Richard,
Is there any way to have the from field on non-member submissions be
that of the original sender?
This would help those of us who filter people like El.
On Fri, 2 Jul 1999 03:51:21 -0400 (EDT), "Richard J. Sexton"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Non-member submission from [Eberhard W Lisse
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
>>Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 01:10:05 -0400 (EDT)
>>
>>>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Jul 2 01:10:04 1999
>>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Received: from elch.de.uu.net (elch.de.uu.net [192.76.144.55])
>> by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34B8FF00C
>> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 01:10:03 -0400 (EDT)
>>Received: from ac.lisse.na (pec-9.au1.sb.uunet.de [149.228.12.9]:4728)
>> by elch.de.uu.net with ESMTP (5.65+:003/3.0.2)
>> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> id HAA26733; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 07:03:04 +0200 (MET DST)
>>Received: from ac (ac [127.0.0.1])
>> by ac.lisse.na (Postfix) with ESMTP
>> id 44BA87A057; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 23:16:20 +0200 (CEST)
>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Subject: Re: [IFWP] AU turns ISPs into Netcops
>>In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 01 Jul 1999 20:55:19 GMT."
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>X-face:
>4/$83U}~dPclG58D@9ZT@f%R;U+U_|zEGWiJ;_O+Fp?qX}$i00hWYpU9iV-HlNx+E.|pZ|9|uk^*8rlfpj)B!=b`~{&$=0>;;.Qwj^M5n4E6ImH!5#gz.[;}4n8ZV%i.m!Z[T
>>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 23:16:19 +0300
>>From: Eberhard W Lisse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>>Willie,
>>
>>and you thought I had gone, eh?
>>
>>Why don't you do us all a favour and get lost?
>>
>>el
>>
>>In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Willie whined:
>>> On Thu, 01 Jul 1999 04:56:25 +0100, Jeff Williams
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> >William and all,
>>> >
>>> > William, something you left out of your selection of Excerpts here
>>> >is the amendment to the Australian bill regarding offensive content.
>>> >I am providing it here for clarification purposes. It sort of puts this
>>> >very good bill in it's proper perspective.
>>> >
>>> >"For instance, a last-minute amendment to the
>>> > law called for "recognized alternative
>>> > access-prevention arrangements." The
>>> > association lobbied heavily for the amendment,
>>> > which could give ISPs a way to satisfy their
>>> > legal obligations by offering their subscribers
>>> > filtering software, or by offering different levels
>>> >of
>>> > commercial service based on varying amounts of
>>> > content filtering at the ISP level, Coroneos said.
>>> > How this would work in practice has yet to be
>>> > defined. "
>>> >
>>> > So as everyone can see clearly this law is not all that bad in
>>> >reality, although a bit unecessary...
>>> >
>>>
>>> *sigh* you also leave out the part where they say that this may end
>>> up not being acceptable to the board who will oversee this, and that
>>> this is just a loose interpretation.
>>>
>>> So why don't you try putting yourself into "proper perspective."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> William X. Walsh
>>> General Manager, DSo Internet Services
>>> Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax:(209) 671-7934
>>>
>>> "The fact is that domain names are new and have unique
>>> characteristics, and their status under the law is not yet clear."=20
>>> --Kent Crispin (June 29th, 1999)
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
--
William X. Walsh
General Manager, DSo Internet Services
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax:(209) 671-7934
"The fact is that domain names are new and have unique
characteristics, and their status under the law is not yet clear."
--Kent Crispin (June 29th, 1999)
