--On fredag, oktober 26, 2001 11:51:16 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is a silly question (and I will probably get flamed for this) but
I will ask anyway. Was Jim really generating as much traffic as
talking about Jim has been generating? BLB
actually, this thread,
RJ Auburn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 25 Oct 2001, grenville armitage wrote:
Anthony Atkielski wrote:
I guess those of us who might be interested in hearing all
opinions--and not just those that agree with your own--are out
of luck, eh?
Not at all. Let Jim know you want to
PROTECTED]
To: Perry E. Metzger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: grenville armitage [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 4:39 PM
Subject: Re: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been revoked
On 26 Oct 2001, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
RJ Auburn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu
Date:Fri, 26 Oct 2001 13:43:55 +0200
From:Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: 001801c15e13$7f84e550$0a0a@contactdish
| That's what killfiles and filters are for.
Nonsense. There's no reason everyone else should have to go install/fiddle
mail
Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm really not interested in the opinions of people
who continuously rant and spam off-topic posts and
it seems that opinion is shared by a lot of
people on the list.
That's what killfiles and filters are for.
I _am_ interested in the
Anthony,
I just wanted to humbly react to each sentence of your mail.
I _am_ interested in the opinions of people, no matter what those opinions are.
Good. Then subscribe to as many mailing lists as you wish, and don't criticize other
people's opinions.
I don't see why the world must be
That's what killfiles and filters are for.
Many of us still often connect by slow lines when on travel,
and can only filter in the user agent. I would much prefer
that rantings and ravings be filtered at source rather than
wasting time and money downloading them straight into the
trash folder.
Don't you think a discussion on not having a discussion is off topic?
--
James W. Meritt CISSP, CISA
Booz | Allen | Hamilton
phone: (410) 68406566
On Fri, 26 Oct 2001 09:00:51 EDT, Jeffrey Altman said:
The IETF mailing list is supposed to be used only for items which are
of interest to the entire group of participants regardless of the
working group they participate in. It would be inappropriate to
discuss implementations or usage of
On Fri, 26 Oct 2001, Anthony Atkielski wrote in reply to Paul Day:
I'm really not interested in the opinions of people
who continuously rant and spam off-topic posts and
it seems that opinion is shared by a lot of
people on the list.
That's what killfiles and filters are for.
The
On Fri, 26 Oct 2001 14:45:22 +0200, TOMSON ERIC said:
P.S.: it's a pity to observe that, whereas the majority of people
agree on most topics, there is always some minority to claim that his
opinion is more important, stating that representing the majority is
irrelevant. I'm afraid I consider
Many of us still often connect by slow lines
when on travel, and can only filter in the
user agent.
Then you should limit the traffic that you solicit in your travel configuration.
Expecting the rest of the Internet to know that you are traveling and limit
traffic so that you are not
If you are interested in opinions no matter what
they are then you won't mind if someone starts to
randomly forward postings from any of the usenet
newsgroups.
As long as it does not constitute a deliberate DoS attack or some other attempt
to overload, compromise, or bring down my system, I
On Fri, 26 Oct 2001 16:43:22 +0200, Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
That depends on how you define junk mail. If everyone does not share the same
definition, there is a problem.
That is true, as far as it goes. However, in the IETF world, we seem to have
reached much more than
On 10/26/01 at 4:43 PM +0200, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
There's no reason everyone else should have to go install/fiddle
mail filters just so you can continue to receive junk mail via a
list where it doesn't belong.
That depends on how you define junk mail. If everyone does not
share the
On Fri, 26 Oct 2001 16:48:59 +0200, Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Many of us still often connect by slow lines
when on travel, and can only filter in the
user agent.
Then you should limit the traffic that you solicit in your travel configuration.
So you're saying he
]]On Behalf Of
Anthony Atkielski
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 4:44 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been revoked
I'm really not interested in the opinions of people
who continuously rant and spam off-topic posts and
it seems that opinion is shared
It is a silly question (and I will probably get flamed for this) but
I will ask anyway. Was Jim really generating as much traffic as
talking about Jim has been generating? BLB
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Subject: Re: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been revoked
Date
25, 2001 11:43 PM
Subject: Re: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been revoked
http://www.google.com/search?hl=enq=first+they+came+for
- Original Message -
From: Jose Manuel Arronte Garcia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Harald Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent
Anthony Atkielski wrote:
[..]
We'd all prefer that the Internet be optimized to carry only the traffic that we
want to see, but as I've pointed out above, that's not practical.
Fortunately, the scope of the current problem is a mailing
list, and the solution only has to scale to the
So, the question for you to answer is, Are Jim's
posts within the charter of the IETF general mailing
list (even viewing them in the most favorable light)?
I don't know. Do you have an algorithm that you can run against the text of his
messages to determine this objectively and
1. You have revoked his privileges but have not stopped this controversial
and inflammatory e-mail thread about him. Draw your own conclusions why this
is wrong.
2. I am looking out my office window onto a place where two towers stood,
breathing smoldering rubble for over a Month and some of you
If a widely-distributed MUA is requiring the text/plain
part to be manually opened, that needs to be checked
into. Maybe a 'Content-Disposition: inline' is needed
on the text/plain.
I'm using Outlook Express 5.5, with PGP 7.0.3 extensions installed. Both the
message text and the signature
So why even bother chartering Usenet groups
(lists, whatever), then?
I don't know ... why? The only thing that ever seems to influence the content
of a newsgroup is its name. I don't know if anyone reads the charters.
then how can you be certain that they don't
interest you?
I read the thread for a while. If it ceases to interest me, I stop reading it.
Occasionally it moves back to something interesting and I miss it, but usually
not. I note that once a thread has drifted from the nominal topic, it tends
On 10/26/01 at 7:23 PM +0200, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
So, the question for you to answer is, Are Jim's posts within the
charter of the IETF general mailing list (even viewing them in the
most favorable light)?
I don't know.
An interesting response. A large number of us, using our best
To: Lillian Komlossy
Subject: offlist Re: Two things bothering me (was Re: Jim Fleming's
posting privilleges have been revoked)
Some of us give thanks for our freedoms by continuing
to defend our rights, including the right to engage in
discussion of, and defense of, curtailing the posting
activities
Lillian,
I took the ietf list off the cc line of my response to you.
It is poor ettiquette, and not a little hypocritical, to put
*back* on the ietf list a discussion thread whose very existence
you just complained about.
I apologise to the entire list for Lillian's behavior.
gja
On 26 Oct 2001, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
RJ Auburn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 25 Oct 2001, grenville armitage wrote:
Anthony Atkielski wrote:
I guess those of us who might be interested in hearing all
opinions--and not just those that agree with your own--are out
of luck,
I guess those of us who might be interested in hearing all opinions--and not
just those that agree with your own--are out of luck, eh? I can decide for
myself which messages I do or do not wish to read; I don't need your help.
Certainly you can peruse Jim's web site for his opinions, can't you?
Anthony Atkielski wrote:
I guess those of us who might be interested in hearing all opinions--and not
just those that agree with your own--are out of luck, eh?
Not at all. Let Jim know you want to hear what he has to say, and
I'm sure he'll cc you on all his future emails.
cheers,
gja
Title: RE: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been revoked
Anthony,
May be you can, but many of us who join IETF list would like to only read something that is related to the charter of the list. My friend, you are supporting the wrong person. The IETF list should not be treated
in other ways, that he did so. -- Ian
-Original Message-
From: Anthony Atkielski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thu 10/25/2001 1:08 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
Subject: Re: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been revoked
On Thu, 25 Oct 2001, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
I guess those of us who might be interested in hearing all opinions--and not
just those that agree with your own--are out of luck, eh? I can decide for
myself which messages I do or do not wish to read; I don't need your help.
I'm really not
34 matches
Mail list logo
