>>David Muszynski
>Is this something that could be done with a script of some sort?
I think someone mentioned using Apple script that automatically
grabbed new files from a directory and dumped them elsewhere for
processing. I've not used Applescript much at all and don't know of hand
how to it though I'm told Applescript is quite straight forward. It would
be a handy one to have such a script waiting in the wings just an emergency
measure to kick in if one's server starts getting slammed. It's true that
by pushing and getting most of my users to use Eudora rather than a
Microsoft email product or Netscape I've never had a virus email storm
cross any of our servers. Still just in case it might be nice to be able
to do it. As would it be extra nice if SIMS could be made to start an
arbitrary Applescript command remotely from it's web interface.
...Then of course it'd be extra nice if SIMS could make an strong
latte for me when it notices I'm up extra late or extra early scanning logs
or other system maintenance stuff.
From Bill Cole [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>>This is similar to what happened a few years ago with newsfeeds. The
>>courts position was the same, "All or none." Either the ISP filters
>>newsfeeds and becomes responsible for ALL posts on ALL groups or they
>>don't filter any news and are not responsible for any posts on any groups.
>
>cite please. I try to keep up on such things (especially as regards news)
>and know of no case that had that clear a distinction made.
It wasn't news feeds per se but was news/discussion groups. From:
http://www.jmls.edu/cyber/1997/reports/torts.html
"[snip]The two major cases in this area are Cubby, Inc. v. Compuserve,
Inc., 776 F. Supp. 135 (S.D.N.Y. 1991), and Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v.
Prodigy Services Co., (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 24, 1995), motion for renewal
denied, 24 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1126, 1995 WL 805178 (Dec. 11, 1995).
In Cubby, there was a defamatory statement posted on a value-added
portion of CompuServe. The court decided that CompuServe was like a
distributor and therefore the plaintiff had to prove knowledge for
liability. Knowledge was not proved because there was no editorial control
over the posting and the postings could be instantaneously uploaded.
Therefore CompuServe was not liable.
In Stratton Oakmont, on the other hand, Prodigy was found liable.
Prodigy held itself out that it controlled the content of the bulletin
boards. They employed censors. There was a vast amount of editorial
control. Therefore, Prodigy is more like a publisher than a bookstore and
is liable.[snip]"
IIR, 1992 Prodigy abandoned its policy to monitor each message by continued
to use auto filters for bad language and would also posts stuff upon user
complaints. Compuserve which did not exercise editorial/filter control did
not get deemed a "publisher." Scary, eh?
Joe
#############################################################
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
the mailing list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Send administrative queries to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
