It could be worth addressing this legislatively. I think it should usually be
sufficient if the message is sent to and received by a reasonably large subset
of players; but I don’t think it should be a public message if the sender
_knows_ that a reasonably large subset will _not_ receive the message due to
reasons specific to the manner in which the sender is sending the message.
My suggestion would be to amend Rule 478 to add the language in capital letters
below:
> A public message is a message sent via a public forum THAT IS PROMPTLY
> CONVEYED TO AND RECEIVED BY A REASONABLY LARGE SUBSET OF THE PERSONS
> SUBSCRIBED TO THAT FORUM, or sent to all players and containing a clear
> designation of intent to be public. THE PRIOR SENTENCE NOTWITHSTANDING, A
> MESSAGE IS NOT A PUBLIC MESSAGE IF THE SENDER KNOWS OR REASONABLY SHOULD KNOW
> THAT, BECAUSE OF CIRCUMSTANCES SPECIFIC TO THE MANNER IN WHICH THAT MESSAGE
> IS SENT, THE MESSAGE WILL NOT BE PROMPTLY RECEIVED BY A REASONABLY LARGE
> SUBSET OF THE PERSONS SUBSCRIBED TO THE FORUM (IF IT IS SENT VIA A PUBLIC
> FORUM) OR OF THE PLAYERS TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED (IF IT IS SENT TO ALL
> PLAYERS CONTAINING A CLEAR DESIGNATION OF INTENT TO BE PUBLIC).
> On May 16, 2019, at 2:19 AM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
>
> CFJ 1905 specified that a "reasonably large subset" of the people
> subscribed to the forum must receive the message. Recent practice
> appears to have been more along the lines of "most, but not
> necessarily all", based on my personal recollection. I'm not going to
> call a CFJ at the moment, but if someone else wants to they should
> feel free.
>
> -Aris
>
>> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 10:59 PM Alexis Hunt wrote:
>>
>> Seems we forgot to filter this list.
>>
>> Assuming the rules regarding public fora haven't changed, there is precedent
>> going back at least a decade that messages to public fora are public, even
>> if only some subset of players receive them. The solution is to make an
>> unreliable forum non-Public.
>>
>>> On Wed., May 15, 2019, 23:41 Aris Merchant,
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I think we have to consider any of the non-compliant messages as failing
>>> the standards necessary for a published message, since many players appear
>>> to be unable to receive them. The fact that the blame lies with the
>>> policies of the sender’s server is especially relevant. There’s a CFJ
>>> somewhere that supports this interpretation (specifically, it stated that a
>>> message could not be considered published unless enough of those signed up
>>> for the forum received it), although I don’t have time to find it at the
>>> moment.
>>>
>>> -Aris
>>>
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 8:07 PM James Cook wrote:
I didn't receive it either. Also, GMail shows a big warning above this
reply from D. Margaux, saying:
"Be careful with this message
Gmail could not verify that it actually came from
dmargaux...@gmail.com. Avoid clicking links, downloading attachments
or replying with personal information."
It may have something to do with DMARC as AIS523 suggests. I remember
seeing this on at least one other email from D. Margaux, and I think
it was also a reply to something from Murphy, but it could be a
coincidence.
> On Wed, 15 May 2019 at 20:13, D. Margaux wrote:
>
> Didn’t get it in inbox or junk folder...
>
>>> On May 15, 2019, at 4:00 PM, "ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk"
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 2019-05-15 at 07:43 -0700, Edward Murphy wrote:
>>> Test
>>
>> This went straight to my junk email folder. It did get through, though.
>>
>> --
>> ais523
>>
>> ___
>> Agora mailing list
>> ag...@listserver.tue.nl
>> https://listserver.tue.nl/mailman/listinfo/agora
> ___
> Agora mailing list
> ag...@listserver.tue.nl
> https://listserver.tue.nl/mailman/listinfo/agora
___
Agora mailing list
ag...@listserver.tue.nl
https://listserver.tue.nl/mailman/listinfo/agora
> ___
> Agora mailing list
> ag...@listserver.tue.nl
> https://listserver.tue.nl/mailman/listinfo/agora
