to further REDISTRIBUTE it to ANY other interested party. This form of license makes it very difficult for you to prevent anyone from copying your work electronically, at least over a computer network. I do not think, however, that you could defend a case that you have given anyone the right to reproduce your article in any medium. For instance, I expect that you should be able to exercise your right to prevent your articles from being reproduced in a printed book without your permission. The basis for this is that the usenet distribution channel has never involved printing out articles and having the printouts delivered to people. When you post a usenet article, you expect (potentially) millions of people to read it on their computer screen. You do not, however, expect it to be reprinted in the Times, or mass mailed to all the households in the county of XYZ as a testimonial of the superior engineering of car brand X. Mailing lists are completely different, of course. You are giving the host site the right to make as many copies as there are subscribers, and these people in turn have the right to make reasonable copies as may be required to read and archive the message for their own use. They do not implicitly have the right to redistribute it, and in fact "netiquette" forbids it (this may not be enforceable, but certainly helps define the expected distribution channel). This is not an open-ended redistribution license like usenet, even though you have no direct control over the recipient list. Eric From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 3 18:59:07 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id SAA23832 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 18:50:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE (segate.sunet.se [192.36.125.6]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id SAA23808 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 18:50:08 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199701040250.SAA23808@miles.greatcircle.com> Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <2.C84A0126@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 3:49:42 +0100 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by SEARN.SUNET.SE (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 3846; Sat, 04 Jan 97 03:43:33 +0100 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin ERIC@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2c/1.8c) with RFC822 id 9402; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 03:43:33 +0100 Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 03:09:15 +0100 From: Eric Thomas Subject: Re: List Manager Duties - Legal Advice To: list-managers@greatcircle.com In-Reply-To: Message of Fri, 3 Jan 1997 16:30:02 -0500 from list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Fri, 3 Jan 1997 16:30:02 -0500 Jailbait said: > Stella Liebeck, 79, purchased a cup of McDonald's coffee while a >passenger in her grandson's automobile. Ms. Liebeck attempted to hold >the cup securely between her knees while she removed the plastic lid. Only a complete idiot would place something that can tip over and contains a dangerous fluid in a pivotal hold such as this, which facilitates tipping. >McDonald's coffee, if spilled, could cause full-thickness burns (third >degree to the muscle/fatty tissue layer) in two to seven seconds. So would the cup of tea I just made myself an hour ago. The water was actually boiling when I poured it, which I believe is 212F. I did not, however, attempt to hold it between my knees, did not suffer third degree burns, did not go through START and did not collect $200k. > McDonald's knew about this unacceptable risk for more than 10 years; I've known about the risks of making tea for longer than that. I still do it with boiling water, so I must be at least as dense as McDonald's :-) > Most consumers don't know that coffee this hot causes such injuries. Well, I guess most consumers in the US must be complete morons then, both because they didn't learn this at school, and because they think that a simple second degree facial burn (car brakes, user spills coffee on face) is of little enough concern that there is no need to pay attention when opening a cup of hot coffee in a motor vehicle. If this is the case, I guess it makes sense to have laws designed for this degree of brain usage. I'm just glad I live in a country that doesn't :-) >Nor do they know McDonald's made a practice of serving its coffee this >hot. I guess their mommies never told them that when you grab a container of something that is normally supposed to be hot, you first make sure to find out just how hot it really is, yep, BEFORE putting your hand inside or gulping it down or spilling it all over yourself. I learned this at the same age I was told to grab knives by the handle. Actually, this is doubly interesting. Try making an experiment the next time you're at McDonald's and just ask people who have a cup of coffee on their tray whether this is the first time they eat at McDonald's or not. Something tells me you won't find many positive answers. Even mice have the ability to learn and remember things from repeated usage, but evidently "Most consumers" don't. How much did that lawyer make again? 30% of $2.9M, right? I know people who would feel genuinely sorry for the plight of persecuted mosquitoes for that kind of money. >What's wrong with penalizing irresponsible behavior that injures >consumers? Nothing. That's why we don't allow lawyers to run our country and especially not to collect 30% of the damages awarded. > The news media, the day after the verdict, established that coffee at >the McDonald's in Albuquerque is now sold at 158 degrees. At that >temperature, it would take about 60 seconds to cause third-degree burns. >Mission accomplished. And our next item on the agenda: ban tea pots that deliver water at temperatures higher than 158F! Eric From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 3 19:58:58 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id TAA27410 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 19:53:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from cyberca.com (isis.cyberca.com [206.42.216.51]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id TAA27403 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 19:53:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from ra.cyberca.com (ra.cyberca.com [192.234.55.25]) by cyberca.com (8.6.8.1/SCA-6.6) with SMTP id DAA28855 for ; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 03:52:59 GMT Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970104034857.0070e0e4@isis.cyberca.com> X-Sender: jennings@isis.cyberca.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 03 Jan 1997 22:48:57 -0500 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.com From: Penn Jennings Subject: Re: List Manager Duties - Question Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I would like to point out a few things: 1. I originally state that I thought the a list-manager WOULD be screwed in some negligence cases. The attorneys said the list manager very well COULD be screwed. It depends on the state, jury and the cases. In wrong local with the wrong jury or judge and the wrong case a list manager COULD be a lot of trouble. 2. I think that I also stated this more than once. It is doing nothing that is scary. I did not say that a list manager HAD to kick abusive users off of a list in the event of threats. For a second lets forget a specific example and focus on this question. If list manager creates, operates and invites the public to join his list, does he have any duties or responsibilities to its list members? Do list members have the right to have any expectations when they join a list? When you join a list do you have ANY expectations? If your daughter joined the girl scout list would you be upset if it were run by pediphiles? (Please don't focus on this example.) __________________________________________________________________ Copyright 1996 (c) Penn Jennings Penn Jennings jennings@cyberca.com http://www.cyberca.com/~jennings/ The road to evil is paved with good intentions. From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 3 20:19:51 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id UAA28119 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 20:05:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from ginger.vnet.net (ginger.vnet.net [166.82.1.69]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id UAA28090 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 20:05:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from jimi.vnet.net (jimi.vnet.net [166.82.1.19]) by ginger.vnet.net (8.8.2/8.8.2) with ESMTP id WAA11095 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 22:58:37 -0500 Received: from ns.ASARian.org (fuzzy@ns.ASARian.org [206.66.160.156]) by jimi.vnet.net (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id XAA09611 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 23:04:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (fuzzy@localhost) by ns.ASARian.org (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA32230 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 23:03:36 -0500 Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 23:03:34 -0500 (EST) From: Fuzzy To: list-managers-digest@greatcircle.com Subject: WINMAIL.DAT garbage on posts to mailing lists Message-ID: X-No-Archive: yes Organization: ASARian MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk what exactly does the subscriber have to do to suppress this junk?? I remember this being discussed before but need to get a 'mini-faq' sort of thing I can email to the user as list admin. thnaks in advance... Fuzzy Sys Admin, ASARian.org [example of the junk] begin 600 WINMAIL.DAT M>)\^(A(7`0:0" `$```````!``$``0>0!@`(````Y 0```````#H``$-@ 0` M`@````(``@`!!) &`#0!```!````# ````,``# #````"P`/#@`````"`?\/ M`0```$\`````````@2L?I+ZC$!F=;@#=`0]4`@````!S86YC='5AI don't know if the fact that the abuse is taking place on your turf (so to >speak) makes you legally liable for anything, but even if this were the >case, that liability would most likely disappear by booting the offender >off the list, even if you're not helping the victim by doing so (you are at >least protecting future subscribers from being known to this offender). Again, you are assuming responsibility a list owner simply doesn't have. It's not your turf, you are not in control. And, there is nothing you can do to protect future subscribers. All they would need to do is send the harassing e-mail from a different system than the one they subscribed to your list from. To be more preciece, I will change the above to: by kicking the offender off the list you are making it harder for her/him to find more victims on your list. As far as I'm concerned, it's your call. And, you have no obligation to be fair or consistent. Just don't claim to be doing it to protect other list members. There are different levels of protection. You are assuming that your definition of full and total protection at all levels is the one I am using. Often it is helpful for subscribers if they know that you will do your best to remove offenders' access to them. That is better than nothing. And that is my personal obligation to my subscribers, not any legal mandate. It's part of the same reason I don't allow advertisers, even for on-topic products. Cyndi -- _______________________________________________________________________________ "There's nothing wrong with me. Maybe there's Cyndi Norman something wrong with the universe." (ST:TNG) cnorman@best.com __________________________________________________ http://www.best.com/~cnorman From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 3 20:44:09 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id UAA29049 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 20:34:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from relay1.shore.net (relay1.shore.net [192.233.85.129]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id UAA29023 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 20:34:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from jane.smoe.org (jeffw@smoe.org [204.167.97.154]) by relay1.shore.net (8.8.3/8.8.3) with SMTP id XAA27154; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 23:33:44 -0500 (EST) Received: by jane.smoe.org (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA00208; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 23:34:07 -0500 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 23:34:07 -0500 From: jeffw@smoe.org (Jeff Wasilko) To: fuzzy@ns.asarian.org (Fuzzy) Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: WINMAIL.DAT garbage on posts to mailing lists References: X-Mailer: Mutt 0.56 Mime-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: ; from "Fuzzy" on Jan 3, 1997 23:03:34 -0500 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Fuzzy writes: > > what exactly does the subscriber have to do to suppress this junk?? > > I remember this being discussed before but need to get a From: uk-motss-server@dircon.co.uk Subject: uk motss server: exchange Errors-To: uk-motss-request@dircon.co.uk X-Disclaimer: The information provided below is made available on a best effort basis. No responsibility is accepted for its accuracy or its consequences. Please refer to the archive guide for more information. X-Server-Version: Secure server 1.4e 17th May 1994 Status: RO Information for Microsoft Exchange users ======================================== If you use Microsoft Exchange to read and send mail, please take the time to read this text carefully. If you do not follow the instructions, you will have difficulty posting to some forums on the Internet. The Exchange Problem: ===================== When Microsoft Exchange is used to send mail to Internet addresses, it sometimes includes extra material at the end of your message. Other Exchange users will not see this material - it will be decoded and used to tell their copy of Exchange which fonts and colours you used - but people using other mail programs will just see lots of garbage tacked on the end of your message, or they will be told that there is a file attached to the message. The majority of people on the Internet do not use Exchange, and these attachments aren't any use to them. As far as I have been able to tell through experimentation, it is not possible to change a single configuration option to prevent unwanted attachments with Exchange. You must change the appropriate option for each Internet address that you send mail. Sending attachments with your mail ================================== It is not possible to turn attachments on and off for a particular message. Whether or not attachments are added to your message seems to depend on whether you are using sending to an entry in the address book, or to an address that you just typed in. When an address is not in the address book, you can use colour, fonts and different styles in a message, but MS Exchange will usually discard it all before sending the message, without telling you that it is doing so. Sometimes, however, attachments will be added; according to the help file, this happens when you use a 'one shot' address - one that's just typed in to the To: box. If an address is in the book, you can tell Exchange whether or not you want the information about colour, fonts and so on included when you send mail to that address. The only reliable way to control whether or not attachments are sent is to send mail using the address book entry every time, and to configure the entry so that attachments will not be sent. To configure this, pull down the Tools menu in Exchange and select Address Book. Find the entry that you want to change and double click on it. Now, if it's not on top automatically, click on the tab marked "SMTP - Internet" You will see two boxes, labelled "Display Name" and "E-mail address." Check that these are correct, and then look at the check box below, which is labelled "Always send messages in Microsoft Exchange rich text format." Unless you know that the people you are writing to also use MS Exchange, you should make sure that there is NO TICK IN THIS BOX. When this box is ticked, Exchange adds attachments to your message, giving details about fonts and colours in a non-standard Microsoft format. If in doubt about the mail program that someone else is using, or if you are posting to a public forum such as a mailing list or a newsgroup, you should ensure that this option is turned off. Sending unnecessary attachments is anti-social and wasteful. How wasteful? A message 38 letter long, with one word in colour and one in a different font, acquires an attachment of 1514 letters to describe it to Exchange users! WINMAIL.DAT and application/ms-tnef =================================== These are the two things that appear in mail that you send to other people from Exchange; WINMAIL.DAT is a UUencoded file, and application/ms-tnef is a MIME type. Both have the same effect on people not using Exchange - they see garbage at the end of your messages, and often have to pay to download it. Options for attachments are set in Exchange via the Tools menu; select Services, then choose Internet Mail and select Properties. The button near the bottom of the Window labelled Message Format allows you to choose whether MIME format messages are sent from MS Exchange. In general, it is probably better to use MIME than not; if you don't select MIME, Exchange will use UUencoding, which is an older and less sophisticated way of handling attachments. Exchange and the uk-motss mailing lists ======================================= Both the uk-motss and uk-motss-women lists are currently set up to reject any messages that contain file attachments, including information from Microsoft Exchange, whether in MIME or UUencoded formats. If your post is returned to you by the list system, with an error that includes either: 'UUencoded file attachments are not allowed on this list' or 'The MIME content type application/ms-tnef is not allowed on this list' then Microsoft exchange is adding extra information to the bottom of your messages, and you should follow the instructions above to prevent this happening in future. The best solution is to create an entry in your address book for each list that you are a member of, and set it up as described above. Make sure that you always use the address book entry when you send mail to the list. Nigel Whitfield, List Maintainer. ================ From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 3 22:29:02 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id WAA05624 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 22:23:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from kitsune.swcp.com (kitsune.swcp.com [198.59.115.2]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id WAA05604 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 22:23:05 -0800 (PST) Received: (from lazlo@localhost) by kitsune.swcp.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) id XAA23525 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 23:22:41 -0700 Message-Id: <199701040622.XAA23525@kitsune.swcp.com> Subject: Re: List Manager Duties - Legal Advice To: list-managers@greatcircle.com (lm) Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 23:22:41 -0700 (MST) From: "Lazlo Nibble" X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25 PGP3 *ALPHA*] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > From the October 24th, 1994 issue of National Law Journal, Letters section > > McDonald's Corp. sold its coffee at 180-190 degrees Fahrenheit by > corporate specification. [...] The news media, the day after the > verdict, established that coffee at the McDonald's in Albuquerque is now > sold at 158 degrees. By coincidence, from the October 1994 issue of CONSUMER REPORTS, and their report on drip coffee makers: > "Experts say coffee in the carafe should be between 170 degrees and 190 > degrees. A model that makes or keeps hotter coffee may be important to > you if you add a lot of milk." Two-thirds of 28 coffeemakers reviewed by CR delivered and/or held the coffee in the carafe at 180 degrees or above. Only two delivered or held the brew at 170 degrees or below. This seems to me to be a wonderful opportunity for some professional victim out there to pour some java on themselves and go after the deep pockets over at Krups, Braun, and Black & Decker! Can we get back to talking about list management now? -- ::: Lazlo (lazlo@swcp.com; http://www.swcp.com/lazlo) From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 4 04:29:06 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id EAA17174 for list-managers-outgoing; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 04:21:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from antares.mcs.anl.gov (mcs.anl.gov [140.221.9.6]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id EAA17167 for ; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 04:20:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from mcs.anl.gov (obie.mcs.anl.gov [140.221.5.129]) by antares.mcs.anl.gov (8.6.10/8.6.10) with ESMTP id GAA05551; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 06:20:32 -0600 Message-Id: <199701041220.GAA05551@antares.mcs.anl.gov> To: Eric Thomas cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM, rackow@antares.mcs.anl.gov Subject: Re: DejaNews In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 04 Jan 1997 01:34:39 +0100." <199701040120.RAA20479@miles.greatcircle.com> Date: Sat, 04 Jan 1997 06:20:32 -0600 From: Gene Rackow Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I agree with most of what you had to say in your message Eric, except for the part on netiquette. One of the oldest large mailing lists that is out there is the sun-managers mailing list. That list has always had a certain amount of secondary, and possibly further, exploders in the list. Best guess is that at the moment there are about 1000 such exploders in that list. One of those exploders is rather large as it covers the majority of the addresses in the uk and I know there are further exploders in that list. Redistribution is on a list by list basis. --Gene Eric Thomas made the following keystrokes: >Mailing lists are completely different, of course. You are giving the >host site the right to make as many copies as there are subscribers, and >these people in turn have the right to make reasonable copies as may be >required to read and archive the message for their own use. They do not >implicitly have the right to redistribute it, and in fact "netiquette" >forbids it (this may not be enforceable, but certainly helps define the >expected distribution channel). This is not an open-ended redistribution >license like usenet, even though you have no direct control over the >recipient list. > > Eric > From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 4 04:59:04 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id EAA17750 for list-managers-outgoing; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 04:54:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from ns.sbbs.se (ns.sbbs.se [194.16.248.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id EAA17740 for ; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 04:54:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from ns.sbbs.se by ns.sbbs.se (NTMail 3.02.09) with ESMTP id ra136231 for ; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 13:54:29 +0100 Received: by ppp45.sbbs.se with Microsoft Mail id <01BBFA46.75BFA810@ppp45.sbbs.se>; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 13:52:01 +0100 Message-ID: <01BBFA46.75BFA810@ppp45.sbbs.se> From: Sebastian Stache To: "'List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM'" Cc: "'leslim@zip.com.au'" Subject: Re: List Manager Duties - Legal Advice Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 13:51:58 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Leslie Lim wrote: >Hi Sebastian, > >I am unable to open your attachement. Can you tell me what programme I >should use to open and read it? > >Thanks very much, > >Les. I'm sorry Les (and everybody else), I mistakenly turned on a Microsoft specific encoding (RTF - rich text formatting). You could use most of Microsoft's mail clients, such as Exchange, to read the mungo-jumbo, but all you'd get would be the plain text, but with effects such as colouring and italics. Best regards Sebastian From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 4 06:29:14 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id GAA18841 for list-managers-outgoing; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 06:17:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from iquest.net (iquest4z.iquest.net [206.246.190.254]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id GAA18834 for ; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 06:16:57 -0800 (PST) Received: by iquest.net (Smail3.1.29.1 #5) id m0vgWsw-003igPC; Sat, 4 Jan 97 09:15 EST Received: (from alt@localhost) by aen.aen.org (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA12847; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 07:36:03 -0500 Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 07:36:02 -0500 (EST) From: Al Thompson To: Sebastian Stache cc: "'List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM'" , "'grafolog@netcom.com'" Subject: Re: Good books In-Reply-To: <01BBF9D9.9575DED0@ppp48.sbbs.se> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Sat, 4 Jan 1997, Sebastian Stache wrote: > grafolog@netcom.com wrote: > > > Are there any good books about "The War of Northern > > Agression"? > > > > Are there any good books about "The War of Southern > > Rebellion"? > > Oh yes, plenty, take a look at http://www.newzis.ge/mein.kampf/. Wrong country, wrong ideology. From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 4 07:59:16 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id HAA20381 for list-managers-outgoing; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 07:53:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from hotstar.net (hotstar.net [204.191.136.8]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id HAA20373 for ; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 07:53:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from widgette (ts25-04.tor.iSTAR.ca [204.191.139.104]) by hotstar.net (8.7.3/8.7) with SMTP id KAA11272; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 10:55:25 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970104155831.006af280@inforamp.net> X-Sender: dlj@inforamp.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 04 Jan 1997 10:58:31 -0500 To: Al Thompson From: David Lloyd-Jones Subject: Re: Good books Cc: Sebastian Stache , "'List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM'" , "'grafolog@netcom.com'" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >On Sat, 4 Jan 1997, Sebastian Stache wrote: > >> grafolog@netcom.com wrote: >> >> > Are there any good books about "The War of Northern >> > Agression"? If you mean the one that went on for roughly 500 years, ending around 1945, yes, I'm writing it. It's called "The Gunpowder Years,"(tm. & (c)) and will go to press any year now. -dlj. From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 4 09:59:00 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id JAA24661 for list-managers-outgoing; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 09:57:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from ns.sbbs.se (ns.sbbs.se [194.16.248.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id JAA24642 for ; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 09:57:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from ns.sbbs.se by ns.sbbs.se (NTMail 3.02.09) with ESMTP id ea136322 for ; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 18:57:33 +0100 Received: by ppp44.sbbs.se with Microsoft Mail id <01BBFA70.CA9BA620@ppp44.sbbs.se>; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 18:55:02 +0100 Message-ID: <01BBFA70.CA9BA620@ppp44.sbbs.se> From: Sebastian Stache To: "'List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM'" Cc: "'jeffw@smoe.org'" Subject: Re: WINMAIL.DAT garbage on posts to mailing lists Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 18:54:58 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Jeff Wasilko wrote: > [With Microsoft Exchange] it is not possible to turn > [MS Rich Text Format] attachments on and off > for a particular message. Whether or not attachments > are added to your message seems to depend on > whether you are using sending to an entry in the address > book, or to an address that you just typed in. The "Internet Mail" Exchange-service freely available from Microsoft can make use of the MAPI standard RTF (Rich Text Format). Non-MAPI compatible mail clients does not interpret RTF correctly, and hence it is desirable to make sure the "Internet Mail" Exchange-service does *not* ask Exchange to attach the RTF information. With the "Internet Mail" Exchange-service, it is possible to toggle RTF not only for a particular message, but also for every different recipient of that message, without using the address book. In the mail-to-be-sent, right-click on a recipient in the "To" field and choose Properties. If the address is of type "Internet Mail" or "SMTP", you will see a check-box "Always send to this recipient in Microsoft Exchange rich-text format". To attach RTF information for this particular message to this particular recipient, make sure the check-box is checked, and vice versa. If the address is a one-off address (typed directly in the "To" field), RTF is not enabled by default. If you reply to a received message, the default depends on whether the received letter was sent with RTF or not. If the address came from the address book, RTF defaults to whatever was specified in the address book entry. From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 4 10:14:12 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id KAA24918 for list-managers-outgoing; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 10:03:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from ns.sbbs.se (ns.sbbs.se [194.16.248.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id KAA24900 for ; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 10:03:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from ns.sbbs.se by ns.sbbs.se (NTMail 3.02.09) with ESMTP id ha136325 for ; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 19:03:47 +0100 Received: by ppp44.sbbs.se with Microsoft Mail id <01BBFA71.AA4C5BC0@ppp44.sbbs.se>; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 19:01:17 +0100 Message-ID: <01BBFA71.AA4C5BC0@ppp44.sbbs.se> From: Sebastian Stache To: "'Al Thompson'" Cc: "'List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM'" , "'grafolog@netcom.com'" Subject: RE: Good books Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 19:01:15 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Al Thompson wrote: > Wrong country, wrong ideology. I think at least one of us is missing at least one point here. From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 4 10:59:14 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id KAA26217 for list-managers-outgoing; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 10:57:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from camco2.celestial.com (camco2.celestial.com [192.136.111.3]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id KAA26210 for ; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 10:56:52 -0800 (PST) Received: by camco2.celestial.com (Smail3.1.29.1 #8) id m0vgbEN-000WmcC; Sat, 4 Jan 97 10:54 PST Message-Id: From: bill@celestial.com (Bill Campbell) Subject: Re: DejaNews To: rackow@mcs.anl.gov (Gene Rackow) Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 10:54:07 -0800 (PST) Cc: ERIC@VM.SE.LSOFT.COM, List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM, rackow@antares.mcs.anl.gov In-Reply-To: <199701041220.GAA05551@antares.mcs.anl.gov> from "Gene Rackow" at Jan 4, 97 06:20:32 am Reply-To: bill@Celestial.COM Organization: Celestial Software, Mercer Island, WA 98040 X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > >I agree with most of what you had to say in your message Eric, except >for the part on netiquette. One of the oldest large mailing lists >that is out there is the sun-managers mailing list. That list has >always had a certain amount of secondary, and possibly further, exploders >in the list. Best guess is that at the moment there are about 1000 >such exploders in that list. One of those exploders is rather large >as it covers the majority of the addresses in the uk and I know there are >further exploders in that list. > >Redistribution is on a list by list basis. >--Gene I have agree with Gene on this one. Most (all) of the mailing lists that we manage or subscribe to have the primary goal of distributing information to people with similar interests in an efficient manner, not to see how many mail messages we can send out from our system every day (about 35,000). Our only request to people using exploders on mailing lists that we maintain is that they do it right so that we don't get their local propagation errors back to us or worse, to the list itself. There are still many people in the world who have to pay Real Money to get e-mail. We started exploding lists about 13 years ago when our e-mail connection was via uucp to UUNET and we were paying long distance telephone plus UUNET's. We provide uucp connections to members of the Seattle Unix Group, and having 10 people subscribe to the same mailing list just didn't make any sense so we encouraged them to let us know of lists they were interested in so that we could subscribe and redistribute. At this time, our costs aren't so easily calculated because of the T1 connection to the Internet, but ultimately larger mail volume does require more bandwidth, disk, and CPU power to process it so we really do like to keep the system as efficient as possible. Another reason that I always set up a local majordomo list here for any list that I subscribe to is so that I can archive the list locally. We make these archives available on our ftp site (with the URL: ftp://ftp.celestial.com/pub/mailing-lists/*) which has proven useful on more than one occassion when master archives were lost. Bill -- INTERNET: bill@Celestial.COM Bill Campbell; Celestial Systems, Inc. UUCP: camco!bill PO Box 820; 2835 82nd Avenue S.E. S-100 FAX: (206) 232-9186 Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820; (206) 236-1676 URL: http://www.celestial.com/ Government spending? I don't know what it's all about. I don't know any more about this thing than an economist does, and, God knows, he doesn't know much. -- Will Rogers From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 4 11:14:06 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id LAA26391 for list-managers-outgoing; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 11:00:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from kim.teleport.com (kim.teleport.com [192.108.254.26]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id LAA26381 for ; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 11:00:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from ip-pdx08-26.teleport.com (ip-pdx13-24.teleport.com [206.163.124.201]) by kim.teleport.com (8.8.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA19468 for ; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 10:58:38 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199701041858.KAA19468@kim.teleport.com> X-Sender: reedg@mail.teleport.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 04 Jan 1997 11:00:08 -0800 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Reed Gleason Subject: Re: List Manager Duties: dangerous concept Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I run a 300-subscriber mailing list just for the fun of it, and the subscribers are grateful. Doesn't cost me or them anything extra except a lot of wasted time reading BS, although sometimes it's clever, fun BS. If I believed I had any significant legal liability for being a list-owner, I wouldn't do it, and everyone would lose. If a lawsuit ever goes against a casual listowner, it would have a chilling effect on many enjoyable mailing lists. We should be working against the idea that listowners have duties. I also have to disagree with the idea that a listowner can know what action to take to mitigate damage. If two subscribers are bickering, does unsubscribing them stop the malice, or does it prevent them from communicating and possibly coming to an understanding? If they are allowed to post, do they benefit by venting, or getting feedback from other subscribers that helps them cool it, or making it obvious that they need help? Only a control freak (seems to be a few on here) would believe they have to step in for the benefit of all mankind. Reed Gleason; Reedg@teleport.com; Portland, OR. 503-283-1366 List"owner"(yeah, right) of goatslite@lists.teleport.com From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 4 12:44:19 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id MAA00379 for list-managers-outgoing; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 12:30:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from hotstar.net (hotstar.net [204.191.136.8]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id MAA00368 for ; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 12:30:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from widgette (ts1-09.tor.iSTAR.ca [204.191.137.29]) by hotstar.net (8.7.3/8.7) with SMTP id PAA19787; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 15:31:38 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970104203448.006beec8@inforamp.net> X-Sender: dlj@inforamp.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 04 Jan 1997 15:34:48 -0500 To: Reed Gleason From: David Lloyd-Jones Subject: Re: List Manager Duties: dangerous concept Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 11:00 AM 1/4/97 -0800, Reed Gleason wrote:. > >If I believed I had any significant legal liability for being a list-owner, >I wouldn't do it, and everyone would lose. If a lawsuit ever goes against a >casual listowner, it would have a chilling effect on many enjoyable mailing >lists. We should be working against the idea that listowners have duties. I think that attitude sums up in a nutshell why the United States is a slum of violence, political corruption, and administrative incompetence. -dlj. From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 4 12:59:09 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id MAA01682 for list-managers-outgoing; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 12:56:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from server.postmodern.com (server.postmodern.com [207.33.130.54]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id MAA01669 for ; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 12:56:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from 207.33.130.51 (derrida.postmodern.com [207.33.130.51]) by server.postmodern.com (8.7.5/mcb-960422) with SMTP id MAA22649; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 12:46:54 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <32CEC3CA.2F5E@postmodern.com> Date: Sat, 04 Jan 1997 12:55:40 -0800 From: "Michael C. Berch" Reply-To: mcb@postmodern.com Organization: Postmodern Consulting, California USA X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Macintosh; I; 68K) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: list-managers CC: David Lloyd-Jones Subject: Re: List manager duties References: <1.5.4.32.19970102185127.006d28d0@inforamp.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk David Lloyd-Jones wrote: > >I never promised to protect my list members from being murdered by > >other list members. And, unlike Prodigy, I have no contract with > >them. > > Whether or not this follows from the duties of a webmeister, it certainly > follows from one's duties as a citizen. I think you are confusing moral duty with legal duty. So far as I know, we have been discussing the latter, which is relevant to list members' personal and professional activities. In Anglo-American common law, it is not the legal duty of a citizen to assist those in distress or generally prevent harm to others, except if one has placed them in peril or owes them a special duty of care because of a contractual or status relationship. As to moral duty, I think that's well beyond the scope of this discussion and mailing list. -- Michael C. Berch mcb@postmodern.com From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 4 16:59:03 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id QAA09678 for list-managers-outgoing; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 16:53:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from cyberca.com (isis.cyberca.com [206.42.216.51]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id QAA09658 for ; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 16:53:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from ra.cyberca.com (ra.cyberca.com [192.234.55.25]) by cyberca.com (8.6.8.1/SCA-6.6) with SMTP id AAA03528 for ; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 00:52:46 GMT Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970105004842.00728c80@isis.cyberca.com> X-Sender: jennings@isis.cyberca.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 04 Jan 1997 19:48:42 -0500 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.com From: Penn Jennings Subject: Managers are not Bystanders Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I agree 100% with the idea that a bystander or list member has 0% obligation to anyone. However, as the list MANAGER we are NOT bystanders. I have no oblication to my coworkers. If am a manager that fact changes. Also, we don't get much say about our own legal duties in most areas of our life. If we did we would say, "Hey, screw you, I have no duties" in ALL cases. Why would anyone willing accept any duties? ________________________________________________________________________ Penn Jennings - jennings@cyberca.com - www.cyberca.com/~jennings/ The road to evil is paved with good intentions. Everyone that plays golf cheats. Any golfer that claims not to cheat is a liar AND a cheat. From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 4 17:14:07 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id RAA10951 for list-managers-outgoing; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 17:12:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from ayla.idyllmtn.com (ayla.idyllmtn.com [206.16.238.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id RAA10906 for ; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 17:12:11 -0800 (PST) Received: (from kynn@localhost) by ayla.idyllmtn.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) id RAA03633; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 17:08:23 -0800 From: Kynn Bartlett Message-Id: <199701050108.RAA03633@ayla.idyllmtn.com> Subject: Re: Managers are not Bystanders To: jennings@cyberca.com (Penn Jennings) Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 17:08:22 -0800 (PST) Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19970105004842.00728c80@isis.cyberca.com> from "Penn Jennings" at Jan 4, 97 07:48:42 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Penn Jennings continued to insist: > I agree 100% with the idea that a bystander or list member has 0% obligation > to anyone. However, as the list MANAGER we are NOT bystanders. I have no > oblication to my coworkers. If am a manager that fact changes. My list subscribers are not my coworkers either. Please tell me when and how, exactly, I somehow gained an obligation to protect their life, whatever that might mean to you? In my opinion, my obligation only extends as far as my duties as a list manager. It's not my job to play judge, and decide if someone's made a death threat against someone else; it's not my job to play psychologist and try to discern someone's sanity level via email. It's only my job to keep the list functioning, and in most cases, that's not even my _job_, it's my hobby, and I could dump the damn list any time it gets to be too much work for me. How exactly is my mailing list like a manager-employee situation again? --Kynn, wishing Penn would clue up or give up already From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 4 19:44:02 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id TAA19583 for list-managers-outgoing; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 19:40:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from cyberca.com (isis.cyberca.com [206.42.216.51]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id TAA19576 for ; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 19:40:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from ra.cyberca.com (ra.cyberca.com [192.234.55.25]) by cyberca.com (8.6.8.1/SCA-6.6) with SMTP id DAA04248; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 03:39:43 GMT Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970105033538.00707718@isis.cyberca.com> X-Sender: jennings@isis.cyberca.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 04 Jan 1997 22:35:38 -0500 To: Kynn Bartlett From: Penn Jennings Subject: Re: Managers are not Bystanders Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 05:08 PM 1/4/97 -0800, you wrote: >My list subscribers are not my coworkers either. Please tell me when >and how, exactly, I somehow gained an obligation to protect their life, >whatever that might mean to you? Kynn, don't get caught up with EVERY example, can you do that? And I think that I will give up. Irresponsible people cannot have it easily forced upon them. The question is NOT "Hey, why do I have to save your life". The question is more along the lines of what are our responsibilities as list managers. Some people say that we have absolutely none at all, in any way shape or form. That is a pretty selfish stance. I manage a list and very rarely do I ever interact with the members and I have never dealt with their onlist or offlist spats. I never felt a duty or a need to and don't. The question is bigger than that. This are rhetorical: Do you think it is ok give your address list to spammers if who has been disabled? If run a list for girl scouts do FEEL the need to do anything if you KNOW that a child molester has joined your list and IS seducing your 12 year old list members? If you run a list and one member is constantly making very vulgar, hurtful and unsolicited onlist comments to other members and they complain, you don't care? Do think that it is ok to alter messages that your members send BEFORE the they sent out to rest of list? I'm fairly sure that there is no legal action that can be taken in most of these but they all make my stomach turn and I FEEL a responsibility to do something about them. I can see how some of them might not be an issue for some of us. I do think it is the weak, selfish, spineless son-of-bitch that doesn't care about ANY of those. For those who take offense, offense was intended. Unless you have something meaning for the entire list, if you want to blast me, do it in private. ________________________________________________________________________ Penn Jennings - jennings@cyberca.com - www.cyberca.com/~jennings/ The road to evil is paved with good intentions. Everyone that plays golf cheats. Any golfer that claims not to cheat is a liar AND a cheat. From list-managers-owner Sun Jan 5 07:44:04 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id HAA11053 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 07:29:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from shooter.bluemarble.net (shooter.bluemarble.net [199.18.207.25]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id HAA11046; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 07:29:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (edit@localhost) by shooter.bluemarble.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA14645; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 10:31:10 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 10:31:10 -0500 (EST) From: Paul E Kayak To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM cc: list-managers-digest@GreatCircle.COM Subject: digex, In-Reply-To: <199701050900.BAA01332@miles.greatcircle.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > Date: Sat, 04 Jan 1997 12:55:40 -0800 > From: "Michael C. Berch" > Subject: Re: List manager duties > > David Lloyd-Jones wrote: > > >I never promised to protect my list members from being murdered by > > >other list members. And, unlike Prodigy, I have no contract with > > >them. > > > > Whether or not this follows from the duties of a webmeister, it certainly > > follows from one's duties as a citizen. > > I think you are confusing moral duty with legal duty. So far as I know, > we have been discussing the latter, which is relevant to list members' > personal and professional activities. > > In Anglo-American common law, it is not the legal duty of a citizen to > assist those in distress or generally prevent harm to others, except if > one has placed them in peril or owes them a special duty of care because > of a contractual or status relationship. > > As to moral duty, I think that's well beyond the scope of this > discussion and mailing list. > > - -- > Michael C. Berch > mcb@postmodern.com > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Sat, 04 Jan 1997 19:48:42 -0500 > From: Penn Jennings > Subject: Managers are not Bystanders > > I agree 100% with the idea that a bystander or list member has 0% obligation > to anyone. However, as the list MANAGER we are NOT bystanders. I have no > oblication to my coworkers. If am a manager that fact changes. > > Also, we don't get much say about our own legal duties in most areas of our > life. If we did we would say, "Hey, screw you, I have no duties" in ALL > cases. Why would anyone willing accept any duties? > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Penn Jennings - jennings@cyberca.com - www.cyberca.com/~jennings/ > > The road to evil is paved with good intentions. > > Everyone that plays golf cheats. > Any golfer that claims not to cheat is a liar AND a cheat. > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 17:08:22 -0800 (PST) > From: Kynn Bartlett > Subject: Re: Managers are not Bystanders > > Penn Jennings continued to insist: > > I agree 100% with the idea that a bystander or list member has 0% obligation > > to anyone. However, as the list MANAGER we are NOT bystanders. I have no > > oblication to my coworkers. If am a manager that fact changes. > > My list subscribers are not my coworkers either. Please tell me when > and how, exactly, I somehow gained an obligation to protect their life, > whatever that might mean to you? > > In my opinion, my obligation only extends as far as my duties as a list > manager. It's not my job to play judge, and decide if someone's made > a death threat against someone else; it's not my job to play psychologist > and try to discern someone's sanity level via email. It's only my job > to keep the list functioning, and in most cases, that's not even my > _job_, it's my hobby, and I could dump the damn list any time it gets > to be too much work for me. > > How exactly is my mailing list like a manager-employee situation again? > > - --Kynn, wishing Penn would clue up or give up already > Date: Sat, 04 Jan 1997 22:35:38 -0500 > From: Penn Jennings > Subject: Re: Managers are not Bystanders > > At 05:08 PM 1/4/97 -0800, you wrote: > > >My list subscribers are not my coworkers either. Please tell me when > >and how, exactly, I somehow gained an obligation to protect their life, > >whatever that might mean to you? > > > Kynn, don't get caught up with EVERY example, can you do that? And I think > that I will give up. Irresponsible people cannot have it easily forced upon > them. > > The question is NOT "Hey, why do I have to save your life". The question is > more along the lines of what are our responsibilities as list managers. > Some people say that we have absolutely none at all, in any way shape or > form. That is a pretty selfish stance. I manage a list and very rarely do > I ever interact with the members and I have never dealt with their onlist or > offlist spats. I never felt a duty or a need to and don't. The question is > bigger than that. > > This are rhetorical: > > Do you think it is ok give your address list to spammers if who has been > disabled? > > If run a list for girl scouts do FEEL the need to do anything if you KNOW > that a child molester has joined your list and IS seducing your 12 year old > list members? > > If you run a list and one member is constantly making very vulgar, hurtful > and unsolicited onlist comments to other members and they complain, you > don't care? > > Do think that it is ok to alter messages that your members send BEFORE the > they sent out to rest of list? > > I'm fairly sure that there is no legal action that can be taken in most of > these but they all make my stomach turn and I FEEL a responsibility to do > something about them. I can see how some of them might not be an issue for > some of us. I do think it is the weak, selfish, spineless son-of-bitch that > doesn't care about ANY of those. For those who take offense, offense was > intended. > > Unless you have something meaning for the entire list, if you want to blast > me, do it in private. > ________________________________________________________________________ > Penn Jennings - jennings@cyberca.com - www.cyberca.com/~jennings/ > > The road to evil is paved with good intentions. > > Everyone that plays golf cheats. > Any golfer that claims not to cheat is a liar AND a cheat. > From list-managers-owner Sun Jan 5 08:14:13 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id IAA12066 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 08:06:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from shooter.bluemarble.net (shooter.bluemarble.net [199.18.207.25]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id IAA12059; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 08:06:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (edit@localhost) by shooter.bluemarble.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA16318; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 11:08:04 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 11:08:04 -0500 (EST) From: Paul E Kayak To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM cc: list-managers-digest@GreatCircle.COM Subject: xxx In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk (From digex) On Sat, 04 Jan 1997 12:55 "Michael C. Berch" wrote: Subject: Re: List manager duties > David Lloyd-Jones wrote: (snip) >> Whether or not this follows from the duties of a webmeister, it >> certainly follows from one's duties as a citizen. > I think you are confusing moral duty with legal duty. So far as I know, > we have been discussing the latter, which is relevant to list members' > personal and professional activities. Some of us think we have been discussing what what we ought to do. *Nevertheless* the distinction you mention is important and I confess I wasn't heeding. > In Anglo-American common law, it is not the legal duty of a citizen to > assist those in distress or generally prevent harm to others, except if > one has placed them in peril or owes them a special duty of care because > of a contractual or status relationship. That sounds familiar. My question {trying.. :-) } is about status. Are all status relationships, here, legal status relationships? (Cf social, say.) Would legal reasoning sometimes hold a duty of care exists between friends? (Incidentally I think friends on the iNET is an iffy concept.) Status defined by the state? > As to moral duty, I think that's well beyond the scope of this > discussion and mailing list. Do you know of a place where that is being discussed? From list-managers-owner Sun Jan 5 13:14:10 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id NAA18847 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 13:04:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from northstar.state.mn.us (northstar.state.mn.us [156.99.41.200]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id NAA18838 for ; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 13:04:33 -0800 (PST) Received: (from clift@localhost) by northstar.state.mn.us (8.7.1/8.7.1) id PAA10040; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 15:05:23 -0600 (CST) Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 15:05:22 -0600 (CST) From: Steven Clift X-Sender: clift@northstar To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM cc: e-democracy@freenet.msp.mn.us Subject: Temp WWW Archive Options? Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Greetings List Managers, I'd like to have a secondary hypermail WWW archive sent up for postings to a majordomo list called MN-POLITICS. We already have a primary archive that goes back to 1994. What I'd like to have is a special archive that only keeps that last week of messages and deletes the old ones as time goes by. Also, for the messages in the "Minnesota Politics This Week" section one could reply or post via a WWW form which would inturn submit the message to our list owner for review. Hs anyone seen this done anywhere? What do you recommend for a technical solution? Thanks, Steven Clift Minnesota E-Democracy is at: http://www.e-democracy.org - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Steven L. Clift, Coordinator, Minnesota's North Star Project NS: clift@northstar.state.mn.us OT: steven.clift@state.mn.us Voice: 612.297.5561 Fax: 612.215.3877 OT Voice: 612-215-3878 North Star - MN Govt Info and Services: http://www.state.mn.us MN Office of Technology: http://www.ot.state.mn.us North Star Details: http://www.state.mn.us/devcenter Personal Home Page: http://freenet.msp.mn.us/people/clift - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - From list-managers-owner Sun Jan 5 14:31:24 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id OAA20763 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 14:28:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from server.postmodern.com (server.postmodern.com [207.33.130.54]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id OAA20753 for ; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 14:28:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from 207.33.130.51 (derrida.postmodern.com [207.33.130.51]) by server.postmodern.com (8.7.5/mcb-960422) with SMTP id OAA27160; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 14:19:21 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <32D02AF6.6236@postmodern.com> Date: Sun, 05 Jan 1997 14:29:35 -0800 From: "Michael C. Berch" Reply-To: mcb@postmodern.com Organization: Postmodern Consulting, California USA X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Macintosh; I; 68K) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: list-managers CC: Jailbait Subject: Re: List Manager Duties - Legal Advice References: <199701032130.QAA22815@asylum.apocalypse.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Jailbait wrote: > > (I'm sorry. I know it has no mailing-list-manager content, but given the > number of times people have referred to the case in the course of this > discussion, I just can't hold back any longer.) > > As has been mentioned by other people, reading the facts of a given case > is a good thing before making too many claims about it.... > [....] > > what actually happened, in detail: > [...] > HEADLINE: Verdict Against McDonald's Is Fully Justified > > BYLINE: S. REED MORGAN, S. Reed Morgan & Associates, Houston > > I AM THE LAWYER who tried Stella Liebeck's case in Albuquerque, N.M., > from Aug. 8-16. [...] I would hardly call a recital of the facts and verdict in a case *by the plaintiff's attorney* "what actually happened, in detail". His version of the circumstances is highly biased and self-serving, considering that this case is widely viewed, in both the legal and lay communities, as an anomaly (and to the extent that it is NOT an anomaly, it has been a spur for continued tort reform). -- Michael C. Berch mcb@postmodern.com From list-managers-owner Sun Jan 5 15:44:03 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id PAA22974 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 15:41:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from netcom.netcom.com (netcom.netcom.com [192.100.81.100]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id PAA22967 for ; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 15:41:33 -0800 (PST) Received: (from jcook@localhost) by netcom.netcom.com (8.6.13/Netcom) id PAA20930; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 15:41:12 -0800 Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 15:41:12 -0800 (PST) From: James Cook Reply-To: James Cook Subject: Netcom's dynamically changing addresses To: ListMGRList Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk It appears that Netcom Communications uses a dynamicly changing element as part of the address that comes into the return-path and from fields of headers. This element prepends some further stuff in front of the sender's generally used email address/domain such that: JohnSmith@ix.netcom.com shows up in extended headers in form of JohnSmith@ix4.ix.netcom.com, then JohnSMith!@ix20.ix.netcom.com and so on. This extended, variable element changes in every single email from such user. Currently this user is bounced based on the longer form of dynamically changing address not matching the original ix.netcom.com form with which he joined the list. Any recommendations on how to deal with this variable field? It is, again, in both the From: and the Return-path fields. Thank you. James Cook From list-managers-owner Sun Jan 5 16:14:17 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id PAA23392 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 15:59:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [198.7.0.32]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id PAA23384 for ; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 15:59:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from [166.84.194.182] (nsbooks.dialup.access.net [166.84.194.182]) by mail1.panix.com (8.7.5/8.7.1/PanixM1.0+) with ESMTP id SAA22113 for ; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 18:58:33 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199701040120.RAA20479@miles.greatcircle.com> References: Message of Fri, 3 Jan 1997 18:33:34 -0500 (EST) from list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 15:58:42 -0500 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: "Kent S. Larsen II" Subject: Re: DejaNews Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 7:34 PM -0500 1/3/97, Eric Thomas wrote: >Mailing lists are completely different, of course. You are giving the >host site the right to make as many copies as there are subscribers, and >these people in turn have the right to make reasonable copies as may be >required to read and archive the message for their own use. They do not >implicitly have the right to redistribute it, and in fact "netiquette" >forbids it (this may not be enforceable, but certainly helps define the >expected distribution channel). This is not an open-ended redistribution >license like usenet, even though you have no direct control over the >recipient list. > > Eric I do try to enforce this. On a private list that I run, the stated policy is that messages are not to be redistributed without the permission of the poster. I have kicked one person off this private list for violating the policy. Now, we even have a footer at the bottom of every message to remind the reader of the policy. Kent S. "Kip" Larsen II; KLarsen@panix.com or KLarsen@NorthSouth.com (work). From list-managers-owner Sun Jan 5 16:59:33 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id QAA25108 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 16:52:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from netcom22.netcom.com (netcom22.netcom.com [192.100.81.136]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id QAA25099 for ; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 16:52:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (arcie@localhost) by netcom22.netcom.com (8.6.13/Netcom) id RAA07786; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 17:52:13 -0700 Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 17:52:12 -0700 (MST) From: Randy Cassingham X-Sender: arcie@netcom22 To: List Managers List Subject: Re: Netcom's dynamically changing addresses In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Sun, 5 Jan 1997, James Cook wrote: > It appears that Netcom Communications uses a dynamicly changing element > > JohnSmith@ix.netcom.com shows up in extended headers in form of > JohnSmith@ix4.ix.netcom.com, then JohnSMith!@ix20.ix.netcom.com and so on. > > This extended, variable element changes in every single email from such user. > > Currently this user is bounced based on the longer form of dynamically > changing address not matching the original ix.netcom.com form with which > he joined the list. > > Any recommendations on how to deal with this variable field? This isn't netcom's fault, it's the user's, who has probably not set up his netscape mailer properly. "Netcruiser" (ix.netcom.com) accounts, which should NOT be confused with Netcom shell (plain netcom.com) accounts, are ALWAYS in the form user@ix.netcom.com; any extra server names can be -- and should be -- omitted to avoid bounces. Netcom isn't the only one with this problem. I talked with Worldnet (ATT) about the same problem. They say they "don't know why" (sigh) some user addresses show up as user@postoffice.worldnet.att.net, and that the postoffice server name may be safely deleted. / Randy Cassingham * Author, "This is True" * arcie@netcom.com \ | For info on What I Do, send a blank e-mail to TrueInfo@freecom.com | \ or check out * I promise you'll like it / + FIGHT SPAM! Send a blank e-mail to nospam@mailback.com for help! + From list-managers-owner Sun Jan 5 17:59:03 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id RAA28666 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 17:50:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from wildride.schoneal.com (wildride.schoneal.com [206.81.38.2]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id RAA28647 for ; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 17:50:21 -0800 (PST) Received: (from meo@localhost) by wildride.schoneal.com (8.6.11/8.6.11) id TAA01197 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 19:52:00 -0600 Message-Id: <199701060152.TAA01197@wildride.schoneal.com> Subject: cafe, indexes To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 19:52:00 -0600 (CST) In-Reply-To: From: meo@schoneal.com (Miles O'Neal) Reply-To: meo@schoneal.com (Miles O'Neal) Organization: Schober O'Neal, Inc / Net Ads X-WWW-URL: http://www.schoneal.com/~meo/ X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Eric Thomas said... | | said: | |> Stella Liebeck, 79, purchased a cup of McDonald's coffee while a |>passenger in her grandson's automobile. Ms. Liebeck attempted to hold |>the cup securely between her knees while she removed the plastic lid. | |Only a complete idiot would place something that can tip over and |contains a dangerous fluid in a pivotal hold such as this, which |facilitates tipping. Absolutely. If you can qualify to drive a car, you should be capable of understanding that steam coming from a styrofoam[tm] cup is an indication of a temperature different enough from skin-normal that application of the liquid contents to the body, especially a sensitive area such as the crotch, is contra-indicated. The mere fact that the liquid is contained in a styrofoam cup is a tip-off that it's probably either very hot or very cold. I realize that most states give out driving permits like trick or treat candy, but but still - a minimum of intelligence and sense is assumed! |> Most consumers don't know that coffee this hot causes such injuries. What a crock. Most consumers who have ever drunk coffee or hot tea have burned their mouth more than once. If they can't extrapolate from this that they shouldn't pour a cup full of the same liquid in their laps, then they... |... must be complete morons ... Anyway, back to the list things... I also concur that indexing and serving news articles is completely different than indexing and serving mail list archives. I don't even think indexing them and pointing to the archives is necessarily reasonable without the list owner's agreement. -Miles From list-managers-owner Sun Jan 5 18:44:03 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id SAA00392 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 18:31:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from server.postmodern.com (server.postmodern.com [207.33.130.54]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id SAA00381 for ; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 18:31:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from 207.33.130.51 (derrida.postmodern.com [207.33.130.51]) by server.postmodern.com (8.7.5/mcb-960422) with SMTP id SAA27609; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 18:21:55 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <32D063D1.4B10@postmodern.com> Date: Sun, 05 Jan 1997 18:32:26 -0800 From: "Michael C. Berch" Reply-To: mcb@postmodern.com Organization: Postmodern Consulting, California USA X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Macintosh; I; 68K) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: list-managers Subject: Re: Netcom's dynamically changing addresses References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Randy Cassingham wrote: > > It appears that Netcom Communications uses a dynamicly changing element > > > > JohnSmith@ix.netcom.com shows up in extended headers in form of > > JohnSmith@ix4.ix.netcom.com, then JohnSMith!@ix20.ix.netcom.com and so on. > > > > This extended, variable element changes in every single email from such user. > > [...] > > Any recommendations on how to deal with this variable field? > > This isn't netcom's fault, it's the user's, who has probably not set up > his netscape mailer properly. "Netcruiser" (ix.netcom.com) accounts, > which should NOT be confused with Netcom shell (plain netcom.com) > accounts, are ALWAYS in the form user@ix.netcom.com; any extra server > names can be -- and should be -- omitted to avoid bounces. Hmmm. I don't know if I buy the idea that Netcom is not responsible. All the mail I've seen from NetCruiser users has, so far as I can tell, passed through a Netcom server on its way from the user's PC to the rest of the Net. A typical "Received:" line might look like Received: from dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.2]) by server.postmodern.com (8.7.4/mcb-960422) with SMTP id MAA06937; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 12:14:05 -0700 (PDT) If this were not the case, that would imply that NetCruiser users deliver their mail directly to the recipient MX via SMTP, which does not sound likely, and would not work well in a non-fulltime, dial-up architecture anyway. So assuming that outgoing NetCruiser mail goes through a Netcom server, Netcom CAN and SHOULD rewrite the "From:" line to user@ix.netcom.com, just like many/most sites do with the "masquerade as" variable in Sendmail. Heck, I think Netcom even *uses* sendmail, in which case they have no excuse. -- Michael C. Berch mcb@postmodern.com / mcb@greatcircle.com From list-managers-owner Sun Jan 5 19:14:37 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id TAA01697 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 19:00:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from deepthought.armory.com (deepthought.armory.com [192.122.209.42]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id TAA01679 for ; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 19:00:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from clovis by deepthought.armory.com id aa03565; 5 Jan 97 19:00 PST Received: by clovis.nerdnosh.org (1.65/waf) via UUCP; Sun, 05 Jan 97 18:47:17 PST for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Netcom's dynamically changing addresses From: Tim Bowden Message-ID: <4i03ZD3w165w@clovis.nerdnosh.org> Date: Sun, 05 Jan 97 18:45:50 PST In-Reply-To: Organization: NERDNOSH - the story conference as cyber-community! Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk James Cook writes: > JohnSmith@ix.netcom.com shows up in extended headers in form of > > JohnSmith@ix4.ix.netcom.com, then JohnSMith!@ix20.ix.netcom.com and so on. > > This extended, variable element changes in every single email from such user. > Currently this user is bounced based on the longer form of dynamically > changing address not matching the original ix.netcom.com form with which > he joined the list. > > Any recommendations on how to deal with this variable field? What's the software? Majordomo allows for that in both the config file and an alternative listname.alt file. --- mailto:tcbowden@clovis.nerdnosh.org (Tim Bowden) Proud member of NERDNOSH (tm)! mailto:info@clovis.nerdnosh.org http://www.corcom.com/reloj/Nerdnosh.html From list-managers-owner Sun Jan 5 19:24:09 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id TAA01699 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 19:00:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from deepthought.armory.com (deepthought.armory.com [192.122.209.42]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id TAA01680 for ; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 19:00:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from clovis by deepthought.armory.com id aa03553; 5 Jan 97 19:00 PST Received: by clovis.nerdnosh.org (1.65/waf) via UUCP; Sun, 05 Jan 97 18:44:43 PST for list-managers@greatcircle.com To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: List Manager Duties - Legal Advice From: Tim Bowden Message-ID: <4m93ZD2w165w@clovis.nerdnosh.org> Date: Sun, 05 Jan 97 18:26:38 PST In-Reply-To: <32D02AF6.6236@postmodern.com> Organization: NERDNOSH - the story conference as cyber-community! Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk "Michael C. Berch" writes: > > HEADLINE: Verdict Against McDonald's Is Fully Justified > > > > BYLINE: S. REED MORGAN, S. Reed Morgan & Associates, Houston > > > > I AM THE LAWYER who tried Stella Liebeck's case in Albuquerque, N.M., > > from Aug. 8-16. [...] > > I would hardly call a recital of the facts and verdict in a case *by the > plaintiff's attorney* "what actually happened, in detail". I thought that was hilarious as well. `Here's the proof! Granny's ambulance-chaser in a fit of self-justification! QED.' Such "proofs" are offered almost daily by that Simpson scum's shyster team, and for the same reason. Oh, did McDonald's brew their coffee too hot? Horrors! Don't they realize old fools will be trying to ride their coffee cups in moving vehicles? What're they thinking of? Meanwhile, we live in a nation of wounded birds, where skulking shysters seek out venal victims willing to hold anyone with deep pockets to account for their getting out of bed in the morning. The land of grievance groupies, where any act or ommission, which means any second of any day, you may be held liable for the suffering of a bleating heart somewhere, somehow. Thanks for demonstrating the need for caution along these wires. The only cure is to insist on a membership consisting solely of responsible adults. If there be enough of them left to form a quorum. My goodness, what's this tingling in my hands? Why, I do believe I may have repetitive stress syndrome! Hooray! Now who is it made this keyboard... Is there a lawyer in the house? --- mailto:tcbowden@clovis.nerdnosh.org (Tim Bowden) Proud member of NERDNOSH (tm)! mailto:info@clovis.nerdnosh.org http://www.corcom.com/reloj/Nerdnosh.html From list-managers-owner Sun Jan 5 21:01:31 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id UAA05742 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 20:46:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.crl.com (mail.crl.com [165.113.1.22]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id UAA05724 for ; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 20:46:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from crl5.crl.com by mail.crl.com with SMTP id AA27733 (5.65c/IDA-1.5 for ); Sun, 5 Jan 1997 20:46:25 -0800 Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 20:46:11 -0800 (PST) From: Subir Grewal To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: List Manager Duties - Legal Advice In-Reply-To: <4m93ZD2w165w@clovis.nerdnosh.org> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Sun, 5 Jan 1997, Tim Bowden wrote: :My goodness, what's this tingling in my hands? Why, I do believe :I may have repetitive stress syndrome! Hooray! Now who is it made :this keyboard... If it was DEC, you too might 3.4 million dollars. DEC lost ~6 million to three people who sued them. The case was won because they proved DEC had kept information about the damage that could be caused by using their equipment. They did informt ehir employees, and got them better stuff, but not their consumers. Of course a lot of RSI has to do with how you use your machine, rather than the machine itself. Still, we need to educate a lot more people about how serious it is. hostmaster@trill-home.com + Lynx 2.6 + PGP + http://www.crl.com/~subir/ Armadillo: To provide weapons to a Spanish pickle From list-managers-owner Sun Jan 5 21:44:28 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id VAA08460 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 21:31:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from ayla.idyllmtn.com (ayla.idyllmtn.com [206.16.238.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id VAA08451 for ; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 21:31:20 -0800 (PST) Received: (from kynn@localhost) by ayla.idyllmtn.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) id VAA17735; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 21:27:56 -0800 From: Kynn Bartlett Message-Id: <199701060527.VAA17735@ayla.idyllmtn.com> Subject: Re: List Manager Duties - Legal Advice To: tcbowden@nerdnosh.org (Tim Bowden) Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 21:27:55 -0800 (PST) Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <4m93ZD2w165w@clovis.nerdnosh.org> from "Tim Bowden" at Jan 5, 97 06:26:38 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Tim Bowden wrote: > My goodness, what's this tingling in my hands? Why, I do believe > I may have repetitive stress syndrome! Hooray! Now who is it made > this keyboard... Say, all you folks who are going on about mailing list owners' responsibility to keep people safe -- is it your responsibility to warn people about stuff like repetitive stress syndrome from typing on DEC keyboards? How much liability do you bear if you get sent a virus warning and _don't_ propogate it on your list because it's off-topic? Dare you take the chance that you might be wrong, and someone's hard drive be destroyed? If you're wrong just once, well... --Kynn, feeling sick and at work much, much too late From list-managers-owner Sun Jan 5 21:49:09 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id VAA08621 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 21:37:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from server.postmodern.com (server.postmodern.com [207.33.130.54]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id VAA08613 for ; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 21:37:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from 207.33.130.51 (derrida.postmodern.com [207.33.130.51]) by server.postmodern.com (8.7.5/mcb-960422) with SMTP id VAA28125; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 21:28:06 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <32D08F73.3CD7@postmodern.com> Date: Sun, 05 Jan 1997 21:38:49 -0800 From: "Michael C. Berch" Reply-To: mcb@postmodern.com Organization: Postmodern Consulting, California USA X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Macintosh; I; 68K) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: list-managers CC: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: List Manager Duties - Legal Advice References: <1.5.4.32.19970103125620.0071b5a0@isis.cyberca.com> (message from Penn Jennings on Fri, 03 Jan 1997 07:56:20 -0500) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > You have a responsibilty to provide a place where your members feel > safe congregating, or you're abusing YOUR responsibility as a host. > Plain and simple. > > Jeez. I appreciate that you prefer to run your lists on that basis, but I resent somewhat the implication that this is a universal truth, and that those of us who disagree are therefore somehow acting unethically. Being safe and/or comfortable is entirely in the eye of the beholder; if the people on my lists feel offended or threatened -- for whatever reason -- their recourse is very simple: they may attempt to convince others of the rectitude of their position, or they can leave the list. This is remarkably self-regulating; if enough people leave the list because they are offended or threatened, or simply annoyed, it usually just fails, and someone starts up a better-regulated one on the same topic elsewhere, and the remaining handful of people can continue to exchange flames or personal threats or whatever to their heart's content. In a place as massively pluralistic as the Internet, voting with one's feet works very well. -- Michael C. Berch mcb@postmodern.com / mcb@greatcircle.com From list-managers-owner Sun Jan 5 22:03:24 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id VAA09619 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 21:54:36 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) id VAA09597 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 21:54:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from MIT.EDU (PACIFIC-CARRIER-ANNEX.MIT.EDU [18.69.0.28]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id JAA13881 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 09:54:37 -0800 (PST) From: rlcarr@MIT.EDU Received: from VONGOLE.MIT.EDU by MIT.EDU with SMTP id AA16977; Thu, 2 Jan 97 12:54:01 EST Received: by vongole.MIT.EDU (5.57/4.7) id AA12878; Thu, 2 Jan 97 12:53:56 -0500 Date: Thu, 2 Jan 97 12:53:56 -0500 Message-Id: <9701021753.AA12878@vongole.MIT.EDU> To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: WebTV addresses Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I've noticed subscribe attempts from WebTV addresses are beginning to pop up in my mailbox. So far, I've not acted on them. How do they behave with regards to bouncing, quota problems, DNS problems, etc? == Rich From list-managers-owner Sun Jan 5 22:07:34 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id VAA08686 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 21:41:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from kim.teleport.com (kim.teleport.com [192.108.254.26]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id VAA08679 for ; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 21:41:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from ip-pdx21-12.teleport.com (ip-pdx21-12.teleport.com [206.163.125.224]) by kim.teleport.com (8.8.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id VAA19128; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 21:40:49 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199701060540.VAA19128@kim.teleport.com> X-Sender: reedg@mail.teleport.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 05 Jan 1997 21:42:24 -0800 To: David Lloyd-Jones From: Reed Gleason Subject: Re: List Manager Duties: dangerous concept Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 03:34 PM 1/4/97 -0500, David Lloyd-Jones wrote: >At 11:00 AM 1/4/97 -0800, Reed Gleason wrote:. >> >>If I believed I had any significant legal liability for being a list-owner, >>I wouldn't do it, and everyone would lose. If a lawsuit ever goes against a >>casual listowner, it would have a chilling effect on many enjoyable mailing >>lists. We should be working against the idea that listowners have duties. > >I think that attitude sums up in a nutshell why the United States is a slum >of violence, political corruption, and administrative incompetence. > > -dlj. Your criticism enraged me to the point that I almost put my fist through my monitor. You've been warned, so if you post another message like that, and I do damage myself by punching my monitor, I'll sue you. I'm glad you're willing to take responsibility for my foolishness. Seriously, folks, and sorry to troll so successfully, but I *have* been threatened with a lawsuit, because one subscriber alleged another was making snide remarks about her on the list. The posts in question were meaningless to me, but these people knew each other, and there was some sort of history I was suppose to intervene in. Sorry, I don't do history. The notion that anyone who seeks to provide benefit, e.g., a mailing list, is also liable for any damage that may be remotely connected to that benefit, is what causes slums. Take the example of the farmer who happens to have some very nice rock cliffs on his property. He can either allow access to rock climbers or not. If he doesn't, the climbers have to drive 4 hours to get to comparable rock. Should he be held liable for damages to the climbers? Similarly, should I be held liable for allowing access to a mailing list? Reed Gleason; Reedg@teleport.com; Portland, OR. 503-283-1366 List"owner"(yeah, right) of goatslite@lists.teleport.com From list-managers-owner Sun Jan 5 23:14:16 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id XAA13595 for list-managers-outgoing; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 23:03:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from m1.boston.juno.com (m1.boston.juno.com [205.231.100.199]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id XAA13587 for ; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 23:03:07 -0800 (PST) Received: (from rwneill@juno.com) by m1.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id C[E15532; Mon, 06 Jan 1997 02:02:01 EST To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: WebTV addresses Message-ID: <19970106.005923.8079.0.rwneill@juno.com> References: <9701021753.AA12878@vongole.mit.edu> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-20 From: rwneill@juno.com (Robert W. Neill, Jr.) Date: Mon, 06 Jan 1997 02:02:01 EST Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I don't have any on my list yet but I am getting email from a lot of people on WebTV for my business pages. Have any numbers ever come out on how many people are using WebTV so far? Robert W. Neill, Jr. aj148@lafn.org Neill Online On Thu, 2 Jan 97 12:53:56 -0500 rlcarr@MIT.EDU writes: > >I've noticed subscribe attempts from WebTV addresses are beginning to >pop up in my mailbox. > >So far, I've not acted on them. How do they behave with regards to >bouncing, quota problems, DNS problems, etc? > >== Rich > > From list-managers-owner Mon Jan 6 03:34:11 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id DAA28365 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 03:25:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from stingray.ivision.co.uk (stingray.ivision.co.uk [194.154.62.8]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id DAA28358 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 03:25:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from stingray.ivision.co.uk [194.154.62.8] by stingray.ivision.co.uk with smtp (Exim 0.53 #1) id E0vhDAS-0003ta-00; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 11:24:36 +0000 Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 11:24:36 +0000 (GMT) From: Manar Hussain To: Steven Clift cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM, e-democracy@freenet.msp.mn.us Subject: Re: Temp WWW Archive Options? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >I'd like to have a secondary hypermail WWW archive sent up for postings >to a majordomo list called MN-POLITICS. We already have a primary >archive that goes back to 1994. What I'd like to have is a special >archive that only keeps that last week of messages and deletes the old >ones as time goes by. Also, for the messages in the "Minnesota Politics >This Week" section one could reply or post via a WWW form which would >inturn submit the message to our list owner for review. > >Hs anyone seen this done anywhere? What do you recommend for a technical >solution? To run on your own systems I guess you might be best off hacking hypermail a little to split by week and put in a link to a simple form that just sends a mail to a moderator who can then fairly manually send it on ... You may not want to delete thing - but let people only see things a week at a time ... Something custom might well not be too hard either. Manar From list-managers-owner Mon Jan 6 06:59:24 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id GAA06469 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 06:49:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from angus.mystery.com (angus.mystery.com [198.202.235.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id GAA06461 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 06:49:13 -0800 (PST) Received: (from gabe@localhost) by angus.mystery.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id JAA02678 for List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 09:48:46 -0500 From: Gabe Helou Message-Id: <199701061448.JAA02678@angus.mystery.com> Subject: Re: List Manager Duties - Legal Advice To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 09:48:45 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <199701060900.BAA21439@miles.greatcircle.com> from "List-Managers-Digest" at Jan 6, 97 01:00:47 am Reply-To: gabe@mystery.com X-URL: http://www.mystery.com/~gabe/ X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Okay, it's mini-allegory time. I'm Joe; I run Joe's Pub. It's a small place, off the beaten path, where people come to drink a little and talk a lot. Things have a quiet, predictable routine around here. At least, they did until this morning. Bob comes in the door and says to me: "Tom threatened to kill me! You've got to bar him from the pub." "Did he threaten you here?" "No, but you have to keep him out." "If he threatened you, then tell the police. Unless he does something in the pub, I'm not going to throw him out." "But it's your fault Tom found out where I live. He followed me home from this place. You have to keep him away." "Sorry, I can't help things that happen outside the pub." "You'll keep him out, or I'll sue you!" So there I was, stuck in the middle. I don't know how it will all pan out, but for now, I've kicked Bob out of the pub. He can come back after he's taken responsibility for his own life and either settled things with Tom or taken the issue to the proper authorities. -- --- -- - - - - - - - - Diem Perdidi From list-managers-owner Mon Jan 6 07:23:04 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id HAA07227 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 07:14:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from gauntlet-1.trusted.com (gauntlet-1.trusted.com [204.254.155.2]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id HAA07220 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 07:13:52 -0800 (PST) Received: by gauntlet-1.trusted.com; id KAA22274; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 10:19:19 -0500 Received: from dira.rv.tis.com(10.0.1.43) by gauntlet-1.trusted.com via smap (V3.1.1) id xma022263; Mon, 6 Jan 97 10:18:53 -0500 Received: (from mark@localhost) by dira.rv.tis.com (8.7.4/8.7.3) id KAA19685 for List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 10:07:01 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 10:07:01 -0500 (EST) From: Mark Sienkiewicz Message-Id: <199701061507.KAA19685@dira.rv.tis.com> To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: WebTV addresses Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >I don't have any on my list yet but I am getting email >from a lot of people on WebTV for my business pages. Have >any numbers ever come out on how many people are using >WebTV so far? A recent article in the Washington Post indicated that WebTV has sold about 30,000 units. I would speculate that means there are 30,000 subscribers, but perhaps not quite that many actually using it. :) From list-managers-owner Mon Jan 6 08:29:07 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id IAA10373 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 08:17:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from dns-primary.montgomery.com (dns-primary.montgomery.com [205.229.31.14]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id IAA10359 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 08:17:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from sf-exch-2.montgomery.com (sf-exch-2 [199.4.204.239]) by dns-primary.montgomery.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id IAA29942 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 08:16:47 -0800 (PST) Received: by sf-exch-2.montgomery.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id <01BBFBA9.3BBFA200@sf-exch-2.montgomery.com>; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 08:11:35 -0800 Message-ID: From: Tizoc Spiers To: "'edupage@elanor.oit.unc.edu'" , "'digvid-l@ucdavis.edu'" , "'list-managers-digest@GreatCircle.COM'" Subject: Incorrect Addresses Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 08:16:14 -0800 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk The address kkron@montgomery.com; dcoplan@montgomery.com; pevenson@montgomery.com is not a valid address to this site. Discontinue all future transmissions. Date: 1/6/97 From list-managers-owner Mon Jan 6 08:45:01 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id IAA10994 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 08:37:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from ncar.UCAR.EDU (ncar.ucar.edu [192.52.106.6]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id IAA10987 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 08:37:17 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199701061636.JAA17284@ncar.ucar.EDU> Received: by ncar.ucar.EDU (NCAR 12/5/96/ NCAR Central Post Office 03/11/93) id JAA17284; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 09:36:24 -0700 (MST) Subject: Re: Managers are not Bystanders To: jennings@cyberca.com (Penn Jennings) Date: Mon, 6 Jan 97 9:36:23 MST Cc: kynn@idyllmtn.com, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19970105033538.00707718@isis.cyberca.com>; from "Penn Jennings" at Jan 4, 97 10:35 pm From: woods@ucar.edu (Greg Woods) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11] Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > what are our responsibilities as list managers. > Some people say that we have absolutely none at all, in any way shape or > form. That is a pretty selfish stance. I have to agree with Michael Berch here. There is clearly a confusion between *legal* duties and *moral* duties. Legal duties are those which, if you fail to adhere to them, can be enforced by the courts, threat of jail, etc. In short, they have the power of force behind them. Moral duties are those that arise out of our own sense of values. That doesn't mean they aren't real, or that in the end, that they are any less important. It just means that each person is free to interpret them in their own way (and indeed, maybe the same person interprets them differently for different lists they run). We can spend a lot of energy arguing about what is "selfish", "right", or "wrong", but I don't think those arguments are going to be very productive nor do they belong on a technically-oriented mailing list (IMHO). That said: > Do you think it is ok give your address list to spammers if who has been > disabled? Only if the list members have said they want that sort of advertising. But again, there is no legal power that says you can't do this. Personally, I think it would make my list useless so I wouldn't. > If run a list for girl scouts do FEEL the need to do anything if you KNOW > that a child molester has joined your list and IS seducing your 12 year old > list members? The rub here is how can you KNOW this for certain? This is the sort of judgment that has to be made on a case by case basis. You can get into just as much trouble in civil court for acting on false accusations as you can for not acting on true ones. > If you run a list and one member is constantly making very vulgar, hurtful > and unsolicited onlist comments to other members and they complain, you > don't care? If it's on the list, I care. If it's off the list, there is really nothing I can do to stop it. That doesn't mean I might *not* remove such a person, if I considered the evidence strong enough to prove the allegation. The real problem with getting involved with private disputes is that you cannot know for sure what REALLY happened. BOTH sides will tend to distort the evidence to favor their own case, and determining the truth is problematical. > Do think that it is ok to alter messages that your members send BEFORE the > they sent out to rest of list? Only if it's done in a manner that is made known up front or that is naturally a part of the sending of mail (e.g. digestifying, adding Received headers). > I'm fairly sure that there is no legal action that can be taken in most of > these but they all make my stomach turn and I FEEL a responsibility to do > something about them. That is your choice, and I've got no problem with that as long as you don't try to force every list manager to have the same moral values that you do. I consider it morally wrong to act on an accusation without being sure of the facts first. Innocent until *proven* guilty. --Greg From list-managers-owner Mon Jan 6 09:20:07 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id JAA12260 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 09:04:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from synergy.transbay.net (synergy.transbay.net [207.105.6.2]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id JAA12242 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 09:04:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from kuno (jbuck133.transbay.net [207.105.7.133]) by synergy.transbay.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id JAA07389 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 09:03:32 GMT Message-Id: <199701060903.JAA07389@synergy.transbay.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "John Buckman" Organization: Walter Shelby Group Ltd. To: list-managers Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 09:03:38 +7 Subject: Re: Netcom's dynamically changing addresses X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42) Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > Hmmm. I don't know if I buy the idea that Netcom is not responsible. All > the mail I've seen from NetCruiser users has, so far as I can tell, > passed through a Netcom server on its way from the user's PC to the rest > of the Net. > > A typical "Received:" line might look like > > Received: from dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com > [206.214.98.2]) by server.postmodern.com (8.7.4/mcb-960422) with > SMTP id MAA06937; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 12:14:05 -0700 (PDT) James told me that this person is using Pegasus Mail, which by default uses the person's POP3 info to build the From: address. Thus, if the POP3 server they use is "ix4.ix.netcom.com" and their username is "jane", Pegasus gives them the email address "jane@ix4.ix.netcom.com". My guess is that Netcom uses some sort of POP3 use-balancing scheme, so the person is using any one of a number POP3 servers each time they use Pegasus, and each time a different default From: is being auto-generated. The solution for them was to use the Pegasus "advanced configuration options" and tell Pegasus what their "From" address is (and to use it in the SMTP envelope), so that Pegasus doesn't auto-generate the From: address. John john@shelby.com, Shelby Group Ltd., http://www.shelby.com/ From list-managers-owner Mon Jan 6 11:00:44 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id KAA18748 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 10:53:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailhub.Stanford.EDU (mailhub.Stanford.EDU [36.21.0.128]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id KAA18705 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 10:53:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from [171.64.76.140] (Cervantes.Stanford.EDU [171.64.76.140]) by mailhub.Stanford.EDU (8.8.4/8.8.4/8.8.4L) with ESMTP id KAA28254 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 10:52:58 -0800 (PST) X-Sender: wbarr@popserver.stanford.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19970103021902.0070df8c@isis.cyberca.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 10:30:21 -0800 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: "William P. Barr" Subject: Re: List Manager Duties - Legal Advice Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >Both attorneys agreed that they would remove a threatening or very abusive >user at once. One stated that he might give the member a warning. They >both thought that the offending member had very few rights in this case, if As I have noted before, be sure to check with your provider or company first. In many cases, by providing a list from your host's services, you may be OBLIGED to remove abusive members and even be OBLIGED to report abusers to authorities. For example, Stanford University has a Fair Use policy regarding computing facilites which requires me as a list owner/manager to remove and report abusive list members. As a simple rule, remove idiots early and often. >PLEASE: Do not send me lay person opinions of law. My mail box is folding >under the weight people telling me that list managers have no legal duties. In fact, if you run a MODERATED list, you DO have legal duties and you ARE legally liable for content on your list. This is precisely why Prodigy lost it's case. Bill -- William Barr, Stanford Computer Forum phone: 415-723-6632 Room 272, M/C 9025, Gates Building 2B, Stanford, CA 94305 wbarr@leland.stanford.edu finger wbarr@cs.stanford.edu for PGP Listowner: butler-sql, harpoon, phoenix-command, tacops, n-scale@lists.stanford.edu "My opinions are mine and only mine." From list-managers-owner Mon Jan 6 13:15:03 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id NAA26761 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 13:08:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from hotstar.net (hotstar.net [204.191.136.8]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id NAA26754 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 13:07:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from widgette (ts62-10.tor.iSTAR.ca [204.191.142.230]) by hotstar.net (8.7.3/8.7) with SMTP id QAA22257; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 16:09:31 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970106211244.006bb5e4@inforamp.net> X-Sender: dlj@inforamp.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 06 Jan 1997 16:12:44 -0500 To: gabe@mystery.com From: David Lloyd-Jones Subject: Re: List Manager Duties - Legal Advice Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 09:48 AM 1/6/97 -0500, Gabe Helou wrote: > So there I was, stuck in the middle. I don't know how it will all pan > out, but for now, I've kicked Bob out of the pub. He can come back > after he's taken responsibility for his own life and either settled > things with Tom or taken the issue to the proper authorities. Perfectly reasonable answer for a society where there is a Proper Authority for everyone and everything and nobody gives a shit about their neighbours. -dlj. From list-managers-owner Mon Jan 6 14:29:08 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id OAA00247 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 14:18:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from server.postmodern.com (server.postmodern.com [207.33.130.54]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id OAA00229 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 14:18:15 -0800 (PST) Received: (from mcb@localhost) by server.postmodern.com (8.7.5/mcb-960422) id OAA02949; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 14:09:09 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199701062209.OAA02949@server.postmodern.com> From: mcb@postmodern.com (Michael C. Berch) Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 14:09:09 +0000 In-Reply-To: <199701060903.JAA07389@synergy.transbay.net> X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.5 10/14/92) To: list-managers Subject: Re: Netcom's dynamically changing addresses Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk John Buckman writes: > > Hmmm. I don't know if I buy the idea that Netcom is not responsible. All > > the mail I've seen from NetCruiser users has, so far as I can tell, > > passed through a Netcom server on its way from the user's PC to the rest > > of the Net. > > > > A typical "Received:" line might look like > > > > Received: from dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com > > [206.214.98.2]) by server.postmodern.com (8.7.4/mcb-960422) with > > SMTP id MAA06937; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 12:14:05 -0700 (PDT) > > James told me that this person is using Pegasus Mail, which by > default uses the person's POP3 info to build the From: address. > > Thus, if the POP3 server they use is "ix4.ix.netcom.com" and their > username is "jane", Pegasus gives them the email address > "jane@ix4.ix.netcom.com". > > My guess is that Netcom uses some sort of POP3 use-balancing scheme, > so the person is using any one of a number POP3 servers each time > they use Pegasus, and each time a different default From: is being > auto-generated. Right. But it shouldn't matter what sort of random cruft Pegasus (or any other client mailer) sticks in the From: line; when the Netcom mail relay processes it, it should rewrite the From: line to a canonical form. That's trivial, and most ISPs seem to do that. > The solution for them was to use the Pegasus "advanced configuration > options" and tell Pegasus what their "From" address is (and to use it > in the SMTP envelope), so that Pegasus doesn't auto-generate the > From: address. It would seem that their support burden would be greatly lessened if they just fixed their mail relays to take care of this, instead of trying to support every !~@#$% PC mailer out there. But this is Netcom we are talking about here, who is not exactly known for their cluefulness. -- Michael C. Berch mcb@postmodern.com / mcb@greatcircle.com From list-managers-owner Mon Jan 6 15:30:09 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id PAA03205 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 15:22:03 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) id PAA03197 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 15:21:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from cyberca.com (isis.cyberca.com [206.42.216.51]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id FAA18047 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 05:00:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from ra.cyberca.com (ra.cyberca.com [192.234.55.25]) by cyberca.com (8.6.8.1/SCA-6.6) with SMTP id MAA25447; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 12:59:59 GMT Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970103125600.00710160@isis.cyberca.com> X-Sender: jennings@isis.cyberca.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 03 Jan 1997 07:56:00 -0500 To: "Enforcement Coordinator (Tracey McCartney)" From: Penn Jennings Subject: Re: List Manager Duties - Legal Advice Cc: list-managers@Greatcircle.com Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 11:29 PM 1/2/97 -0600, you wrote: >This makes *no* sense. If one of my users is threatening to kill another, >what duty do I have to unsubscribe the threatening party? That will not >prevent his threatening other users. I may have other duties, but I think >taking the offending party off the list is not really aimed at the real >problem. The issue, as you state, is whether the danger is avoidable. >Maybe, but it likely won't be headed off by taking someone off a mailing >list, unless I've missed something. I'm sure that you did. >Well, this is the opinion of someone who *has* passed the bar. I don't know >what kind of scenario you laid out for those attorneys, but this really >makes no sense. It's like saying, "You know that X is stalking Y with the >intent to kill him/her, so you have a duty to immediately have X's car towed >for being in a loading zone." > No, it's more like this: You are THE manager at a private post office. You have been told by several people that "Bob Dole", one of your carriers has threatened to kill them. You do nothing. A month later Bod Dole goes postal. If you get named in the wrongfull death suit, so know like Jenny Jones will be, what does the picture look like for you? Rosey? __________________________________________________________________ Copyright 1996 (c) Penn Jennings Penn Jennings jennings@cyberca.com http://www.cyberca.com/~jennings/ The road to evil is paved with good intentions. From list-managers-owner Mon Jan 6 15:44:48 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id PAA05039 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 15:44:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from ayla.idyllmtn.com (ayla.idyllmtn.com [206.16.238.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id PAA04959 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 15:43:41 -0800 (PST) Received: (from kynn@localhost) by ayla.idyllmtn.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) id PAA25871; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 15:39:19 -0800 From: Kynn Bartlett Message-Id: <199701062339.PAA25871@ayla.idyllmtn.com> Subject: Re: List Manager Duties - Legal Advice To: jennings@cyberca.com (Penn Jennings) Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 15:39:19 -0800 (PST) Cc: tracey@mont.mindspring.com, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19970103125600.00710160@isis.cyberca.com> from "Penn Jennings" at Jan 3, 97 07:56:00 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Penn Jennings offers another flawed analogy: > No, it's more like this: You are THE manager at a private post office. You > have been told by several people that "Bob Dole", one of your carriers has > threatened to kill them. You do nothing. A month later Bod Dole goes > postal. If you get named in the wrongfull death suit, so know like Jenny > Jones will be, what does the picture look like for you? Rosey? Your analogy proves nothing, other than a manager is responsible for the people in his employ, which is completely inapplicable to the case of a mailing list on the net. Closer to the case is this -- you run a private post office. One of the people who you deliver mail to comes to you and tells you that she received a threatening phone call from another person who you deliver mail to. Do you have a legal obligation to then stop delivering mail to the person who threatened her by phone? If she gets killed and you didn't stop the guy's mail, are you at fault? This is exactly the case we're talking about here -- someone on your list reportedly threatened via private email by someone else on your list. The obligation and liability is not clear at all, Penn, and each time you try to "prove" your case, it gets even more obvious that the list manager is _not_ going to be charged with negligence in a wrongful death suit. --Kynn From list-managers-owner Mon Jan 6 17:15:49 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id QAA06829 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 16:00:26 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) id PAA06688 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 15:59:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id XAA28574 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 23:37:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from [207.167.80.70] (zamboni.plaidworks.com [207.167.80.70]) by plaidworks.com (8.6.9/A/UX 3.1) with ESMTP id XAA16803; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 23:37:47 -0800 X-Sender: chuq@solutions.apple.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <199612310900.BAA15261@miles.greatcircle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 2 Jan 1997 23:21:36 -0800 To: Virtual Joe , List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: findmail.com instructions Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 12:48 PM -0800 1/2/97, Virtual Joe wrote: >It offers easy >instructions regarding removing findmail.com from your lists and who to >contact to make sure they stay off. Even easier: I put them in my no-subscribe file.. (grin) -- Chuq Von Rospach (chuq@solutions.apple.com) Software Gnome Apple Server Marketing Webmaster Plaidworks Consulting (chuqui@plaidworks.com) ( +-+ The home for Hockey on the net) I got no name or number/ I just hand out the lumber. But if I get a chance to play/ I'm going to show 'em. -- Stick Boy (The Hanson Brothers, SUDDEN DEATH) From list-managers-owner Mon Jan 6 17:26:05 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id RAA11936 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 17:02:26 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) id RAA11926 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 17:02:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from colossus.arl.mil (colossus.arl.mil [131.218.204.98]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id KAA17357 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 10:36:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from [131.218.204.98] by colossus.arl.mil with SMTP (Apple Internet Mail Server 1.1.1); Mon, 6 Jan 1997 13:40:49 -0500 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Organization: Little to None X-Mailer: Eudora for Cray Y-MP Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 13:40:50 -0500 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: wavelet@colossus.arl.mil (Vince Sabio) Subject: Re: WebTV addresses Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk ** Sometime around 12:53 1/2/97, rlcarr@MIT.EDU said: >I've noticed subscribe attempts from WebTV addresses are beginning to >pop up in my mailbox. > >So far, I've not acted on them. How do they behave with regards to >bouncing, quota problems, DNS problems, etc? The only experience I've had is with mail bounces; their DSNs are largely useless, or *were* as of a month ago. Randy Cassingham and I discussed the issue with their postmaster, who seemed to think that they were fine. When last we spoke, I'd provided him with a URL for RFC 1894, along with some pertinent excerpts from the RFC; never heard back from him. I hope that meant he was reading it ... ;-) - Vince S. wavelet@colossus.arl.mil -- For info on HumourNet--the Internet's moderated mailing list for humor-- send the command INFO HUMORNET (only one U) to listproc@csf.colorado.edu -- Fight Spam on the Internet! From list-managers-owner Mon Jan 6 17:28:38 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id QAA08269 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 16:16:33 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) id PAA06300 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 15:56:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from netcom17.netcom.com (netcom17.netcom.com [192.100.81.130]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id PAA14270 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 15:09:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (grafolog@localhost) by netcom17.netcom.com (8.6.13/Netcom) id XAA09685; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 23:09:15 GMT Date: Thu, 2 Jan 1997 23:09:14 +0000 (GMT) From: jonathon X-Sender: grafolog@netcom17 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Message-ID: x-no-archive: yes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk All: One of the people on a list I run has asked me how to find out which mailing lists they are subscribed to, so they can unsubscribe before cancelling their account. ListServe has a global unsubscribe, that appears to work regardless of the host-domain. Does any other list offer such a feature? Does anybody know how to find out which lists a person is subscribed to? Most of the lists she is subscribed to, have periodic postings --- less than one a week. Others are dormant. Some have moved from where she originally subscribed from. Obviously she has no idea of what lists she is subscribed to. Or should she just let mail bounce with a user unknown message after she drops her current ISP, and try to keep better records at her new ISP? xan jonathon grafolog@netcom.com *********************************************************** Are there any good books about "The War of Northern Agression"? Are there any good books about "The War of Southern Rebellion"? From list-managers-owner Mon Jan 6 17:32:59 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id PAA06659 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 15:59:39 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) id PAA06554 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 15:59:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (mycroft.greatcircle.com [198.102.244.35]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id SAA08820 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 18:54:12 -0800 (PST) Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.10/SMI-4.1/Brent-961106) id SAA23147; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 18:52:51 -0800 Received: from bolero.rahul.net(192.160.13.1) by mycroft via smap (V1.3mjr) id sma023120; Thu Jan 2 18:51:52 1997 Received: from jive.rahul.net by bolero.rahul.net with SMTP id AA20298 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for ); Thu, 2 Jan 1997 18:50:47 -0800 Received: by jive.rahul.net (5.67b8/jive-a2i-1.0) id AA10397; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 18:50:44 -0800 Message-Id: <199701030250.AA10397@jive.rahul.net> To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: findmail.com instructions In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 02 Jan 97 18:50:43 -0800 From: Michelle Dick Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Paul wrote: > It doesn't seem like there is consensus on this list about > whether what findmail.com is doing is bad, ok, or good. Really? Are there *any* list-manager who don't think that it is the duty of every responsible subscriber to fully read and follow list requirements that are emailed to new subscribers? If so, could such list-managers please send me the subscribe address to your list? I'd like to join and do with your list as I like, without being bound by your rules. Oh, and if you put a X-michelle-don't-bother-me header, I'll leave you alone. I just don't want to have to actually read your list rules. Is there really no near consensus that all subscribers are expected to read and follow list rules of the mailing list they join of their own volition? There is no consenus that offering archive services is good or bad (personally, I think it is good), but I suspect there is near consensus that all subscribers are expected to read and follow list terms and conditions. I also think that their individual message header opting out is good (if I wanted my list archived, I'd want this feature so my list members could choose as well), but it is totally irresponsible to join a list and use it without actually reading the list rules. I don't care what kind of subscriber you are or what your intentions are. *ALL* subscribers are expected to read my list rules. No exceptions. -- Michelle Dick artemis@rahul.net East Palo Alto, CA From list-managers-owner Mon Jan 6 17:33:25 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id PAA05360 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 15:46:35 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) id PAA05329 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 15:46:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from netcom21.netcom.com (netcom21.netcom.com [192.100.81.135]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id PAA08785 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 15:04:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (arcie@localhost) by netcom21.netcom.com (8.6.13/Netcom) id QAA04043; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 16:03:51 -0700 Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 16:03:50 -0700 (MST) From: Randy Cassingham X-Sender: arcie@netcom21 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Not Spam, but not Not-Spam. In-Reply-To: <199701032144.NAA00386@miles.greatcircle.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Fri, 3 Jan 1997, jonathon wondered > Is it better to subscribe everybody to the new list, and > unsubscribe them as requested, or to BCC everybody, asking > them if they would like to be on the revamped list? What *I'd* do is send all a bcc telling them that the list they subscribed to has been reactivated, and IF they're still interested, THIS IS HOW to subscribe to it. And if they're NOT interested, they don't have to do anything, as you will be tossing their address, and sorry for the intrusion. / Randy Cassingham * Author, "This is True" * arcie@netcom.com \ | For info on What I Do, send a blank e-mail to TrueInfo@freecom.com | \ or check out * I promise you'll like it / + FIGHT SPAM! Send a blank e-mail to nospam@mailback.com for help! + From list-managers-owner Mon Jan 6 17:38:17 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id PAA05305 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 15:46:11 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) id PAA05270 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 15:45:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from kitsune.swcp.com (kitsune.swcp.com [198.59.115.2]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id LAA19862 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 11:45:14 -0800 (PST) Received: (from lazlo@localhost) by kitsune.swcp.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) id MAA05654 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 12:44:48 -0700 Message-Id: <199701031944.MAA05654@kitsune.swcp.com> Subject: Not Spam, but not Not-Spam. To: list-managers@greatcircle.com (lm) Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 12:44:48 -0700 (MST) From: "Lazlo Nibble" X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25 PGP3 *ALPHA*] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > Is it better to subscribe everybody to the new list, and > unsubscribe them as requested, or to BCC everybody, asking > them if they would like to be on the revamped list? When I've taken over lists in the past, I've usually just set up the new lists and emailed everyone on the old ones to let them know that the new ones exist and how to subscribe to them, and then shut the old ones down. This prevents you from carrying over stale addresses, and if you've made policy changes, can help to assure that people are aware of them. In your particular case the notice should probably explain a) why they're getting mail from you, b) why they might be getting this mail despite an earlier (failed) unsub request, and c) what's happening to the lists, preferably in that order. Hope this helps! -- ::: Lazlo (lazlo@swcp.com; http://www.swcp.com/lazlo) From list-managers-owner Mon Jan 6 17:41:30 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id PAA05699 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 15:50:43 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) id PAA05679 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 15:50:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE (segate.sunet.se [192.36.125.6]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id LAA26959 for ; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 11:14:33 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199701041914.LAA26959@miles.greatcircle.com> Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <5.4D926146@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 20:14:07 +0100 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by SEARN.SUNET.SE (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 7648; Sat, 04 Jan 97 20:08:03 +0100 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin ERIC@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2c/1.8c) with RFC822 id 6852; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 20:08:03 +0100 Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 20:01:26 +0100 From: Eric Thomas Subject: Re: DejaNews To: Gene Rackow , Bill Campbell cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM, rackow@antares.mcs.anl.gov In-Reply-To: Message of Sat, 4 Jan 1997 10:54:07 -0800 (PST) from Bill Campbell Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk This is fine and it just means that with your respective lists, the exploders are part of the normal distribution channel. This doesn't mean that this is the case with other lists. Personally, I always discourage local exploders, even on public lists, because in my experience they've brought nothing but trouble and flames ("YOUR SYSTEM SAYS I M NOT ON THE LIST BUT THATS A ****LIE**** AND IM H'\\'ONNA SUE YOUR SORRY ASS IF YOU DON"T REMOVE ME NOW AND I MEAN ****NOW****"). That's one thing, but when these people start calling you on the phone and then calling your boss and end up having to explain redistributors to a manager who barely understands what a list is, you've reached a point where it's costing you more in manpower to put up with idiots who can't run a redistributor than it could possibly cost you in extra hardware. And on private lists where I need to approve subscribers, I don't allow exploders at all. Eric From list-managers-owner Mon Jan 6 17:41:34 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id PAA05753 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 15:51:09 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) id PAA05703 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 15:50:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from miso.wwa.com (miso.wwa.com [198.49.174.33]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id MAA29865 for ; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 12:21:12 -0800 (PST) Received: by miso.wwa.com (Smail3.1.29.1 #2) id m0vgcaH-000k4bC; Sat, 4 Jan 97 14:20 CST Message-Id: From: dattier@wwa.com (David W. Tamkin) Subject: Re: Not Spam, but not Not-Spam. To: grafolog@netcom.com Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 14:20:48 -0600 (CST) Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: from "jonathon" at Jan 3, 97 06:59:33 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk grafolog@netcom.com is consolidating twenty inactive mailing lists into one new one that he is about to open, and he asked, | Is it better to subscribe everybody to the new list, and | unsubscribe them as requested, or to BCC everybody, asking | them if they would like to be on the revamped list? There's no blanket answer to that question; too much depends on details and on your best guess whether the majority of subscribers to each of the lists getting consolidated into your new list would want to be on the new list or not. It might even vary from one to another of the twenty lists that you are consolidating. Based only on what you've posted, I'd lean toward inviting everyone but autosubscribing nobody. Three reasons: (1) If some of the lists being consolidated into your new one have been inac- tive for two years, many of their members have lost interest in the topic in the meanwhile or may have become too busy, even if their interest has not waned, to read a list about the topic. (2) If some of the addresses are that old, many of them are invalid now. Wouldn't you rather get one bounce per stale address for your invitation than ten per stale address for the ten posts passed through your list before they are taken off after having been autosubscribed? (3) As you said, at least one component list has some uninterested members still on its roster only because their signoffs were never processed. (4) Since all these component lists have been inactive for a while, sudden arrival of new list mail would be a surprise to members, and not all surprises are pleasant. Inviting them instead of autosubscribing them is less presumptive. The positive option is truly kinder when all other factors are equal (or they total to equals). But this is truly a decision to be made and weighted on a case-by-case basis, and you have twenty cases, not one, to decide here. From list-managers-owner Mon Jan 6 18:14:29 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id SAA16047 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 18:07:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id SAA16035 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 18:07:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from [207.167.80.70] (zamboni.plaidworks.com [207.167.80.70]) by plaidworks.com (8.6.9/A/UX 3.1) with ESMTP id SAA09666 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 18:07:42 -0800 X-Sender: chuq@solutions.apple.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 17:54:09 -0800 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: findmail.com instructions Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Weird. Anyone want to guess why a message I sent on the 2nd sat on greatcircle until this afternoon? Check the received lines: ---- Received: (mcb@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) id PAA06688 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 15:59:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id XAA28574 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 23:37:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from [207.167.80.70] (zamboni.plaidworks.com [207.167.80.70]) by plaidworks.com (8.6.9/A/UX 3.1) with ESMTP id XAA16803; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 23:37:47 -0800 ---- -- Chuq Von Rospach (chuq@solutions.apple.com) Software Gnome Apple Server Marketing Webmaster Plaidworks Consulting (chuqui@plaidworks.com) ( +-+ The home for Hockey on the net) I got no name or number/ I just hand out the lumber. But if I get a chance to play/ I'm going to show 'em. -- Stick Boy (The Hanson Brothers, SUDDEN DEATH) From list-managers-owner Mon Jan 6 18:22:11 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id SAA16020 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 18:07:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from shooter.bluemarble.net (shooter.bluemarble.net [199.18.207.25]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id SAA15986 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 18:06:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (edit@localhost) by shooter.bluemarble.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id VAA09658; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 21:08:15 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 21:08:15 -0500 (EST) From: Paul E Kayak Reply-To: Paul E Kayak To: Reed Gleason cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: List Manager Duties: dangerous concept In-Reply-To: <199701060540.VAA19128@kim.teleport.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Sun, 5 Jan 1997, Reed Gleason wrote: > Your criticism...to the point that I almost put my fist through my > monitor. ...If I do damage myself by punching my monitor, I'll sue you. I'm glad you're.... > Take the example of the farmer who happens to have some very nice rock > cliffs on his property. He can either allow access to rock climbers or not. > If he doesn't, the climbers have to drive 4 hours to get to comparable rock. > Should he be held liable for damages to the climbers? Similarly, should I > be held liable for allowing access to a mailing list? 1972 Land Use Act releases land owners from liability if they are willing to allow (some of) the public on their land for recreational purposes. If two people, when in a restaurant table-hopping, meet at my place and one eventually is exploitive and hurtful to the other - I think I'd feel bad about it. I make a point of it to not give an introduction if I think that could happen. Can a busy list manager give a disclaimer at startup? For anyone not smart enough to stay out of it when some marginal behavior occurs, you're not their mom. From list-managers-owner Mon Jan 6 19:33:23 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id TAA19817 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 19:27:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu (Sina.HPC.UH.EDU [129.7.3.5]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id TAA19810 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 19:27:45 -0800 (PST) Received: (from tibbs@localhost) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) id VAA10203; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 21:27:31 -0600 (CST) To: Chuq Von Rospach Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: findmail.com instructions References: From: Jason L Tibbitts III Date: 06 Jan 1997 21:27:30 -0600 In-Reply-To: Chuq Von Rospach's message of Mon, 6 Jan 1997 17:54:09 -0800 Message-ID: Lines: 9 X-Mailer: Red Gnus v0.79/Emacs 19.34 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >>>>> "CVR" == Chuq Von Rospach writes: CVR> Weird. Anyone want to guess why a message I sent on the 2nd sat on CVR> greatcircle until this afternoon? You triggered an administrivia filter, so it sat in the list owners queue over the weekend. - J< From list-managers-owner Mon Jan 6 23:15:48 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id XAA03205 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 23:12:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from server.postmodern.com (server.postmodern.com [207.33.130.54]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id XAA03198 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 23:12:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from 207.33.130.51 (derrida.postmodern.com [207.33.130.51]) by server.postmodern.com (8.7.5/mcb-960422) with SMTP id XAA04508; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 23:02:46 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <32D1F723.1C@postmodern.com> Date: Mon, 06 Jan 1997 23:11:36 -0800 From: "Michael C. Berch" Reply-To: mcb@postmodern.com Organization: Postmodern Consulting, California USA X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Macintosh; I; 68K) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Chuq Von Rospach CC: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: findmail.com instructions References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > > Weird. Anyone want to guess why a message I sent on the 2nd sat on > greatcircle until this afternoon? Check the received lines: > > ---- > Received: (mcb@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com > (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) id PAA06688 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; > Mon, 6 Jan 1997 15:59:48 -0800 (PST) > Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [207.167.80.66]) by > miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id XAA28574 for > ; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 23:37:39 -0800 (PST) > Received: from [207.167.80.70] (zamboni.plaidworks.com [207.167.80.70]) > by plaidworks.com (8.6.9/A/UX 3.1) with ESMTP id XAA16803; Thu, 2 Jan > 1997 23:37:47 -0800 Well, it evidently tripped Majordomo's administrivia filter, and yr humble list manager got a bit backed up in processing list mail over the weekend (that "mcb@localhost" is sort of the trout in the milk, I guess)... -- Michael C. Berch mcb@postmodern.com / mcb@greatcircle.com From list-managers-owner Tue Jan 7 07:32:53 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id HAA22121 for list-managers-outgoing; Tue, 7 Jan 1997 07:21:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from angus.mystery.com (angus.mystery.com [198.202.235.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id HAA22114 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 1997 07:21:28 -0800 (PST) Received: (from gabe@localhost) by angus.mystery.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id KAA05994; Tue, 7 Jan 1997 10:20:43 -0500 From: Gabe Helou Message-Id: <199701071520.KAA05994@angus.mystery.com> Subject: Re: List Manager Duties - Legal Advice To: dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 10:20:42 -0500 (EST) Cc: gabe@mystery.com, List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19970106211244.006bb5e4@inforamp.net> from "David Lloyd-Jones" at Jan 6, 97 04:12:44 pm Reply-To: gabe@mystery.com X-URL: http://www.mystery.com/~gabe/ X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk ... and then David Lloyd-Jones says: } Perfectly reasonable answer for a society where there is a Proper Authority } for everyone and everything and nobody gives a shit about their neighbours. Actually, this nothing to do with "giving a shit". It has to do with taking proper actions. The post-office example posted in another article is a good one. Take it from a hypothetical private postal service and substitute the USPS. What do you suppose they do if someone walks in and complains about being harrassed? "Are they using the USPS to harrass you?" "No." "Then we can't do anything about it. You should talk to the police." "You should stop delivering mail to them." "Uh ... no. You should talk to the police." How about the local newspaper? Perhaps the agrieved should turn there. "I don't understand. Did he attack you with a paper?" "No, I just think you should cancel his subscription." "Sorry we can't do that. You should talk to the police." So what about electronic mailing lists? Why should a list owner be expected to penalize one person because another has accused that person? If the harassment took place via the mailing list, then the list owner has to do something. If nothing has happened involving the list, there isn't anything the list owner should be expected to do. There's no sense to it. Don't complain to the fire department when your mail is late. Don't call the library if your house is on fire. Don't expect sanitation department to forgive your overdue book fines. Don't call 911 if your trash didn't get picked up. Don't call the county assessors office if you've been in a serious accident. Don't call the post office if you disagree about your property assessment. If someone is being harrassed via e-mail, tell the police. Tell the postmaster at the harrasser's site. Don't complain to the USPS. Or the fire department. If the list owner wants to take sides, that's the list owner's prerogative. Insisting that that list owner take the side of the accuser is nonsense. -- --- -- - - - - - - - - Diem Perdidi From list-managers-owner Tue Jan 7 14:34:35 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id OAA12155 for list-managers-outgoing; Tue, 7 Jan 1997 14:28:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from kitsune.swcp.com (kitsune.swcp.com [198.59.115.2]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id OAA12143 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 1997 14:28:14 -0800 (PST) Received: (from lazlo@localhost) by kitsune.swcp.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) id PAA08137 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Tue, 7 Jan 1997 15:27:48 -0700 Message-Id: <199701072227.PAA08137@kitsune.swcp.com> Subject: Re: List Manager Duties - Legal Advice To: list-managers@greatcircle.com (lm) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 15:27:48 -0700 (MST) From: "Lazlo Nibble" X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25 PGP3 *ALPHA*] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > The post-office example posted in another article > is a good one. Take it from a hypothetical private postal service and > substitute the USPS. What do you suppose they do if someone walks > in and complains about being harrassed? "Are they using the USPS to harrass you?" "Not as such. What they're doing is hanging out in the lobby and watching people pick up their mail, and then following them out of the post office when they leave and harrassing them about the mail they send and receive. I think you should stop letting them loiter in your lobby." -- ::: Lazlo (lazlo@swcp.com; http://www.swcp.com/lazlo) From list-managers-owner Tue Jan 7 15:20:36 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id PAA14568 for list-managers-outgoing; Tue, 7 Jan 1997 15:11:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from ayla.idyllmtn.com (ayla.idyllmtn.com [206.16.238.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id PAA14532 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 1997 15:11:37 -0800 (PST) Received: (from kynn@localhost) by ayla.idyllmtn.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) id PAA06415; Tue, 7 Jan 1997 15:08:13 -0800 From: Kynn Bartlett Message-Id: <199701072308.PAA06415@ayla.idyllmtn.com> Subject: Re: List Manager Duties - Legal Advice To: lazlo@swcp.com (Lazlo Nibble) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 15:08:12 -0800 (PST) Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <199701072227.PAA08137@kitsune.swcp.com> from "Lazlo Nibble" at Jan 7, 97 03:27:48 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Lazlo wrote: > > The post-office example posted in another article > > is a good one. Take it from a hypothetical private postal service and > > substitute the USPS. What do you suppose they do if someone walks > > in and complains about being harrassed? > "Are they using the USPS to harrass you?" > "Not as such. What they're doing is hanging out in the lobby and watching > people pick up their mail, and then following them out of the post office when > they leave and harrassing them about the mail they send and receive. I think > you should stop letting them loiter in your lobby." Okay, so what would the USPS do in such a case? Most likely they'd call the police, or a branch of the USPS that's been trained and authorized to deal with such things. (By the way, I'll bet that you can't loiter in a USPS lobby _anyway_, no matter if you are or are not harassing someone. But you wouldn't have much a point if it weren't the lobby, but rather they were across the street doing such, and you had no way of confirming if they really were lurking outside or not.) Wow, we're getting lost in the analogy here. --Kynn From list-managers-owner Wed Jan 8 01:29:29 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id BAA03745 for list-managers-outgoing; Wed, 8 Jan 1997 01:25:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from pop.mcs.dundee.ac.uk (pop.mcs.dundee.ac.uk [134.36.32.11]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id BAA03660 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 1997 01:24:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from snowflake.mcs.dundee.ac.uk by pop.mcs.dundee.ac.uk (4.1/SMI-4.1-CGM.2) id AA21222; Wed, 8 Jan 97 09:26:16 GMT Received: by snowflake.mcs.dundee.ac.uk with Microsoft Mail id <01BBFD45.9D1991D0@snowflake.mcs.dundee.ac.uk>; Wed, 8 Jan 1997 09:23:31 -0000 Message-Id: <01BBFD45.9D1991D0@snowflake.mcs.dundee.ac.uk> From: Andy C To: "'List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM'" Subject: RE: WebTV addresses Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 09:23:24 -0000 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Excuse my ignorance but what is webtv ? I have started to see some subscriptions from these addresses rapidly followed by full e-mail-box error messages. I seem to have missed a development here ! Andy C (hoping this does not have a win.dat file attached) From list-managers-owner Wed Jan 8 09:46:34 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id JAA03518 for list-managers-outgoing; Wed, 8 Jan 1997 09:25:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.proper.com (mail.proper.com [206.86.127.224]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id JAA03511 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 1997 09:25:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from [205.214.160.205] (d63.netgate.net [205.214.160.99]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id JAA20351 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 1997 09:24:59 -0800 (PST) X-Sender: dcrocker@ng.netgate.net Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 09:04:47 -0800 To: "'List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM'" From: Dave Crocker Subject: Changing the DATE field Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Active mailing lists have postings from users with VERY different accuracies on their home platforms. This means that the Date field in their messages can vary quite a bit. And THIS means a recipient systems which sorts messages by the Date field can get them very much out of order. Having the list processor change the date field to its own time, e.g, when it receives the message, means that all messages on a list will have a data value that orders them correctly in terms of a reasonable reference. What do folks think? d/ -------------------- Dave Crocker +1 408 246 8253 Brandenburg Consulting fax: +1 408 249 6205 675 Spruce Dr. dcrocker@brandenburg.com Sunnyvale CA 94086 USA http://www.brandenburg.com Internet Mail Consortium http://www.imc.org, info@imc.org From list-managers-owner Wed Jan 8 10:49:44 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id KAA06708 for list-managers-outgoing; Wed, 8 Jan 1997 10:22:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from dns-primary.montgomery.com (dns-primary.montgomery.com [205.229.31.14]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id KAA06659 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 1997 10:21:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from sf-exch-2.montgomery.com (sf-exch-2 [199.4.204.239]) by dns-primary.montgomery.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA12451 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 1997 10:21:07 -0800 (PST) Received: by sf-exch-2.montgomery.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id <01BBFD4C.EE408C10@sf-exch-2.montgomery.com>; Wed, 8 Jan 1997 10:15:53 -0800 Message-ID: From: Janette Moreno To: "'list-managers-digest@GreatCircle.COM>'" Subject: FW: Notification: Inbound Mail Failure - Address not found Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 10:24:07 -0800 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Effective: 01.08.97 To ListManager: Please permanently remove and discontinue distribution of the following address to our site, it is no longer a valid address. Thank You >-----Original Message----- >From: Exchange Administrator >Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 1997 1:22 AM >To: Janette Moreno; Simon Dang; Tizoc Spiers >Subject: FW: Notification: Inbound Mail Failure - Address not found > > > >---------- >From: System Administrator >Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 1997 1:13:57 AM >To: Exchange Administrator >Subject: Notification: Inbound Mail Failure - Address not found >Auto forwarded by a Rule > >A mail message was not sent because the following address(es) could not be >found: > > kkron@montgomery.com > >The message that caused this notification was: > > To: > From: > Subject: List-Managers-Digest V6 #9 > > From list-managers-owner Wed Jan 8 11:35:00 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id KAA08670 for list-managers-outgoing; Wed, 8 Jan 1997 10:53:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from dns-primary.montgomery.com (dns-primary.montgomery.com [205.229.31.14]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id KAA08628 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 1997 10:53:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from sf-exch-2.montgomery.com (sf-exch-2 [199.4.204.239]) by dns-primary.montgomery.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA13470 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 1997 10:53:13 -0800 (PST) Received: by sf-exch-2.montgomery.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id <01BBFD51.6A11F280@sf-exch-2.montgomery.com>; Wed, 8 Jan 1997 10:47:59 -0800 Message-ID: From: Janette Moreno To: "'list-managers-digest@GreatCircle.COM'" Subject: FW: Notification: Inbound Mail Failure - Address not found Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 10:56:13 -0800 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Effective: 01.08.97 To: Listmanagers Please permanently remove and discontinue the following address from distribution, this is no longer a valid account at this site. Thank you. >---------- >From: System Administrator >Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 1997 9:57:52 AM >To: Exchange Administrator >Subject: Notification: Inbound Mail Failure - Address not found >Auto forwarded by a Rule > >A mail message was not sent because the following address(es) could not be >found: > > loverton@montgomery.com > >The message that caused this notification was: > > To: > From: > Subject: http://www.smu.edu/~mhays/dave > > From list-managers-owner Wed Jan 8 11:35:20 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id LAA10202 for list-managers-outgoing; Wed, 8 Jan 1997 11:15:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from hahp9k.harte-lyne.ca (hal.harte-lyne.ca [205.206.207.101]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id LAA10148 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 1997 11:15:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from hal_ham_g02_u01 (hlpdi02.halisp.net [205.206.207.132]) by hahp9k.harte-lyne.ca (8.7.5/8.7.5) with ESMTP id OAA02415; Wed, 8 Jan 1997 14:18:12 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199701081918.OAA02415@hahp9k.harte-lyne.ca> From: "James B. Byrne" To: "'List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM'" , "Dave Crocker" Subject: Re: Changing the DATE field Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 02:49:38 -0500 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I would accept this as an option (since I wouldn't use it) but not as a = standard feature. Internet mail can be delayed for a considerable time. = I frequently receive messages that are dated several months in the past = and do indeed contain information that was pertinent then. There are = any number of reasons for this, most of which resolve down to a lack of = understanding on the part of the e-mail sender. If the user can't configure his machine to tell time then that is too = bad. I would rather have really old messages show up where they should = than have the odd malformed date stamp corrected automatically. In any = case, many MTA'a allow the receipent the option of sorting by = transmission or receipt date and time in any case. Regards, Jim --- James B. Byrne Harte & Lyne Limited vox +1 905 561 1241 9 Brockley Drive fax +1 905 561 0757 Hamilton, Ontario ByrneJB@Harte-Lyne.ca Canada L8E 3C3 From list-managers-owner Wed Jan 8 13:24:16 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id NAA17485 for list-managers-outgoing; Wed, 8 Jan 1997 13:01:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from hamjudo.com (router.hamjudo.com [152.160.58.254]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id NAA17452 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 1997 13:01:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (paulh@localhost) by hamjudo.com (8.7.1/8.7.1) with SMTP id QAA03818; Wed, 8 Jan 1997 16:05:07 -0500 Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 17:05:04 -0400 (EDTO) From: Paul Haas Reply-To: paulh@hamjudo.com To: "James B. Byrne" cc: "'List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM'" , Dave Crocker Subject: Re: Changing the DATE field In-Reply-To: <199701081918.OAA02415@hahp9k.harte-lyne.ca> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Wed, 8 Jan 1997, James B. Byrne wrote: > I would accept this as an option (since I wouldn't use it) but not as a > standard feature. Internet mail can be delayed for a considerable time. > I frequently receive messages that are dated several months in the past > and do indeed contain information that was pertinent then. ... But it is rarely still pertinent. > If the user can't configure his machine to tell time then that is too > bad. I would rather have really old messages show up where they should > than have the odd malformed date stamp corrected automatically. I'd like the option of having the list software "reject" email more than N days old. Where N is configurable separately for each list. "reject" may mean bounce to sender, bounce to the list owner or toss in the trash. -- paulh@hamjudo.com http://www.hamjudo.com I've made the big time, Dave Barry made fun of my web page. From list-managers-owner Wed Jan 8 14:00:03 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id NAA19768 for list-managers-outgoing; Wed, 8 Jan 1997 13:25:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from panix2.panix.com (panix2.panix.com [198.7.0.3]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id NAA19695 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 1997 13:25:18 -0800 (PST) Received: (from vicric@localhost) by panix2.panix.com (8.8.4/8.7/PanixU1.3) id QAA28448 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Wed, 8 Jan 1997 16:25:31 -0500 (EST) From: Vicki Richman Message-Id: <199701082125.QAA28448@panix2.panix.com> Subject: Re: Changing the DATE field To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 16:25:30 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: from "Dave Crocker" at Jan 8, 97 09:04:47 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Dave Crocker has written: > Having the list processor change the date field to its own time, e.g, when > it receives the message, means that all messages on a list will have a data > value that orders them correctly in terms of a reasonable reference. That would be acceptable to me only if the original date is preserved, perhaps as 'X-Original-Date: '. Vicki From list-managers-owner Wed Jan 8 16:44:58 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id QAA02608 for list-managers-outgoing; Wed, 8 Jan 1997 16:29:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from wvnvaxa.wvnet.edu (wvnvaxb.wvnet.edu [129.71.2.17]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id QAA02588 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 1997 16:29:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from wvnvms.wvnet.edu by wvnvms.wvnet.edu (PMDF V5.1-5 #19440) id <01IDXRQHCWN4GSBRRJ@wvnvms.wvnet.edu> for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Tue, 7 Jan 1997 16:20:10 EST Date: Tue, 07 Jan 1997 16:19:51 -0500 (EST) From: Judy Catterton To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Message-id: <01IDXRQHCWN6GSBRRJ@wvnvms.wvnet.edu> Organization: West Virginia Network MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk can someone tell me how to get off of this list???????? From list-managers-owner Wed Jan 8 17:45:59 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id RAA07941 for list-managers-outgoing; Wed, 8 Jan 1997 17:35:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from lucius.ultra.net (lucius.ultra.net [199.232.56.38]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id RAA07883 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 1997 17:34:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from voyager (d12.wal.ma.ultra.net [146.115.77.12]) by lucius.ultra.net (8.7.4/ult1.04) with SMTP id UAA15515 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 1997 20:34:07 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19970109013435.0039fcc4@pop.ma.ultranet.com> Reply-To: stanr@sunspot.tiac.net X-Sender: stanr@pop.ma.ultranet.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 08 Jan 1997 20:34:35 -0500 To: "'List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM'" From: Stan Ryckman Subject: Re: Changing the DATE field Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 09:04 AM 1/8/97 -0800, Dave Crocker wrote: >Active mailing lists have postings from users with VERY different >accuracies on their home platforms. Very often this is due to people submitting mail from their home PC's with the date set, rather than letting their ISP fill it in. >This means that the Date field in >their messages can vary quite a bit. Yup. Another list I am on got one dated "Jan. 7, 2010" yesterday! >And THIS means a recipient systems >which sorts messages by the Date field can get them very much out of order. Recipient systems don't sort. MUA's (what you'd call mail readers) do. You may want to get a mail reader which can sort by date received, if this bothers you. elm, for one, is perfectly capable of this. >Having the list processor change the date field to its own time, e.g, when >it receives the message, means that all messages on a list will have a data >value that orders them correctly in terms of a reasonable reference. It violates the RFC's. Also, it would make it harder to write someone about "your message dated 09:04 AM 1/8/97 -0800" when their copy has a different date/time. The RFC's *do* specify a header "Resent-Date:" which some mailing lists (e.g., the procmail list) do use. Argue for that one being supplied by your lists, if you will, but leave the original poster's date alone, no matter how bad it may be. Then, get a mail reader which can sort on "Resent-Date:" if it really bothers you, and if for some reason the date received by you isn't good enough. - Stan. From list-managers-owner Wed Jan 8 21:59:33 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id VAA21694 for list-managers-outgoing; Wed, 8 Jan 1997 21:49:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from ifi.uio.no (ifi.uio.no [129.240.64.2]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id VAA21687 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 1997 21:49:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from mne.ifi.uio.no (1232@mne.ifi.uio.no [129.240.65.76]) by ifi.uio.no with ESMTP (8.6.11/ifi2.4) id for ; Thu, 9 Jan 1997 06:49:09 +0100 From: Kjetil Torgrim Homme Received: (from kjetilho@localhost) by mne.ifi.uio.no ; Thu, 9 Jan 1997 06:49:07 +0100 Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 06:49:07 +0100 Message-Id: <199701090549.8903.mne.ifi.uio.no@ifi.uio.no> To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM In-reply-to: <199701041914.LAA26959@miles.greatcircle.com> (message from Eric Thomas on Sat, 4 Jan 1997 20:01:26 +0100) Subject: Re: DejaNews Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk [Eric Thomas] | Personally, I always discourage local exploders, even on public | lists, because in my experience they've brought nothing but | trouble and flames A good alternative to exploders is using relays. The linux-* lists are distributed by a number of what was in a recent thread called smart hosts. E.g., all recipients with addresses *.no are dumped at nvg.unit.no. This saves bandwidth for the main list host, and configuration and CPU-cycles at the distribution points compared to a exploder solution (it's just put into the queue, no list management software required). Kjetil T. (gets sunflash through three or four exploders) From list-managers-owner Wed Jan 8 23:27:31 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id WAA24822 for list-managers-outgoing; Wed, 8 Jan 1997 22:53:05 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) id WAA24786 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Wed, 8 Jan 1997 22:52:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from proxy2.ba.best.com (proxy2.ba.best.com [206.184.139.13]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id CAA13178 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 1997 02:25:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from shellx.best.com (shellx.best.com [206.86.0.11]) by proxy2.ba.best.com (8.8.4/8.8.3) with ESMTP id CAA10529 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 1997 02:23:20 -0800 (PST) Received: (from cnorman@localhost) by shellx.best.com (8.8.4/8.8.3) id BAA29439; Tue, 7 Jan 1997 01:53:06 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 01:53:06 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199701070953.BAA29439@shellx.best.com> From: Cyndi Norman CC: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM, cnorman@shellx.best.com In-reply-to: (message from Randy Cassingham on Fri, 3 Jan 1997 16:03:50 -0700 (MST)) Subject: Re: Not Spam, but not Not-Spam. Reply-to: cnorman@best.com Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 16:03:50 -0700 (MST) From: Randy Cassingham On Fri, 3 Jan 1997, jonathon wondered > Is it better to subscribe everybody to the new list, and > unsubscribe them as requested, or to BCC everybody, asking > them if they would like to be on the revamped list? What *I'd* do is send all a bcc telling them that the list they subscribed to has been reactivated, and IF they're still interested, THIS IS HOW to subscribe to it. And if they're NOT interested, they don't have to do anything, as you will be tossing their address, and sorry for the intrusion. I agree. If you were simply taking over an active list I'd say to subscribe everyone (which is what I did when I moved my list from one isp to another). But you said that many people have been trying to unsubscribe unsuccessfully for a long time. Trust me, you're much better off dealing with the few people who will need handholding to join the new list than with the screaming fits from the people who have been trying to get off the list for ages and now have a new address to contend with. Cyndi -- _______________________________________________________________________________ "There's nothing wrong with me. Maybe there's Cyndi Norman something wrong with the universe." (ST:TNG) cnorman@best.com __________________________________________________ http://www.best.com/~cnorman From list-managers-owner Wed Jan 8 23:34:06 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id XAA26202 for list-managers-outgoing; Wed, 8 Jan 1997 23:15:11 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) id XAA25415 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Wed, 8 Jan 1997 23:00:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE (segate.sunet.se [192.36.125.6]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id OAA23845 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 1997 14:20:23 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199701082220.OAA23845@miles.greatcircle.com> Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <14.EA2F6BD9@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Wed, 8 Jan 1997 23:19:52 +0100 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE by SEARN.SUNET.SE (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 2079; Wed, 08 Jan 97 23:13:49 +0100 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin ERIC@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2c/1.8c) with RFC822 id 5361; Wed, 8 Jan 1997 23:13:50 +0100 Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 23:06:43 +0100 From: Eric Thomas Subject: Re: Changing the DATE field To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Sorry, but what I need/want to know is when the poster wrote the message, so that I can interpret references like "today" or "a few hours ago", and so that I can know in what time zone (and thus what part of the world) the poster is in. If I want to know when the mailing list software got the message, I can look at the "Received:" fields. If I wanted to organize messages by time of posting, I would add 5 lines of code to my program to account for the GMT offset. If it is incorrectly set, well, that's life. Better get the information I want most of the time than information I have no interest in all the time :-) X- fields are not acceptable to me because I don't see them unless I ask for them, and I often do check the date of posting. Plus, they are often removed by gateways. If anything, the date of receipt should go in the X- field, and it is already in the Received: lines so personally I think this information is redundant. Finally, it does not scale to peered lists where various peers may get the same postings in different sequences. Eric From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 9 10:02:18 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id JAA25450 for list-managers-outgoing; Thu, 9 Jan 1997 09:45:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from gizmo.lut.ac.uk (gizmo.lut.ac.uk [158.125.96.46]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id JAA25409 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 1997 09:44:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from mrrl.lut.ac.uk (martin@localhost.mrrl.lut.ac.uk [127.0.0.1]) by gizmo.lut.ac.uk (8.8.4/8.6.9) with ESMTP id RAA06422 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 1997 17:44:30 GMT Message-Id: <199701091744.RAA06422@gizmo.lut.ac.uk> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0beta 12/23/96 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com X-Uri: Subject: funky list processors Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_598661089P"; micalg=pgp-md5; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 09 Jan 1997 17:44:28 +0000 From: Martin Hamilton Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk --==_Exmh_598661089P Content-Type: text/plain It would be kind of neat if list processor software had something like a news reader's kill file feature. This way you don't waste bandwdith sending people messages they don't want to read in the first place. On the other hand: . chews up lots of CPU . opens up new security holes (metacharacters in filter expressions?) . random people may be able to muck around with your preferences for a list . hard to implement if message distribution normally done by including file with list of subscribers (a la sendmail + Majordomo) I wonder if there are any list processors which implement this sort of thing kicking around ? Don't recall having come across any... Cheerio, Martin --==_Exmh_598661089P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE----- Version: 2.6.3i iQCVAwUBMtUuddZdpXZXTSjhAQFOFAP8DtvMg6fUKhpeVwPo2XighBq+bRMzXs5J y2OqFk4c6INb5TAUG10yJXCgwYuvoYQoccozWqVfYshgcRrMuYCdE+wOmimrobwz f4OpukFQ7DyifG1J2uKNvhDYnUyUvLSYeZJp3AvQfL4UE3ImFzpqYSamJKMCk68k 8pD2FjNGS+s= =DNxO -----END PGP MESSAGE----- --==_Exmh_598661089P-- From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 9 18:00:32 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id RAA04872 for list-managers-outgoing; Thu, 9 Jan 1997 17:31:09 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) id RAA04793 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Thu, 9 Jan 1997 17:30:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.proper.com (mail.proper.com [206.86.127.224]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id TAA12295 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 1997 19:06:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from [205.214.160.54] (d54.netgate.net [205.214.160.88]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id TAA04977; Wed, 8 Jan 1997 19:06:18 -0800 (PST) X-Sender: dcrocker@ng.netgate.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19970109013435.0039fcc4@pop.ma.ultranet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 18:48:57 -0800 To: stanr@sunspot.tiac.net From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: Changing the DATE field Cc: "'List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM'" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 5:34 PM -0800 1/8/97, Stan Ryckman wrote: >Recipient systems don't sort. MUA's (what you'd call mail readers) do. you apparently intend some difference between 'recipient system' and 'mua' that I don't. My original usage was generic and not trying to be overly precise, but we can waggle fingers at each other on the semantics. I guess I'll invoke the originator/recipient terms that go with ua/mta and will then point out that the o/a terms refer to mailboxes and not mtas; hence, recipient system equals recipient ua. >You may want to get a mail reader which can sort by date received, if this >bothers you. elm, for one, is perfectly capable of this. I think you missed the point I was making. I already HAVE such a ua and errors in the DATE fields of messages cause replies to PRECEDE the original note sorting sequence. >>Having the list processor change the date field to its own time, e.g, when >>it receives the message, means that all messages on a list will have a dat= a >>value that orders them correctly in terms of a reasonable reference. > >It violates the RFC's. Also, it would make it harder to write someone There is a long-standing debate about the architectural position of a list-exploder. If one views it as a special kind of user agent, then no, it does not violate any RFCs, since the process of exploding is really one of RE-posting the message. >about "your message dated 09:04 AM 1/8/97 -0800" when their copy has >a different date/time. > >The RFC's *do* specify a header "Resent-Date:" which some mailing lists Having lists use resent-* fields is quite reasonable but has not become standard practise. My suggestion was based on a desire to work within the current deployed framework. >(e.g., the procmail list) do use. Argue for that one being supplied by >your lists, if you will, but leave the original poster's date alone, no >matter how bad it may be. Then, get a mail reader which can sort on >"Resent-Date:" if it really bothers you, and if for some reason the >date received by you isn't good enough. This require changes in recipient UAs. I don't want to require that because it will take too long to deploy. d/ -------------------- Dave Crocker +1 408 246 8253 Brandenburg Consulting fax: +1 408 249 6205 675 Spruce Dr. dcrocker@brandenburg.com Sunnyvale CA 94086 USA http://www.brandenburg.com Internet Mail Consortium http://www.imc.org, info@imc.org From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 9 18:06:30 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id RAA04650 for list-managers-outgoing; Thu, 9 Jan 1997 17:29:46 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) id RAA04585 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Thu, 9 Jan 1997 17:29:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from tymix.Tymnet.COM (tymix.tymnet.com [131.146.2.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id PAA28939 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 1997 15:42:22 -0800 (PST) Received: by tymix.Tymnet.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA08569; Wed, 8 Jan 97 15:42:32 PST Received: from tardis by tymix.Tymnet.COM (in.smtpd); 8 Jan 0 15:42:32 PDT Received: by tardis.tymnet.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA01353; Wed, 8 Jan 97 15:42:02 PST Date: Wed, 8 Jan 97 15:42:02 PST From: jms@tardis.Tymnet.COM (Joe Smith) Message-Id: <9701082342.AA01353@tardis.tymnet.com> To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: RE: WebTV addresses Content-Type: X-sun-attachment Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk ---------- X-Sun-Data-Type: text X-Sun-Data-Description: text X-Sun-Data-Name: text X-Sun-Content-Lines: 27 > From list-managers-owner@greatcircle.com Wed Jan 8 01:30:09 1997 > From: Andy C > To: "'List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM'" > Subject: RE: WebTV addresses > Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 09:23:24 -0000 > > Excuse my ignorance but what is webtv ? > I have started to see some subscriptions from these addresses > rapidly followed by full e-mail-box error messages. I seem to have > missed a development here ! I don't think that anything like webtv is available in the UK yet. It's a box with a 33.6 Kb modem, wireless remote, and video outputs that go into your TV or VCR. It is about $US 300; a keyboard is optional. The browser actually runs on their proxy server, which decodes the inline images, rescales it to fit TV resolution, and compresses the end result before sending it to the webtv box to show up on your TV. At that low price, this means yet another class of clueless newbies that are being unleashed onto the Internet. Here is something I snagged from a newsgroup. It has a lot more detail than is suitable for this forum, but is the most informative message I've seen on the subject. -Joe ---------- X-Sun-Data-Type: default X-Sun-Data-Description: default X-Sun-Data-Name: webtv.tech X-Sun-Content-Lines: 84 From: agb@best.com (Alan Bishop) Newsgroups: best.www Subject: Re: So much for WebTV... Date: 19 Dec 1996 20:42:45 -0800 nrich@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich) writes: >One question I have is how you connect. Is it via the cable/cable >company, or do you have to hook it up to the phone line? > >Also, does one need to go out a buy the service, it is automatic, or >can it be any ISP? Through a phone line. You sign up for the service, paying via credit card or check, shortly after plugging in the box. You do not choose your ISP. If you're in an area with several on WebTV's list, you get the services of all of them automatically. See below for more information. >"Mozilla/1.22 WebTV/1.0 (compatible; MSIE 2.0)" The web browser is considerably more powerful than what the browser string says. It's mostly html 3.2 compliant. The browser string is dumbed down to encourage sites to send non-frame, non-java pages. We try to use the non-frame version of a page whenever possible for user interface reasons. rone@bofh.noc.best.net (Ron Echeverri) writes: >There are barriers on the Web? Not *on* the web, but barriers to getting to it. The two main ones are cost and usability. robj@best.com (Rob Jellinghaus) writes: >At least you can't post to the Web via WebTV. Just use one of the web based usenet sites, such as dejanews. I've already seen people doing it. malch@malch.com (Malcolm Hoar) quotes from http://webtv.net/HTML/home.specs.html: >All user information is backed up to WebTV Network, so user >preferences are immune to power outages The less-marketing oriented version of this is that WebTV is a thin client with no local persistent storage. Technical specs on the box are at: http://webtv.net/HTML/home.specs.html (.net, not .com) The customer service department is at 1-800-GOWEBTV. The user interface has been radically redesigned. There are no scrollbars. There is no horizontal scrolling. The primary interface is through a remote control, similar to the ones used for DSS. After you buy it at the store (either the Sony or Philips / Magnavox brand), you plug it into power, your TV, and your phone line, and you press the power button. You don't need to select an ISP and you don't need to fiddle with connection scripts, modem configuration, or phone numbers. It just works. Many areas have multiple ISPs serving them, and if the first one your box dials fails to connect properly, it just rolls over to the next one in the list without the consumer needing to intervene (or know). For one fee the customer gets the redundant services of multiple ISPs. Customer service and billing is all through us. - we transcode images and other media types. For example, image creators often make their images too detailed or store them in a format that doesn't compress as well as it should. We fix that in the proxy before transmitting them over the slow link to the user. It also means that if we want to support a media type, we don't need a new client release: we just add it in the server and convert it to an existing one. Mail is stored on our server. This means that even if one of your ISPs is down, you can still get your mail. We run a 24x7 operation with generator backup. Some ISPs do this too, but not all. You have three options for keying in responses. (1) You can pull up an on-screen keyboard and select keys. This is time consuming, but is suitable for some input. (2) You can get the optional wireless keyboard. (3) You can plug a standard PC keyboard into the back. From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 9 18:38:35 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id SAA07295 for list-managers-outgoing; Thu, 9 Jan 1997 18:16:10 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) id RAA05006 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Thu, 9 Jan 1997 17:34:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from kitsune.swcp.com (kitsune.swcp.com [198.59.115.2]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id KAA29622 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 1997 10:55:00 -0800 (PST) Received: (from lazlo@localhost) by kitsune.swcp.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) id LAA17281 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Thu, 9 Jan 1997 11:53:40 -0700 Message-Id: <199701091853.LAA17281@kitsune.swcp.com> Subject: funky list processors To: list-managers@greatcircle.com (lm) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 11:53:39 -0700 (MST) From: "Lazlo Nibble" X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25 PGP3 *ALPHA*] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > It would be kind of neat if list processor software had something > like a news reader's kill file feature. If you're talking about keeping unwanted material from being distributed to the list in the first place, there's plenty of list software out there that does this already (including majordomo -- I just added some new filters to my majordomo lists this morning). If you're talking about letting individual subscribers set preferences about what mail they get and don't get, that's *much* better done on the mailreader end than it is on the list end, and again, there are plenty of tools out there that you can use to do this. -- ::: Lazlo (lazlo@swcp.com; http://www.swcp.com/lazlo) From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 9 18:44:14 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id SAA07314 for list-managers-outgoing; Thu, 9 Jan 1997 18:16:22 -0800 (PST) Received: (mcb@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) id RAA04430 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Thu, 9 Jan 1997 17:25:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.proper.com (mail.proper.com [206.86.127.224]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id PAA27507 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 1997 15:23:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from [205.214.160.54] (d54.netgate.net [205.214.160.88]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA02782; Wed, 8 Jan 1997 15:22:38 -0800 (PST) X-Sender: dcrocker@ng.netgate.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199701082125.QAA28448@panix2.panix.com> References: from "Dave Crocker" at Jan 8, 97 09:04:47 am Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 14:52:08 -0800 To: Vicki Richman From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: Changing the DATE field Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 1:25 PM -0800 1/8/97, Vicki Richman wrote: >That would be acceptable to me only if the original date is >preserved, perhaps as 'X-Original-Date: '. Good point, though I'd suggest "Posted-Date". (And the X- isn't required.) d/ -------------------- Dave Crocker +1 408 246 8253 Brandenburg Consulting fax: +1 408 249 6205 675 Spruce Dr. dcrocker@brandenburg.com Sunnyvale CA 94086 USA http://www.brandenburg.com Internet Mail Consortium http://www.imc.org, info@imc.org From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 9 21:14:47 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id UAA22502 for list-managers-outgoing; Thu, 9 Jan 1997 20:44:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from netcom22.netcom.com (netcom22.netcom.com [192.100.81.136]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id UAA22388 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 1997 20:44:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (grafolog@localhost) by netcom22.netcom.com (8.6.13/Netcom) id EAA07551; Fri, 10 Jan 1997 04:43:42 GMT Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 04:43:39 +0000 (GMT) From: jonathon X-Sender: grafolog@netcom22 To: Martin Hamilton cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: funky list processors In-Reply-To: <199701091744.RAA06422@gizmo.lut.ac.uk> Message-ID: x-no-archive: yes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Martin: On Thu, 9 Jan 1997, Martin Hamilton wrote: > I wonder if there are any list processors which implement this sort > of thing kicking around ? Don't recall having come across any... Several people on cypherpunks are getting together to write such a thing. I'm not sure of the details, but I suspect that they will simply be writing a few perl modules and change the subject line. The subject line will be sorted by the recipients mail-reading programme. I suspect all that their additions will add, is an encoded prefix subject customized for each mailing list. A few hours with procmail could provide one with the same degree of _content_ control of recieved e-mail as one built into MajorDomo. And one would have a better idea of the bias that went into their design. xan jonathon grafolog@netcom.com From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 10 01:59:27 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id BAA18009 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 10 Jan 1997 01:52:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from relay.mod.uk (relay.mod.uk [192.5.29.50]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id BAA17990 for ; Fri, 10 Jan 1997 01:52:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from hermes.dra.hmg.gb by relay.mod.uk with local SMTP id ; Fri, 10 Jan 1997 09:51:49 +0000 Received: from wandle.dra.hmg.gb by hermes.dra.hmg.gb (MX V4.1 VAX) with SMTP; Fri, 10 Jan 1997 09:46:04 GMT Received: from rivers.dra.hmg.gb by wandle.dra.hmg.gb with smtp(Smail3.1.28.1 #64) id m0vidX3-0007UqC; Fri, 10 Jan 97 09:45 WET To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Changing the DATE field Organization: IT Vulnerabilities Group, DRA Malvern, UK References: from "Dave Crocker" at Jan 8, 97 09:04:47 am In-reply-to: Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 09:45:49 +0000 Message-ID: <9413.852889549@rivers.dra.hmg.gb> From: Christopher Samuel Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message , Dave Crocker writes: > At 1:25 PM -0800 1/8/97, Vicki Richman wrote: > >That would be acceptable to me only if the original date is > >preserved, perhaps as 'X-Original-Date: '. > > Good point, though I'd suggest "Posted-Date". (And the X- isn't > required.) >From RFC822: Note: The prefatory string "X-" will never be used in the names of Extension-fields. This provides user-defined fields with a protected set of names. Thus if you're not going to publish an RFC as an official extension to RFC822 to define this procedure I'd recommend you use the "X-" convention. I do disagree with the procedure in general. IMHO the users Date: header should be left untouched and the Resent-Date: header used instead for any additions by the MLM software. Chris -- Christopher Samuel, IT Vulnerabilities Group, chris@rivers.dra.hmg.gb N-115, Defence Research Agency, St Andrews Road, Great Malvern, England, UK DISCLAIMER: I write only for myself, not for DRA. Phone: +44 1684 894644 +MIME+ +PGP+ From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 10 02:06:33 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id BAA18041 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 10 Jan 1997 01:53:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from relay.mod.uk (relay.mod.uk [192.5.29.50]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id BAA18030 for ; Fri, 10 Jan 1997 01:52:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from hermes.dra.hmg.gb by relay.mod.uk with local SMTP id ; Fri, 10 Jan 1997 09:52:23 +0000 Received: from wandle.dra.hmg.gb by hermes.dra.hmg.gb (MX V4.1 VAX) with SMTP; Fri, 10 Jan 1997 09:51:47 GMT Received: from rivers.dra.hmg.gb by wandle.dra.hmg.gb with smtp(Smail3.1.28.1 #64) id m0vidci-0007UqC; Fri, 10 Jan 97 09:51 WET To: Martin Hamilton CC: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: funky list processors Organization: IT Vulnerabilities Group, DRA Malvern, UK References: <199701091744.RAA06422@gizmo.lut.ac.uk> In-Reply-To: <199701091744.RAA06422@gizmo.lut.ac.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_300229404120P"; micalg=pgp-md5; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 09:51:40 +0000 Message-ID: <9253.852889900@rivers.dra.hmg.gb> From: Christopher Samuel Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk --==_Exmh_300229404120P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In message <199701091744.RAA06422@gizmo.lut.ac.uk>, Martin Hamilton writes: > It would be kind of neat if list processor software had something > like a news reader's kill file feature. Several MUAs will allow you to do basic filtering on headers already, including exmh (using the MH slocal program) which I see that you are using. There are also standalone filtering programs available such as procmail which will happily do the same job. If you consider applying per-message per-subscriber filtering to a large list with a large number of subscribers then the processing overhead required could rapidly get out of hand. Chris -- Christopher Samuel, IT Vulnerabilities Group, chris@rivers.dra.hmg.gb N-115, Defence Research Agency, St Andrews Road, Great Malvern, England, UK DISCLAIMER: I write only for myself, not for DRA. Phone: +44 1684 894644 +MIME+ +PGP+ --==_Exmh_300229404120P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE----- Version: 2.6.3ia iQCVAwUBMtYRKlJ7nmUlvnM9AQHzUwP/Z42G6/KCB+4P/41MHtRzvim4LHSsfTiB Hhwg4vKDOjOjFw6DgdeMnw0qkoKarfJlMn/7c+yX9teTj3fvR7V2xQMjyNMKNr7A gxDiPvYz4i8+EHaI1b7d9QWrQo9TSOkohWTbThNK0mNIECBDa4mpqi0iHIUSlEql D6FRjyfX/A4= =sR9A -----END PGP MESSAGE----- --==_Exmh_300229404120P-- From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 10 05:29:34 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id FAA29289 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 10 Jan 1997 05:16:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from panix2.panix.com (panix2.panix.com [198.7.0.3]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id FAA29280 for ; Fri, 10 Jan 1997 05:16:20 -0800 (PST) Received: (from vicric@localhost) by panix2.panix.com (8.8.4/8.7/PanixU1.3) id IAA24868 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Fri, 10 Jan 1997 08:16:43 -0500 (EST) From: Vicki Richman Message-Id: <199701101316.IAA24868@panix2.panix.com> Subject: Re: Changing the DATE field To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 08:16:42 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: from "Dave Crocker" at Jan 8, 97 02:52:08 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Dave Crocker has written: > At 1:25 PM -0800 1/8/97, Vicki Richman wrote: > >That would be acceptable to me only if the original date is > >preserved, perhaps as 'X-Original-Date: '. > > Good point, though I'd suggest "Posted-Date". (And the X- isn't > required.) Yes, "Posted" is better. I'd appreciate guidelines on the use of 'X-' for user or list headers. Or a pointer to where I can get them. Vicki From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 10 08:45:09 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id IAA16267 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 10 Jan 1997 08:42:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.proper.com (mail.proper.com [206.86.127.224]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id IAA16258 for ; Fri, 10 Jan 1997 08:42:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from [205.214.160.110] (d13.netgate.net [205.214.160.45]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id IAA24885; Fri, 10 Jan 1997 08:41:48 -0800 (PST) X-Sender: dcrocker@ng.netgate.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199701101316.IAA24868@panix2.panix.com> References: from "Dave Crocker" at Jan 8, 97 02:52:08 pm Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 08:10:43 -0800 To: Vicki Richman From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: Changing the DATE field Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 5:16 AM -0800 1/10/97, Vicki Richman wrote: >I'd appreciate guidelines on the use of 'X-' for user or >list headers. Or a pointer to where I can get them. RFC 822 specifies the role of 'x-'. it says that no standard name will ever contain x-. hence, if you add that to the name of a header, you don't have to worry that the standards process will come along and take it away from you. But in fact I think it would be fine to standardize the new header. As to NOT modifying the header, per some other comments, I concur with the sentiment. The problem is that it leaves the problem intact. I'm trying to fix a sorting problem that cannot reasonably be fixed anytime soon in the sorting engine, i.e., the end-user platform. d/ -------------------- Dave Crocker +1 408 246 8253 Brandenburg Consulting fax: +1 408 249 6205 675 Spruce Dr. dcrocker@brandenburg.com Sunnyvale CA 94086 USA http://www.brandenburg.com Internet Mail Consortium http://www.imc.org, info@imc.org From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 10 08:50:41 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id IAA16077 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 10 Jan 1997 08:38:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from lucius.ultra.net (lucius.ultra.net [199.232.56.38]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id IAA16067 for ; Fri, 10 Jan 1997 08:38:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from voyager (d36.wal.ma.ultra.net [146.115.77.36]) by lucius.ultra.net (8.7.4/ult1.04) with SMTP id LAA08825; Fri, 10 Jan 1997 11:37:46 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19970110163808.00374940@pop.ma.ultranet.com> X-Sender: stanr@pop.ma.ultranet.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 11:38:08 -0500 To: Dave Crocker From: Stan Ryckman Subject: Re: Changing the DATE field Cc: "'List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM'" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 06:48 PM 1/8/97 -0800, Dave Crocker wrote: >At 5:34 PM -0800 1/8/97, Stan Ryckman wrote: [...] >>You may want to get a mail reader which can sort by date received, if this >>bothers you. elm, for one, is perfectly capable of this. > > I think you missed the point I was making. I already HAVE such a >ua and errors in the DATE fields of messages cause replies to PRECEDE the >original note sorting sequence. No, because sorting by date received doesn't use any DATE fields in messages, only the date added by your MDA when storing the mail. It's the date you got it, added by your machine. If still out of order, then either they're getting out of order between the list and you, or (probably more likely) before arriving at the list. In the latter case, having the list re-timestamp mail won't help. (Sorting by date received will take care of misdated mail that didn't "pass" other mail.) I often see replies before the original on certain lists; those lists are ones where people tend to mail responses both to the poster and to the list (as I'm doing here) and the original poster replies quickly, and the second reply arrives at the list before the first one due to different routing delays. In this case, only using the original dates (if correct) would work. The only real way around all these things is having mailers add and preserve References: and In-Reply-To: headerfields, and having mailing lists pass them through. Then a threaded mail reader (such as mutt) can restore the order regardless of any date-oriented fields. > Having lists use resent-* fields is quite reasonable but has not >become standard practise. My suggestion was based on a desire to work >within the current deployed framework. It may not be standard, but it's standardized (though optional). Rewriting "Date:" fields is not within the currently deployed framework either (of any of the current MLM software that I know of). Cheers, Stan Ryckman (stanr@tiac.net) From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 10 08:56:54 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id IAA16076 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 10 Jan 1997 08:38:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from lucius.ultra.net (lucius.ultra.net [199.232.56.38]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id IAA16057 for ; Fri, 10 Jan 1997 08:38:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from voyager (d36.wal.ma.ultra.net [146.115.77.36]) by lucius.ultra.net (8.7.4/ult1.04) with SMTP id LAA09169 for ; Fri, 10 Jan 1997 11:37:44 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19970110163806.00371210@pop.ma.ultranet.com> X-Sender: stanr@pop.ma.ultranet.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 11:38:06 -0500 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com From: Stan Ryckman Subject: Re: Changing the DATE field Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 08:16 AM 1/10/97 -0500, Vicki Richman wrote: >Dave Crocker has written: > >> At 1:25 PM -0800 1/8/97, Vicki Richman wrote: >> >That would be acceptable to me only if the original date is >> >preserved, perhaps as 'X-Original-Date: '. >> >> Good point, though I'd suggest "Posted-Date". (And the X- isn't >> required.) > >Yes, "Posted" is better. I'd be confused; would "Posted-Date" be the date originally mailed, or the date received/sent by the list? And while X- may not be required, it would be safer. From RFC 822: 4.7.5. USER-DEFINED-FIELD Individual users of network mail are free to define and use additional header fields. Such fields must have names which are not already used in the current specification or in any definitions of extension-fields, and the overall syntax of these user-defined-fields must conform to this specification's rules for delimiting and folding fields. Due to the extension-field publishing process, the name of a user- defined-field may be pre-empted Note: The prefatory string "X-" will never be used in the names of Extension-fields. This provides user-defined fields with a protected set of names. Anyway, using "Resent-Date:" for the list's date is best, since the RFC's already make it available (and optional). Eric Thomas has also already listed some good reasons for not changing the original Date: field. >I'd appreciate guidelines on the use of 'X-' for user or >list headers. Or a pointer to where I can get them. The RFC's specify that future RFC's won't define 'X-' headerfields :-) (see above). Hence, many pieces of software have "adopted" these with many meanings, but none are "official." A list of "known" ones would be interesting to see, though probably not that useful. Some fairly common ones off the top of my head: X-Mailer: string identifying the MUA software X-Original-xxx: the original value of a replaced "xxx" headerfield X-Loop: used by autoresponder software; if mail arrives with the same value (usually the email address) it is not responded to, to avoid looping X-URL: sometimes added when creating mail from "mailto" on a web page X-Sender: often added to identify mail posted through a POP account or SMTP, where the sender can put anything into the "From:" header (as I'm doing here; if you look at the headers, you'll see I'm mailing from one ISP with "From:" pointing to a different ISP) X-No-Archive: yes actually a Usenet header, telling DejaNews not to archive the post, but usable in a gatewayed mailing list Cheers, Stan Ryckman (stanr@tiac.net) From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 10 09:29:32 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id JAA20586 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 10 Jan 1997 09:26:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.proper.com (mail.proper.com [206.86.127.224]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id JAA20576 for ; Fri, 10 Jan 1997 09:26:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from [205.214.160.110] (d65.netgate.net [205.214.160.101]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id JAA25309; Fri, 10 Jan 1997 09:26:23 -0800 (PST) X-Sender: dcrocker@ng.netgate.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19970110163808.00374940@pop.ma.ultranet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 09:16:01 -0800 To: Stan Ryckman From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: Changing the DATE field - NEVER MIND! Cc: "'List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM'" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 8:38 AM -0800 1/10/97, Stan Ryckman wrote: >No, because sorting by date received doesn't use any DATE fields in >messages, only the date added by your MDA when storing the mail. sigh. I completely forgot about a real and terrible behavior that is common to a number of MTA's, especially sendmail. Namely, they process their queue in lifo order. Yes, they REVERSE mail. Hence, any MTAs between the originator and the list could well do much damage and affixing the date/time that the list receives it will do more damage than help. foo. d/ -------------------- Dave Crocker +1 408 246 8253 Brandenburg Consulting fax: +1 408 249 6205 675 Spruce Dr. dcrocker@brandenburg.com Sunnyvale CA 94086 USA http://www.brandenburg.com Internet Mail Consortium http://www.imc.org, info@imc.org From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 10 09:59:42 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id JAA22640 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 10 Jan 1997 09:53:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from gizmo.lut.ac.uk (gizmo.lut.ac.uk [158.125.96.46]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id JAA22611 for ; Fri, 10 Jan 1997 09:53:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from mrrl.lut.ac.uk (martin@localhost.mrrl.lut.ac.uk [127.0.0.1]) by gizmo.lut.ac.uk (8.8.4/8.6.9) with ESMTP id RAA15792 for ; Fri, 10 Jan 1997 17:53:30 GMT Message-Id: <199701101753.RAA15792@gizmo.lut.ac.uk> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0beta 12/23/96 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com (lm) Subject: Re: funky list processors X-Uri: In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 09 Jan 1997 11:53:39 MST." <199701091853.LAA17281@kitsune.swcp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_-716971531P"; micalg=pgp-md5; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 17:53:30 +0000 From: Martin Hamilton Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk --==_Exmh_-716971531P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii "Lazlo Nibble" writes: | If you're talking about letting individual subscribers set preferences about | what mail they get and don't get, that's *much* better done on the mailreader | end than it is on the list end, and again, there are plenty of tools out ther | e that you can use to do this. It's actually my experiences filtering my incoming mail with procmail that made me think about doing this - for instance, on the cypherpunks mailing list (admittedly an extreme example :-) I end up throwing away a large proportion of the messages. Ideally the list processor wouldn't send me them in the first place, but of course this approach has all those problems ... Martin --==_Exmh_-716971531P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE----- Version: 2.6.3i iQCVAwUBMtaCFNZdpXZXTSjhAQHfiQP/fYE/fC1V5HVCYoxTG4vK6fn3V5202Lsr rk38I+5P7gk4B5DaiC+tG7PNpaaumdEGe5+95yzWHwK77PtKEUXr+rxhNIs3FJ8p HDqeMNxyPXHG23idJQxxSLTYy77d3Sy7gTSDYR8K9aU7H2s8x7DGLU2tBomEYPZ8 xmguJoxS6aQ= =jfUX -----END PGP MESSAGE----- --==_Exmh_-716971531P-- From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 10 11:47:54 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id LAA29291 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 10 Jan 1997 11:00:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from lucius.ultra.net (lucius.ultra.net [199.232.56.38]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id LAA29257 for ; Fri, 10 Jan 1997 11:00:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from voyager (d45.wal.ma.ultra.net [146.115.77.45]) by lucius.ultra.net (8.7.4/ult1.04) with SMTP id OAA15695 for ; Fri, 10 Jan 1997 14:00:06 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19970110190030.0036a894@pop.ma.ultranet.com> X-Sender: stanr@pop.ma.ultranet.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 14:00:30 -0500 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com From: Stan Ryckman Subject: PGP attachments (WAS: Re: funky list processors) Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 05:53 PM 1/10/97 +0000, Martin Hamilton wrote: [snip] > >Attachment Converted: C:\MailDocs\Re funky list processors1 > Hey, do you guys (and others) think you could find a way to *not* attach PGP signatures as attachments? It's really annoying as hell to open up an attachment just to find it's a useless PGP sig. While PGP sigs on mailing lists are annoying and useless to most people anyway, at least they don't require extra effort just to see what's in an attachment. At the very least, you could give the attachment a name which identifies it as a PGP signature so that we wouldn't have to open it. This seems to have started with: X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0beta 12/23/96 and I'd like to give whoever's putting that out a piece of my mind, if anyone knows who it is. And if there's a way to configure this list to reject posts with attachments, I'll vote for it :-) Thanks, Stan. From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 10 15:14:33 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id NAA14182 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 10 Jan 1997 13:32:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from deepthought.armory.com (deepthought.armory.com [192.122.209.42]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id NAA14063 for ; Fri, 10 Jan 1997 13:31:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from clovis by deepthought.armory.com id aa12035; 10 Jan 97 13:31 PST Received: by clovis.nerdnosh.org (1.65/waf) via UUCP; Fri, 10 Jan 97 13:28:04 PST for list-managers@greatcircle.com To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Okay for copyrights, now let's take up Trademarks From: Tim Bowden Message-ID: Date: Fri, 10 Jan 97 13:14:25 PST Organization: NERDNOSH - the story conference as cyber-community! Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk The CLI online tutorial is very interesting. One feature of cyberlaw is trademark. We were told if you use a name or a mark, it's yours, and registering it will only insure that fact, although it isn't necessary to establish it. So..... Supposing I had a unique list name, say `Nerdnosh'. And let's pretend also that someone was to use my list name in vain, without my permission. He might quit my list and begin one of his own under the same name, or he might even run a roboperation to compile mailing lists on his hardware to display to customers. If copyright won't stop him (just for the sake of argument), might not trademark? The use of trademark protection is to prevent an infringement of name causing confusion in the market. Can I at least claim the name of the list, plus any distinguishing marks, as proprietary? --- mailto:tcbowden@clovis.nerdnosh.org (Tim Bowden) Proud member of NERDNOSH (tm)! mailto:info@clovis.nerdnosh.org http://www.corcom.com/reloj/Nerdnosh.html From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 10 16:56:23 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id QAA04465 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 10 Jan 1997 16:33:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from vpm.com (vpm.com [207.49.29.143]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id QAA04450 for ; Fri, 10 Jan 1997 16:33:22 -0800 (PST) Received: (from root@localhost) by vpm.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) id QAA24066 for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM; Fri, 10 Jan 1997 16:33:28 -0800 (PST) From: Mark Stout Message-Id: <199701110033.QAA24066@vpm.com> Subject: Re: Okay for copyrights, now let's take up Trademarks To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 16:33:27 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: from Tim Bowden at "Jan 10, 97 01:14:25 pm" X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL22 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk To see what Trademark protection you have, check out the Lanham Act. I forget the URL, but use Yahoo and search on 'Trademark Lanham'. It's return an extensive document concerning how it applies and what needs to be proven. In a nutshell what you say about registering a trademark is correct. You don't need to in order to establish that it's yours. You must also prove that the infringement confused the public and then you may be able to collect punitive damages. Copyright is something that you create. This could be your company logo, artwork or whatever. Unless you explicitly commit it to the public domain, or get the original copyright holder to allow you to use it, or the Federal Government created it, it's a violation to use in any form and you can collect up to 3 times the amount you would have made off the artwork or that you lost significant amount of income, based on analysis of what you average in income, as punitive damages plus attorneys fees. No one will go to jail in either instance, but financially you could broke or worse. With copyright, you don't even need to give them a warning, you can just bring suit. The threat of a lawsuit over copyright infringement should be taken seriously by everyone, especially here on the Internet. But those who don't can end up with a hefty financial burden and you could end up with someones deed of trust. :) I would think the threat of a copyright infringement lawsuit would shut them down. But, if all you're willing to do is call or send email asking, nothing need be done by the violator. Legal action and the willingness to follow through will any action be taken on the most biligerent violators. I just went through this with one of my customers on both issues. However, this tactic raises some other concerns on the internet that is a whole other topic, and a scary one. Especially considering most people will sue at the drop of a dime if the think they can get any money out of you. Mark > The CLI online tutorial is very interesting. One feature > of cyberlaw is trademark. We were told if you use a name > or a mark, it's yours, and registering it will only insure > that fact, although it isn't necessary to establish it. > > So..... Supposing I had a unique list name, say `Nerdnosh'. > And let's pretend also that someone was to > use my list name in vain, without my permission. He > might quit my list and begin one of his own under the > same name, or he might even run a roboperation to compile > mailing lists on his hardware to display to customers. > > If copyright won't stop him (just for the sake of argument), > might not trademark? The use of trademark protection is > to prevent an infringement of name causing confusion > in the market. Can I at least claim the name of the > list, plus any distinguishing marks, as proprietary? > > > > --- > mailto:tcbowden@clovis.nerdnosh.org (Tim Bowden) > Proud member of NERDNOSH (tm)! > mailto:info@clovis.nerdnosh.org > http://www.corcom.com/reloj/Nerdnosh.html > From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 10 16:59:49 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id QAA05933 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 10 Jan 1997 16:52:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from panix2.panix.com (panix2.panix.com [198.7.0.3]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id QAA05910 for ; Fri, 10 Jan 1997 16:52:22 -0800 (PST) Received: (from vicric@localhost) by panix2.panix.com (8.8.4/8.7/PanixU1.3) id TAA09827 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Fri, 10 Jan 1997 19:52:42 -0500 (EST) From: Vicki Richman Message-Id: <199701110052.TAA09827@panix2.panix.com> Subject: Re: Changing the DATE field To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 19:52:41 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19970110163806.00371210@pop.ma.ultranet.com> from "Stan Ryckman" at Jan 10, 97 11:38:06 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Stan Ryckman has written: > I'd be confused; would "Posted-Date" be the date originally mailed, > or the date received/sent by the list? And while X- may not be > required, it would be safer. From RFC 822: [. . .] Thanks to the many subscribers who referred me to section 4.7.5 of RFC 822. I am well familiar with the entry for USER-DEFINED-FIELD, and have always used 'X-' for headers I define. However, one of the subscribers suggested that my use of 'X-' was not necessary or perhaps even undesirable. I was wondering whether there is a source at a higher level than RFC 822 explaining when to use 'X-' and when not to use it in user or list headers. As for the field in question -- I suggested 'X-Original-Date: ' to reproduce the 'Date: ' field in the posted message before it is remailed to the list. The response suggested 'Date-Posted: '. I agreed that "posted" is better English usage than "original," but remain unsure on why the 'X-' was deleted. RFC 822 suggests that the 'X-' should be there. Yes, "posted" is ambiguous to a certain extent. In most cases, the "posted" field would be earlier than the SMTP "date" field. However, some users may stamp their messages with a date significantly in the future, leading to confusion over which field has the subscriber's date. The problem with using an unambiguous 'X-Date-Resent: ' field is that the list software has to create it. It would be several seconds to several hours earlier than the moment it is actually remailed. If the list software generates no 'Date: ' field at all, after converting the sender's date to 'X-Original-Date: ', then the site's SMTP -- or /usr/lib/sendmail -- would create the 'Date: ' header, to the greatest accuracy. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vicki Richman vicric@panix.com National Writers Union Harlem New York PGP 2.6 UAW Local 1981, AFL/CIO "The fare shall not be fowl." -Credo of the Vegetarian Umpires Association ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 10 17:30:07 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id RAA09211 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 10 Jan 1997 17:21:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu (Sina.HPC.UH.EDU [129.7.3.5]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id RAA09127 for ; Fri, 10 Jan 1997 17:20:58 -0800 (PST) Received: (from tibbs@localhost) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) id TAA08031; Fri, 10 Jan 1997 19:20:46 -0600 (CST) To: Stan Ryckman Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: PGP attachments (WAS: Re: funky list processors) References: <2.2.32.19970110190030.0036a894@pop.ma.ultranet.com> From: Jason L Tibbitts III Date: 10 Jan 1997 19:20:46 -0600 In-Reply-To: Stan Ryckman's message of Fri, 10 Jan 1997 14:00:30 -0500 Message-ID: Lines: 23 X-Mailer: Red Gnus v0.79/Emacs 19.34 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >>>>> "SR" == Stan Ryckman writes: SR> Hey, do you guys (and others) think you could find a way to *not* SR> attach PGP signatures as attachments? And by that violate RFC2015? Why? We finally have a workable standard for this kind of thing. SR> It's really annoying as hell to open up an attachment just to find it's SR> a useless PGP sig. The messages I've seen have Content-Type application/pgp-signature as they're supposed to. The top level content-type is "multipart/signed" and all of the fields seem to be as 2015 requires. Why is your mailer showing this as text, or showing it at all if it can't deal with PGP? I suppose this is a list-managers issue, as soon we will have MLMs that understand MIME and will be able to do things like validate the PGP signature and reject the message if it doesn't check out. -- Jason L. Tibbitts III - tibbs@uh.edu - 713/743-8684 - 221SR1 System Manager: University of Houston High Performance Computing Center 1994 PC800 "Kuroneko" DoD# 1723 From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 10 17:49:28 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id RAA08704 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 10 Jan 1997 17:17:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from panix2.panix.com (panix2.panix.com [198.7.0.3]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id RAA08666 for ; Fri, 10 Jan 1997 17:17:06 -0800 (PST) Received: (from vicric@localhost) by panix2.panix.com (8.8.4/8.7/PanixU1.3) id UAA11697 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Fri, 10 Jan 1997 20:17:31 -0500 (EST) From: Vicki Richman Message-Id: <199701110117.UAA11697@panix2.panix.com> Subject: Re: Okay for copyrights, now let's take up Trademarks To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 20:17:31 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: from "Tim Bowden" at Jan 10, 97 01:14:25 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Tim Bowden has written: > If copyright won't stop him (just for the sake of argument), > might not trademark? The use of trademark protection is > to prevent an infringement of name causing confusion > in the market. Can I at least claim the name of the > list, plus any distinguishing marks, as proprietary? Perhaps we might establish a society of List Gods analogous to InterNIC and license list names -- for a fee, of course. Any unlicensed name incurs our collective wrath, and no ethical site administrator will permit an unlicensed list. That will probably never happen. One InterNIC is all the net can handle. I believe a trademark is just what U.S. law provides to solve this problem, but Internet E-mail is not confined to the U.S. Furthermore, a trademark, like a copyright, is just a paper power. There are no trademark cops. Without spending big bucks, it is very difficult to enforce a trademark against someone determined to infringe it. Which reminds of the story about John D. Rockefeller, who happened to be riding through the Lower East Side. He saw a sign on a decrepit pawnshop: "Hyman Rockefeller, cousin to John D. Rockefeller." He got back to his office and immediately instructed his attorneys to take action. The next week, he was riding on the same street and glanced at the new sign in the pawnshop window: "Hyman Rockefeller, formerly cousin to John D. Rockefeller." Vicki From list-managers-owner Fri Jan 10 18:05:38 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id RAA12614 for list-managers-outgoing; Fri, 10 Jan 1997 17:56:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from server.postmodern.com (server.postmodern.com [207.33.130.54]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id RAA12576 for ; Fri, 10 Jan 1997 17:55:46 -0800 (PST) Received: (from mcb@localhost) by server.postmodern.com (8.7.5/mcb-960422) id RAA17102; Fri, 10 Jan 1997 17:54:40 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199701110154.RAA17102@server.postmodern.com> From: mcb@postmodern.com (Michael C. Berch) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 17:54:39 +0000 In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19970110190030.0036a894@pop.ma.ultranet.com> X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.5 10/14/92) To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: PGP attachments (WAS: Re: funky list processors) Cc: Stan Ryckman Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > At 05:53 PM 1/10/97 +0000, Martin Hamilton wrote: > > [snip] > > > >Attachment Converted: C:\MailDocs\Re funky list processors1 > > > > Hey, do you guys (and others) think you could find a way to > *not* attach PGP signatures as attachments? It's really annoying > as hell to open up an attachment just to find it's a useless PGP > sig. While PGP sigs on mailing lists are annoying and useless to > most people anyway, at least they don't require extra effort > just to see what's in an attachment. > > At the very least, you could give the attachment a name which identifies > it as a PGP signature so that we wouldn't have to open it. Instead, I'd suggest getting a mailer that properly identifies MIME attachments (by type) and lets you open them or not depending on whether you're interested in them. Netscape does a very good job of this, for example. I thought all reasonable MIME-capable mailers did this, but apparently not. Having the PGP signature as a separate MIME-part makes a lot of sense, and if I'm not mistaken there is an RFC in draft or possibly already out that deals with this. -- Michael C. Berch mcb@postmodern.com / mcb@greatcircle.com From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 11 11:20:02 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id LAA03146 for list-managers-outgoing; Sat, 11 Jan 1997 11:02:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.unidial.com (mail.unidial.com [206.112.1.5]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id LAA03110 for ; Sat, 11 Jan 1997 11:02:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from ecunet.org (pcusa01.ecunet.org [206.115.64.2]) by mail.unidial.com (NTR*NET 2.1.0) with SMTP id OAA04476; Sat, 11 Jan 1997 14:01:42 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: PGP attachments (WAS: Re: funky list processors) To: tibbs@hpc.uh.edu (Jason L Tibbitts III) Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 11:25:49 -0500 (EST) From: "Merrill Cook" Cc: stanr@sunspot.tiac.net, list-managers@greatcircle.com In-Reply-To: from "Jason L Tibbitts III" at Jan 10, 97 07:20:46 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <9701111125.aa19804@pcusa01.ecunet.org> Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >From Jason L Tibbitts III: > > The messages I've seen have Content-Type application/pgp-signature as > they're supposed to. The top level content-type is "multipart/signed" and > all of the fields seem to be as 2015 requires. Why is your mailer showing > this as text, or showing it at all if it can't deal with PGP? I don't know about anyone else, but my mail reader doesn't know one Content-Type from another; it's all just MIME, and it tries to show me the attachment. Maybe if everyone on the net had the most up-to-date mail readers, this wouldn't be a problem. Mime-format Delivery notification is also a real pain with this reader. Maybe you can suggest a mail reader that doesn't go into slow motion and make me hit extra keystrokes for mime-encoded mail? I have nothing better to do than find a new mail reader and integrate it into my system. Also, is there supposed to be some way that mime-encoded delivery notification messages are supposed to be parsable by a program? I've seen about a dozen different flavors, and a program that could parse them all would have to be incredibly complex, and probably wouldn't be able to handle others I haven't seen. -- Regards, Merrill Cook Louisville KY mcook@pcusa.org or MERRILL COOK on Ecunet/PresbyNet http://www.pcusa.org/pcusa.html -+- From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 11 16:14:23 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id QAA16488 for list-managers-outgoing; Sat, 11 Jan 1997 16:08:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu (Sina.HPC.UH.EDU [129.7.3.5]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id QAA16481 for ; Sat, 11 Jan 1997 16:08:05 -0800 (PST) Received: (from tibbs@localhost) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) id SAA00338; Sat, 11 Jan 1997 18:07:57 -0600 (CST) To: "Merrill Cook" Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: PGP attachments (WAS: Re: funky list processors) References: <9701111125.aa19804@pcusa01.ecunet.org> From: Jason L Tibbitts III Date: 11 Jan 1997 18:07:56 -0600 In-Reply-To: "Merrill Cook"'s message of Sat, 11 Jan 1997 11:25:49 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Lines: 39 X-Mailer: Red Gnus v0.79/Emacs 19.34 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >>>>> "MC" == Merrill Cook writes: MC> I don't know about anyone else, but my mail reader doesn't know one MC> Content-Type from another; it's all just MIME, and it tries to show me MC> the attachment. So you're saying that if you get an attachment with type image/jpeg, you get binary data blasted to your terminal? Surely your mailer knows about some MIME types, and surely it is extensible in that it allows you to add new ones. I would question the value of any mailer software that, when asked to display a completely unknown type of attachment, just blasts it to the screen. At the very least it should tell you it doesn't know how to deal with it. MC> Maybe if everyone on the net had the most up-to-date mail readers, this MC> wouldn't be a problem. MIME was designed to be open-ended and extensible. Your mailer should not require an update in order to handle new types. At the very least it should check the mailcap file or some equivalent to find decoding methods, wherein you could cat the attachment to /dev/null. MC> Maybe you can suggest a mail reader that doesn't go into slow MC> motion and make me hit extra keystrokes for mime-encoded mail? Gnus with tm and w3? (Well, that combination can do virtually anything, but you might have to change your definition of "slow motion".) MC> Also, is there supposed to be some way that mime-encoded delivery MC> notification messages are supposed to be parsable by a program? Yes. I suggest you read RFC1892 and RFC1894 if you care about this kind of thing at all. Of course, there is no guarantee that any MIME-encoded DSN will obey the standards, but I'd be 80% satisfied with something that could just handle the standard ones and perhaps AOL. I've figured out a way to (hopefully) do it well and outlined the code on paper but I haven't managed to get around to actually doing it. - J< From list-managers-owner Sat Jan 11 23:59:25 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id XAA01306 for list-managers-outgoing; Sat, 11 Jan 1997 23:51:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from outlawnet.com (outlawnet.com [204.245.248.202]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id XAA01295 for ; Sat, 11 Jan 1997 23:51:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from [204.245.248.244] (liv20.outlawnet.com [204.245.248.244]) by outlawnet.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id XAA19603 for ; Sat, 11 Jan 1997 23:51:24 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 23:50:28 -0800 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com From: garyb@outlawnet.com (Gary Bickford) Subject: Actual Security Digest; discard if contents had nothing of interest Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Seems like this is a virus that requires an alternate host - humans who haven't been inocculated by facts. ;?) Hey, it's semi-relevant - this "virus" (maybe it's a protovirus) is transmitted by email. ;?) GB >From: "SANS'96 Conference Office" ... >________________________________________________________________ >2. THE HOAX THAT WON'T GO AWAY: GOOD TIMES AND WORST OF TIMES > >Egads, don't you have better things to do than debunk hoaxes? > >This hoax keeps getting recirculated and with the old name and >the new one. Some of the new hoax names are: Irina, Deeyenda, >and Ghost. CIAC keeps a list of the current hoax names and >recommends strongly that every effort be made to stop the needless >duplication of email warnings. What should you do if you receive >a virus warning? First verify that it comes from a real response >team or organization! > >For information see: http://ciac.llnl.gov/ciac/bulletins/h-05.shtml >________________________________________________________________ end ======= Gary Bickford, FXT Corporation http://www.fxt.com System integration, active web site design, intranets. garyb@fxt.com 541-923-3060 From list-managers-owner Mon Jan 13 05:29:48 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id FAA22239 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 13 Jan 1997 05:13:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from marvin.nipltd.com (marvin.nipltd.com [194.193.44.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id FAA22232 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 1997 05:12:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from [194.193.44.131] (dougal.nipltd.com [194.193.44.131]) by marvin.nipltd.com (8.8.2/8.8.2) with ESMTP id NAA22058 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 1997 13:13:16 GMT X-Sender: simon@pop.nipltd.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 01:16:58 +0000 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Simon Coles Subject: Does anyone have French language LISTSERV messages Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Hi, I'm going to be using some spare capacity here at NIP to run some non-profit lists, using the free verison of LSoft's LISTERV. I've been asked to run a French Language list (on Parkinson's Disease). Before we start to translate them, does anyone have the LISTSERV mail messages in French which we can have? Thanks for any help, Simon --------- My opinions are my own, NIP's opinions are theirs ---------- Simon J. Coles Email: simon@nipltd.com New Information Paradigms Work Phone: +44 1344 778783 http://www.nipltd.com/ Work Fax: +44 1344 772510 =============== Life is too precious to take seriously =============== From list-managers-owner Mon Jan 13 08:59:51 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id IAA07310 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 13 Jan 1997 08:30:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from gizmo.lut.ac.uk (gizmo.lut.ac.uk [158.125.96.46]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id IAA07102 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 1997 08:29:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from mrrl.lut.ac.uk (martin@localhost.mrrl.lut.ac.uk [127.0.0.1]) by gizmo.lut.ac.uk (8.8.4/8.6.9) with ESMTP id QAA01811 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 1997 16:23:36 GMT Message-Id: <199701131623.QAA01811@gizmo.lut.ac.uk> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0beta 12/23/96 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: PGP attachments (WAS: Re: funky list processors) X-Uri: In-Reply-To: Your message of "10 Jan 1997 19:20:46 CST." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_1511806134P"; micalg=pgp-md5; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 16:23:35 +0000 From: Martin Hamilton Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk --==_Exmh_1511806134P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Jason L Tibbitts III writes: | >>>>> "SR" == Stan Ryckman writes: | | SR> Hey, do you guys (and others) think you could find a way to *not* | SR> attach PGP signatures as attachments? | | And by that violate RFC2015? Why? We finally have a workable standard for | this kind of thing. Quite! | SR> It's really annoying as hell to open up an attachment just to find it's | SR> a useless PGP sig. | | The messages I've seen have Content-Type application/pgp-signature as | they're supposed to. The top level content-type is "multipart/signed" and | all of the fields seem to be as 2015 requires. Why is your mailer showing | this as text, or showing it at all if it can't deal with PGP? The main thing is that mail readers which understand MIME but not multipart/{signed,encrypted} are supposed to treat messages tagged this way the same as they would do multipart/mixed. If they do understand multipart/signed, and support RFC 2015, they can automatically offer (for instance) a "check signature" button like exmh does when you read a PGP signed message. If they don't treat new multipart types as multipart/mixed I believe they're in violation of the MIME spec. See section 2 of RFC 2049 for info. Sending the PGP signature in a separate message part is clearly(?) the only sensible thing to do. It's a shame that it's taken so long to get the spec out, but at least that's given MIME deployment a head start :-) | I suppose this is a list-managers issue, as soon we will have MLMs that | understand MIME and will be able to do things like validate the PGP | signature and reject the message if it doesn't check out. I believe it's been done - check out "pgpdomo" on your favourite WWW search engine. Cheerio, Martin PS I'd like to do a quick straw poll of the subscribers to the list - drop *me* a line if this message format is causing your software problems. I don't want to know that your mail reader doesn't support MIME, but it would be useful to know if there are particular "MIME conformant" products which have problems with multipart/signed et al. --==_Exmh_1511806134P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE----- Version: 2.6.3i iQCVAwUBMtphf9ZdpXZXTSjhAQE9hQP5AUEziylhMFriuigNIEpyn3Gn6BhS5fft SCmYqH/ZmC719qkVOg9ouqO7LaBr8t7lEQvzoYr5QswSEoR2Xq1qKHqDeyyk9xnL qbfDXyaqOLHbQFOLu16bGxzovzGm/rRLM1gWnezl3XS+UvS3+0eUGiocFypiOD7e fLOv0XhSB74= =7i9B -----END PGP MESSAGE----- --==_Exmh_1511806134P-- From list-managers-owner Mon Jan 13 09:46:03 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id JAA13170 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 13 Jan 1997 09:38:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from tunku.uady.mx (tunku.uady.mx [148.209.1.1]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id JAA13151; Mon, 13 Jan 1997 09:38:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost by tunku.uady.mx (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA36256; Mon, 13 Jan 1997 11:42:18 -0700 Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 11:42:18 -0700 (MST) From: Angel Polanco Rodriguez To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Cc: Majordomo@GreatCircle.com, Puerto Manzano Fernando Subject: Again, help please**** (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 11:03:48 +0000 From: "Michael C. Berch" To: Angel Polanco Rodriguez Subject: Re: help please**** > Hi Michael, > > Can you please remouve the address pmanzano@tunku.uady.mx > (Fernando Puerto Manzano) of the Firewalls list? He is the director (Chief) of The Regional Research Center of our University and his e-mail space is very busy and full. The subscription to the list was anonymous. > > He has send e-mail to the list twice, but the mails to be > continued arrive. It appears that the subscription has already been stopped -- I checked the list and Dr. Manzano's address is no longer there, and I received a "thank you" message from him this morning since he had received the form letter explaining how to unsubscribe. If there is anything else I can do, please let me know. Regards, -- Michael C. Berch Postmaster and List Manager, Great Circle Associates mcb@greatcircle.com From list-managers-owner Mon Jan 13 10:17:16 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id JAA14582 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 13 Jan 1997 09:55:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from ilinx.ilinx.com (ilinx.bctel.net [204.174.213.24]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id JAA14563 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 1997 09:55:28 -0800 (PST) Received: (from brian@localhost) by ilinx.ilinx.com (8.8.3/8.8.3) id JAA08256; Mon, 13 Jan 1997 09:44:57 -0800 From: "Brian J. Murrell" Message-Id: <199701131744.JAA08256@ilinx.ilinx.com> Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 09:44:56 -0800 (PST) To: martin@mrrl.lut.ac.uk Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Reply-To: brian@ilinx.com Subject: Re[2]: PGP attachments (WAS: Re: funky list processors) In-Reply-To: <199701131623.QAA01811@gizmo.lut.ac.uk> X-Mailer: Ishmail 1.3.1-961106-linux MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk from the quill of Martin Hamilton on scroll <199701131623.QAA01811@gizmo.lut.ac.uk> > PS I'd like to do a quick straw poll of the subscribers to the list - > drop *me* a line if this message format is causing your software > problems. I don't want to know that your mail reader doesn't support > MIME, but it would be useful to know if there are particular "MIME > conformant" products which have problems with multipart/signed et al. There are a couple of problems with this currently. First there is no really good PGP implementation which allows people to write nice utilities for checking signatures and extracting the real message text. Secondly, there is no really good infrastructure for looking up keys. I can't even build a utility (back to the first point) which can easily go get a key if my keyring doesn't have one. I find it more trouble that it's worth (although replying to this message makes me a liar on that one) to run PGP just to read MIMEified PGP messages. That's really the fault of my mailer and moreso the crappy PGP implementation(s -- is there more than one) out there. b. -- Brian J. Murrell brian@ilinx.com InterLinx Support Services, Inc. brian@wimsey.com North Vancouver, B.C. 604 983 UNIX Platform and Brand Independent UNIX Support - R3.2 - R4 - BSD From list-managers-owner Mon Jan 13 10:53:27 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id KAA15840 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 13 Jan 1997 10:15:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from eebau.tibus.net (eebau.tibus.net [194.74.214.10]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id KAA15816 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 1997 10:14:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from eebau.tibus.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eebau.tibus.net (8.6.11/8.6.11) with ESMTP id SAA17793; Mon, 13 Jan 1997 18:17:14 GMT Message-Id: <199701131817.SAA17793@eebau.tibus.net> From: tony@tmtm.com (Tony Bowden) To: Martin Hamilton cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: PGP attachments (WAS: Re: funky list processors) In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 13 Jan 1997 16:23:35 GMT." <199701131623.QAA01811@gizmo.lut.ac.uk> X-URL: http://www.tmtm.com/ Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 18:17:12 +0000 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Martin Hamilton writes: >PS I'd like to do a quick straw poll of the subscribers to the list - >drop *me* a line if this message format is causing your software >problems. I don't want to know that your mail reader doesn't support >MIME, but it would be useful to know if there are particular "MIME >conformant" products which have problems with multipart/signed et al. Using MH, mime-configured, I still get: mhn: don't know how to display content (content multipart/signed in message 6) with your messages, and don't see either the message or the pgp-sig. Tony -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tony Bowden | tony@tmtm.com / t.bowden@qub.ac.uk / http://www.tmtm.com/ Belfast, NI | Pictures steal our memories and turn our minds to salt ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From list-managers-owner Mon Jan 13 14:26:25 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id NAA04609 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 13 Jan 1997 13:49:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail2.panix.com (mail2.panix.com [198.7.0.33]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id NAA04478 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 1997 13:49:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from [166.84.194.182] (nsbooks.dialup.access.net [166.84.194.182]) by mail2.panix.com (8.7.5/8.7.1/PanixM1.0) with ESMTP id QAA28904; Mon, 13 Jan 1997 16:46:52 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <9701111125.aa19804@pcusa01.ecunet.org> References: from "Jason L Tibbitts III" at Jan 10, 97 07:20:46 pm Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 16:32:19 -0500 To: "Merrill Cook" , tibbs@hpc.uh.edu (Jason L Tibbitts III) From: "Kent S. Larsen II" Subject: Re: PGP attachments (WAS: Re: funky list processors) Cc: stanr@sunspot.tiac.net, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 11:25 AM -0500 1/11/97, Merrill Cook wrote: >>From Jason L Tibbitts III: >> >> The messages I've seen have Content-Type application/pgp-signature as >> they're supposed to. The top level content-type is "multipart/signed" an= d >> all of the fields seem to be as 2015 requires. Why is your mailer showin= g >> this as text, or showing it at all if it can't deal with PGP? > >I don't know about anyone else, but my mail reader doesn't know one >Content-Type from another; it's all just MIME, and it tries to >show me the attachment. Maybe if everyone on the net had the most >up-to-date mail readers, this wouldn't be a problem. > >Mime-format Delivery notification is also a real pain with this >reader. Maybe you can suggest a mail reader that doesn't go into >slow motion and make me hit extra keystrokes for mime-encoded mail? >I have nothing better to do than find a new mail reader and >integrate it into my system. > >Also, is there supposed to be some way that mime-encoded delivery >notification messages are supposed to be parsable by a program? >I've seen about a dozen different flavors, and a program that >could parse them all would have to be incredibly complex, and >probably wouldn't be able to handle others I haven't seen. > > >-- > Regards, > > Merrill Cook > Louisville KY > mcook@pcusa.org or MERRILL COOK on Ecunet/PresbyNet > http://www.pcusa.org/pcusa.html > -+- Merrill, I assume you are on a unix system? I guess you also get your mail through some kind of terminal emulation (i.e., VT100), which makes the attachment show up as text included in the message. I think your situation is common. Many people with shell access using the default mailer provided by the system (you seem to be using elm) are faced with the same problem. Unfortunately, short of getting a better connection for your email (workind directly on a machine attached to the internet, for example), I don't think there is much you can do, unless you are technically inclined. Perhaps others can suggest an unix mail program that will at least indicate an attachment, rather than showing the text equivalent of the file, for mime types over a VT100 connection (If I haven't got this right, I still think the question is valid - what should they use, or how do they configure it, or where should the responsible list-owner point people for information on configuring the various mailers out there?) =46rom Kent Larsen , owner of Mormon-index, a weekly message containing announcements of Mormon internet resources. To subscribe, send an email message to majordomo@lists.panix.com, with "subscribe mormon-index" in the body of the message. Announcements should be sent to mormon-index@lists.panix.com From list-managers-owner Mon Jan 13 15:47:43 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id PAA11095 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 13 Jan 1997 15:14:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu (Sina.HPC.UH.EDU [129.7.3.5]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id PAA11084 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 1997 15:14:39 -0800 (PST) Received: (from tibbs@localhost) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) id RAA15876; Mon, 13 Jan 1997 17:14:33 -0600 (CST) To: tony@tmtm.com (Tony Bowden) Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: PGP attachments (WAS: Re: funky list processors) References: <199701131817.SAA17793@eebau.tibus.net> From: Jason L Tibbitts III Date: 13 Jan 1997 17:14:33 -0600 In-Reply-To: tony@tmtm.com's message of Mon, 13 Jan 1997 18:17:12 +0000 Message-ID: Lines: 18 X-Mailer: Red Gnus v0.80/Emacs 19.34 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >>>>> "TB" == Tony Bowden writes: TB> Using MH, mime-configured, I still get: TB> mhn: don't know how to display content (content multipart/signed in TB> message 6) Well, man mhn and add the extra types to your MH profile. MIME is supposed to be extensible. MH, like any MIME-capable reader worthy of use, can be taught new types. When MLMs start signing messages they pass on and start attaching things like subscription information to messages as additional MIME parts, we are going to run into many problems like this. Fortunately enough forethought was put into the whole design that users aren't dependent on up-to-the-minute software. - J< From list-managers-owner Mon Jan 13 19:59:46 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id TAA24894 for list-managers-outgoing; Mon, 13 Jan 1997 19:56:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from ng.netgate.net (ng.netgate.net [204.145.147.10]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id TAA24884 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 1997 19:56:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from [205.214.160.106] (d70.netgate.net [205.214.160.106]) by ng.netgate.net (8.8.4/8.6.9) with ESMTP id TAA07347; Mon, 13 Jan 1997 19:57:12 -0800 (PST) X-Sender: dcrocker@ng.netgate.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199701110052.TAA09827@panix2.panix.com> References: <2.2.32.19970110163806.00371210@pop.ma.ultranet.com> from "Stan Ryckman" at Jan 10, 97 11:38:06 am Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 18:39:41 -0800 To: Vicki Richman From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: Changing the DATE field Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 4:52 PM -0800 1/10/97, Vicki Richman wrote: >I was wondering whether there is a source at a higher level >than RFC 822 explaining when to use 'X-' and when not to use >it in user or list headers. Higher level? Such a thought! On the othr hand, perhaps you mean more readable? Possibly Marshal Rose's book, The Internet Letter (or message, or somesuch). But RFC822 invented X- and RFC 1123 didn't modify its use. >I agreed that "posted" is better English usage than >"original," but remain unsure on why the 'X-' was >deleted. RFC 822 suggests that the 'X-' should be there. You are never REQUIRED to use it. Add it is you want to make sure that a standard never comes along and takes it away from you. In this case, we actually INTEND the use to become standard, so leaving off the X- makes particular sense, here. d/ -------------------- Dave Crocker +1 408 246 8253 Brandenburg Consulting fax: +1 408 249 6205 675 Spruce Dr. dcrocker@brandenburg.com Sunnyvale CA 94086 USA http://www.brandenburg.com Internet Mail Consortium http://www.imc.org, info@imc.org From list-managers-owner Tue Jan 14 04:10:28 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id DAA25768 for list-managers-outgoing; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 03:23:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from gizmo.lut.ac.uk (gizmo.lut.ac.uk [158.125.96.46]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id DAA25761 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 03:23:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from mrrl.lut.ac.uk (martin@localhost.mrrl.lut.ac.uk [127.0.0.1]) by gizmo.lut.ac.uk (8.8.4/8.6.9) with ESMTP id LAA09825 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 11:22:47 GMT Message-Id: <199701141122.LAA09825@gizmo.lut.ac.uk> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0beta 12/23/96 To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Re[2]: PGP attachments (WAS: Re: funky list processors) X-Uri: In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 13 Jan 1997 09:44:56 PST." <199701131744.JAA08256@ilinx.ilinx.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_-1815480736P"; micalg=pgp-md5; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 11:22:40 +0000 From: Martin Hamilton Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk --==_Exmh_-1815480736P Content-Type: text/plain | There are a couple of problems with this currently. First there is no | really good PGP implementation which allows people to write nice utilities | for checking signatures and extracting the real message text. I understand that PGP version 3 should be usable as a library, which would make it (less non-)trivial to build PGP enabled applications. It'll be ready real soon now, apparently... :-) | Secondly, there is no really good infrastructure for looking up keys. I | can't even build a utility (back to the first point) which can easily go | get a key if my keyring doesn't have one. Things are improving in that department - the WWW key lookups are getting a lot faster, several folk are working on dedicated key lookup protocols, and in theory directory service protocols like LDAP and WHOIS++ could be used to look up PGP public keys (or X.509 certificates :-). It's a shame the big vendors have chosen to make such crippled products. Try the LDAP support in Netscape v4 or M$ Internet Mail - sheesh! In any case, the big problem is checking the signatures on a key, for which we probably need a bit more in the way of (yikes!) a certification infrastructure than we have at present ? | I find it more trouble that it's worth (although replying to this message | makes me a liar on that one) to run PGP just to read MIMEified PGP | messages. That's really the fault of my mailer and moreso the crappy PGP | implementation(s -- is there more than one) out there. Perhaps the problem with PGP is (like BIND, sendmail, ...) perhaps precisely that there is only the one (widely used?) implementation. Cheerio, Martin --==_Exmh_-1815480736P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE----- Version: 2.6.3i iQCVAwUBMttsedZdpXZXTSjhAQFNJAQAlxTp1QCQj6Sjato7/YoVUnZyKA71o4dk 0krxYzixom0yF5PbJQ0h+i5hsDa2fm2GSB/HFgdm1xKmeaI+vDOLXDzaIDAEgs/S kyBSAUUudguPxBALM4kR5cJ23NzWSbGgJaAxV6G6fy/wzADh6wLSO1BsDFslcPdz XBWs+floosk= =/6mL -----END PGP MESSAGE----- --==_Exmh_-1815480736P-- From list-managers-owner Tue Jan 14 08:15:18 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id IAA05933 for list-managers-outgoing; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 08:14:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from grolsch.cs.ubc.ca (grolsch.cs.ubc.ca [142.103.6.9]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id IAA05925 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 08:13:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from cs.ubc.ca (uucp@news.cs.ubc.ca [142.103.6.2]) by grolsch.cs.ubc.ca (8.8.3/8.6.9) with SMTP id IAA25469 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 08:13:44 -0800 (PST) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by cs.ubc.ca (8.6.9/8.6.9) id IAA27818 for List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 08:13:18 -0800 >Received: from mornir.gweep.bc.ca by edmonds.home.cs.ubc.ca (Sendmail 8.7.5) with SMTP id HAA27822; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 07:23:48 -0800 Received: from cs.ubc.ca by nnrp.cs.ubc.ca; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 08:13 PST Received: from mornir.gweep.bc.ca by edmonds.home.cs.ubc.ca (Sendmail 8.7.5) with SMTP id HAA27822; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 07:23:48 -0800 Received: (qmail 2371 invoked by uid 1180); 14 Jan 1997 15:23:37 -0000 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: PGP attachments (WAS: Re: funky list processors) X-Operating-System: Linux 2.0.0 #2 Fri Oct 11 18:52:27 PDT 1996 X-Geek: http://www.cs.ubc.ca/spider/edmonds/doc/geek.html X-Homepage: http://www.cs.ubc.ca/spider/edmonds X-PGP-Ox6E86B769: This key is obsolete, please discard it. X-PGP-Ox979D0B09: A9 3E 1E CB 86 09 B1 E9 3C 1A 0E F6 49 F9 5D 99 Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.92) boundary="pgp-sign-Multipart_Tue_Jan_14_07:23:37_1997-1"; micalg=pgp-md5 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: edmonds@cs.ubc.ca (Brian Edmonds) Date: 14 Jan 1997 07:23:37 -0800 In-Reply-To: "Brian J. Murrell"'s message of Mon, 13 Jan 1997 09:44:56 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <37zpycs2km.fsf@mornir.gweep.bc.ca> Lines: 53 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.2.40/XEmacs 19.14 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="pgp-sign-Multipart_Tue_Jan_14_07:23:37_1997-1"; micalg=pgp-md5 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk --pgp-sign-Multipart_Tue_Jan_14_07:23:37_1997-1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Brian J Murrell writes: > Secondly, there is no really good infrastructure for looking up keys. > I can't even build a utility (back to the first point) which can > easily go get a key if my keyring doesn't have one. Strange, mailcrypt under emacs has no problem at all with this. First it fingers the address to see if there's a key there, then it queries one of the WWW PGP servers for the key. I find this deals with the majority of cases quite transparently. > I find it more trouble that it's worth (although replying to this > message makes me a liar on that one) to run PGP just to read MIMEified > PGP messages. Why would you have to run PGP to read the message? You should only have to run it to verify the message, should you wish to do so. Unlike ascii armoured non-clearsigned messages, which you *do* need PGP to deal with, MIME encapsulated messages are completely readable with no extra tools. Kent S Larsen writes: > Perhaps others can suggest an unix mail program that will at least > indicate an attachment, rather than showing the text equivalent of the > file Gnus with TM (tools for mime) has absolutely no problem with this. Of course you have to use emacs, which is a bit of a learning curve, but I find emacs with viper mode (vi emulation) to be most excellent. Brian. PS: You're overquoting Kent, it's a bad example for a list owner to set. PPS: whoever has the mailer that's putting out the Re[N]: garbage in the subject, please shoot it. --pgp-sign-Multipart_Tue_Jan_14_07:23:37_1997-1 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE----- Version: 2.6.3i Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface iQCVAwUBMtuk+ZM3vmyXnQsJAQFw3QQAstREMJXnivsjZHDMZOfNegbwCsQkdcfw M3nkzanFP4fW/n347RV37leeeUV374/cjdG+mYbfs2qMpqPWrMqPSU+DEUwFtFoP qrPfG2aT/6yUaGNL92YbAzSTxroKsVzXnADtnvjw7vC9FFZvI4oX1hBx5iSI6uk6 OmlXhYVpunA= =Xz9P -----END PGP MESSAGE----- --pgp-sign-Multipart_Tue_Jan_14_07:23:37_1997-1-- From list-managers-owner Tue Jan 14 14:30:26 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id OAA26526 for list-managers-outgoing; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 14:11:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from ilinx.ilinx.com (ilinx.bctel.net [204.174.213.24]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id OAA26472 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 14:11:02 -0800 (PST) Received: (from brian@localhost) by ilinx.ilinx.com (8.8.3/8.8.3) id OAA30772; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 14:10:47 -0800 From: "Brian J. Murrell" Message-Id: <199701142210.OAA30772@ilinx.ilinx.com> Subject: Re: PGP attachments (WAS: Re: funky list processors) To: edmonds@cs.ubc.ca (Brian Edmonds) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 14:10:46 -0800 (PST) Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <37zpycs2km.fsf@mornir.gweep.bc.ca> from "Brian Edmonds" at Jan 14, 97 07:23:37 am X-Phone: '1 604 983 UNIX' Organization: 'InterLinx Support Services, Inc.' Content-Type: text Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk As enscripted by Brian Edmonds: > Strange, mailcrypt under emacs has no problem at all with this. First > it fingers the address to see if there's a key there, then it queries > one of the WWW PGP servers for the key. I find this deals with the > majority of cases quite transparently. Right. I have a tool which can get a key from a WWW server some of the time. I have not had time to debug it for re-write it. But it's just this that I'm talking about. No good tools to do this properly yet. > Why would you have to run PGP to read the message? You should only have > to run it to verify the message, should you wish to do so. Unlike ascii > armoured non-clearsigned messages, which you *do* need PGP to deal with, > MIME encapsulated messages are completely readable with no extra tools. That only works if your e-mail tool knows how to open up a message PGP-MIMED, show you the text part and ignore (or verify) the text part. Otherwise you have to set up your mailer to use something external to rip the parts apart, and writing and using that becomes more cumbersome than it's worth. Don't get me wrong. I like PGP, just hate the current set of tools for using it and hate even more that no new tools (or even better: API) are being made. b. -- Brian J. Murrell brian@ilinx.com InterLinx Support Services, Inc. brian@wimsey.com North Vancouver, B.C. 604 983 UNIX Platform and Brand Independent UNIX Support - R3.2 - R4 - BSD From list-managers-owner Tue Jan 14 14:33:58 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id OAA27424 for list-managers-outgoing; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 14:24:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from ilinx.ilinx.com (ilinx.bctel.net [204.174.213.24]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id OAA27400 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 14:24:38 -0800 (PST) Received: (from brian@localhost) by ilinx.ilinx.com (8.8.3/8.8.3) id OAA30876; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 14:19:26 -0800 From: "Brian J. Murrell" Message-Id: <199701142219.OAA30876@ilinx.ilinx.com> Subject: Re: Re[2]: PGP attachments (WAS: Re: funky list processors) To: martin@mrrl.lut.ac.uk (Martin Hamilton) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 14:19:26 -0800 (PST) Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <199701141122.LAA09825@gizmo.lut.ac.uk> from "Martin Hamilton" at Jan 14, 97 11:22:40 am X-Phone: '1 604 983 UNIX' Organization: 'InterLinx Support Services, Inc.' Content-Type: text Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk As enscripted by Martin Hamilton: > I understand that PGP version 3 should be usable as a library, which > would make it (less non-)trivial to build PGP enabled applications. It'll > be ready real soon now, apparently... :-) Been hearing that one since when, 1994? I've been to pgp.com just today. I'm not getting warm fuzzies yet. > Things are improving in that department - the WWW key lookups are > getting a lot faster, several folk are working on dedicated key lookup > protocols, and in theory directory service protocols like LDAP and > WHOIS++ could be used to look up PGP public keys (or X.509 > certificates :-). It's a shame the big vendors have chosen to make > such crippled products. Try the LDAP support in Netscape v4 or M$ > Internet Mail - sheesh! Writing programs to parse WWW output just to get a key is well... I wont get into that. Other protocols... How long have we had PGP now? Directory serv- ices. The great white hope. What a cinic I'm being today. I guess I'm just tired of PGP taking so long to be usable. S/MIME is going to stomp it at this rate. Which is not bad. I just want a standard WITH GOOD TOOLS. If S/MIME beats PGP, the so be it. b. -- Brian J. Murrell brian@ilinx.com InterLinx Support Services, Inc. brian@wimsey.com North Vancouver, B.C. 604 983 UNIX Platform and Brand Independent UNIX Support - R3.2 - R4 - BSD From list-managers-owner Tue Jan 14 17:03:16 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id QAA03982 for list-managers-outgoing; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 16:48:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from bos1b.delphi.com (bos1b.delphi.com [199.93.4.2]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id QAA03958 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 16:48:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from ip116.seattle3.wa.pub-ip.psi.net ("port 1044"@ip116.seattle3.wa.pub-ip.psi.net) by delphi.com (PMDF V5.0-7 #10880) id <01IE7R1F9B8091WS0I@delphi.com> for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 19:47:23 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 16:47:06 -0800 From: Booty Subject: "Somewhere there's a midget standing tall" To: Mailing List Managers Message-id: <01IE7R1GEKJM91WS0I@delphi.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1160 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk From list-managers-owner Wed Jan 15 17:26:47 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id QAA02716 for list-managers-outgoing; Wed, 15 Jan 1997 16:51:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (mycroft.greatcircle.com [198.102.244.35]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id QAA01596 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 1997 16:48:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by mycroft.GreatCircle.COM (8.6.10/SMI-4.1/Brent-961106) id OAA08935; Wed, 15 Jan 1997 14:55:53 -0800 Received: from netcom20.netcom.com(192.100.81.133) by mycroft via smap (V1.3mjr) id sma008929; Wed Jan 15 14:55:20 1997 Received: from localhost (arcie@localhost) by netcom20.netcom.com (8.6.13/Netcom) id PAA09531; Wed, 15 Jan 1997 15:54:18 -0700 Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 15:54:18 -0700 (MST) From: Randy Cassingham X-Sender: arcie@netcom20 Reply-To: Randy Cassingham To: List Managers List Subject: Urgent! AOP Alert 97:03 (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Passing this on -- as high-volume customers, list owners would surely be among the first groups of customers to suffer under this ill-formed proposal. / Randy Cassingham * Author, "This is True" * arcie@netcom.com \ | For info on What I Do, send a blank e-mail to TrueInfo@freecom.com | \ or check out * I promise you'll like it / + FIGHT SPAM! Send a blank e-mail to nospam@mailback.com for help! + ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 17:14:44 -0500 From: "aop@cris.com" To: AOP Members Subject: Urgent! AOP Alert 97:03 ============================================================= AOP Alert Wednesday, January 15, 1997 ============================================================= The following is a legislative alert from the Association of Online Professionals, the leading association of Internet Service Providers and other professionals who manage online services. Please give it the widest possible distribution: ============================================================= AOP Opposes Network Solutions ARIN Proposal ============================================================= This week, Network Solutions, Inc. proposed the formation of a new entity that would charge ISPs from $2,500 to $20,000 per year for registration of Internet IP addresses. This fee would be in addition to fees already charged for registration of domain names. Under the proposal, an American Registry for Internet Numbers would be created as a non-profit entity to collect the fees and assign the addresses. The new entity would replace the government- sponsored InterNIC IP group. Companies who wish to participate in policy-making as members of the group would pay an additional $1,000 per year. Information regarding the proposal may be found at http://www.arin.net. The Association of Online Professionals has serious concerns about the proposal, and urges all North American Internet service providers and their subscribers to oppose the measure until these concerns are addressed: ** There is no indication in the proposal as to why the fees are needed. ** The proposed non-profit has no published goals, mission or other information beyond its structure and fees. ** The fee structure will cost the industry millions of dollars, yet there is no information as to how the money will be spent or how it will benefit the Internet. ** The assertions that the fees would not affect subscribers are incorrect, as these fees would have to be passed on to consumers. ** The assertions that ISPs can afford the fees as a cost of doing business reflects a poor understanding of the current economics of Internet access services. The proposed fee structure would have a devastating effect on small ISPs as well as non- profit, hobbyist and public access providers. ** It is unclear under what authority Network Solutions would impose the fees. The Internet exists as a public resource, and as such should not be subjected to the arbitrary control of any small group of individuals or entities. AOP has generally supported efforts to bring organization and structure to the Internet, including the imposition of fees to cover the cost of assigning and maintaining domain names. However, AOP cannot support the current proposal until more information is provided and a meaningful dialogue established to ensure that the proposal is more than an attempt to wrest control of the Internet for a select group of self-proclaimed authorities. Please do the following immediately: 1) Contact InterNIC with a request that the proposal not be implemented. Send the comments to naipr@internic.net. 2) Urge your subscribers and business associates to reject the proposal. AOP will make every effort to obtain answers to the questions raised, and will strive for meaningful conversations with Network Solutions on these issues. If you have comments that would help us build a consensus for these discussions, please direct them to exec@aop.org. ====================================================================== Dave McClure (703) 924-9692 (703) 924-9594 Fax Executive Director (703) 264-1750 BBS Telnet aop.org Assn of Online Professionals http://www.aop.org info@aop.org ====================================================================== From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 16 12:31:35 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id LAA03042 for list-managers-outgoing; Thu, 16 Jan 1997 11:43:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from cinna.ultra.net (cinna.ultra.net [199.232.56.8]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id LAA03030 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 1997 11:43:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from voyager (d4.wal.ma.ultra.net [146.115.77.4]) by cinna.ultra.net (8.7.4/ult1.04) with SMTP id OAA11793 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 1997 14:42:10 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19970116194218.0032b248@pop.ma.ultranet.com> X-Sender: stanr@pop.ma.ultranet.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 14:42:18 -0500 To: list-managers From: Stan Ryckman Subject: Re: Netcom's dynamically changing addresses Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 02:09 PM 1/6/97 +0000, Michael C. Berch wrote: [stuff in terms of rewriting jane@ix4.netcom.com to jane@netcom.com] >Right. But it shouldn't matter what sort of random cruft Pegasus (or >any other client mailer) sticks in the From: line; when the Netcom >mail relay processes it, it should rewrite the From: line to a >canonical form. That's trivial, and most ISPs seem to do that. They need to do it *carefully*. For example, I'm frequently (as now) sending mail "From: stanr@sunspot.tiac.net" but actually sending it from another account "stanr@ma.ultranet.com", and I *don't* want it rewritten to show that. People with two or more accounts frequently do this. (Another header such as "X-Sender:" is added here, so it's not forged, but mailers won't respond to it either, which is what I want.) I'm not sure that most ISP's do any rewriting rather than just supplying "From:" when the user's MUA leaves it absent. >> The solution for them was to use the Pegasus "advanced configuration >> options" and tell Pegasus what their "From" address is (and to use it >> in the SMTP envelope), so that Pegasus doesn't auto-generate the >> From: address. LISTSERV uses "From:" rather than the SMTP "MAIL FROM". I don't know about other MLM's. >It would seem that their support burden would be greatly lessened if >they just fixed their mail relays to take care of this, instead of >trying to support every !~@#$% PC mailer out there. But this is >Netcom we are talking about here, who is not exactly known for their >cluefulness. Well, unfortunately, in terms of the RFC's, nobody is "broken" -- all "comply" since jane@ix4.netcom.com is a replyable address. Thus, laying blame isn't so clear. Perhaps the real problem is MLM software which has been assuming that all messages from the same person will always have the same "From:" header. Nothing in the RFC's require that. Even slightly clever MLM software could allow subscriptions of the form: jane@([-.a-z0-9]+\.|)netcom\.com (I am using regexp notation as in procmail or egrep, not implying that subscribers need to "see" it). This would match jane@netcom.com, jane@foo-1.bar-2.netcom.com, but not jane@notnetcom.com, for example. This would not be an expensive check, since it applies only once per incoming message to a list, *not* to all the outgoing addresses. Cheers, Stan From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 16 12:53:17 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id LAA03026 for list-managers-outgoing; Thu, 16 Jan 1997 11:43:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from netcom23.netcom.com (netcom23.netcom.com [192.100.81.137]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with SMTP id LAA02993 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 1997 11:42:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (arcie@localhost) by netcom23.netcom.com (8.6.13/Netcom) id MAA05942; Thu, 16 Jan 1997 12:41:31 -0700 Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 12:41:30 -0700 (MST) From: Randy Cassingham X-Sender: arcie@netcom23 Reply-To: Randy Cassingham To: List Managers List Subject: AOP Alert 97:03 Update (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Just passing along the update... / Randy Cassingham * Author, "This is True" * arcie@netcom.com \ | For info on What I Do, send a blank e-mail to TrueInfo@freecom.com | \ or check out * I promise you'll like it / + FIGHT SPAM! Send a blank e-mail to nospam@mailback.com for help! + ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 10:24:36 -0500 From: "aop@cris.com" To: AOP Members Subject: AOP Alert 97:03 Update In our alert of yesterday regarding the ARIN proposal to charge for Internet IP Addresses, we noted that comments were invited at the following e-mail address: >>Comments are welcome and should be posted to naipr@internic.net.<< Please note that this is a list serv, and that you will not be able to post comments until you first subscribe as follows: >> To subscribe, send mail to listserv@internic.net with SUBSCRIBE NAIPR in the body. << We apologize for the inconvenience. Please note this information when you post this notice for others. A corrected alert follows in its entirety: ============================================================= AOP Alert Wednesday, January 15, 1997 ============================================================= The following is a legislative alert from the Association of Online Professionals, the leading association of Internet Service Providers and other professionals who manage online services. Please give it the widest possible distribution: ============================================================= AOP Opposes Network Solutions ARIN Proposal ============================================================= This week, Network Solutions, Inc. proposed the formation of a new entity that would charge ISPs from $2,500 to $20,000 per year for registration of Internet IP addresses. This fee would be in addition to fees already charged for registration of domain names. Under the proposal, an American Registry for Internet Numbers would be created as a non-profit entity to collect the fees and assign the addresses. The new entity would replace the government- sponsored InterNIC IP group. Companies who wish to participate in policy-making as members of the group would pay an additional $1,000 per year. Information regarding the proposal may be found at http://www.arin.net. The Association of Online Professionals has serious concerns about the proposal, and urges all North American Internet service providers and their subscribers to oppose the measure until these concerns are addressed: ** There is no indication in the proposal as to why the fees are needed. ** The proposed non-profit has no published goals, mission or other information beyond its structure and fees. ** The fee structure will cost the industry millions of dollars, yet there is no information as to how the money will be spent or how it will benefit the Internet. ** The assertions that the fees would not affect subscribers are incorrect, as these fees would have to be passed on to consumers. ** The assertions that ISPs can afford the fees as a cost of doing business reflects a poor understanding of the current economics of Internet access services. The proposed fee structure would have a devastating effect on small ISPs as well as non- profit, hobbyist and public access providers. ** It is unclear under what authority Network Solutions would impose the fees. The Internet exists as a public resource, and as such should not be subjected to the arbitrary control of any small group of individuals or entities. AOP has generally supported efforts to bring organization and structure to the Internet, including the imposition of fees to cover the cost of assigning and maintaining domain names. However, AOP cannot support the current proposal until more information is provided and a meaningful dialogue established to ensure that the proposal is more than an attempt to wrest control of the Internet for a select group of self-proclaimed authorities. Please do the following immediately: 1) Contact InterNIC with a request that the proposal not be implemented. Comments are being taken only on the Internic listserv. To make comments, you must first join the listserv by sending mail to listserv@internic.net with SUBSCRIBE NAIPR in the body. You may then post comments to naipr@internic.net. 2) Urge your subscribers and business associates to reject the proposal. AOP will make every effort to obtain answers to the questions raised, and will strive for meaningful conversations with Network Solutions on these issues. If you have comments that would help us build a consensus for these discussions, please direct them to exec@aop.org. ====================================================================== Dave McClure (703) 924-9692 (703) 924-9594 Fax Executive Director (703) 264-1750 BBS Telnet aop.org Assn of Online Professionals http://www.aop.org info@aop.org ====================================================================== From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 16 15:24:25 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id PAA25359 for list-managers-outgoing; Thu, 16 Jan 1997 15:12:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu (Sina.HPC.UH.EDU [129.7.3.5]) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.4/Miles-960830-1) with ESMTP id PAA25334 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 1997 15:12:11 -0800 (PST) Received: (from tibbs@localhost) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) id RAA19340; Thu, 16 Jan 1997 17:11:09 -0600 (CST) To: list-managers Subject: Re: Netcom's dynamically changing addresses References: <2.2.32.19970116194218.0032b248@pop.ma.ultranet.com> From: Jason L Tibbitts III Date: 16 Jan 1997 17:11:09 -0600 In-Reply-To: Stan Ryckman's message of Thu, 16 Jan 1997 14:42:18 -0500 Message-ID: Lines: 31 X-Mailer: Red Gnus v0.81/Emacs 19.34 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >>>>> "SR" == Stan Ryckman writes: SR> Perhaps the real problem is MLM software which has been assuming that SR> all messages from the same person will always have the same "From:" SR> header. Right. It shouldn't do that, but because it is in general completely impossible to define the set of equivalency classes for email address the software has no other choice. I have been working on a system (for Majordomo) which, in addition to allowing subscribers to specify aliases for themselves for purposes of list membership checks, transforms addresses into a canonical form for purposes of determining equivalency. The administrator/list owner can add to these as new systems are discovered. It's just a set of Perl regexp transforms applied to the stripped address: s/(.*)(+.*)?\@(.*)/$1\@$3/i; # Strip address+maildrop notation s/(.*)\@.*(ix.netcom.com)$/$1\@$2/i # Netcom doesn't masquerade (Yes, it looks like line noise. Suggestions for a more useful syntax that could be compiled into regexps are appreciated.) This is essentially an extension of Majordomo's mungedomain function, which while useful just makes too many addresses equivalent when they aren't. The real problem with doing this kind of thing is figuring out all of the transforms. You only have to catch the major perpetrators and deal with additional problem subscribers as they come up. The local administrator could add the necessary transforms for their site, which would probably cover most subscribers. - J< From list-managers-owner Thu Jan 16 15:55:41 1997 Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.7.1-lists/Lists-960417-1) id PAA27830 for list-managers-outgoing; Thu, 16 Jan 199