At 12:35 12-12-2002 -0800, Nick Arnett wrote:
Such as? I know that Outlook, Eudora and Hotmail show the From: header
(name *and* e-mail address), and IIRC so does Netscape. Come to think of
it, it would be rather strange for an e-mail client to not tell you who
sent you a message.
Outlook
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Marvin Long, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Verzonden: Geen
Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Onderwerp: Re: Official Statement
IMO, an offlist offense that a) targets the server itself, or b) targets
the membership of the list via bcc and/or forged headers, etc
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
As for forging headers by changing the Reply-To address, I
don't consider
that an offense; the return address is clearly visible in the
From: field
of the incoming message as
On Thu, 12 Dec 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One still needs to consider whether the off-list activity would constitute
an offense. FREX, sending messages off-list because one is not allowed to
post on-list would not necessarily be an offense (IMO, that would depend
more on the content than
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
Behalf Of Jon Gabriel
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 10:39 AM
...
Nick, where and why would forging headers be outlawed? I'm not
exactly up
on net law, but this is the first I've heard of it? Have there
At 05:41 12-12-2002 -0800, Nick Arnett wrote:
__
As for forging headers by changing the Reply-To address, I don't
consider that an offense; the return address is clearly visible in the
From: field of the incoming message
). For example, when I opened your message in Hotmail, I
got the following on my screen:
From: Jon Gabriel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Official Statement
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 13:39:00 -0500
Your message
Jeroen Defense lawyer van
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
Behalf Of J. van Baardwijk
...
Baloney. Setting Reply-To to an address for which you don't have
permission *is* wrong and illegal in those places where forging headers
has been outlawed. And your supporting
Marvin said:
Thank goodness for flexible mail filters, then.
I was tricked by my filters several times. I'm used to thinking that
anything in my Brin-L folder is from this list, but I was filtering on
the To: field and ran into problems when Jeroen was sending to the
Brin-L address and BCCing
Nick Arnett wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
Behalf Of Jon Gabriel
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 10:39 AM
...
Nick, where and why would forging headers be outlawed? I'm not
exactly up
on net law, but this is the first
At 06:43 PM 12/10/02 -0800, Nick Arnett wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
Behalf Of J. van Baardwijk
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 11:46 AM
...
I must disagree with this. Off-list offenses are a private matter between
the sender and the recipient, and therefore
At 18:57 09-12-2002 -0600, Marvin Long wrote:
Formal statements of apology or reformed intent should not be required for
mere on-list etiquette offenses, at least not for first or second offenses.
(Off-list offenses that go beyond breaches of etiquette may be quite another
matter, however.)
I
From: J. van Baardwijk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
I hereby offer my sincere apologies for my part in all this
mess and for the disturbance it caused
I'm a little late in chiming in here but I'd just like to say:
WAHHH-H
I've been trying to talk some people into joining the list and
At 08:45 PM 12/10/02 +0100, J. van Baardwijk wrote:
At 18:57 09-12-2002 -0600, Marvin Long wrote:
(Attempting the same thing over and over again while expecting different
results is the definition of insanity, someone said.)
As someone who gets paid to solve problems that are related to M$
On Tue, 10 Dec 2002, J. van Baardwijk wrote:
At 18:57 09-12-2002 -0600, Marvin Long wrote:
Formal statements of apology or reformed intent should not be required for
mere on-list etiquette offenses, at least not for first or second offenses.
(Off-list offenses that go beyond breaches of
On Sat, 7 Dec 2002, Nick Arnett wrote:
Jeroen:
I hereby request that the listowners restore my posting privileges to the
list, and without moderation.
Done.
Yay! (I know, I'm a bit late. I was out of town.) Mail filters are
down...now! :-)
Marvin Long
Austin, Texas
Bush, Cheney,
J. van Baardwijk wrote:
I must have done something wrong somewhere along the way... :-)
You don't have to keep apologising again and again. Try stopping these
repetitive posts.
HUGE GRIN
Regards, Ray.
___
At 01:49 08-12-2002 -0500, you wrote:
I think codifying The Rules only invites people to skirt them, and
to be honest I think that is pretty much what you attempted to do. You
argue like a defense lawyer about what is right and what is wrong, when
it is really a pretty simple thing for most
At 22:32 08-12-2002 +1100, Ray Ludenia wrote:
I must have done something wrong somewhere along the way... :-)
You don't have to keep apologising again and again. Try stopping these
repetitive posts.
HUGE GRIN
That was not an apology, that was an observation. :-)
Jeroen Gotta explain
J. van Baardwijk wrote:
I must agree with Jon; I think that there really should be some document
that at least states a few basic things such as:
- what kinds of behaviour will not be accepted
- what steps can/will be taken in case something unacceptable happens
- if sanctions are taken
- Original Message -
From: Jon Gabriel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2002 12:49 AM
Subject: RE: Official Statement
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On Behalf Of Robert Seeberger
Sent: Saturday, December 07, 2002 7:34 PM
Jeroen van Baardwijk wrote:
I also urge the list to discuss the matter of list policy, so that we
can reach a list-wide agreement on what behaviour will and will not be
tolerated, and what steps should be taken if and when something happens
that this list deems unacceptable. IMHO, only a clear
At 11:32 08-12-2002 -0500, Kat Feete wrote:
I also urge the list to discuss the matter of list policy, so that we
can reach a list-wide agreement on what behaviour will and will not be
tolerated, and what steps should be taken if and when something happens
that this list deems unacceptable.
Ray Ludenia wrote:
I must have done something wrong somewhere along the way... :-)
You don't have to keep apologising again and again. Try stopping these
repetitive posts.
HUGE GRIN
I know you weren't but serious do you think posting repetitive
messages is such a bad behaviour that those
At 20:13 07-12-2002 -0500, William Taylor wrote:
What does the winner get for the magic numbered post?
The usual prize: a free one-year subscription to Brin-L. But as this is a
special occassion, we'll throw in a bonus prize: a 50% discount on the exit
fee if the winner leaves Brin-L within
Jeroen said:
I hereby request that the listowners restore my posting privileges to
the list, and without moderation.
For what it's worth, I'd support this action.
Rich
GCU Can We Just Put It All Behind Us?
___
Richard opined:
Jeroen said:
I hereby request that the listowners restore my posting privileges
to
the list, and without moderation.
For what it's worth, I'd support this action.
Rich
GCU Can We Just Put It All Behind Us?
I wouldn't support it without some assurances that there would
Adam said:
I wouldn't support it without some assurances that there would be a
change in behavior, specifically the personal attacks and the posting
of personal information to the web. Oh, and attempts to hack the
server.
The message to which I was replying appeared in my Brin-L folder so I
Richard forwarded:
To my fellow Brinellers,
I hereby offer my sincere apologies for my part in all this mess and
for
the disturbance it caused, and I also offer my sincere apologies to
Nick
for trying to gain access to his server. I promise that I will do
everything within my capabilities
- Original Message -
From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, December 07, 2002 5:48 PM
Subject: Official Statement
To my fellow Brinellers,
I hereby offer my sincere apologies for my part in all this mess and for
the disturbance it caused, and
Rob said:
Groupie Maru
We're not groupies! We are Brin-aids!
Rich
GCU No Points On Offer
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
At 18:33 07-12-2002 -0600, Robert Seeberger wrote:
You argue like a defense lawyer about what is right and what is wrong,
when it is really a pretty simple thing for most people.
Yeah, I know I would have made one hell of a defense lawyer, but my parents
insisted that I get myself an
At 16:34 07-12-2002 -0800, Nick Arnett wrote:
I hereby request that the listowners restore my posting privileges to the
list, and without moderation.
Done.
Both parts of the request, or just the first part?
Jeroen
___
Jim wrote:
Robert Seeberger wrote:
GROUP HUG!!!
BIG GROUP HUG
*Takes advantage of the group hug to pinch Robert's butt* :-)
*slaps* Jim.
Fresh! I at least expect some flowers before you get that friendly!
Adam C. Lipscomb
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Silence. I am watching
Robert Seeberger wrote:
GROUP HUG!!!
BIG GROUP HUG
*Takes advantage of the group hug to pinch Robert's butt* :-)
Jim
___
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!
- Original Message -
From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, December 07, 2002 6:44 PM
Subject: Re: Official Statement
At 18:33 07-12-2002 -0600, Robert Seeberger wrote:
You argue like a defense lawyer about what is right and what is wrong
Adam C. Lipscomb wrote:
Robert Seeberger wrote:
GROUP HUG!!!
BIG GROUP HUG
*Takes advantage of the group hug to pinch Robert's butt* :-)
*slaps* Jim.
Fresh! I at least expect some flowers before you get that friendly!
Hey, who was talking to you? Robert's clearly my
At 18:49 07-12-2002 -0600, Robert Seeberger wrote:
Its a shame because you really would have made a great lawyer.
You definately have the mind for it.
(That could be taken as an insult as easily as a compliment, so please just
take it!)G
I'll get back to you about that later -- right after I
In a message dated 12/7/2002 5:37:44 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
GROUP HUG!!!
BIG GROUP HUG
Agreed, but.hey!
That's GROUP not Grope!
Stop that Tytlal!
::Runs out chasing a blurred mass of fur::
William Taylor
At 18:50 07-12-2002 -0600, Robert Seeberger wrote:
GROUP HUG!!!
BIG GROUP HUG
*Takes advantage of the group hug to pinch Robert's butt* :-)
JIM!...You Savage!!
W
Hey Rob, should I give you the name and phone number of my lawyer? He
claims to have plenty of
Jim wrote:
Adam C. Lipscomb wrote:
Robert Seeberger wrote:
GROUP HUG!!!
BIG GROUP HUG
*Takes advantage of the group hug to pinch Robert's butt* :-)
*slaps* Jim.
Fresh! I at least expect some flowers before you get that
friendly!
Hey, who was talking to you?
Robert Seeberger wrote:
From: Jim Sharkey
Robert Seeberger wrote:
GROUP HUG!!!
BIG GROUP HUG
*Takes advantage of the group hug to pinch Robert's butt* :-)
JIM!...You Savage!!
The fact that the niceties of civilization have created a world where we cannot
express
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
Behalf Of J. van Baardwijk
Sent: Saturday, December 07, 2002 4:46 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Official Statement
At 16:34 07-12-2002 -0800, Nick Arnett wrote:
I hereby request
- Original Message -
From: Jim Sharkey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, December 07, 2002 7:01 PM
Subject: Re: Official Statement
Robert Seeberger wrote:
From: Jim Sharkey
Robert Seeberger wrote:
GROUP HUG!!!
BIG GROUP HUG
*Takes advantage
In a message dated 12/7/2002 6:03:04 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Both parts of the request, or just the first part?
Both. It was a Boolean AND, after all.
It was logic like unto a magic fulfillment, as in a wish granted from the
ONLY worthwhile Bedazzled
Robert Seeberger wrote
AHHHthat didnt comethrough very well did it?
I shall have to create a metatag for this type of occasion.
Its the Flaming Pink Effeminate Swishy Stereotype tag = FPESS
JIM!..You savage!!
I was wondering if you had noticed my Daisey Dukes
Did that
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, December 07, 2002 7:13 PM
Subject: Re: Official Statement
In a message dated 12/7/2002 6:03:04 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Both parts of the request, or just the first
- Original Message -
From: Jim Sharkey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, December 07, 2002 7:15 PM
Subject: Re: Official Statement
Robert Seeberger wrote
AHHHthat didnt comethrough very well did it?
I shall have to create a metatag for this type
In a message dated 12/7/2002 6:09:39 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I shall have to create a metatag for this type of occasion.
Its the Flaming Pink Effeminate Swishy Stereotype tag = FPESS
FPESS
JIM!..You savage!!
I was wondering if you had
In a message dated 12/7/2002 6:17:22 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What does the winner get for the magic
numbered post?
A pinch on the butt from Jim!
And I'm gonna wn!!
xponent
Carrying It All To Far Maru
To Far Maru
J. van Baardwijk wrote:
Hey Rob, should I give you the name and phone number of
my lawyer? He claims to have plenty of experience with
sexual-harassment lawsuits. :-)
Looks more like sexual *his*-assment. ;-)
__
Steve Sloan
William Taylor wrote:
I shall have to create a metatag for this type of occasion.
Its the Flaming Pink Effeminate Swishy Stereotype tag = FPESS
Just wear a blue feather so that the color will clash with my red one.
So does that mean I have to wear yellow? Why does Robert get to be the Queen?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On Behalf Of Robert Seeberger
Sent: Saturday, December 07, 2002 7:34 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; J. van Baardwijk
Subject: Re: Official Statement
- Original Message -
From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED
53 matches
Mail list logo
