** Sometime around 20:12 -0600 11/02/2000, Alan S. Harrell said: >On 2 Nov 2000, 17:58, Adam Bailey wrote: > > On 11/2/00 3:52 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote... > > > > >LEAVE Parents didn't raise you right, did they, Peter? > > Does that mean I can't make fun of this guy because his message was > > confidential? We appear to have been the intended recipients (?), so it looks like it's fair game. >I've seen this disclaimer a few times before from subscribers on my >lists and others. One subscriber told me that his employer put that on >every outgoing message and he had no control over it. Yep, I can confirm that there are employers who do that. Law firms appear to be especially fond of the practice (law firms doing something utterly inane; imagine that). >Whether or not you find it offensive or in your case, grist for the >humor mill, you have to admit it is a little wasteful, bandwidth-wise. If it shuts down the to-HTML-or-not-to-HTML thread, I'm all for it. Might even consider getting Pete back on the list, just so he can leave every time another rhetorical topic comes up. Speaking of which, anyone have the URL for the reply-to-munging-considered-life-threatening page? I was describing it to a particular list server developer, and he didn't believe that the page was for real. I want him to see for himself. >I think were it ever to become prevalent on my lists, I might consider >bouncing those messages. IMO, you'd be setting the bar for entry a little high. I try to tune the filters to block only those things that the user has control over -- such as long signatures (of the voluntary variety) and poor quoting practices. But to each his own. After all, there's a reason that there are many different lists -- and many different list owners. <g> __________________________________________________________________________ Vince Sabio Got Bounces? <http://www.smartbounce.com/> [EMAIL PROTECTED] Got Jokes? <http://www.humournet.com/> Got Spam? <http://www.cauce.org/>
