On January 16, 2019 at 00:04 jo...@iecc.com (John Levine) wrote:
> > > Sudden plot-twist!
> > >
> > > A small elite group of NANOG participants have been using stenographic
> > > forms of
> > > encryption in the messages all along!�
> >
> >Did you mean steganographic?
>
> No,
You're way too close to the truth. The steganographic code is based on
typos. (bit rate is rather shit)
Now you must be Elluminated
On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 9:06 PM John Levine wrote:
> > > Sudden plot-twist!
> > >
> > > A small elite group of NANOG participants have been using
> > Sudden plot-twist!
> >
> > A small elite group of NANOG participants have been using stenographic
> > forms of
> > encryption in the messages all along!�
>
>Did you mean steganographic?
No, stenographic, like, you know, double rot13.
R's,
John
On January 15, 2019 at 13:58 clinton.mie...@gmail.com (cosmo) wrote:
> Sudden plot-twist!
>
> A small elite group of NANOG participants have been using stenographic forms
> of
> encryption in the messages all along!
Did you mean steganographic?
I only ask because someone might learn
On 1/15/19 5:16 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 5:07 PM Aled Morris via NANOG
> wrote:
Please don't post empty messages to the NANOG list.
--
Bryan Fields
727-409-1194 - Voice
http://bryanfields.net
On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 5:07 PM Aled Morris via NANOG
wrote:
> You can hide your secret message by writing:
>
> dash dash space return
>
> Followed by your message.
>
> It’ll be hidden from all but the Internet illuminati
>
>
--
is that true?
> Aled
>
>
> On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 at 22:00, cosmo
You can hide your secret message by writing:
dash dash space return
Followed by your message.
It’ll be hidden from all but the Internet illuminati
Aled
On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 at 22:00, cosmo wrote:
> Sudden plot-twist!
>
> A small elite group of NANOG participants have been using
Sudden plot-twist!
A small elite group of NANOG participants have been using stenographic
forms of encryption in the messages all along!
On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 1:06 PM Bryan Fields wrote:
> On 1/15/19 12:24 AM, b...@theworld.com wrote:
> > I'd like to go on record as saying that I PREFER
On 1/15/19 12:24 AM, b...@theworld.com wrote:
> I'd like to go on record as saying that I PREFER top-posting.
It's like having an @aol.com address.
--
Bryan Fields
727-409-1194 - Voice
http://bryanfields.net
Warning —top posting also with interspersed comments.
<— that’s a thumbs up
> On Jan 15, 2019, at 1:36 PM, b...@theworld.com wrote:
>
>
> Re: Top Posting
>
> To me it depends on whether there's any chance the reader won't know
> what precisely you're responding to in which case in-line is
On Jan 15, 2019, at 1:06 PM, John Levine wrote:
>
> By the way, have you changed and memorized all your passwords for this
> month yet?
No, I do not follow a predictable rhythm in changing passwords. Some change
frequently, some change infrequently.
I only remember my login password, my
On 01/15/2019 11:37 AM, b...@theworld.com wrote:
P.S. No, you already read the quoted text, that's how it got to be
quoted text.
Are you making reference to having read the quoted text in a different
email?
An email that someone might not have received, much less read yet?
--
Grant. . .
On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 02:23:48PM -0500, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> Without reading further... which of your recent postings is this a reply to?
> Obviously you already know, because you said you don't need to see the
> text to know the context...
Gentlemen, this is getting petty. Perhaps
On Tue, 2019-01-15 at 00:24 -0500, b...@theworld.com wrote:
> I'd like to go on record as saying that I PREFER top-posting.
>
> Why dig through what you've already read to see the new comments?
Because in long discussion threads, you lose the context to exactly
what a particular person is
Without reading further... which of your recent postings is this a reply to?
Obviously you already know, because you said you don't need to see the
text to know the context...
Nope, it wasn't the one about how things became quoted text.
On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 13:36:38 -0500,
On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 10:37 AM wrote:
> To me it depends on whether there's any chance the reader won't know
> what precisely you're responding to in which case in-line is
> warranted.
In a one-to-one private email you can reasonably assume that either
the recipient is familiar with the chain
On January 15, 2019 at 00:40 valdis.kletni...@vt.edu (valdis.kletni...@vt.edu)
wrote:
> A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
P.S. No, you already read the quoted text, that's how it got to be
quoted text.
--
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die|
Re: Top Posting
To me it depends on whether there's any chance the reader won't know
what precisely you're responding to in which case in-line is
warranted.
I don't have any quoted text in this msg (is that top posting?), is
anyone lost?
THE REAL REASON for my responding at all is because
On 1/15/19 8:03 AM, Tom Beecher wrote:
> No disrespect intended to anyone at all, but the pissing and moaning about
> it is a massive waste of time and energy.
But, but, but...most water-cooler conversation is about sports, the
opposite sex, and pissing and moaning about what you don't like.
> > Why must there be a hard rule about top posting?
It is my belief that whether to 'top post' or 'bottom post' may
largely depend on the characteristics of the medium.
In USENET, bottom posting was preferred because messages often
arrived out of order, and occasionally did not arrive at all,
On 1/14/19 9:40 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> I'm not away of any languages or writing systems that work from
> bottom to top, so that's pretty much everybody.
Typography for at least one pictograph-based language allows for, um,
interesting stunts one can pull to spice up gray matter.
Email for personal use is turning rare. And people need to use *bold*
in text more than not. So most clients are configured to send html by
default, and people have no reasons to change that.
I think LISTSERV software used to require plain text to send commands
like subscribe, but I think they
On 01/14/2019 10:24 PM, b...@theworld.com wrote:
I'd like to go on record as saying that I PREFER top-posting.
To each his / her own preference.
Why dig through what you've already read to see the new comments?
So that the comments are in context (item followed by comment about
item) of
Why must there be a hard rule about top posting?
If the replied to message(s) comprise a long logical sequence, the OCD among us
experience cognitive dissonance if the order is “un-natural”. Thus bottom
posting continues the “natural” sequence and makes life easier for many of us
who otherwise
And just imagine what email threading might be like today ...
... if early email clients had defaulted to displaying the *bottom* of the
thread (as if you'd scrolled there).
Thoughtful UX design matters.
--
Royce Williams
Tech Solvency
On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 8:39 PM wrote:
> A: Because it
On 1/14/19 11:40 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> And if people trimmed the
> quoted material so only the parts being replied to are left, there's not much
> digging involved.
That would really be nice, but people are inherintly lazy and will
not invest the few seconds to make reading
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
And now you're sitting here wondering what possible relevance that might have
to some line or other - the only
I'd like to go on record as saying that I PREFER top-posting.
Why dig through what you've already read to see the new comments?
Actually in an ideal world previous included bits would be links which
could optionally be expanded via one shared remote copy but lo I
wander.
You should try some
On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 3:52 PM John Levine wrote:
> In article fa0eo8znihuta1m9ac...@mail.gmail.com> you write:
> >
> >Isn't the underlying assumption with non-plaintext that: "I know what will
> >work better for you than you do" ...
>
> No, it's that every MUA in the world has handled html
In article
you write:
>
>Isn't the underlying assumption with non-plaintext that: "I know what will
>work better for you than you do" ...
No, it's that every MUA in the world has handled html mail for a decade
and it's a waste of time to piss into the wind.
I send most of my mail as
/me gestures at this thread
If you needed more reason that NANOG might not be the place to discuss email
issues at any higher level than port numbers, this is it.
(I especially liked the "I use plain text everywhere!" message sent as HTML).
mailop lives at the perpetually-TLS-challenged
On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 12:12:34PM -0500, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> Isn't the underlying assumption with non-plaintext that: "I know what will
> work better for you than you do"
I suspect that the increasing use of very long lines in the expectation
that the recipient's mail client will wrap
> Isn't the underlying assumption with non-plaintext that: "I know what
> will work better for you than you do"
as i said in the '90s, mime, a syntax for encoding incompatibility.
> (comic-sans, colors, contrasting...)
hey! if it will do magenta comic sans, i may have to recant! :)
randy
On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 11:58 AM Randy Bush wrote:
> >> People use plain-text e-mail on purpose?
> > Yes.
>
> only if you want other people to be able to read it
>
Isn't the underlying assumption with non-plaintext that: "I know what will
work better for you than you do"
(comic-sans, colors,
On Sun, Jan 13, 2019 at 01:50:58PM -0600, Mike Hammett wrote:
> People use plain-text e-mail on purpose?
Yes.
James R. Cutler
james.cut...@consultant.com
GPG keys: hkps://hkps.pool.sks-keyservers.net
Haha nice troll
--
J. Hellenthal
The fact that there's a highway to Hell but only a stairway to Heaven says a
lot about anticipated traffic volume.
> On Jan 13, 2019, at 14:01, Christoffer Hansen
> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On 13/01/2019 20:57, Brian Kantor wrote:
>> Are you trying to start
nt: Sunday, January 13, 2019 2:01:20 PM
Subject: Re: plaintext email?
On 13/01/2019 20:57, Brian Kantor wrote:
> Are you trying to start another flame war?
I certainly hope to avoid this discussion currently!
(back to 1) @NETFLIX: Anybody willing to listen to previous stated
comment an
On 13/01/2019 20:57, Brian Kantor wrote:
> Are you trying to start another flame war?
I certainly hope to avoid this discussion currently!
(back to 1) @NETFLIX: Anybody willing to listen to previous stated
comment and take action on it?
- Christoffer
signature.asc
Description:
On Sun, Jan 13, 2019 at 01:50:58PM -0600, Mike Hammett wrote:
> People use plain-text e-mail on purpose?
Are you trying to start another flame war?
But to answer your question, yes.
- Brian
39 matches
Mail list logo
